Kiss, Kiss Bagman!

I think people read what they want as I plainly said (in regard to doubling your stake) that:

"In practivce its just plain stupid "

I was asked for a way to prove it would work and I did. I did say in practice it wouldn't work but that wasn't the question posted.

Anyway from I have seen posted I have the following:

1. You can't do it cause someone said so; or
2. There are maths out there somewhere that say it won't work

So far no one has taken the favs from betfair for the last month ( or even few days) and proven this method will not work.

I am not saying it will work. I am saying it worked for a month on past data and I am trying it out day by day to see if it continues.

I think a lot of people here have a complex about staking plans.... if so,there is no need to continue going on in the thread .. just move on.

I have a 'complex ' about 2+2=4, but I've learned to live with it because 2+2=5 just doesn't hold the universe together.

It needs to be divided into three criteria.

1) Can a staking plan turn a loss into a profit temporarily?
A) Yes, of course.

2) Can a staking plan turn a loss into a profit in the longrun?
A) No, the maths will get you in the end.

3) Can you temporarily turn enough profits on enough banks, to defeat the overall loss or bust?
A) No, if you could everyone would do it.

I think the two main debators here are debating different criteria - hence the confusion - frustration.

What is a longrun? Is 16yrs long enough, or should I have gone bust by now.

Hi Wesmip1
Tried it today (backing) results below,

Flat stakes
out 61 units
return 63.94 units
ave. price 3.55

retirement plan
out 82.5 units
return 89.99 units

Some longer priced Fav. got up.

Cheers

Time means nothing, number of bets means everything.

An 80 year old man has been having one bet a year for sixty years, he says I've been doubling up on losses and I've beaten the maths.

His final outlay is $100,000 to recoup the last ten years losses, up until this bet he's winning, this final bet means he loses everything.

What does he say now?

I half agree with this statement. The best (easy) way to test anything is to use the number of bets and the next question is always how many bets is a statistically significant number.

I usually say around 1000-2000 should be enough to get a feel for a system BUT also a minimum of 3-6 months is a good timeframe. For example there are some systems that work during spring carnival time but fall over the rest of the year.

To tell the truth it is one thing I have lacked on checking this progressive staking plan. While it has had over 1200 bets it has only been over the timeframe of a month. I thought rather than test it on prior random months I would just check it against the next couple of months.

As I have said all along I am trying to see if using a progressive staking plan will work with the favs on betfair (both backing and laying). There may be some reason it works that has nothing to do with the staking. It may work because the prices are so close to breakeven that as they sway in and out of profit from each side(back and lay) it provides the edge the progressive staking plan needs to make a profit. The only way I am going to prove or disprove any theory is to run a semi-live test period which I am trying to do but there seems to be a lot of people hell bent on condemning ideas before they even have some test results.

Good Luck.

Crash, I'm very tentitivly adding my 2c worth, you are probably right when you say the mathes will get you in the end, but there is no telling when, it could be in 200 years time couldn't it?? that's what wes is saying really.

I've got 8 banks working at the moment on win bets betting week to week NOT race to race (spreading the risk) I've lost several banks along the way, but am still a long way ahead, in fact I am so far ahead that I can confidently say that if things turned against me to that extent, I would give up long before I was into my money so I have already proved what wes said if you follow the drift. In the sense that over the 8 banks it shows a loss on level stakes (just) in fact 4 banks were possitive and 4 banks were negative.(AT LEVELS)

Nearly all systems WORK, (sometimes, some most of the time) but probably NONE all of the time,....... where have I heard something like that before???? hee hee! anyway, the trick is to make hay while the sun shines.

In the meantime SPREAD the risk is the way to go.

PS. Haven't travelled 1st class yet but I'm planning my next trip abroad for the whole of 2008, along with the Wife and two kids, and I swear the whole trip will be paid for as a result of betting on the horses, (well + rent from the house to cover every day expenses)

The only thing I have ever disagreed with here is that a progressive staking plan WILL [which means always] turn a loss into a profit. All other claims for them is of course always possible, depending on which way the cards fall. Probability [chance if you like] can end up being very generous, or a real cow of a thing! It's not strictly linear according to odds. That's why we can get long runs of ins and outs. Either might start on your next bet or your 1000th next bet, as we can't see the future.

Any type of bank arrangement combined with any type of progressive staking plan CAN produce a profit [or loss] over a various numbers of bets [time frames are meaningless as has been pointed out] and bet types. But nobody can claim they WILL work over X number of bets, nor use past/present examples as 'proof' of future success.

The shorter the odds, the longer the potential number of bets the arrangement might work over due to the laws of probability. It could be profitable [or disastrous] over 5 bets or a 1000 bets. The lower the risk [shorter the odds], the greater the chances of an extended run of success and vis-a-vis. However, there is no guarantee of success, regardless of low risk and regardless of it being a low or high number of bets.

Some [unlucky] people get killed the first time they travel by car and others travel by car a million times without a scratch. Probability is no guarantee of success for safely riding in a car or a progressive staking plan in a negative expectation game either.

There are very good reasons I never swim in Shark infested waters, or use progressive staking plans anymore either :-))

IMHO any punters time could be far more productively spent, discerning the difference between perceived and real value bets and improving their race handicapping ability [picking winners] than twiddling with the nob's of staking progressions trying to turn loss into profit.

amen

"Different strokes for different folks".

I have no wish to turn the above Positive into a Negative, Party - there's no profit in it, but 2008 did you say - I woudn't BANK on it - didn't you mention some of your banks had already gone - in racing\betting all the bookie needs is time.

My mum and dad were bookies for 47 years, from the day I was born I was either driven about by my mum in the family BRG Jaguar, or else Lou, our chauffeur, in a Humber Snipe - Only my mum drove the Jag., simply because my dad could not see his own hands, blind as a bat, but a hell of a brain.

My dad always drummed into us, all a bookie requires is time - Oh and the other thing he advised from when we were very young - to only bet with him and my mum, as many bets as we liked, so long as we could put the cash
down up front.
Yikes we had people delivering and picking up clocks from the big works' places - they were full of timed bets, so that nobody could put a bet on after time.
Mind you it looks like we would have had a Mini car if Top Rank had been on the scene - what was that again, 16 years, - Bwwwwwaaaaaaaahaha !!

Run of Outs Calculator

Heres a handy tool to work out ones worst run of outs on a given day.
The idea is to place the max number of bets one would have on a very busy day then press the button for each day.
e.g. say one has , say 20% SR & the max No. of bets one would ever make on one day is say 50 in the sample box.

Enter that into the relevant boxes & away you go, press the process button for each day, this should give you a worst case scenerio for most given days,
using that volumn of bets for a day.

Of course the less bets one has on a given day the less the run of outs should be .
Dont fall for the argument of 1000 bets in a row because no punter bets that many on any given day.

Each day of racing is different , with its own anomolies, thats why one should do this exercise relating to the max number of bets you feel you would do on a very busy day, not 1000 bets for a day but say 50 bets a day.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/jfc2000/drawdown.htm

Check it out , it is very accurate.


Cheers.

The moral of the story of course as the calculator will prove, would be to have less but bigger bets!

Bhagwan, youre right there BUT, if you were betting day to day instead of PER day the run of bets is only goverened by how long you live. e.g. take the 1st race at Perth place your bet, your next bet is the 1st race at Perth TOMORROW etc etc the same for races 2-8, (that's why I have 8 banks working at each meeting in theory) though in practice you will never have to exhaust all banks for all meetings, well, .....if you did you would have given up long b4 then.
When some banks are going through a rough time some of the others are performing better than expected so there's no hurt at the end of the day/week/month

Racer, I am well aware that things can turn bad at any moment, 3 of my win bets yesterday, Black in Time, Collegian, Kaleido, sometimes you swear the Gods are against you.

But as far as 2008 is concerned, it's already allocated mate there's no way it's going back in the satchell

Must have been in the UK Racer?

Yes, the bookie requires time because the odds are in his favour and against the punter regardless of who wins or losses on a particular day. The only criteria being that his liability has a ceiling on it.

Which is why staking plans will not work in a negative expectation, unless there is some edge within.

A bookie could lose of course if he were hit by a number of stings where his odds were greater than the horse's chance even though his book had a margin in it, it just depends on whether he is a gambler or bookmaker ;)
That's why there are limits at casinos and at racetracks to make sure that the rorts and shifty's can't send an otherwise profitable business broke.

Top Rank could well be winning using a staking plan in a negative scenario over 16 years, because his staking plan stakes more on the horses that are positive expectation, he may not (or his method) that this is in fact the case, the way the cards or his method have fallen.

A negative expectation outcome remains a negative expectation outcome.

There are no [not enough obviously] positives within a negative expectation game [an oxymoron] for there to be anything positive about them, as end result outcome is what is important and if it's negative it's negative.

It's a bit like saying I had a great day because I had 1 small winner [a positive] out of 10 bets instead zero winners out of 10 bets [I lost less than I could have]!

Crash,

What I meant was that the odds might be against all favourites for example, but within that he might be staking more on the favourites that beat the odds.

A certain type of favourite might return 10% profit at bookies prices, while the rest lose 30%. Ergo he is betting in a positive expectation game even though the overall expectation is negative.

If there was no positive expectation, only the bookies, then nobody would win - ever, overall....and that's certainly not the case.

The bookies expectation is positive, because he puts up odds on every race, whereas the punter can be selective and turn the expectation in his favour.

All the big bookies can actually name many customers who are long time winners. They just don't let them on anymore, because they know they turned the odds in their favour.
So now these winning punters have commission agents who bet smaller amounts on their behalf, in order to get set.

Results today:

Day 4 Backing Progressive : $27.81 PROFIT
Day 4 Laying Progressive : $ 96.24 PROFIT (CARRIED FORWARD FORM DAY 3)
Day 4 Backing Level Stakes : $-94.00 LOSS
Day 4 Laying Level Stakes : $94.40 PROFIT

Overall :
Backing Progressive : $384.62 PROFIT
Laying Progressive : $-194.22 LOSS
Backing Level Stakes : $-31.90 LOSS
Laying Level Stakes : $-6.1 LOSS

Another day where both progressive stakes showed a profit. The Laying system is still down on this bank from the last few days and will continue to be carried forward.

This gets me thinking a bit more on what we should be staking. If the lay and the back is showing a profit on the same selections then do we just need to lay/back the difference to produce a profit.

For example if the backing bank is said to stake $10 per selection and the laying bank says to stake $15 on the selection then we should be laying for $5.

Chrome,

A positive expectation outcome is of course possible in a negative expectation game. However, that's not the same as saying there is profit $$$ to be made in concentrating on positives within a personal losing outcome. Which is what it looked like you were saying.

By staking less on the negatives and more on the positives (in effect only really backing the positives), then you have turned a negative into a positive.

It's all semantics really, you can turn a negative into a positive, but only when the staking is such that the greater bet is on the positive outcome (read odds in your favour).

personally, if the present trend continues; I can see no further room for change!!

Your right Party. The spade in this thread has now [miraculously] become a shovel !!!

PS: Thank God the Sydney Harbour bridge wasn't built with the maths some punters like to use :-))

No they built the Westgate.

Fair chance in 16yrs I might have had a fair few bets, but good point it pays to cover all angles.

Good Punting and Goodnight

For those not interested in progrssional staking , read no further.

If any one wishes to have a serious go at progrssional staking its a good idea to have an XL sheet set up with 70 columns , so that tinkering with worst possible out comes cam be experimented with.
See if one can make it recover after 50 losses in a row, using the selection plan one wishes to use.

The Ladder type progressions are the safest because one is not reducing the divisors ,this is when bets can get aggressive if its not kept in check.

For those interested in the Retirement plan .
To try & keep it simple, it goes something like this.

Start with a divisor of either 5/1 or 6/1 , we never drop below this at any stage.
We will start with a 5/1 divisor.
$100 Target / 5 = 20 = 1% of bank,
(It is optional if one wishes to make this less, in this case target could be set at $50 = 0.5% using same bank size.)
Bank required $2000

The first bet has to be between 1% or 0.5% of bank.

First bet is $20 if it loses we add this to out $100 target ect.
All other on going bets will have one pt added to the divisor until a winner is struck.
The odds of the winner are now deducted from the previouse divisor after the new target amount has been calculated after that win.

Example of Divisors used.
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12w@4/1 8 9 10w@2/1 8 9w3/1 6 7w@2/1 5w 5w ect.
Do this until in any profit is made, then start again.

Remember no one ever went broke taking a profit.

It is strongly recommended to start afresh as soon as any profit is made, otherwise one needs to plogh more resources into the betting sequence to win say the last $50 of the $100 target figure.
It takes a lot less resources to win the first $2-50 than it does to win the last $50 of the $100 target.
So please keep that in mind.

The Retirement plan can be made more aggressive by reducing the divisor by its Decimal price rather than its Fractional odds.
e.g. Winner at $5.00 = 4/1 Reducing divisor by 5pts instead of 4pts.
Using the Decimal figure is the one I would use.

This helps the plan recover a bit quicker , it also increases the size of the bets.
Run it over a worst case scenerio , say 70 bets with 40-50 outs in a row & see what it looks like. Using an XL sheet to reflect the dividors used.

If the bets look too high by bet 70 so as to recover , it will need further tweeking.

The original Retirement plan needs the selections to nearly break even to make it work because it uses fractional odds to reduce the divisor .

Using decimal odds to reduce the divisor the selection plan can show a loss of approx minus 10-15% at level stakes to still show a profit.

Remember to try & start afresh as soon as any profit is made , one will find its POT greater if one does it this way .
Also it helps protect the bank more, if a bad run of outs should crop up.

Never drop divisor below 5/1 , otherwise one will pay the penalty of some aggressive bets in proportion to ones size.

If one starts feeling nervious about the size of the bets , simply add 2 pts to the divisor at any time, this also means that it is going to take longer to recover.
If one does their 70 bet spread sheet , one should not be feeling this way because they should of prepared themselves for what they are in for.


Cheers.

Hi Bhagwag
This is what I tried on Sunday backing every Fav. (51 bets)
$10 bet Div. 6 Target $60
When in profit start again.
When $60 down start again.
Ended the day $68 up, lost bank 2 times.
Use retirement plan would have won $120.

Wesmip1 it dose work thanks

Hi, Crackone. Impressive.

Backing every fave for the same amount would have resulted in a profit or loss?

47 bets on the races (had a couple on the trotts)
$127.46 return (betfair) no commission taken out
14 winners 29.78 strike rate
ave. price $3.60
Longest run of outs 8 and a 7.

edit. Lost back 3 times not 2 times as stated earlier.

[QUOTE=Crackone]47 bets on the races (had a couple on the trotts)
$127.46 return (betfair) no commission taken out
14 winners 29.78 strike rate
ave. price $3.60
Longest run of outs 8 and a 7.

47 units out
50.4 unit in

Thanks for sharing your findings & well done.
The average price is excellent.
You are doing the right thing as to starting again a soon as any profit is shown.


Using that $10 as a starting point with a 6/1 divisor .
$10 = 1% of bank.
I feel a $1000 bank should do the trick.

One can go a lot of outs before bank becomes half.
If bank does become halved.
One idea is to rule off & start again with the remaining $500.


Dont forget their argument is... eventually it will fall over , well in that case , so will level stakes betting.
So if ones starting bank is $1000, whats it to be level stakes or progressional staking, chasing Favs?

Cheers.

The only way you could back 51 SP favorites on Sunday was after the jump! Me thinks a bit of post-race back-fitted 'betting' is going on. With all the other hoodwinking going on here we don't need a 'dose' of that too.

crash,

You can automate anything so it is very easy to place 51 bets on a sunday.

Good Luck.

Oh really? A program that places a bet on the SP favorite which is often not known [it's called market time lag] until after the jump? What program would that be? Lol Lol :-))

I think it's called the 'back-fitted favorite program' isn't it?

I think they are referring to the Betfair fave.

Interestingly, at Ballina race 8 today there were equal Betfair faves (nos. 7 and 10) when the race began, even confirmed on BAT. As the race was one of my Lay The Betfair Fave I was able to lay no.10 at the scheduled start-time at the price of $3.85 as it was the clear fave at that time. If the Staking Plan was automated I would presume it would have bet no.10 which was beaten by the other equal-fave.

But then again, - swings and roundabouts.

Believe what you like Crash, I have no reason to make it up. As Michaelg has said these where betfair Fav. before the jump, believe it or not
Cheers

All forum members are free to claim/doubt anything here. So feel free to claim anything you like.

I don't think anyone mentioned SP faves, did they?

I had 34 faves or dual faves, but they were only the ones covered by IAS and Betfair, so certain meetings were left out.

I've done extensive research on Pre-post favs v SP favs, for preceisly that reason (you often don't know what is fav til it's too late) however I'm told that there are bookies who will accept wagers on the un-named favourite if that's the way you prefer to go.

My reasearch shows however that there's very little difference if any in the long run backing the pre-post fav instead, usually it's the same horse (some win some lose about 30% in both cases,) sometimes not and it wins sometime it loses .

Boy I managed to make that sound difficult, what I'm saying is that the SP fav wins about 30% of the time, and the pre-post fav. wins about 30% of the time though the selection will differ sometimes. Phew!

But taken overall theres very little in it, so to make life easier if I'm operating a mechanical plan I'll use the pre-post fav so my bets can be placed well before racing if necessary.
A word of warning though ALWAYS use the same source of the pre-post fav as publications differ.