Bhagwan Staking Plan

[Bhagwan]

Here`s a plan that works well on any set of reasonable selections.
Without breaking the bank.

Bets on a loosing sequence.
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
STOP
Now wait until one of your selectins wins then commence a new sequence again starting at 1 .

Total outlay is 18 this equates to an average of $2.00 per race but has the leverage of a mild progression .

If you have a winner anywhere in the sequence regardless of the price , you must start again.
What we miss on the Merrygoround we will pick up on the Herdygerdies.

This is called sequencial betting & has it`s place in punting because it helps contoll the run of outs along with a mild progression to drive a profit.

With this plan ,you maybe in for a run of 20-
50 outs in a row, we never know when that will happen , but you will be laughing , because you would have been on only the first 9 outs, awaiting for one of your trusty Neddys to poke his big box head across the line, before we start our new sequence again.

The profits will seem small at first ,but if you go back over your results , they will reflect that you either broke even or showed a small loss if backing at level stakes.
If you convert your profit as a percentage to your bank , you will get a truer reflection on how well you are actually going.

Bank should be 7 times 18=126 , this allows for 63 outs.

"Punt with Purpose , enjoy the rush of a winner & being a winner."

[becareful]

In the long run this will work EXACTLY the same as betting 2 units level stakes (stopping after 9 loosing bets in a row). You will get just as many 1 unit winners as 2 unit winners as 3 unit winners so why not just bet 2 units all the time? Also you say you would be laughing if you had a long run of outs because you will only be betting on the first 9. The problem is you will be crying if you had a sequence of say:
10 losers, Winner, 9 losers, Winner, 11 losers, Winner - under this plan you would get 27 losers but miss all three winners.

[Fryingpan]

This is an interesting post.

Streaks do break the punter. If there's one subject of money managment this is one of the most important.

I have had a string of 2nds lately (and betting them to win). Two weekends ago I had 8 seconds in a row and last weekend 5.

The psychological effect is really difficult to take at times. Maybe with a break in the traffic as Bhagwan suggests would help keep some sort of brake on the risks involved and keep the head going in the right direction.

Perhaps the chance of missing a win and making a profit between 9 outs is probably slimmer than the savings you might make of not betting the losing horses that make up a natural run of outs. Natural in the sense they happen in streaks.

If you factor in the outs as part of your betting, then say you stopped and held off betting and there was another 5 outs before a winner. That can mean you spent $18 over 14 horses (9 that you backed and 5 that you watched) and so the average amount waged is a lot lower than $2.

Maybe there's a maths behind this using the frequency of outs.

Someone in another post had a bet simulator site where the frequency of outs came out in a simulated 1000 bets. Perhaps that might show some light on this?

[Bhagwan]

The idea as said ,is to help avoid wasting one`s bank on the dredded run of outs , yes their will be a time when one of your trusty Neddys gets up & pays 110/1 , after you have bitten the carpet , bounced off the ceiling , had a spew & swivelled your eyes in your head , its business as usual.
Get over it.

Anyway, how many huge payers does one jag ?, unless one is deliberatly targeting them & doese`nt mind a long drink in between winners.
This is mainly targeted towards the punters who`s past results reflect the $6.00 & less payers.

Don`t worry missing the odd winner, if you kept ploughing through regardless in the price range mentioned , any benefit would have been swallowed up in the unneccary run of outs .

Sequential betting takes a little while to get used to because it`s a bit different to what most punters do.

The common argument you will get from someone who dos`ent understand this style is, "what if you miss one paying $6.00" , I say ,if I save on a run of 7 outs , I`m $7.00 in front that I don`t have to chase.

This plan would not be suitable to those who target $10.00+ payers because they may only get 10 winners in every 100 races & therefore they have to bet every selection because the one they miss could pay $50.00 & they need that to absorb the losses in between.

Here`s some stats based on 1000 bets.
S/R
15%--7 lots of 9 outs.
20%--2 lots of 9 outs.
22.5%- 3 lots of 9 outs
25%--7 lots of 9 outs.
30%-- 7 lots of 9 outs.

There does not appear to be much difference between one another in this strike range.
You will notice a bit of a difference in the 20 & 22.5% range, strange ,but that`s how the 1000 run panned out , it could be a bit different in the next 1000 run ,probable closer to 7 lots of 9 .
I think you have the basic picture to go on .

In reality this plan works better than some of the stuff floating around out there .
Try it out on ones past resullts & see for yourself.

[becareful]

I don't know what I was thinking when I was writing my last post - obviously I was more interested in the cricket that thinking about what I was writing.

Of course the plan will not be the same as level stakes at 2 unit bets because your winners will occur more frequently in the 1 unit bet than the 3 unit bet. Because of this the average bet will be about $1.60. So it is exactly the same as level stakes with a $1.60 bet!

Bhagwan, you implied that this system will prevent a long run of outs - in fact you are just as likely to get the same run of outs as if you keep betting after the 9th bet. To illustrate lets assume you have a strike rate of 20% (with say an average div of $5.50) - this is right in the range suggested as applicable for this plan. With a 20% strike rate and 2500 bets (enough to give 500 winners) the longest run of outs was between 25 and 27. Roughly 86.6% of winners are struck within the 9 bet limit so 13.4% of betting "sequences" hit the limit and you stop betting. What is the maximum run of outs expected in our 500 bet sequences? Well if we are hitting the limit 13.4% of the time then the chance of hitting it twice in a row is 13.4%*13.4% or 1.8% So in 500 sequences we would expect to have a double run (ie at least 18 losers in a row) roughly 9 times. The chance of hitting it three times (at least 27 losers in a row) is 13.4%*13.4%*13.4% = 0.24% In our 500 bet sequence this would be expected to happen 1.2 times (so say once). So with no bet limit we expect to have 25-27 losers in a row once, with the bet limit we expect to have 27 losers at least once. Therefore there is absolutely no difference between this plan and betting flat stakes on every bet - the risk of hitting a long run of outs is exactly the same.

By the way the POT for this is exactly the same as flat stakes at 10%. It definitely will not improve your POT at all and cannot turn a losing selection system into a winning one.

[Fryingpan]

Hello Becareful and Bhagwan.

This is very interesting. I read your post with lots of interest Becareful. So much so I used the losing streak simulator and got these results for 20% strike rate for 2500 bets. Just to keep the considerations the same as your post

Length of losing streak Frequency Expected Frequency for strike rate of 20% 0 98 100.361 84 80.2562 57 64.173 63 51.3224 46 41.0415 33 32.8206 26 26.22 20.988 13 16.7839 15 13.4210 12 10.73311 5 8.583012 5 6.86370 8 5.48814 5 4.389215 6 3.509916 2 2.80617 3 2.24420 1 1.147821 1 0.91726 1 0.30027 1 0.240032 1 0.078

As you can see, (if this doesn't come out then maybe people should do it on the site itself to verify. I've chopped the small fraction numbers off to fit) there was one run of out at 27 but there were a bunch of other runs of outs at 26 21 20 17 etc.

My query is perhaps the run of 13.4%*13.4%*13.4 would occur once in the 2500 bets using the staking plan as it would just flat betting. But the other runs of outs shorter than that would be eliminated. (because you would hit it on the 8th 7th or 6th bet etc)

The other consideration is the savings factor. How many bets would you have saved just waiting for the next win, after a string of 9 outs. And how does this factor into the frequency. Aren't these waiting situations a means of eliminating the runs of outs that occur on the simulation above? They would need to be considered.

Just a thought.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Fryingpan on 2002-11-23 10:31 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Fryingpan on 2002-11-23 11:18 ]</font>

[Fryingpan]

I just had another thought (scarry!) and considered that for all multiples of 9 (that's 18 and 27) the runs of outs will be the same as the staking plan as it would be for level staking. But for all other numbers they would be eliminated or modified by the break in the betting sequence.

So if 18 outs (1.8%) and 27 outs (.24%) occur inevitably the same way, that only accounts for a small fraction of the total 13.4% of bets that would exceed 9 bets straight.(and when I tried out the simulator again it gave me 11.6% but that's simulators).

So there would be an appreciable savings of not betting in 13.4% range of the bets (2500*.134) that is 335 bets you would have not done and as a consequence of sticking with the staking plan and not experienced a long string of outs except for the multiple (18 and 27 outs) outs from your stake.

Maybe there is an optimum STOP moment other than at the 9th?

[becareful]

Fryingpan,

Unfortunately you still get those other losing streaks as well (26, 21, etc). As I said in my post you hit the double run of 18 roughly 9 times in the 2500 bets. Following Bhagwans rules you would stop at the 18 and wait for a winner and then start betting again - sometimes you will strike a winner on the next bet (ie. 19th) but sometimes you will go 3 or 4 or 5 etc before getting a winner so that will give you the losing streaks of 20 or 21 or 22, etc. Of course on average one of those 9 times you will strike out on the 3rd run and end with at least a 27 bet losing sequence - again you will have to start betting again so it could be longer than 27 bets.

The stopping after the 9th bet (or any other number you care to nominate) does absolutely nothing to stop a long run of outs because the chance of striking three consecutive 9 or more run losing streaks (with a winner between each one) is exactly the same as the chance of getting a single 27 run streak.

As to your other point about the "savings" by not betting after the 9th bet the problem is you are missing out on the winners as well. Those 335 bets you did not place would still have the same strike rate (20%) so you missed out on 70 winners by not betting.

Another way to look at it is when you hit the 9 bets and stop then restart after a winner you are effectively placing your 10th bet in a sequence so if it loses you will have a 10 bet losing sequence, etc. So what is the difference between placing the 10th bet after a winner (which you did not bet on!) or after a loser? The horse you are betting on certainly doesn't know the difference!

[Bhagwan]

Sorry Decareful I cant agree with you there ,
It`s a known fact that winners come in clusters , that`s the reality , if one is basing their argument on what the simulator tells you , one could argue that it would be better to target 10/1+ shots at a 10% strike rate because they only struck 4 lots of 9 outs .

What you must do is give it an actual run on past results & not rely 100% on simulators.

[becareful]

Ah, the old "mathematical probability rules don't apply to my system" argument - the last refuge of the staking plan advocate! I seem to remember a man by the name of Bert using that argument on me a few months ago!

I'm sorry Bhagwan but I am going to have to disagree with the "winners always come in clusters" statement - sure sometimes they do but sometimes you will get runs like 9 losers, win, 12 losers, win, 11 losers. Just like you will get runs like 3 winners, 1 loser, 1 winner, 27 losers. The pattern is random and the fact that you often see clusters of winners is just a random chance goverened by the laws of probability and sooner or later you will hit that consecutive run of outs regardless of what "STOP" system you put into your selections.

If you don't believe it is possible then you are truly in for a bad shock one day. Of course it may be a long time coming - in the example I used you would expect it once or twice in 2500 bets so if you are placing 10 bets/week it may not happen for 5 years or it could happen next week. The only certain thing is that it will happen one day!

[Dr Pangloss]

How to manage the inevitable long losing streak is a vexed question.

At level stakes it is simply - grin and bear it. A modification might include a reduction in bet size at some pre-determined point (ie 10 losers) before returning to the original stake level on (or soon after) the losing streak is broken.

I agree with becareful that to the extent that attempting to out-wit probability is doomed to fail. But I'm not so sure Bhagwan is seeking to out-wit but rather work within the boundaries (deviations) of probability.

A progressive (recoupment) staking strategy does not have to be uncapped. On reaching the capped (maximum) stake the progressive strategy is surely now in the same sinking boat as level stakes. Granted the aggregated losing stakes within that series of bets is greater than the level stakes counterpart at the same point within the losing streak. But what about all the gains made by the progressive strategy over and above level stakes in the many previous series of bets (as revealed by the simulator) where the long losing streak failed to eventuate?

Of course all this posturing is predicated on a rather large caveat - your betting system's parameters (strike rate, ave div) can be relied upon into the punting future.

Even if they can, another more pernicious bet management problem emerges which at this late hour will have to wait.

[Equine Investor]

I don't want to crush anyone's ideas OR jump on any bandwagon's either, but it seems to me that many punters in general (and I'm not aiming this at you Bhagwan because I find your posts interesting) are resigned to the fact that their system loses at level staking.
They accept it as a given when they should not.
They then concentrate all their energies into staking plans and getting back what has been lost!
Wouldn't you rather concentrate on how to turn a winning system into a more powerful one through staking?
Then the principle of Bhagwan's losing streak comes into play. So his theory is quite good, but applied to the right system or method, not a losing one.
Therefore you are insuring your profits and maximising them when the good runs come.
But each to his own and horses for courses and all that.
That's just my thoughts on it all.

[becareful]

I should make it clear that I have nothing against Bhagwan's plan as such - it is certainly not dangerous to your bank like many staking plans are. I just wanted to illustrate that it will NOT stop a losing streak - you have exactly the same risk of a losing streak with this plan as if you just bet level stakes with no stop level. Nor will it increase your POT - again the POT is exactly the same with this plan as with level stakes betting so it will not turn a losing system into a winning one.

Probably the only real issue I have with it b(and it is a fairly minor one) is that if you have a winning system then this plan will give you a lower $ profit for the same level of risk as flat staking with $2 bets. For example as I mentioned before your average bet with this system is around $1.60. So if you have 100 bets with a 10% POT then your expected profit would be $16 (100 * 10% * 1.60). If you simply bet level stakes at $2 then over 100 bets your expected profit is $20 (100 * 10% * 2.00). Under both these bet levels the maximum you are risking over each 9 bet sequence is $18 so for the same level of risk you end up with more profit with $2 level stakes. Of course if your system loses money then you are better off with Bhagwans plan simply because it is reducing your average bet size.

[Bhagwan]

Well said EI.

I not against the level stakes over 9 bets idea . My stats show that it will increase your level stakes profit if one incorporates a stop after 9 loosing bets , if you have a plan that shows some profit at level stakes

As in all punting , anomillies will occure, & so be it .
The general idea is to have some plan of action ,when it happens without freaking out the average punter , destroying his initial bank completely , that`s why it is recomended to have 7 banks for 9 lots of outs.

Most punters loose their bottle when the run of 30 outs hits them , this may help them deal with it without putting a Punkin in place of their head & start doing irrational things when their selection criterior was sound to start with , it was just having a bad day , & this may help them to have a breather amongst the mayhem.

The argument that one could strike 9 outs then 1 winner then 9 outs & so on , will happen, this would be very rear , but if it did happen ,the 7 banks of 9 should be there to wheather the storm.

This will give them some money management to their punting where most punters have non & that`s why most rearly win, they pick a bunch of winners & still loose & a lot of this is due to lack of money management .

Thank you all for your input.
Keep it up.