BJ,

Congrats on finding a method that works for you.
I hope it keeps working, as it looks like you found an angle you can exploit.

Good Luck.

IMHO, a systems punter would be more likely to use progression staking than a ratings/form punter...... given the intimate (reliant/dependant) relationship between systems and mathematics?

What do you think? (no offence intended)

Stix,
That's an interesting conclusion. Could you clarify why a system's punter is more associated with mathematics than a non-system's punter?

With the ladder staking , the idea is to win approx half the odds back to get in front as opposed to level stakes which has to win 100% of the odds to outlay, just to break even.
As stated . If a winner gets up but does not put us in front , we just keep going up the ladder, this has the affect of crushing the odds to our favour on the winners .
You will notice the last digit of each pair equates to the odds needed to break even on the sequence, interestingly enough.
e.g.112233445566778899,10,10,11,11,12,12=156
Run of 24 , one would need combined odds of 23/1 just to break even ,at level stakes . But with this staking plan , one would need odds of 12/1 to break even. thats a big difference.

Check it out on paper first, to see how the figures fall.

Cheers.

Bagman,

Your logic 'as presented' is very sound. No argument there. However [oh that word], you are presenting the flat stakes punter in your figures as chasing his losses, which he isn't of course in the way you have presented him [needs a 23/1 shot]. Your progression punter on the other hand is now chasing a 12/1 shot as you correctly point out. What are the potential runs of outs for a 12/1 chance? You see your punter with every progression is also progressing his potential runs of outs also. Nasty.

Where the flat stakes punter is always going to be ahead is when runs of outs strike, especially a large one. When runs of ins strike the progression punter has no advantage whatsoever [no progressions]. Punting is a war of attrition, throwing larger and larger sums of money at a problem [losing] will not win the war. Just look where the progressive punter George Bush is heading in Iraq ....without a paddle :-)

Cheers.

Crash

In my (limited) experience with systems - I think that when building a system, the foundation and iteration process relies on greater mathematical rationing (application of probabilities, rules and discrete arguments, etc) . Mathematics is intrinscally inherent in the formation, evloution and evaluation of the system, then too it follows that progressive (or some form of mathematical) staking plan would be employed....

Where as ratings/handicapping/form which, although incorporates some of these mathematic elements is not heavily weighed when formulating selections.... and is based with a more "human" element and progressive staking would be less likely employed....

.... in my opinion....

I see your point Stix, but if you broaden it a little you'll see many ratings are heavily based on maths.
Perhaps your confusing ratings with handicapping a bit, although hadicapping can and often is used in ratings, or indeed used to arrive at a rating figure. There are many approaches possible. The ratings that I use as a guide to handicapping are 100% mathematically arrived at so maths is very important. They serve me as well as anyone else's. They are only a beginning point of selecting potential winners but nowhere near the final point. For this punter anyway.