crash,

Its simple maths really.

1. If you have a strike rate of x% you are going to need to earn at least 100/x to break even.

I have shown using the staking plan that you can increase a 33% strike rate to have a 75% success rate for producing a profit. Providing the win is more than $1.33 (for 75%) then I am going to be in profit. Do you agree or disagree ?

As Angry Pixie put it .. Think of 1 bank as 1 bet. Therefore I have a 75% success rate at picking winners. I make double the bank each time for that 75%. Which means I make an average winner of $2.00 which straight away makes a return of $1.50 for every $1 bet.

That is maths proving my point.

I am yet to see the counter maths....

Like I said earlier, life is too short to debate the possibility of turning a negative expectation sum game [LOT] into positive expectation [POT] by a 'clever' loss chasing staking plan.

Continue to convince yourself and maybe some of the [mathematically challenged] crowd who visit here, but 'smoke and mirrors' arguments leave me cold when it comes to risking cold hard cash.

There always has been and always will be, a queue to buy Snake-oil. Sell away! :-))

Lets put this silly baby to bed:

Mathematical Proof that Progressions cannot overcome Expectation.
by Richard Reid
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In "The Casino Gambler's Guide," Allan Wilson provided a mathematical proof of the fallacy that a progression can overcome a negative expectation in a game with even payoffs. This article expands on Wilson's Proof and provides the proof that progression systems cannot overcome a negative expectation even if the game provides uneven payoffs.
Let bk = the size of the kth bet.
Mk = the size of the payoff on the kth bet.
pk = the probability that the series terminates with a win on the kth bet, having been preceeded by k-1 losses in a row.
n-1 = the greatest number of losses in a row that a player can handle, given the size of the player's bankroll. In other words, the nth bet must be won, otherwise the player's entire bankroll will be lost.

Let's now define Bn = bn * Mn

The expected value for any series is:

Eseries = p1B1 + p2(B2-b1) + p3(B3-b2-b1) + . . . + pn(Bn-bn-1-bn-2- . . . -b2-b1) + (1-p1-p2- . . . -pn) * (-bn-bn-1-bn-2- . . . -b2-b1)

If we let

Eseries = A + B where,

A = p1B1 + p2(B2-b1) + p3(B3-b2-b1) + . . . + pn(Bn-bn-1-bn-2- . . . -b2-b1)

and

B = (1-p1-p2- . . . -pn) * (-bn-bn-1-bn-2- . . . -b2-b1)

then it is easier to see that "A" represents the probability that the series will end with a win multiplied by the bet size at the nth term in the series and "B" is the probability that the series ends in a loss multiplied by the net loss.

Now let's rearrange the terms in "A."

A = p1B1 + p2B2 - p2b1 + p3B3 - p3b2 - p3b1 + . . . + pnBn - pnbn-1 - pnbn-2 - . . . - pnb2 - pnb1
A = p1B1 + p2B2 + . . . + pnBn + b1(- p2 - p3 - . . . - pn) + b2(- p3 - . . . - pn) + bn-2(- pn-1 - pn) + bn-1(- pn)

And for "B" we get

B = -bn(1 - p1 - p2 - . . . - pn) - bn-1(1 - p1 - p2 - . . . - pn) - . . . - b2(1 - p1 - p2 - . . . - pn) - b1(1 - p1 - p2 - . . . - pn)

Now if we combine A and B again, we get,

Eseries = A + B
Eseries = p1B1 + p2B2 + . . . + pnBn - b1(1 - p1) - b2(1 - p1 - p2) - . . . - bn-1(1 - p1 - p2 - . . . - pn-1) - bn(1 - p1 - p2 - . . . - pn)
Eseries = p1B1 + p2B2 + . . . + pnBn + p1b1 + (p2 + p1)b2 + (p3 + p2 + p1)b3 + . . . + (pn + pn-1 + . . . + p2 + p1)bn - (b1 + b2 + . . . + bn)

Wilson points out that to get rid of the subscripts, all we have to do is realize that pk = (1-p)k-1p, where p is the probability of a win on an individual play and 1-p is the probability of a loss. If we think about it, it makes sense that the probability of a series terminating in a win at the kth level is the product of the probability of k-1 losses in a row multiplied by the probability of win on the kth trial.

So how do we use this information? Well, let's try substituting this expression for each pk and see what we get.

Eseries = (1-p)1-1pB1 + (1-p)2-1pB2 + . . . + (1-p)n-1pBn + (1-p)1-1pb1 + ((1-p)2-1p + (1-p)1-1p)b2 + ((1-p)3-1p + (1-p)2-1p + (1-p)1-1p)b3 + . . . + ((1-p)n-1p + (1-p)n-1-1p + . . . + (1-p)2-1p + (1-p)1-1p)bn - (b1 + b2 + . . . + bn)

Simplifying, we get

Eseries = (p(1-p)0B1 + (1-p)1pB2 + . . . + (1-p)n-1pBn + p(1-p)0b1 + ((1-p)1p + (1-p)0p)b2 + ((1-p)2p + (1-p)1p + (1-p)0p)b3 + . . . + ((1-p)n-1p + (1-p)n-2p + . . . + (1-p)1p + (1-p)0p)bn - (b1 + b2 + . . . + bn)

If we factor p out of the first parts of the equation and look closely, we can see that the kth term T can be written as:

T = p[(1-p)k-1]Bk + p[(1-p)k-1 + (1-p)k-2 + . . . + (1-p)2 + (1-p)1 + (1-p)0]bk

or rephrased for Bk = bk * Mk we get

T = p[(1-p)k-1Mk + (1-p)k-1 + (1-p)k-2 + . . . + (1-p)2 + (1-p)1 + (1-p)0]bk

If we substitute

C = (1-p)k-1 + (1-p)k-2 + . . . + (1-p)2 + (1-p)1 + (1-p)0

and if we multiply C by (1-p) and call this D

D = (1-p)C = (1-p)k + (1-p)k-1 + . . . + (1-p)3 + (1-p)2 + (1-p)1

Now, if we subtract C from D, we get

D - C = (1-p)C - C = (1-p)k - (1-p)0
[(1-p) - 1]C = (1-p)k - (1-p)0
C = [(1-p)k - 1]/[(1-p) - 1] or
C = [(1-p)k - 1]/-p]


Now if we substitute C back into T, we get

T = p[(1-p)k-1Mk + [(1-p)k - 1]/-p]bk
T = p(1-p)k-1Mk + 1 - (1-p)k]bk
T = p(1-p)k-1Mk + 1 - (1-p)(1-p)k-1]bk
T = [[pMk - (1-p)](1-p)k-1 + 1]bk This now allows us to write the equations in terms of summations. We therefore get

Eseries = sum ****[[pMk - (1-p)](1-p)k-1]bk**** + sum {bk**** - sum {bk****, for k = 1 to n

The last two terms cancel, so we are left with:

Eseries = sum ****[pMk - (1-p)](1-p)k-1]bk****, for k = 1 to n
Eseries = sum ****[(1+Mk)p - 1](1-p)k-1]]bk****, for k = 1 to n

If we now look closely at this equation, we can make several observations. First, the sign of Eseries depends solely on the resulting sign of [(1+Mk)p - 1]. To make things a little easier to follow, let's say we're dealing with a game that has even payoffs. This means that Mk = 1 and therefore
Eseries = sum ****[2p - 1](1-p)k-1]]bk****, for k = 1 to n
Eseries = [2p - 1]sum ****(1-p)k-1]]bk****, for k = 1 to n

Now it is a little easier to see what is going on. For example, if we are in an unfair game, then p < 0.5 and we can easily see that 2p-1 will be a negative value. For example, if our chance of winning is only 49%, then p = 0.49 and 2p-1 = -0.02. In an even game, p = 0.5 and we see that 2*0.5-1 = 0. In this case, the equation is telling us that in an even game the expected value is zero just as we would expect it should. If we are playing a game with an advantage, then p > 0.5 and 2p-1 will be positive.

The general formula for uneven payoffs work just as well, but is more complicated to understand. Suffice to say that if [(1+Mk)p - 1] is negative, then regardless of the progression, the game will eventually result in a loss for the player.

Hopefully, this post will provide definitive proof of the fallacy of trying to overcome a negative expectation by using any type of progression whether it be the martingale or some other modern progression.
--------------------------------------------------

And from a long ago previous post of mine on the subject:

To expand on progressions a bit further, it might be worth thinking about the punter who is exploring the use of, or is trying a progression for the first time. Mostly it is those who are loosing punters, as a winning punter netting profit flat stakes win/place or whatever, is as happy as a pig in mud with what they are already doing.

The loosing punter exploring progressions is searching for a way to turn loss into profit, which is a bit like trying to spend more than you earn without getting into debt [how our society and it's economy works]. In other words the punter interested in progressions is mostly chasing losses though they will rarely admit it [even to themselves].

The only progression that will never get you into trouble is the winning progression. Increasing the bet amount by a progression line after a win and not a loss. Long term of course you will be no better off than sticking to flat stakes betting, but it will give you the 'impression' of being better off. That might be worth something.

crash,

Thank you for posting that and I agree that the maths of using 1 bank doesn't work thats why I use multiple banks.

I am going to run the results for as long as it takes to either proves this works or doesn't work.

Todays selections where Res of 1 means a win and Res of 0 means a loss.

Odds Res Level Stakes Running Profit
1000 1000
2.1 0 990 990
2.38 0 980 978
1.85 0 970 964
1.56 0 960 948
1.65 0 950 929
1.76 1 957.6 945.72
2.66 0 947.6 926.72
1.48 1 952.4 937.28
3 1 972.4 977.28
3.7 0 962.4 963.28
1.82 0 952.4 947.28
2.96 0 942.4 928.28
2.56 0 932.4 906.28
1.96 0 922.4 880.28
3.25 0 912.4 850.28
2.46 0 902.4 820.28
2.88 0 892.4 790.28
2.9 1 911.4 847.28
1.98 0 901.4 812.28
3.4 0 891.4 771.28
2.52 1 906.6 844.24
3.45 0 896.6 808.24
2.96 0 886.6 766.24
1.79 1 894.5 804.95
5.7 1 941.5 1007.05
4 0 931.5 997.05
3.7 0 921.5 985.05
1.6 0 911.5 971.05
2.1 0 901.5 955.05
3.4 0 891.5 936.05
3.85 1 920 998.75
2.18 1 931.8 1011.73
2.74 0 921.8 1001.73
3 0 911.8 989.73
2.7 0 901.8 975.73
4.8 0 891.8 959.73
3.55 0 881.8 940.73
3.75 1 909.3 1001.23


Laying the same selections:

Fav Price Res Return Level Stakes Running Profit
1000 1000
2.1 1 0 1009.5 1009.5
2.38 1 0 1019 1019
1.85 1 0 1028.5 1028.5
1.56 1 0 1038 1038
1.65 1 0 1047.5 1047.5
1.76 0 1 1039.9 1039.9
2.66 1 0 1049.4 1051.3
1.48 0 1 1044.6 1046.02
3 0 1 1024.6 1024.02
3.7 1 0 1034.1 1038.27
1.82 1 0 1043.6 1050.62
2.96 1 0 1053.1 1061.07
2.56 1 0 1062.6 1071.52
1.96 1 0 1072.1 1081.97
3.25 1 0 1081.6 1092.42
2.46 1 0 1091.1 1102.87
2.88 1 0 1100.6 1113.32
2.9 0 1 1081.6 1092.42
1.98 1 0 1091.1 1106.67
3.4 1 0 1100.6 1118.07
2.52 0 1 1085.4 1101.35
3.45 1 0 1094.9 1114.65
2.96 1 0 1104.4 1126.05
1.79 0 1 1096.5 1117.36
5.7 0 1 1049.5 1056.26
4 1 0 1059 1078.11
3.7 1 0 1068.5 1096.16
1.6 1 0 1078 1111.36
2.1 1 0 1087.5 1124.66
3.4 1 0 1097 1135.11
3.85 0 1 1068.5 1103.76
2.18 0 1 1056.7 1083.7
2.74 1 0 1066.2 1102.7
3 1 0 1075.7 1118.85
2.7 1 0 1085.2 1132.15
4.8 1 0 1094.7 1143.55
3.55 1 0 1104.2 1154
3.75 0 1 1076.7 1121

Using Level Stakes
Backing All Favs : SHOWING A LOSS
Laying All Favs : IN PROFIT

Using Progressive Stakes:
Backing All Favs : IN PROFIT
Laying All Favs : IN PROFIT

For this test I will assume I have 10 banks that can be busted before I have lost everything (starting fund of 10K).

Good Luck.

One question to crash. Is it your maths or something you read in a book?
Do your own research, then you can present a valid argument, not someone else's.

isn't this exciting hee hee, thanks for starting this one wesmip1, I think I can smell burning flesh here (fingertips) that's the problem!

For very good reasons I don't do my own major electrical work when it's needed in our house. I call on a qualified professional.
I don't have to stick a knife into a switched on toaster to prove electricity can kill [obviously some people do] and would argue strongly with anyone suggesting otherwise. If necessary I'll call on professional opinion [that's valid isn't it?] and in 99% of cases most people would take an Electrician's word on the subject !

Likewise, I don't need to be a mathematician to disagree with the original[IMHO] silly maths. proposition that was presented in this thread, but quite validly and if necessary, present professional opinion on the matter. If that's unfair or unacceptable then this discussion is clearly over.

If Reid's maths. are wrong, then there will be other Mathematicians out there who would have said so and presented their maths arguments to prove it. Sorry, I can't find even one that disagrees but plenty who agree.

I like what that Major said on the beach in Apocalypse Now: " I love the smell of Napalm in the morning! "

Lol. lol :-))

Get stuck into them Top rank , I too, smell burning finger tips & I like it.

I beleive in staking plans .
It is very difficult to make sustained profits from level stakes betting , although it is the safest.

The maths chaps are right when it comes to roulett because the prices are fixed, with a max ceiling, but in racing the prices vary race to race where value should be targeted. e.g. bet 2 horses to beat the odds-on pop.
This is the bit that is not factored in by the Maths chaps.
That's why the the debate will continue, because the prices vary in racing.

With most progressions , its a good if your selection method picks a hand full of $4+ shots. Under this amount & things can get tough trying to recover from a bad run.

One of the safest progressional methods is the...
"Ladder staking plan" over 72 bets.
It is desinged to show a profit even with a -30% POT & a 16% SR.
Which, according to the level stakes believers & maths experts , cant be done.
Keep in mind , it needs a strike rate of 16%+
Restart once there is any profit.

For those interested , do a search of this site using the "Search" button above.

Cheers.

Bagman's Stairway [to heaven] staking plan.

We all know your a born-again staking desperate Bagman!

By the way, the maths wasn't 'Roulette', it was about the futility of trying to turn a loss into a profit by using [any] progressive staking methods. You well know all Casino's, TAB's and Bookies would all go broke if it was possible [think about it].

Your just being mischievous here [as usual].

We all know your a born-again staking desperate Bagman!
 

Crash,
After 3524 posts one would think that you are experience enough poster to accept
good contributors opinion, but NO you just like to knock people specially Bhagwan
You would have to be an idiot to go into any gambling without good staking plan.
Let me tell you this Bhagwan has plenty of ideas more then you ever will, and I bet my, you no what, that his bank account would be superior too yours any time if one campers your posts and his regarding knowledge in racing.
I honestly think that you never ever put the bet on the horse, all you do is sit on the front of computer and wait as a vulture for someone to post so you can start your
silly comments. Haven’t you got anything better to do? You have problem mate.
This forum is about passing ideas to one and other,not knocking as you always do.
It must be the Gippsland weather that gets you in bad mood most of the time of the year.Come to sunny Qld,and get your life back to normal.
You will have more friends.

You've just got to laugh about all this I reckon...
 

But isn't it great that we can all get so passionate about it. That's a healthy sign.

You finished your [embarrassing] god worship of Bagman and the personal insults to me or would you like another large post to get it off your chest?
Perhaps if you ask him nicely the Bagman might blow you a few kisses to make you feel better.

For starters, I'm not knocking the Bagman [Bagman is another name for a bookie. A friendly nickname, not a put down] at all and he [at least] knows it and by 'staking plan' you mean what? Progressive staking as presented in this thread?
If so, well along with the Mathematician's I and no doubt most other punters prefer to stay 'idiots' [your words].

Your very personal attack say a lot more about you than me as a contributor to this forum.

As for 'come to sunny QLD'. well I grew up there. Perhaps that was my big problem?

My two cents

I believe both, a betting staking plane can work if you have a regular strike rate and ave. price.

And yes if you don't get your regulars and have a run of outs you will loose. (this is why we have a stike rate and ave. price so we don't loose)

All because something is Mathematical doesn't mean it is going to happen. It may happen today, tomorrow or in 100 yaers.

Chears

its clear to me that a good cab shazing would fix everything......

?????

Good idea. I might do just that [I don't think they have made it to QLD yet though] :-)

Thanks for you kind words Baco.

I told you I could smell burning finger tips.

This happens every time that word "Staking" is brought up.

Why did some one have to bring up that word ?
"Slooowly I turned....inch by inch...& then I throttled the life from them till they lived no more !"
(Abbot & Costello)

People get cranky.
Me think that mazing.

Cheers.

My personal opinion - staking plans work over limited time, they have a "use by" date, you just don't know when that date is.

If you're prepared for the extra risk to make extra profit, then away ya go.
It isn't for me.

If you can get a positive POT over a decent number of bets, there is no need for a staking plan, nor extra risk.

A good staking plan is great at hiding the end result, but when that end result pops up (the average dividend and strike rate), it will magnify ether the loss or profit.

I've never found a staking plan that could outperform level stakes over many thousands of real time bets except for staking to overlay.

All,

I am going to run the results for as long as it takes to either proves this works or doesn't work.

Todays selections where Res of 1 means a win and Res of 0 means a loss.

Rather than taking a double bank method which i tested against I think this is good enough to work on a day by day basis and that makes it easier for me to post so based on that I will do the following:

For progressive:
If in profit at end of day : Take profit and start a new bank
If showing loss at end of day : Continue using same bank for tommorrow or till bank busts.

For level stakes : Start new bank every day as it doesn't matter.

Todays results Backing:

Odds Res Level Stakes Running Profit
1000 1000
4.8 0 990 990
2.22 0 980 978
4.1 0 970 964
2.44 0 960 948
2.66 0 950 929
2.58 1 965.8 963.76
1.7 1 972.8 974.96
2.7 0 962.8 960.96
2.56 1 978.4 987.48
3.15 1 999.9 1013.28
4.4 0 989.9 1003.28
4.2 0 979.9 991.28
2.6 0 969.9 977.28
2.96 1 989.5 1008.64
2.64 0 979.5 997.64
3.5 0 969.5 984.64
2.68 0 959.5 969.64
3.8 0 949.5 952.64
3.55 1 975 1003.64
3.3 1 998 1031.24
3.55 1 1023.5 1056.74
2.36 0 1013.5 1045.74
4.6 0 1003.5 1033.74
1.45 1 1008 1040.04
3.3 1 1031 1069.94
3.3 1 1054 1095.24
2.94 0 1044 1084.24
3.05 1 1064.5 1110.89
4.9 1 1103.5 1153.79
3.7 0 1093.5 1141.79
3.45 0 1083.5 1127.79
4 0 1073.5 1111.79
4.8 0 1063.5 1092.79
2.96 0 1053.5 1070.79
3.4 0 1043.5 1045.79
1.58 0 1033.5 1020.79
4.8 0 1023.5 995.79
3 0 1013.5 970.79
2.26 1 1026.1 1002.29
6 1 1076.1 1187.29

Todays results laying:
Fav Price Res Return Level Stakes Running Profit
1000 1000
4.8 1 0 1009.5 1009.5
2.22 1 0 1019 1019
4.1 1 0 1028.5 1028.5
2.44 1 0 1038 1038
2.66 1 0 1047.5 1047.5
2.58 0 1 1031.7 1031.7
1.7 0 1 1024.7 1022.6
2.7 1 0 1034.2 1036.85
2.56 0 1 1018.6 1018.13
3.15 0 1 997.1 985.88
4.4 1 0 1006.6 1005.83
4.2 1 0 1016.1 1021.98
2.6 1 0 1025.6 1036.23
2.96 0 1 1006 1012.71
2.64 1 0 1015.5 1027.91
3.5 1 0 1025 1041.21
2.68 1 0 1034.5 1052.61
3.8 1 0 1044 1063.06
3.55 0 1 1018.5 1035.01
3.3 0 1 995.5 1000.51
3.55 0 1 970 946.96
2.36 1 0 979.5 975.46
4.6 1 0 989 999.21
1.45 0 1 984.5 989.76
3.3 0 1 961.5 936.86
3.3 0 1 938.5 863.26
2.94 1 0 948 905.06
3.05 0 1 927.5 829.21
4.9 0 1 888.5 634.21
3.7 1 0 898 712.11
3.45 1 0 907.5 777.66
4 1 0 917 832.76
4.8 1 0 926.5 879.31
2.96 1 0 936 918.26
3.4 1 0 945.5 951.51
1.58 1 0 955 979.06
4.8 1 0 964.5 1002.81
3 1 0 974 1022.76
2.26 0 1 961.4 1001.34
6 0 1 911.4 896.34

Day 1 Backing Progressive : $1.23 Profit
Day 1 Laying Progressive : $121 Profit
Day 1 Backing Level Stakes : $-90.70 LOSS
Day 1 Laying Level Stakes : $76.70 Profit

Day 2 Backing Progressive : $187.29 PROFIT
Day 2 Laying Progressive : $ -103.60 LOSS
Day 2 Backing Level Stakes : $76.10 PROFIT
Day 2 Laying Level Stakes : $-88.60 LOSS

Overall :
Backing Progressive : $188.52 PROFIT
Laying Progressive : $ 17.40 PROFIT
Backing Level Stakes : $-14.60 LOSS
Laying Level Stakes : $-11.90 LOSS

WOW look a losing level stakes system is in profit ... OH MY ...

The reason backing and laying are both in the negative for level stakes is because the 5% commision has already been taken into account on all winning bets.

Oh and max bet is 10% of starting bank (or $100).

Good Luck.

Totally agree. Eventually you hit that run that knocks out your entire bank.

So to remedy this we use multiple banks. We expect the use by date to hit us a few times but I also expect that the profit from the other days will take care of these unfortuante events.

Good Luck

Hi wesmip1
are those figures from the advantage tool or reel figures?

Well done, Wesmip1.

A point of interest - you are assuming a 5% Betfair take-out. But with real betting, the take-out would very soon have to be less than the maximum of 5%.

Not being familiar with the Retirement Staking Plan I don't know how this would affect the amount to be bet per race, but overall it would have to increase the profit on turnover, maybe even with a snowball effect especially if Betfair's take-out continually reduces due to increased turnover? Could it even prolong the life of the initial bank if/when the inevitable(?) losing sequence occurs?

crackone,

yes it is the BAT prices. They are reasonable for testing purposes.

Good luck.

The BAT tool is the last traded price, so it is a fair reflection.

Wesmip,

Consider this simple level-stakes game:

0% = Edge = LOT = POT
1/3 = Strike Rate
5 = Bank
Lose if Bank busts
Win if Bank doubles

With some effort you should be able to map it out on a spreadsheet.

And you should find:

-5 52% Lose
+5 31% Win
+6 17% Win


I believe that no matter what staking ritual or Bank you choose for this game you will never get your win strike rate above 50%.

Hence your claim of a 70+% win strike rate for a negative game is wrong.

But if you still believe that you can improve on 50% then you should be able to demonstrate how.

Obviously this challenge is open to all.

One post from someone who mastered in maths. and all the staking plan believers have gone dead quite [?]

quite?

I think I mean quiet!

crash,

Its a bit hard to reply when I am asleep.

Jfc,

Not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate. Using your figures I don't think I could ever be in profit because the losing run to knock out a bank of that size is too frequent.

There is a point at which the strike rate will negate a losing system depending on the loss % and the strike rate %. Mind you the strike rate needs to be very high (I think its more than 67%).

I found by using the progressive staking plan you will increase your bank at least 70% of the time(when using a timeframe of a week or double the bank as a stop point). So 7 out of 10 weeks you will make a profit. Providing the profit from the 7 successful weeks covers the complete losses of the other 3 weeks you should come out in front.

I am happy to be proven wrong and rather than argue about it I am running the tests here. No one has yet to show me a large enough sample from punting where it would not work. I have ran this over 4000 bets and it is showing a profit but no one can show me another 4000 bets where this is losing significantly.

Theory is great but we all know those who can't do, teach.... I want to see real results to prove these things, and I would be very happy to be proven wrong.

I am not saying this will work with every system. I am saying this will work on betfair for favs because the ROT is almost break even. This would not work on the totes.

Good luck

Wesmip,

Above you claim that for a non-positive game:

70% Double Bank
30% Bust Bank

which is obviously a profit.

But in your most recent post you dilute that to



i.e.

70% Double Bank or be in front after 7 days.

You cannot infer profitability from that.

In a negative game you would expect that your 3 combined losses would be bigger than your 7 combined wins.

Sorry my fault for infering that. It all depends on how and where you set the stop for the progressive staking plan.

What I am trying to say is that by using an appropiate stop point in the staking plan (whether it be a % profit or a time frame) that it is possible to turn a negative game into a positive outcome.

Good Luck.

Wes.,

This is what Pittsburgh Phil says,

"Here is a million pound challenge -
If anyone can prove to me that a staking plan can turn a negative system
into a profitable one, then they can have a million *"

That was a couple of years ago - I think he's still waiting - I shall inform him
that you are coming for the bullion.

Racer,

It is possible without a doubt to turn a negative return into a positive.

Simple answer is double every bet till you get a profit. In theory it works. The math proves it works. In practivce its just plain stupid but it meets his requirement.

I could also prove it this way


Strike rate 99%.
Staking is Double on every loss.
Average winner = 1.01

Level stakes is a 0.01c loss every 100 bets.
Useing staking as above is a $1 profit every 100 bets.

Your longest losing run will be only be 3 which wouldn't break the bank.

Results today:

Day 3 Backing Progressive : $177.29 PROFIT
Day 3 Laying Progressive : $ -307.86 LOSS (CARRIED FORWARD FORM DAY 2)
Day 3 Backing Level Stakes : $110.80 PROFIT
Day 3 Laying Level Stakes : $-118.30 LOSS

Overall :
Backing Progressive : $356.81 PROFIT
Laying Progressive : $-290.46 LOSS
Backing Level Stakes : $65.10 PRFOIT
Laying Level Stakes : $-100.50 LOSS

Good Luck.

It's more than that, it's a total nonsense answer.

A simple answer sure. But a practical solution? Not in a million years as your theoretical double up stakes would kill the odds or you would never get anyone to accept them if you had the endless bank to put the money up in the first place.
.

I think Pittsburgh Phil meant prove it in practice, not in theory. That's why he still has his million.

Your on a hiding to nothing here. Give it up!

Everything one needs to know is in your reply Wes. - Keep doubling up and you will be broke long before your bookie.

Note the Asterisk at the end of Phil's offer - As Crash intimates, that is re.
demonstrating the proof.

Save yourself a lot of research time on this one Wes. - the world's great
mathematicians and odds\percentages men, who advised all the Casinos
how to set up to win\never to lose in the run, they have covered it all,
in spades, so to speak.

the reason for wanting to turn a negative into a positive?

one would be looking for shortcuts & less homework, methinks

twas that easy mugs everywhere would be raking it in

surely starting with a positive leans an endeavour toward success?

The simplicity of this stupidity is this: If it was possible to turn a negative expectation into a positive expectation by a staking method, all Casino's and Bookies in the world would have been skinned alive many years ago.

Sell the house and turn yourself into cash if you believe in it's possible. The Casino's and Bookies will compete with each other to get a Limo to your door.

Bhagwan,
See you in first class on my next trip. LOL.