WHAT IS A SAFE BETTING BANK.?
 

See PROPUN latest NEWSLETTER.

Invaluable reading.

Cheers.
darky.

Aside from level stakes that is the only way to bet to increase the profit (apart from allup betting).

But my question to Neil is this....

Your own selection recommendations are units per horse depending on chance.

i.e 20 units on selection A, 43 units on selection B.

How would one incorporate this into the 1% theorum?

Would I be right in assuming that horse B has a better chance of making a better profit given the overlay, so you would bet 2.3 x 1%, assuming 20 units were the base bet?

So in essence you'd be backing 1% on one selection but 2% or higher on others, or do I have this wrong.

This is the method i use but i do have a slightly different appraoch i bet 2% and i recalculate once a week....everage amount of bets per week would be 12

A nice betting bank is about $1000 a day.

Seeing as I only bet Saturday's or Public Holidays, does this mean I get $7,000 to play with?

;)

lol - i used to try to justify that approach when I was younger and my parents would tell me more than 3 drinks was binge drinking. "But I don't drink during the week," I'd say, "so I can have 21 on Sat night!"

Seriously though that article outlines what I was saying in all the other threads we're currently in here - bet 1% increasing/reducing. Take my example as a case in point, I have what looks to be an excellent system, yet it had a shocking run in june/july 04, and had you punted it non -reducing you'd be gone.

I've learnt a HEAP in the last 4 days since talking about all this stuff, and feel confident now that I've researched and seen this peaks and spikes and seen first hand from actual selections just how volatile this system business can be. I feel absolutely certain that non-reducing is the way to destroy your bank, and that 1% is plenty enough outlay.

That's just my opinion, formulated only just in the last few days so it's merely a fledgling opinion. :o

Like every "investment" Duritz it's a case of balancing risk against profit. Non reducing you certainly risk more but may gain more if the risk pays off.
KV

Yep. With punting, your own pysche has to be able to handle it. I couldn't handle the pressure for a winner of a non-reducing system. I like having a punting bank, without a punting bank I am without ammunition with which to shoot the bookies down like dogs!!

(sorry, got posessed by the ghost of a Mexican gun slinger there it seems)

Hello Chrome,

I recommend the maximum bet as being no more than 1% of a betting bank.

Our maximum bet would be about 56 units based on a horse being assessed as a $1.80 winning chance. As our average bet is below 30 units, for practical purposes the average bet size would be about 0.5% of a betting bank.

However I am aware that for plenty of punters this may seem to be ridiculously conservative. They of course are free to stake as aggressively as they wish.

Indeed for plenty of punters their betting bank is whatever they can get together for Saturday! That's also why we get the cliched comment from tipsters on the radio like "This looks like a certainty in the first. You can back it and build up your bank for the day."

Thanks Neil,

I was just curious as to how the 1% would figure, and you've answered.

I think that someone needs to have a reasonable bank to go this route, but then again that would be built up quickly at the POT lately.

Cheers.

Chrome Prince,

I guess with smaller banks that are more like "play money" punters can and do take greater risks betting a much higher percentage than 0.5% or 1%.

But if someone is using a $50,000 or $100,000 bank or even higher it would be ludicrous betting say 4% on a selection - unless of course they are wealthy and that bank is their "play money".

Neil.

And it's a guaranteed way to have the smallest bet in every series on a winner. Seems a strange way to go about it

Jacfin, if the stake is 1% of the bank is NON REDUCING, how can it be least bet on a winner, not knocking just don't understand, surely it will increase when the bank increases but never decrease after a loser/ run of losers ,..... will it?

Neil, just claifying there, what you are saying is that the maximum bet would be 56 units of an ORIGINAL bank of say 11,000 units ....yes? so if backing say $10 per unit your idea of a STARTING bank would be $110,000. And the bets are always in units from the ORIGINAL bank??

Jacfin I don't think I quite get what you mean. It may only be 6:30 and I'm still half asleep but there are no "series" involved here, just proportion of bank. Clarify??

i have been using the retirement staking plan for going on 2 years now with both my win & eachway betting methods & to date there have only been a couple of ocassions where i started to get a bit worried as to the saftey of my bank.

it is obviously not suited to all betting types or systems but for those interested a search thru old threads here will get you started along with -

http://www.grandstand.com.au/retirement.html

hoping i am not breaking any rules by posting that link