G'day Lomaca, thanks for all the work you've done on that, the $30 loss at levels and $5000 betting to 100 is much greater than I thought but still confirms the concept.

Now for the place thing, here's an example

The nag in question is rated at $3 i.e. 2-1 TO WIN, so divide the win odds by 4 =.5 x 50% (overlay req.) = .75 add your stake back on so $1.75c is the minimum odds I will accept for a place on this nag.

Of course the overlay reqd. is your choice 20%, 50%, 100% etc., but I find 50% (for place bets) works best, and also cuts out many of those shorties.

Eg. Today Ipswich R1-5 rated $1.55 so min place reqd is .55/4x1.5=1 =$1.23c (FOR THE PLACE)

max available = $1.19 so NO BET

race 2-4 rated $1.80c so .8/4x1.5+1 = $1.30 min reqd. $1.36 easily available so its a bet! (FOR THE PLACE)

Not brilliant examples as both were odds on and running in races with less than 8 runners so you could argue that you should divide the win odds by 3 in these cases but that's another argument, but

you get the idea?

Actually in the end it won on level stakes about $220 or so, the 30 was only during the run of outs. the problem with this sort of staking is that it restricts you to win the set amount when winning, but still spend big when losing, real stooopid!
Got it, in your earlier post you put it as "+ 50%" that's what confused me, mind you, I'm easily confused at the best of times!

Thanks for clearing that up.

Hi Party, re. betting only if (odds*1.2) is available I checked an old system someone wanted me to test, and it consistently came up a loser, picking only the overlays it turned out a nice little earner.
Only problem he can't bet watching the prices.

Even if one makes a few mistakes, because the odds change the last minute it's still OK.

I tested an other very simple staking system on the neural one:

increase the bets by one unit each time you lose up to 31 units then go back to 1 unit, it turned a profit of $435 level and $5200 with the staking.
If I didn't have a much better rating I'd be tempted, but jeeez the long outs don't suit me at all, plus too many bets for my liking.

I suppose I never bothered about overlays because I bet long shots which are by their very nature sort of overlays anyway, but if you can price your selections accurately, that's the way to go.

Cheers

Lomaca, that doesn't surprise me at all, in a nutshell if the sample shows a profit at level stakes most staking plans will increase profits, BUT if the sample shows a loss at levels ,well, let me put it this way after 40 years of punting all the staking plans that I have seen will only accelerate losses.

If you were to get out more you might find a public discussion of a staking plan which has turned a losing sequence of over 1000 bets into a profitable sequence. "Cant be done" it has been said on this site dozens of times, yet the evidence is there to see.

The biggest problem with saying never as Sean Connery found out is that as soon as one is found that does then you have egg all over your face. Of course the naysayers will move the goal posts and claim the evidence staring them in the face is faulty or simply doesnt exist but for every person you can find who doesnt believe I can find a person who has profited from a staking plan.

You discard staking to prices and advocate level stakes. Yet many serious punters believe that level stakes is in fact a loss chasing staking plan and that betting to prices is the way to go. Daniel OSullivan is an advocate of betting to prices and I have yet to meet anyone who questions his bona fides.

Your own resident math guru advocates kelly staking. It is possible for kelly staking to turn a finite series of losing bets into a profitable one.

Who was it that said

One way for punters to get out of the bet-lose-bet-lose-bet-lose cycle is to do something different.

Too true Party, but life is too short for me to waste it arguing with others about it, so I just let comments extolling the virtues of plans, that turn a loss into profit, slide past me.
Even JC needed at least water to turn it into wine!

We would be going over ploughed ground anyway, but punters being punters, they cling to every little ray of hope.

Even with small profits at level stakes but with long outs some staking plans may become impractical.

The example I gave above with the neurals, if tweaked a little it can produce a level POT of about 10%, but the max outs so far was 46.

Imagine, with the simple staking I used, the maximum bet size at the 46th out is $1081, and that starting at $1!!

So if anyone thinks "I can do better than that by increasing the bet" what do you think would happen if that bet had to be placed on a country meeting with a win pool of less than $5000?

Some people live in a dream world Party, I reckon we are better off doing what we know, and let them dream eh?

Good luck

That of course is wrong, as sharp eyed punters here would have noticed.

This is how much you would be down by the time you snared an other winner if you had to go to the 46th outs.

The correct answer for the largest bet is $46

Sorry about it chief!

Cheers

Well I got the idea Lomaca (been there and done that exercise a few times) without looking at the figures.

I had a very successful business man visit my house the other day, the racing was on the TV, so he proceeded to tell me about the [ infallible system] and how he'd used it for years at the track (and at the casino in a converted form)

I just smiled as he explained that you back the fav ONLY if you can get 1/1 or above and double up after a loser carrying on day to day hee hee, true you would have to hit a winner sooner or later, but I could see that there was no point in saying much.

I remember a few years back some Oxford professor formed a group who were doing just that, it worked for a while of course until they hit 23 consecutive losers at the main Cheltenham meeting.

I think the next bet would have been 8 million pounds, it won at 1/1, can you imagine trying to make a bet of 8m on an 1/1 chance hahahahah!

anyway in the end they would have won 1 pound!!