staking idea

[good 4th]

We all want to protect our bank,so i have an idea about staking your bets to the odds.
Lets say im targeting 6/1 or higher and i want to get my bank back when i strike a winner at 5/1. If a 6/1 winner happens we're in front, if a 5/1 winner comes along we are even, start out again. This is just an idea as it could be used for any priced selection with out the staking running away to much.
example;
-1-1-1-1-1-1.5=6.5 winner at 5/1 *1.5 =7.5 your in front by one

Any ideas

[kenchar]

Been there, dun it , don't work, because the dreaded run of outs happens.
Cheers

[Bhagwan]

I like it.
Like all staking plans , they all work if you can pick the right winners in the right order, thats the tricky bit.

You might like to try backing each way, E.G Target $100 O/L Divisor 6= 17wn + 17plc it does mean double the outlay with not so many runs of outs.

[gunny72]

I like the idea of reducing your outlay but any staking plan that increases stakes is doomed to failure because the dreaded run of outs will come and of course the next bet after you stop after your last large outlay will nark you and win! It has happened to me and that is why I have rethought the whole staking situation.

Actually any staking plan that requires increasing stakes is really several level staking plans running concurrently. So why not just stick to level staking.

I posted a level staking plan not so long ago called Chasing Losses with Level Stakes and the only response I got was that I might miss some shorter priced winners. So what? My plan suggested increasing the odds you need get to place a bet rather than increasing your stake - a very sound approach I think. Obviously even in this situation you would have to cut your losses on a long run of outs but your last bet would be the same size as your first, only the required odds would be getting longer. My suggestion is to restart when the required odds reach $31.

I think this approach needs some research by those who have the wherewithall. I would like to try it on top win or place %.

John

[puntz]

good 4th,
i have post somewhere on a 9/4 staking plan.
they are good if your strike fairs to, as bahgwan already mentioned.
Have you compiled a plan for 3 selections, or has anyone for that matter? Is it possible?
just interested, i have tried, but decided to stick to one horse now and improve selection method instead of staking plans.
2 horse bet per race is a rare bet,depends though. But a staking plan for 3 horses per race ....has anyone ?

[stebbo]

On 2003-10-27 21:47, gunny72 wrote:
I like the idea of reducing your outlay but any staking plan that increases stakes is doomed to failure because the dreaded run of outs will come

Hi Gunny,

I don't believe that any staking plan is automatically *DOOMED* to failure as long as you setup your punting bank correctly. Bhagwan posted in another thread a very sensible rule of thumb that is pretty spot on in my limited experience...

The guide was to setup a bank 3.5 times the theoretical worst run of outs, and there was a table of those as well.

For a staking plan, this would need to be modified by the maximum bet size as well. For instance, if you had a staking plan that called for a maximum bet 5 times that of your initial bet, then I would suggest you'd have to setup a bank 17.5 times the expected worse run of outs.

I posted a level staking plan not so long ago called Chasing Losses with Level Stakes and the only response I got was that I might miss some shorter priced winners....My plan suggested increasing the odds you need get to place a bet rather than increasing your stake - a very sound approach I think.

I'm not setup to test this sort of approach at the moment, but I might be able to set it up at some stage. My initial reaction is that such an approach could very easily prolong your losing streak.

Let's assume for the moment that you start to increase your minimum odds required... If we take as a general rule that the longer odds winners are less likely to come home, then the effect of only betting on longer and longer odds horses is that your selections will become less likely to win.

Another side effect of this is that you will have less and less bets, until you get to the stage where you might be waiting weeks for one of your selections to be at the odds you require.

Cheers,
Chris.

[kenchar]

Hi Chis,
The biggest problem with increases in bets is no matter how much research you do you CANNOT factor in the human element, as I said earlier been there dun it, and the human element will always let down.
The other problem I have found is that the starting bet is usually small so you cant get the advantage of the magic days we all have now and again.

Cheers

[puntz]

kenchar,
can you define what you mean by human element in this case ?

[good 4th]

Great response as i believe this is so important if one is to continue in this game. I have tried so many different staking ideas and still have yet to find one that will work with out the dreaded run outs, Some days your on top but it just takes one long run out to wipe out the bank, it is so fragil !!!!!
If you new that your selections were to get up at sometime increased stakes would'nt matter but as we all know this dos'nt allways happen so we have to protect the bank.
How do we do this and still make some cash along the way, I try every day......
There's gotta be something out here?????

[kenchar]

Hi PUNTZ,
The human element I'm referring to is the one where the bet gets that large,and the sacks that contain the tadpoles that makes babies are not large enough and one loses them.

Cheers :oops:

[Bhagwan]

The Human Element
This can be fasinating as it is frustrating,
especially where a punter is using progressive betting ,race to race , sweating on that elusive winner.

You are about to place a bet on your trusty mule via the telephone with 30 seconds to go & just as you pick up the phone , it`s one of our dopey mates on the other end ringing you at the same time ,who insists on talking when he should`nt be .

Needless to say, your mule gets up at $18.00 & that was the bet that was going to put you in profit , it hurts even more when its the only remaining winner for you for the rest of the day .
You now find yourself further behind than what you had invisiged,
that`s because you did`nt invisage a "what if plan", so as to minimise the damage, if & when the wheels fall off.

There are many human element stories that creep into the punt when you least expect it .
You will find it inveriable happens when you realy dont need it to happen ,when larger amounts are being placed.

There is a big reason for level stake betting if you are a constant victim of the human element e.g. your wife wishes to pick a fight with you while on the punt (I hate that)can`t she fight you afterwards.
Betting the wrong number because you were rushing , left the bet off because it was showing 32/1 & it gets up with a hoof in the air, bet straight out on your horse that comes 2nd & pays $6.00 for the place,
just missed getting your bet on & wins at 14/1.

No need to go on , I think I just made myself ill just reliving the past.
Oh the HORROR,the HORROR|

I think I need a hot toddy & a lye down now.

[crash]

I understand the maths but not the logic.

Surely the only rational purpose of any form of progressive staking plan is to try and make a profit when the punter is unable to produce profit from level stakes betting. Shouldn't the search be directed at increasing SR instead ? I am sure progression plans are used to chase losses from an inability to profit from level stakes only. I can see no other logic behind it.

If a punter cannot make a profit from % of bank level stakes betting they are in trouble. If they can, could someone please explain any need to use a progression betting method. It seems an ilogical need but perhaps I am missing something. If it is to increase profit then that can be achieved by increasing bet % of Bank at level stakes. That increases risk but so does a progression method so what is the point ?

Cheers.

_________________


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-10-28 07:13 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-10-28 07:16 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-10-28 07:18 ]</font>

[good 4th]

Hi Bhagwan,
Everything you just said i agree with, I am not alone then.......cool

[kenchar]

Hi Bhagwan,
THE BIG IF IN RACING, IF I did this, IF I did that.
Its just like IF my auntie had tadpole sacks she would be my uncle.

My biggest IF in my memory was many years ago, one of the big Brisbane carnival races, you know the ones 50 runners 6/1 the field and a heavy track. I had my selections down to 5 nags, waited for the race (I was at Rosehill) odds came up and from memory my shortest one was 15/1. I thought to myself what an idiot I was for picking these selections.
I had a token bet of $20 on each to win just for interest, all on tote as better than bookies.
Winner paid $36, so I was quite happy, then the results came up on the board, looked at my tote ticket, and of course I had all placegetters, TRI paid $9000+.
I just stood there thinking WHAT IF.

Cheers

[puntz]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: puntz on 2003-10-31 11:09 ]</font>

[stebbo]

On 2003-10-28 07:12, crash wrote:
Surely the only rational purpose of any form of progressive staking plan is to try and make a profit when the punter is unable to produce profit from level stakes betting. Shouldn't the search be directed at increasing SR instead ?

Hi Crash,

using a staking plan on a selection system which produces a level stakes LOSS can be extremely risky. While some will claim you cannot turn a loss into a profit with a staking plan, there is enough empirical evidence around to suggest that it can be done.

I for one, however, would never bet a selection system which produced a flat stakes loss. The purpose of a staking plan in my opinion is to increase profits. A selection system which returns a 10% POT is not all that attractive... Add a "safe" staking plan and this <u>could</u> be turned into a 15% or 25% POT, or even higher depending upon the aggressiveness of the staking plan in question. It could also be turned into a smaller POT.

Your second comment is spot on.... Rather than spending a lot of time on staking plans, some good honest work on the selection system might afford the same increase in POT without the extra element of risk that accompanies any staking plan.

Cheers,
Chris.

[crash]

Thanks Stebbo, some good points.

Sticking with the risk element regarding progressive staking at the moment, the logic to me would be to turn things around and progress on winners rather than on losers to increase POT. thus reducing progression risk to zero as the punter is then using winnings only in the progression. I realize the flaw is losses will be on the biggest bets but they will still come from winnings and not Bank.

If as you have said before profit is the better goal and not POT, that is increased just by increasing the % of bank stakes bet which rise and fall with SR.
I can't see any loopholes within this logic. Winning bets go up in steps and vis-a-vis.

The main purpose of progression seems to be an illusionary way forward to circumvent a poor SR.
LOT risk surely is always proportional to POT gain with any progression method and total profit [or loss] can be increased just by increasing risk exposure. Increased profit and the increased risk involved are linked beyond any slight of hand method [progressions] to untangle them surely ?

All punters desperately wont to profit at this game [me too] but usualy without proportional risk and spend endless hours seeking ways to do so.
Sucessful Punters will take risks that would leave most cold with fear, but I think they also have a greater understanding of how to utilize luck. When to increase risk when luck is in the asendancy and reduce it when in decent. Recognising it's direction and when it is about to change seem the hallmarks of all great punters. More likely a gift rather than a learnable art otherwise we would all be Pro's.

Cheers.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-10-28 18:14 ]</font>

[gunny72]

I am glad that there has been some response to this post. The way to reduce the human element is to reduce the risk of losing your money. This effectively means level staking. Otherwise if you increase stakes and have a run of outs the human element makes it difficult to eventually place a bet that is 5 or 10 times your original bet. As someone else here said, you will probably chicken out.

This is why I am an advocate of keeping your bet constant and increasing the price you require before placing a bet. Some have replied that you will miss shorter priced winners and this is true but in the end a longer priced winner usually comes along, and the name of the game is to make a profit and not just winners at any cost.

My simple selection method gets about 1 in 6 winners at a variety of prices and I have returned a small profit for 8 of the last 11 years and the 3 losing years were not that bad. (I am a serious hobby punter and hope to give more time to it when I retire from my day job which I enjoy and it pays okay.) I do have serious runs of outs from time to time though. Recently I had a run of 18 losing bets (and more losing selections since I do not always get my price) but La Serenade came along at $25.50 and not only cleared the losses but left a modest profit. This followed a previous bad run where I cleared the decks with Forcibily at $22.90. The human element was there some times but as I am level staking I was able to maintain my cool. Usually though things do not get quite this bad.

Another writer suggests that we should just improve our selection method. I agree, but my experience is that it is near impossible to get much better than about 1 winner in 5 or 6 bets and produce a reasonalbe return. In other words, most systems I have seen that have a high strike rate usually have a low returns and cannot withstand the eventual run of outs. Mind you I am still refining my selection method.

Regards
John

[crash]

Gunny,

Higher strike rates produce lower runs of outs.

I'm no maths. junkie but I do know that a 50% SR is exposed to a potential 10 outs.
I shudder to think what potential run of outs your 17/20% SR is exposed to.

The common average goal most experienced punters seem to aim for is a profit from 1 in 3 or at most 1 in 4 whose potential run of outs arn't too frightening.

Most punters seem to start wide but over the years [eventualy anyway] head toward the shorter prices were most of the winners are. It took me 25yrs. and I would love to be able to start again !

Cheers.

[becareful]

Another writer suggests that we should just improve our selection method. I agree, but my experience is that it is near impossible to get much better than about 1 winner in 5 or 6 bets and produce a reasonalbe return. In other words, most systems I have seen that have a high strike rate usually have a low returns and cannot withstand the eventual run of outs. Mind you I am still refining my selection method.


Concentrate on runners starting under $3.00 (TAB price) - identify the true favourites from those runners and you have a nice little 50-60% strike rate system.

Having used both a 15% SR system and a 60% SR system I know which I prefer!

Alternatively ditch the horses and go to tennis betting. :smile:

PS. Both of the above return over 15% POT
_________________
"Computers can do that????" - Homer Simpson

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: becareful on 2003-10-30 10:24 ]</font>

[puntz]

what percentage of win pool are you then limiting your loss chasing ?

[gunny72]

I know that there is a lot to suggest that backing true favourites is a good approach and I do concur with that, if only I could decide on what really makes a true favourite? Over the years I have seen favourites with all the right or wrong credentials repeatedly go down or win and that is why the few bookies left survive. Things often just go wrong in a race and the low returns on favourites do not allow for this. Remember bookies have the same if not more information than most punters. Also, the dreaded long run of outs still occurs in my experience, and it takes a lot of ~$2.50 wins to cover just a few losses, which just feeds the 'human factor'. Bookies love laying short priced favourites - I wonder why!

With my selection method I get a range of prices and over the years I have found the relative strike rate for favourites to be similar to that of longer priced selections. This just confirms what Don Scott and others have found - horses in the main win in proportion to their starting price (less the take) so there is no point just sticking to favourites with good credentials.

It does take nerves of steel to follow a system that selects longer priced horses and that is why I advocate level staking and waiting for a suitable price. This way I tend to keep my cool and beat the 'human factor' (well mostly) and generally keep in front.

John