Staking Plea
 

In the first 3 months Jan to March I bet on 130 races for 48 winners for a srike rate of 36.9% using 2 systems only on Sat and public hoilday meetings.

There were a total of 218 selection in those races.

Out--$218.00
in----$263.30

a profit at level stakes of $45.30 A 20.8% ROI

My question is that I''m going to do a dry run on paper using 2 banks of $500 of which one will be a reserve bank and bet 3% of the bank.

Any thoughts on this?

Mad Gambler

Hi Mad Gambler - IMO 3% of bank is a lot. Not because of the actual cash outlay just if you have a bad streak, you'll quickly decimate your reserves.

I've been playing around with staking and bet sizes due to a system I'm developing (see a couple of other threads on this forum re that) and I am finding that a 1% increasing/reducing bet size gives you safety and profitability. Remember, both those things are vital - you'll have bad runs, sure as I'm good lookin'.

Good luck.

If you have a system that works, forget percentage of bank. Fool's paradise.

Just decide what you expect your largest amount of outs or equivalent outs to be over a 12 month period.

By equivalent outs I mean you could have 5 then a winner that pays $4.00 then another 6 losers. At level stakes this is the equivalent of 8 outs.

On your strike rate you are going to say if this system is going to be profitable it will need to be able sustain 30 losers or the equivalent thereof at level stakes.

You are starting with $500.00 500/30 = 16. (approx)

Start at $16. Then when your bank gets to $510, move up to $17. (17 x 30 =510) Then when you get to $540 move up to 18 until you get to 100 dollars(bank of 3000 dollars) or whatever top stake level you reckon is a fair thing.

Then whenever you have an excess over 3000, that's profit.

30 might not be enough losers to allow for but much over that and you just have to say this selection method has problems.

If you bet percentage of bank you can you can support far to many losers.

Each to their own buts that way I see staking.

How do I calculate the run of outs.


Mad Gambler

No set way. But would you say that if you had 30 losses that your selection method was the goods?

You could look at all your winners by less than a length and classify them as losers and mulyiply this new numbers of losers by 2.5 and see what your max run of outs is on your so far sample.

To me that should give you a within reason figure of what you can expect to carry.

Just say you do start at $16.00 And your 500 dollars does vanish. At that point you can decide whether it is worth putting another $100.00 up (six losers) or that you have gone far enough with your selection method.

To give you an idea of what I mean, you work out how many losers you can have at 5 percent starting at 500 dollars. You'll find that it is a ridiculous amount.

Number of expected losers is flawed because how many losers can you expect?

Really the most accurate thing is using the "maximum drawdown", ie maximum drop from the top level of your bank.

I have been testing a system which over two years and 6000 bets, with a strike rate of 26%, and had a max drawdown of 113 bets. That means that the worst drop from the previous maximum was 113 bets. If you're betting 3% of your bank.... 113 bets drop down and your f**ked. And this system wins, by the way, there's no selection problem etc, it's just that the punt and selection methods are volatile. You should allow for and work with this volatility.

Sounds like you have a bit of odds stuff in your strike rate.

Not really - ave div $4.20, s/r 26%... just it went through a bad trot at one point. Punting is really cyclical, must prepare for that.

If I have right, at least approximately you are winning 1 in 4 (well a whisker over) and the dividend is $4.20?

So in your 6000 invested you make $300 in two years. You can do better than with a bank term deposit. Perhaps I have something wrong.

You have it a little wrong. 6000 selections, 26%, $4.20 = around 6500 collect if you only have $1 on each, but who only has $1 on each?? Even if you only have $10 on each you still make $5000 over the two years. Have $100 on each and you make $50,000 in two years.

100 bucks on each you invest 600,000 dollars. Collect 50,000. You can do much better with a bank over a two year period without involving a 11,300 dollar 'draw down' prospect.

To win at gambling ultimately you have to be able to build a bank, not make at the same rate as a bank offers.

I still could be wrong but I can't see it.

Expected run of outs for 35% is 16
Based on 3 lots of 10,000

I believe one should have a bank of 3.0 x the longest theoretical run of outs.
In this case 48 , if betting level stakes.= 2% of bank.
1% of bank as mentioned prior would be even safer.

50 Point Staking Plan
Heres a safe staking plan one might like to experiment with.
Divisor starts at 50 divided into target of $100.
With a Starting Bank $200
Deduct win dividend price off the divisor after each win & deduct the profit off the target after each win so as to calculate the next bet.
Start from the beginning as soon as half of the target is won , in this case $50
This helps prevent the bets from becoming too large for the bank to cope with.
e.g.
Tar---Divisor--O/L---Dividend---P/L
100-----50-----2-----L
102-----50-----2-----L
104-----50-----2---w$11.00---+20
84------39-----2-----L
86------39-----2---w$6.00---+10
76------33-----2---w$14.00---+26
50------19-----3-----Objetive reached..We would now rule off & start from the beginning because we have reached our objective of reaching half the Target figure.

If one wants to start with a lower divisor (not recomended) , one will see how the bets become larger after a run of outs , so be prepared for it, because it will come , no matter how strong a selection method may be, its just part of punting.

Remember ---Punting does not owe us a living.

Cheers.

The big thing you're forgetting ManyGeese is that you don't have the $600,000 to begin with. And betting $100 you don't need it - you only need $10,000. So, with $10,000 only level staking $100 each you make $50,000 in the two years. Show me a bank that will make you $50,000 interest over 2 years with a capital of $10,000. That's the point you're failing to see.

Also, I was talking about 1% increasing/reducing. With a $10,000 bank, $100 bets on each selection increasing/reducing (1%) your $10,000 actually becomes $168,000. Again, show me a bank that can make you $158,000 interest in two years off a $10,000 capital.

Bhagwan - your last commnt, ie that no matter how strong a selection method, runs of outs will occur, is exactly the point I am trying to make: one must be prepared for them, they will come. I therefore agree entirely with you. :)

Maybe my maths is weird but I make that a strike rate of 22%. You may have got 48 winners from 130 races but you actually got 48 winners from 218 bets. On your system I could bet every horse in every race and claim a strike rate of 100% :)

Using 22% and a average dividend of $5.48 over 218 bets I got a max drawdown between 15 and 32 as a rule over several runs. This would indicate a bet of perhaps 2% of bank might be safe.

BUT !!!!

218 bets is not enough to judge a system on - you may have had a good period or you may have had a bad one. The strike rate or average dividend could be quite different from the one you got in your test period.

Heres the maximum drawdown simulator if you want to play with it.

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

KV

Have you tried the drawdown simulator Duritz? With your 4.20 dividend I got a max drawdown of 119 bets - remarkably similar to what you got in real life. Funny thing is I tried another 25 times and got values from about 40 - 92 so maybe your two year run was just a plain unlucky 1 in 25 year event. It could be a better system than you think.
KV

Those are the words we want to hear KV!! Here here!!

KV, hear hear, Duritz, I really think you've cracked it there. I have 3 seperate plans showing a profit now into the 3rd year but not as good as that, and I'm getting the absolute BEST returns available. (well as far as I know that is)

As far as the comparison to bank interest is concerned let's just GROAN!

Go for it mate!!

groan. I guess the 8.5% bets per day is the secret. 8.5 that is.

Yep have KV - like you got varying results, did not record them at the time but they seemed to be around the 60-70 mark on average. I'm sure the biggest one was not much (if any) more than the 113 I've seen already in the research of this sys, so you may be right. May have a cracker. Am punting it, it's a mere three days old so far (and up 11 bets after three days, ripper of a start), I guess the proof will be in the punting.

Manygeese - yeah that's part of it. Thing is, to compare it to a bank it's like a compound interest rate of 7% (the profit on turnover) which compounds a lot more times than the banks do.

All nice theoreticals chaps, but even though Mannygeese's point about bank interest might have been a bit of the mark about capital, I think all the system clappers here are a bit off tap too.

OK the talk here is $100 bets and 2% of bank or !% was also mentioned for safety reasons. Show me a 1% membership here who has a betting bank [only] of $50k for 2% bets or $100k for 1% bets and I'll run down Bourke street naked !

In fact there would be very, very few punters here except perhaps Chrome, Party and probably Bagman [all the sensible and timid punters ;-)] who have a betting bank at all with much in it even if they do have one. No one leaves big amounts of money like that sitting in a special 'punting bank' only account unless they are a serious Pro. Punter [who are generally already rich from inheritance or business] or a fool. $100 bets[?] yep, lots here can afford those, but not representing 1 or 2% of any punting bank a few punters here might have. I like 99% of all punters don't have one. I bet from capital I can [mostly] afford to lose. Nothing else.

Most punters have stuff all 'punting bank' and bet by the seat of there dacks from what they can afford each week for punting [and from the rent money for the real desperadoes]. I have never in my 35yr. punting life [in the real world] met a punter who has a dedicated 'punting money only' bank big enough to do even 2% of bank bets that would make up a $20 bet let alone a $100 bet. They mostly bet from what they can afford each week.

Even the rich mostly use general capital for punting, not a specific 'punting bank'. Well off Pro. punters, sure. Everyone else: $50k to $100k punting banks? Give me a break, I'm killing myself laughing:-) lol lol

Anyhow, feel free to fib. and disagree with me. This is cyberspace after all and not the real world :-)

lol. Fair points, and though I won't fib and say I have a 50K punting bank, I certainly well and truly fall into your "never in my life" category. And I do have a dedicated punting bank. (Built by winnings)

....and how much would a 2% bet be? :-)

Though that would be "telling" a 2% bet would be a little more than what you said when you said an amount directly before the amount which was the let alone amount.

lol i've confused myself there. Let me start again. If I were to bet 2%, my average bet size would be about $100.

50k punting bank Duritz ? You must be rich or even more confused maybe?.

If you have $50k just sitting in a bank account just for punting [crazy], you certainly don't have a wife [she'd never let you get away with that], kids and or a mortgage. Then again like I said, this is cyberspace. Everything is 'real' here :-)

You must be confused. You have said here you havn't got a $50k punting bank[?] 2% of $50k is a $100 bet isn't it or else I'm defused in the head[?]

Quote Duritz: "lol i've confused myself there. Let me start again. If I were to bet 2%, my average bet size would be about $100".

Nope Crash, 2% of a 50K punting bank is $1000.

LOL - just read your second post. (the one about the wife etc). The wife/mortgage and kids - I've got the trifecta there....but the wife is happy there's a dedicated punting bank b/c it means I never bet our dough.

I have a mortgage because real estate is the one safe bet there is. I work and save etc b/c I want more real estate. I keep the punting separate because that way you have the best true guide of if you're winning or losing - your balance.

All this talk of big $ numbers. I 'm having a 'senior's moment'.

It's all right old fella. Only two hours till that nice meals on wheels lady arrives.

I'd be careful about real estate at the moment Duritz [the smart money has already sold it at the peek]. Our personal overseas debt is a debt 'Road-Train' not a debt truck. All that money comes from OS and our debt covering ca lateral is starting to look shaky [or has been sold off]. Interest rates will go up with the increased risk to lenders [mostly Asian and Chinese].

Commodities are faced with the huge competition coming on tap now world-wide to flog to China [mostly]. They are no longer a captive buyer. We are heading for the financial sin-bin. Thank Howard for the illusion of prosperity for 10 yrs. based on a fake housing boom and real commodity boom [about to be hit with big competition finally].

Your not far from the mark there. This place is 'God's Waiting room' after all:-)

Thanks for the tip re real estate. Big interest rate rises would stop me from investing in another property. If that were to happen and if commodities were to crash I think I'd just put all savings in continually into my offset account for my house mortgage, let it earn "interest by proxy" by decreasing my interest payments. I've crunched the numbers on having savings offset against your mortgage - big savings down the track if you don't spend it.

Who knows, if this sys takes off I might buy an investment property outright!!! (nah, wouldn't do that...!)

My daughter is a real estate agent in Melb. Forget all the 'up' talk from them, in reality it's 'hitting the fan' with far too many people financially overexposed she says. The rental market is falling [through the floor] on inner city investment property that was way over-sold and over built. Even here in [small]Paynesville on the Gippsland lakes, there are over 250 properties for sale and over 50 perm rentals empty. The ass is out of the coastal 'sea change' market in most places.

2 commodities go up in economic downturns and recessions [for certain every time], gambling and alcohol. No, I don't mean drink and punt more [that's what everyone else will be doing], buy shares in those ventures ;-)

That's a super tip - makes perfect sense. I brew my own beer so I'll probably invest more in that ;P, but local beer shares (CUB?) may be a go - if there's a recession, people won't be buying the boutique beers no more!!!

Re the overexposure of real estate - our mortgage is very manageable. If it does really hit the fan re interest rates etc we'll probably wait a little then try to buy something as the prices inevitably fall, b/c the fall will only be temporary in the longer scheme of things.

It occurs to me that we may have gotten slightly away from the original topic of this thread.

Not much.... just a teency weency bit.

We got hit buying at almost the top of the 80's property boom [we bought cash with a bit of a windfall we had at the time]. It was a long wait of until 2004 until we go out with a decent profit. Worth the wait because we could afford it [no mortgage] but only doubled our original high purchase price.

Many sold at massive losses when interest rates reached 17% because they had too. They couldn't afford the mortgage payments. One woman we knew near us was paying $800 [80's] a month mortgage on an 1 bedroom apartment she could have rented for $300. Sold for half the purchase price because the payments were killing her.

People think that will never happen again. Oh it will and has before too.

Yep, another 'senior's moment' there I think. Now what is keeping those meals on wheels ladies [?] It must be lunch time soon !!