Staking to a profit
 

All,

I ran a very quick test on the betfair prices from bat over a month.

Using the retirement plan and only betting on favs every race produced a profit.

also

Using the retirement plan and only laying fav on every race produced a profit.

Betting on Fav:
Start of Month : $1000
End of Month : $2473.42

Laying Fav:
Start of Month : $1000
End of Month : $2691.93

My question is why ?

I have my own thoughts ... but interested to see if anyone else has any insights or research in this area ?

Good Luck.

I am not surprised it works, I am surprised that I am the first response to your post, because I am sure it won't be long before the nay sayers armed with quotes from other people will tell it would'nt continue, it can't work.

Did you take any note of what the return would be just for level staking on the Favs.

Good Punting

Hi wes

I have followed Fav. for sometime .

I read an article saying that The retirement plan is suited to fav. as there is not a long run of losses.

In my opinion finding true fav's is the key.

wesmip1, what amazes me is that the stats have hardly altered since the 1800's apparently always hovering around 30% wins for the fav (true or not) what is even more amazing that the same S/R applies across the board (more or less) for all classes of races, all distances, regardless of the no of runners etc etc, we're talking across the board there.

Of course if you restrict to lower prices the S/R goes up and the LOT decreases but nothing seems to push the +/- to the backers favour, or at least anyone that has managed to do it is not going to tell us.

Top Rank,

Yeah the Favs showed a slight loss of around 2.2% before taking out commission.

partypooper,

I have found several staking plans that can completely take a high strike rate system from a negative to the positive providing

1. It has a high strike rate (25%+)
2. The LOT is no greater than approx 7-8%
3. The appropiate banking structure is setup (more than 1 bank in most instances)

The test i ran quickly was over 1200 bets. Not a small sample by any means against many of the systems posted here.

Good Luck

Wes

For the lay or to back? I'm guessing back. At the risk of being called a nay sayer, one side must be showing a negative expectation and is ultimately doomed :(

Don't want to get into a slanging match about it but would be keen to read your explanation :)

Please reading posting on my thread.

If your saying what it plainly looks like your saying: Taking a LOT of 7-8% and turning it into a profit by adopting a certain staking plan[s], you are claiming the well proved mathematically impossible, even with a 100 'banks'. If your claiming it's not, lets see the maths, not the usual [endless over the years here] rhetoric please.

Anyone who really thinks this thread's basic premise is possible, well grab your life savings and top-hat, as a limo from your nearest Casino [or Bookie] will be waiting for you outside your door!

This old chestnut [selling Snake-oil] has been done to death in this forum over the years but we obviously still have here the equivalent [regarding staking's 'magic' maths. thinkers], of the climate change deniers who believe we can have never-ending industrial growth in a closed biosphere without destroying it, just by being 'clever' about how we do it :-))

Angry pixie,

That was for level stakes backing.

But both laying and staking are in profit using the retirement staking plan.

Good Luck

crash,

I am not saying you won't lose a bank or two but you find that before that you usually make the bank 3-4 times over. Mathematically if you don't have the extra banks then you are certainly going to lose long term.

This only works on a HIGH STIKE RATE system.

The idea is you need to retire a bank everytime it doubles which happens regularly. If you continue with the same bank it will eventually fail and you will lose.

To prove it works I will run the rest of this year (when I get time) and see if it makes an overall profit. My guess is it will.

Good Luck.

Wesmip1, a loss of 2.2% before commission on betting on the fave is quite remarkable but not too surprising with Betfair.

As to using the prices on BAT - I think I may have posted the following earlier but it might be worthwhile repeating. When BAT was introduced I compared the Final Trade price with that shown on BAT. I looked specifically at a fave which incidentally I layed at around $3. The Final Trade price was slightly over $3 yet BAT showed it's price at $2.20 which is a huge discrepancy.

I queried this with Betfair who informed me that BAT mirrors the Bet price on the betting screen immediately AFTER the start of a race. In my instance, the $3 was snapped up at the death which left $2.20 as the best available Bet price. BAT identified this price of $2.20 and automatically transferred it to its screen.

So, in some instances BAT is underpricing itself, and therefore with real betting the fave might even show an overall profit. Also, the Lay price would most likely be very flattering as I presume in the above instance the Lay price would be the next "click" of $2.22?

Just thought I'd mention it.

Michael.

Like I've already said, these claims are high on rhetoric and low on maths. In this case ZERO maths. Don't worry about running it all year, just supply the maths on how this 'magic' maths equation happens please.

It's a bit like the snake-oil loan merchants claiming the best way to get out of debt is to 'consolidate' the debt by borrowing more money [from us]!

Eventually of course you lose the house :-))

Ummm...
 

Wes

I've never used the "Retirement Plan" and have only had a very brief look at the example available on line so I'm struggling with how you can back and lay the same horse at the same price and end in profit on both sides of the ledger. That's what your suggesting isn't it? An example would be really great if you get a chance.

My reading of the method is that it's just a progression staking plan isn't it? The examples on the Granstand site are very misleading as they set-up the example with a 3/1 average SP yet display results with a 4/1, a 5/1 and a 7/1 winner!! Change all these to 3/1 and your still in the red. :( Depending on where you move these three winners in the sequence, you may even be further behind than if you'd used level stakes.

Can you tell I'm no fan of progression staking? ;)

It's also called chasing losses.

Just like AngryPixie I'm not really a fan of progressive betting, but keeping an open mind on the subject, Wesmip1 could easily make me reconsider.

It did very well for Maria, but I wonder how she would have fared if she had stuck to level stake betting?

There is a guy on another forum who swears that his staking system has turned a loss of level stakes on Place betting into an acceptable profit, and has been doing it successfully for quite a few years.

Michael

Wasn't Maria using a percentage of bank approach? In my mind that's a different and probably more sensible method.

Very true. Even though it wasn't a loss-chasing method it was still a staking method that increased her outlay per race.

I've heard/read arguments from punters who bet (not lay) this way and have claimed it to be superior to level stakes when betting their selections, yet there are critics who don't believe them.

I have some literature by a punter who about ten years ago tried a loss-chasing method with faves only, over a period of one year. He had only two filters - 1) omit races with equal-faves, and 2) omit races in which the fave is odds-on. He applied this to Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane Saturday races and documented every selection and every amount wagered per horse. His aim was to cover existing losses and win $5 if the fave won, then he would start from scratch - aiming to profit by the nominated $5. After 52 weeks he showed a very handsome profit. Maybe he was lucky there was not a long losing streak - he admitted he used the 3 states to more-or-less nullify this happening, even though his logic might puzzle some of us.

Anyway, Wesmip1 I'm sure we'll all be interested to see how your Retirement staking plan goes using the Betfair faves.

Maria's percentage of bank betting IS a flat stake betting method [a flat stake % of bank].

'Progressive betting' is a different animal, one that increases the bet stake after a loss with various degrees of increase etc. which range from very mild to very aggressive.
It's still a loss chasing system and all promoters of them [regardless what the progressive method involves] NEVER call them a 'loss chasing'. Why? Because chasing loses is a well known big punting no no. However, that's exactly what all Progressive staking methods are .... loss chasing systems.

With you, Crash ....in this case anyway lol :) .

Crash, my understanding of the term "level stakes" or "flat stake betting" is betting the same amount from day 1 to whenever.

But as I'm certainly not an ************ on this, I will defer to your explanation.

As a matter of interest, do you (or anyone here) believe betting a percentage of one's bank is/can be superior to betting the same amount every race even if the latter method shows a loss? I know of astute punters who have completely opposing opinions on this.

P.S - the deleted part is the word "e x p e r t"

Got to admit that all the "Target" betting plans I've come across would eventually go bust on that horror run IF you stuck it out to the bitter end.

But I think wesmip1 is introducing safety features in the sense that if a MAXIMUM bank is lost then start again with another bank, reluctantly accepting the loss, with the hope that even accounting for the lost bank(s) you still end up in front, ..... I KNOW that is possible over many thousands of bets over 3 years+ (cos I've done it) and yes I do think that is possible long term.

Partypooper, you've been successful with your method which is reassuring to know. But assuming that you backed every selection for $1 without deviation, would it be showing a loss or profit?

Ok. Try this [many do and believe me they think this magic maths. works too]: Get a credit card and then get a 2nd. credit card to cover the interest payments on the first [eventually] maxed out credit card.Then get a 3rd. credit card to pay the interest payments on the first two [and so on]!

Not a lot different to what is being proposed in this thread as a method of punting.

Multiple banks???? :confused:

If your staking correctly to begin with why on earth would you want multiple banks?

Michaelg, there is a lovely piece of software available for free to play around with. It has about 12 (i think) betting and 4 or 5 lay staking plans built in.
Just Google "The Staking Machine"
Of course they want you to buy it eventually.

I fully agree with this. Thats why we use multiple banks.

crash,

I use to agree with the maths but I have tested it and the results differ to the maths. I dont care if the maths say I will go broke because I might not go broke for 1000 years. The multiple banks add the safety.

Basically I could work out the maths that prove it but I am not going to bother. it basically goes you assume the bank will rise x% of the time. Eventually we go bust no doubt and this will bge y% of the time. If the profit on x% of the time is greater than the lost y% of the time then you have successfully turned a losing system into a profitable one.

For examply I can double my bank 70% of the time using the retirement plan. I will lose my entire bank 30% of the time before I get a chance to double it. Therefore assuming my bank is $1000. 7 out of 10 times I will double it making $7000 in profit (a return of $14,000 with a restart at $1000 every time it doubles). Then 3 out of 10 times I lose the bank of $1000. So:

Starting stake $10,000
Banks at $1000
Profit of $7000
Loss of $3000

Total : $14,000

Profit of $4000 or 40%.

I am happy for you to prove those maths wrong. ( I wrote this quickly so please check it as it may really be wrong).

have Fun.

Hey Crash not as daft as it sounds depending on your age, I read about some American guy who wrote a software programme based on this principle, in the end he knew he would have more than 100 cards owing an absolute fortune especially to Amex (no limit) but that it would take I think it was 20 years for the bubble to burst, in the mean time he lived well, he wasn't too worried as he was already in his 60's hee hee!

Ok so effectively your treating the life of a bank as a single bet. I get you. Interesting approach. I'll nut it over. :)

michaelg, my main betting is place only at level stakes at the present time I am showing just under 10% POT. I also run an aggressive % of (seperate) bank on the same selections which has served me well, (even though I know I will lose several banks over the course of the year) don't know what the pot is there.

But as far as the other thing is concerned I was talking about another plan that I use for win betting, an interesting question though I will burn the midnight oil and answer your query later, just from memory though I think there is a small level stakes profit.

Maths are maths [yet you: 'don't want to bother with the maths'] and 2+2=4 whether you like it or not. Loss chasing system just DO NOT WORK !!!

If you want to believe in magic puddings and fairies at the bottom of your garden, go for it . Life is just too short to argue with you and your ilk.

Well I'm around that age and I'd love to know how the system works[?] I get offers of credit cards on almost a weekly basis [currently her-in-doors and self have a $6,500 card each].

I believe if I go belly up on a pension [I'm a pensioner], the banks can't claim court costs and if I pay something [$1 a week I think is all thats needed] the banks can't even take me to court! lol, lol:-))

Oh I love this thread. Just like the good old days [fire in their bellies]!

Sounds like the same theory of backing both red and black in roulette.
You'll be up and down, but will eventually do your you know whats.

Yeah, I was always bamboozled by the experts telling me that I have to get value which by definition means that I need better odds than the true odds (overs) whilst at the same time we are led to believe that winners and shorteners (unders) are one and the same i.e. "smart money" huh?

Crash I've forgotten the details about that software, but basically the idea was to use a card up to it's limit..... paying the payments from cash advances from another card etc etc but the $ limits he was talking about were way more than you are quoting, just as a matter of interest I have a business Amex with NO- LIMIT (I've never put em to the test, but there is no limit) and a platinum Mastercard with $80,000 limit, I didn't even ask for it, every few months they just send me a notice to say that my credit limit can be increased if I want it, scary.

Thanks, Burrah.

I'll have a look at it.

Rattled a few cages there Wes ;)

I have to say I'm sceptical but if you have indeed found a method of getting even money 70% of the time then more power to you. I still don't understand how you can back and lay the same horse at the same price and make a profit as you stated in your opening post.

Good luck you've injected a bit of life today :)

Crash,

I gave you the maths a few posts back (Post #26)

But to clear things up using proper maths here you go :

Rick Of ruin stats the probability of a run of outs occuring in a given set of runs.
I have chosen 10,000 runs with a win strike rate of 30%. Roughly the win strike rate of favs.

At the retirement plans staking I am using on a $1000 bank you would need a run of 13 consecutive losers to blow your bank.

In a sample of 10,000 races this will happen at least 95 times.

This accounts for 13 * 95 = 1235 of the races. This is 12% of the time. Lets say its double that due to runs of outs that are only brken by 1 win in there somewhere so thats still only 24%.

This leaves you with a 76% success rate for increasing your money in any given series of bets.

Go back to my last post and you will see that if I make a profit 76 times out of 100 and they are at least going to cover the 24% of the time I make a loss then I am going to make a long term profit.

This is obviously a simplified version. Show me the maths where you can prove this is wrong and then give me the result set that proves it is wrong and that it doesn't work as I can provide many result sets where it does work.

I am happy to be proven wrong but at the moment I am the only person showing any maths to prove my point.

Good Luck.

Sorry, but that's 'magic' maths.

You mentioned strike rate but not average win price. Why not?
Because that [well known ] win strike rate for favorites equals an average win price that is just not profitable and every punter with half a brain already knows that [what happened to your progressive staking 'maths'?].

There is NO maths in your post to support your original claims whatsoever, just magic puddings :-))

Crash

With a success rate of 75% i need an avg win price of $1.33

But as i said it is double the bank ( so works out to be $2.00 ).

Does the magic maths work now ?

have fun.