Retirement Staking Plan
 

Hi there, this is my first post, and hopefully one of many. Can anyone help me with the Retirement Staking Plan devised by Barry Hughes? The plan which I downloaded from the web discusses a couple of examples. I understand how to establish the divisor and target, but not quite sure how to determine the size of each bet. His first bet is 1% of his bank which works out to be $100. This loses, so his target becomes 700 but his bet becomes $115. Shouldn't the next bet be 1% of the balance which is $9900? A little confused. Also is this plan only for serious punters, can a novice use it with success?

Its target divided by the divsor.

ie 700 / 6

Hi shamanism welcome

The target is divided by the divisor. The bigger bet tries to recover the loses.

You might want to use the search there has been alot said about this plan and any other lose chasing plan

Cheers

The 1% outlay with the first bet is the to work out ones betting bank needed.

Example .
Say the lowest divisor that one wishes to use is 6/1
Say ones starting target is $60 / 6 = $10 (first bet) = 1% of bank

Therefore bank would have to be $1000

The plan is straight forward but it is very confusing on the site that has the plan.

So I shall try to keep it simple as possible.

Target $60
Starting divisor 6/1
First bet $10 = 1% of bank, so bank should be $1000.
Bank $1000

The divisor is increased by 1 Pt after each loser.
The divisor is reduced by its Fractional odds after each winner as per originator or one can reduce the divisor by its Decimal odds , which makes it a bit more aggressive & recovers quicker.
e.g. Reduce by 5pts for $5 div rather that 4pts as for 4/1 .

Example of divisors used & reduceing using Fractional odds
6 7 8 9 10 11 12w3/1 9 10 11w4/1 7 8w3/1 6w 6w 6w 6 7 ect.
Never dropping below 6/1

The idea is to restart at $60 again, as soon as any profit is made.
e.g. $2+

Ones selection plan has to break nearly even, to make it work using Fractional odds.e.g. 4/1 div. to reduce the divisor

Ones selection plan can afford to have a minus 10-15% LOT at level stakes if using Deciaml odds e.g.$5.00 div. to reduce the divisor.
This is the one I would use.

I hope this makes it a little clearer.

Cheers.

Further running example
$1000 bank.

$60 / 6 = 10 L
$70 / 7 = 10 L
$80 / 8 = 10 L
$90 / 9 = 10 w 2/1 $20prof
$70 / 7 = 10 w 2/1 $20prof

$50. We are now $10 in profit time to start again at $60 / 6.

Cheers.

Thanks guys, that's a big help

This may help your understanding of this plan.

ORIGINAL RETIREMENT STAKING PLAN
The Retirement Staking Plan was devised by Grandstand's racing
analyst Barry Hughes, and is rated by some professional punters
and people who know racing, to be one of, if not the best
staking plan they have seen.
Barry did not invent this plan by accident, it took know how and
hundreds of hours of calculations to get it right.
His aim was to formulate a staking plan that could recoup all
losses, and to show profits, even when a plan only breaks even.
In other words, over a period of time you might have had 80 bets
for 25 winners, you didn't lose, but you didn't win either. H e
also wanted a staking plan that could withstand long runs of
outs and still achieve profits.
He did over a period of time, come up with a staking plan that
did these things, but when he applied it to past results on
several systems, it worked fine on some, but others, not so
good.
He finally came to the conclusion that most staking plans never
took into account the average price of the winners. They may
work on one that has an average price winner of 5-2, and
completely fail on a system with the average price winner of
5-1. The reason being, a system that does average 5-1 winners,
will at some stage be more likely to go through a longer run of
outs than the one that averages 5-2 winners.
The only thing he had to do now was, to work out a staking plan,
with a formula that would suit all plans with different average
price winners.
He finally came up with a staking plan that has a divisor, and a
target, where your first bet is only 1% of your bank And as you
will see he has set this staking plan up in such a way it will
suit any system that shows only small profits, and can also show
more than 15% at break even. It wouldn't matter if your plan
averages 5-2 or 8-1 winners, or anywhere in between. You will
know once you have worked out the average price winner of
whatever plan you are using, how to set up and use The
Retirement Sta king Plan.
First. To work out the average price of the winners, ( and you
should only do this after you have had more than 20 winners),
you total the return of the winners, E.g. 20 winners and the
total return was $100 on the TAB. Then you divide 20 into 100 =
5, so your average price winner is 4-1 as the tote return
includes your dollar invested. This first step is the most
important in setting up the Retirement Staking Plan, it
determines your divisor, and when to bring in your safety
device.
The best way to show you how to set the plan up is in the
following table. First we have a divisor, which is double the
average price winner of the plan you are using, say your average
price winner is 3-1, your divisor would be six. We also have a
tar get. Set up like this:-

First up we know the divisor will be six, double the average
price winner of 3-1, your first bet is 1% of your bank, doesn't
sound much, but just to show how this plan can produce over a
period of time, we have started with a large bank. Now to arrive
at your target, multiply your divisor by your first bet, 6 x 100
= 600. So your divisor is six, target 600, first bet 100, which
is 1% of your bank, all losses are added to your target, and if
you go six without a winner, then start to increase your divis
or by one after each losing bet. Following is what to do when
you have a run of outs.

As you can see, losses were added to the target, and when we
went six without a winner, we increased the divisor, if you do
not, bets get out of hand and jeopardize the most important
thing, the bank.
Look at the bank after six losers 9092, it could still withstand
another 42 without a winner, and that is not because we started
with a 10,000 bank, if you started with a 1,000 bank it would be
the same, as your first bet would have been 1% = $10. By doing
this, the staking plan can withstand 48 without a winner.
Now, after the 4-1, you reduced the target from 2583 to 1723,
you then look back to where your target was close to this amount
and you go back to where your divisor was on 8, so your next bet
is 8 target 1723.
After the 6-1 winner you reduced the target from 2153 to 863, go
back to the third bet when your divisor was six, you know then if
this and the next three lose, you start to increase your divisor
again.
Now each time the bank increases by 200, increase the target by
10, this is another safety device Barry built in to The
Retirement Staking Plan. If you add 10 to your target, you only
increase a bet by $1, which is only .05% of the bank increase,
doesn 't sound much, but over a long period of time, and as the
bets increase, you are safeguarding the bank.
When looking at the results, you will see we outlayed 2988 for a
profit of 172 or 6% on turnover. What happened to the 15% or more
at break even?. The reason for this is ten out of the sixteen
bet's were at level stakes of 215. We will show how this ca n
change when your divisor remains on six.
Now look what happens if the winners fall in a different order.


With the winner at 6-1, we increased the target to 630, and
after the 3-1 winner the profit was 819 with the outlay of 2331
which represents 35% profit on turnover, outstanding results, as
the plan showed no profit at level stakes,16 bets 3 winners ret
urn 16.
Now the thing to remember is, work out the average price winner
then double it, that becomes your divisor. E.g. 5-2 = 5, 3-1 =
6,7-2 = 7, 4-1 = 8, 9-2 = 9, 5-1 = 10. Also the divisor tells
you how many losing bets to go before you increase your divisor
.. Start with 1% of a bank you can afford, and you have a staking
plan that will show 15% at break even, and sometimes more. It
will also, over a period of time as the bets increase, withstand
more than 48 without a winner.
You should now be able to understand why Barry put so much work
into The Retirement Staking Plan, and although he has quite a
few clients that have never looked back since putting this
staking plan to good use, there has only been a few that have
rang to say thanks. Others have sold so called infallible
staking plans for hundreds of dollars, most fail, as they will
not withstand the losing runs, but Barry thinks everyone should
be using this plan, it was offered free of charge.
Hope this is of value to you.

A successful variation is as follows:

Use the plan exactly as Kiwi says BUT group your selections for safety, what I mean by that is you count say the first two bets as one bet .i.e. say your first bet is $100, then put $50 on the first selection and $50 on the second selection, recalculate after the 2nd selection has run, continue the same thing with bets 3&4, 5&6, etc etc

this way youre spreading the risk, even a run of 48 losers is reduced to 24 losing bets.

Now you can take it a step further really go for safety by grouping into 3's, 5's or even 10, so in other words your first bet on the retirement plan is 1/10th of the stake on the first 10 selections then re-calculate.

Another way is call all the days bets as 1 investment (I like this one) i.e. there are 5 selections today so your next bet is 1/5 of the stake on all 5, then at the end of the day re-calculate your next bet (as per the retirement plan) say the next day there are only 2 bets so 1/2 of the stake on each, recalculate at the end of the day again etc etc.

Yep partypooper,the above is a good approach till you get used to the plan.

Start your bets at no more that $1. When your good enough to make a consistent profit increase your bet. It's simple and sage advise that that a non-gambling child who understand that 2+2=4 would agree with.

However, punters are a peculiar fish who have an amazing ability to find ways around believing the above maths apply to THEM [even write essays in forums about the advantages of progressive staking plans to feel more secure in their denial]. They often spend their whole punting lives in a state of perpetual maths denial and make the bookies and TAB shareholders rich, because their in love with long term [creative] financial waste production.

If you fantasize about a loss chasing plan to turn you from a losing punter to a winning punter, get stuck into a progressive staking plan [any one will do, they all lose in the end], and thank you for all your $$$ contributions to the large race pools you are going to contribute too for many, many years, that the 5% of winning punters joyously scoop from!

G'day Crash, for most of the time you are probably right, but this plan is designed to improve from "BREAK EVEN" so I have it down as pretty safe, especially if the extra safety measures as I outlined are incorporated, so I see it as a bet to nothing, in the sense that if it performs as normal you will at least break even , if you do well then ,...you do better.

In fact it's not that far removed from 1% of bank (level stakes) never reducing, that has to be pretty conservative doesn't it?

Are you claiming to be part of that 5% crash? Just curious.

What ever floats your boat crash.
If your in the top 5%, good luck, and that goes for anybody else who claims to be.:rolleyes:

partypooper,

I like your suggested modifications to the staking method. Its a very interesting adjustment that makes the plan more conservative.

Thanks for that ... I might just look into it a bit more.

Good Luck.

Top Rank,

I've never claimed to be in or out of the 5%. I might have claimed I have done OK over this or that period, but a consistently profitable punter?

The only thing I have claimed is I'd hate to be a professional punter living off the punt [even if good enough]. Not all profitable punters though are living off the punt. Probably about .05% of punters.

Bragging rights on forums are cheap. Over the years claims of X amount of long term profits from this or that selection or staking system or from personal form study etc. have been endless here. However, what you will never see from most of these claimants is selections up front. In fact I don't remember ever seeing even one of them enter a punting comp. let alone put up their selections [pre-post] over a decent period in this or the other section of this forum. Of course when asked they mostly say they select and bet just before the jump [funny that]. Naturally, too late to put up selections pre-post. So they don't have to prove anything :-))

Once I put up daily tips for about 3 to 4 mths. from my form study [not a system]. So about 90 or so days of selections. The end result from recollection was around 33% POT for the period.
I stopped with the tips because one sour punter [obviously not following the tips :-)) ] basically accused me of 'cheating' after one of my selection got up at $28w. These were all pre-race tips [many of them at very good odds]. I mean, I was whacking all the tips up early in the morning! End of my daily selections of course. The thread is searchable and I think Party remembers it.

So, am I part of the 5% of profitable punters? 3mths. of daily tips at excellent profit might just have been a 'lucky' run from a poor punter or a high point in another good year from a good punter[?]
Results, some very good indeed and others not so good from comps. I run or enter aren't conclusive of anything either.

So sorry Top Rank, I can't answer the loaded? :-)) question you've asked, unless I can prove my answer and any idiot can make up a fake long term profit and loss record. I can only prove what happens to my pre-post selections I put up in the forum, nothing else.

Sorry Kiwi, your making false claims here, not this boy.

If not, please present any post where I have made the claims of being among the top 5% of punters as you say I have. Your the one doing the fibbing here.

Party,

I'm pretty sure it's fairly safe too. My point really is: TAB and Bookies have all the time in the world and even the most timid and [almost] safe progressive staking system will hit a long run of outs and go belly up. If it's that close to 1% of bank punting, why bother?

Crash i used, if you are, i did not say that you said you were in the top 5%.

Most people i know who win, get inside stable info.

We had a source for a while and won handsomely.The guy passed on, and we went back to hit and miss.

Recently i have been winning following jockeys.Sooner or later the good run will end, that is punting.

I intend using PP's modification to lessen the impact when the losing streak happens.

Crash, yes I remember your nags doing eally well, and in fact you and I had a bit of a tipping comp for the place where you beat me hands down as well. Not taking anything away from that but I agree it doesn't prove much as you(anyone) could win for 2 years and then lose the lot in 1. I used to back the nags like that in the uk, you know all guts, it really scares me now, I've calmed down with old age.

Why bother with the retirement plan, well it provides a goal and keeps yer interested doesn't it?

Well it WAS your challenge Party, not mine [ serves you right :-)) ].

And yep, short term results prove nothing. I studiously avoid making [unprovable] claims about punting prowess and yes your right, for some punters a very non-aggressive staking plan is a good interest if no big money is involved.

My original post on page one here to a new punter query, was obviously a tongue-in-cheek warning about listening to the loss-chasing staking preachers, who are certain the method generates profit from loss, or more long term profit than level stakes % of Bank betting.

First you need to google to find this in a readable form.


Now, how verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry convenient that in the 2nd example the 3 wins miraculously happened on bets of $215, $185 and $195 the highest, 2nd highest and equal 3rd highest stakes.

And in the 1st example the winners came up on the last, 2nd last and 5th last bets.

Got out on the last both times. That's handy too.

I'm a bit with you I think JFC. I like the way the average SP was set at 3-1 yet much larger prices were used in the example. I've never used the plan so will not offer any comment other than by the looks of things if you substitute 3-1 for the prices used in the example, you'd still be behind. Only worked it in my head though.

All these loss chasing plans are garbage. The examples always look GREAT and are ALWAYS conveniently profitable in the nick of time!

I've presented the maths equation here recently from a mathematician that no progressive staking plan can ever work long term. That most punters can't understand the maths [neither can I] is irrelevant. The fact that no mathematician has disagreed with or challenged the proof presented on such a well known maths. site should mean something to anyone with half a brain.

lol, lol.

Crash do you think a lose chacing plan will work if you have a system that brakes evan?

No it won't. Here is something else to really spin a few heads: A progressive staking plan will not improve the winnings of a PROFITABLE flat staking system [let alone a non-profitable one]! Long term you will win no more than % of bank flat stakes.

I'd suggest punters visit a few advanced maths sites like 'Dr Maths' etc. OK you won't understand the maths [me neither] unless you majored in maths for a degree, but you will understand the conclusions and the one I've just mentioned above is another one of them.

crash,

If you use a loss chasing plan on a system that is returning a POT it will always have a better result on the original bank but not on turnover.

Your result on profit on turnover will be roughly the same. This is true. But your profit on the initial bank will be drastically improved due to the higher turnover.

It all depends on what you are comparing.

Good Luck.

Apples and Apples I hope. LOT or POT profits and losses are both magnified by progressions. ...tilt.

Crash is definitly right on this one in the sense, that say you have a progresssion (just for exampe) 1,3,5,7,10,14, 18, 25, having a ave SP of 3-1, (and a pot of say 20% at level stakes) so over a long, long period you would have bet 1 unit 500 times, 3 units maybe 450 times, 5 units say 400 times, etc etc, in every case the ave. SP still remains at 3-1, and the POT 20%.

But there is another aspect here, it's how it sit's with the individual, I mean it regulates your betting and keeps your attention.

Many punters including myself b4) tend to back according to what they have in their pocket at that moment, $10, $30, $100 $10 $20, etc etc disaster, inevitably you end up with $10 on the winners and $50 on the losers.

A good way to have a 'sort of' staking progression that isn't loss chasing, is to bet regarding overlay value [a value chasing progression]. You must however be familiar with working out your own priceline on say the first five favorites. From your top 2 or 3 winning chances work out if any of them are an overlay. If more than 3 chances or no overlays [value], forget the race.

If there is an overlay winning selection, you use a flat bet standard [whatever % of bank/pocket you use]. Lets say its $10. You apply to your staking an overlay value progression of say +1, +2, +3 [more if you like]. You could also use A,B,C etc.

Each unit is say $5 [+1], $10 [+2], $15 [+3]. If you think 1 of the runners is an overlay you decide by how much [set a % scale]. If you think the horse is a 20% overlay you add $5 [+1] to your $10 flat bet, 50% would be +$10 [+2] to your $10 flat bet and 70% or more would add $15 [+3], a $25 bet.

If you decide 2 out of the 3 winning possibles are overlays, always back the one you consider the bigger overlay, not the one you 'like' or 'think' might win. 50% of the time you will be wrong, so go with the bigger overlay runner!

The above is pretty much how I often stake my bets. The bigger the overlay[value] the bigger the bet. The idea is that when you win your 1 out of 4 or 5 or whatever your SR is, your staking money is winning [when it wins] on your best overlays at the best outlay. Your getting the best value for your punting $$$.

exactly partyp, a fact seemingly lost on or overlooked by those with other agendas

the retirement plan is very tame as far as these plans go, but lo & behold, YES you still need to pick a regular winner to make it work...amazing but true!

With level stakes betting , one also have to pick a winner or two.
So we are back to square one again.

Here is a modified version of the Retirement plan.
Start the divisor at 6 then use in lots of 2 ...say target is $60.
6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 ect.
Regress one pt after each winner.
Restart once any profit is made.

Example of divisor used.
6 6 7 7 8 8 9w 8 8 9 9w 8 8w 7 7w 6 6w 6w 6w ect.
Never drop below divisor 6

$1000 bank
60 / 6 = 10
70 / 6 = 12
82 / 7 = 12
94 / 7 = 13
104 / 8 = 13
117 / 8 = 15w 2/1 $30
87 / 7 = 12
99 / 7 =14
113 / 8 = 14w 2/1 $28
85 / 7 = 12
97 / 7 = 14w 2/1 $28
69 / 6 = 12
81 / 6 = 14
95 / 7 = 14
109 / 7 = 16
125 / 8 = 16w 2/1 $32
93 / 7 = 13 w 2/1 $26
67 / 6 = 11
78 / 6 = 13
91 /7 = 13
104 / 7 = 15 w 2/1 $30
74 / 6 = 12 w 2/1 $24

50. Now in profit by +$10 O/L $290 = +3.45% POT. Time to start again.
Average bet size $13.18
Level stakes -1 = -4.5% LOT. $13 level stakes bets O/L 286 = -$13 Loss
7 from 22 = 32% SR
Chasing IAS Favs.

One could go back 2 pts if a 4/1 shot gets up. (Optional)

If the bets start making you feel un-easy, simply add two points to the divisor.

I diliberatly used 2/1 to make it difficult & also to avoid the one big paying winner thing, that commercial products throw in to make prospective punters eyes go big.
I am assuming ones average selections picks the odd 4/1 winner, to make this plan kick along.
Try it out on ones past results to see if it suits ones style.

If used properly, there is a greater chance of showing a profit over say a week using a sensible selection criteria, than most level stakes selection plans.


SELECTIONS
If your selections suck big time , one may like to check out this idea.
Target your favorite tipsters first selection, most tipsters SR are 25% accross the board through out the year.

Now, only bet their first selection if it's paying $3.20+ at jump time ,any less & its a no-bet for that race.
The reason for this , is that it is a bad idea to chase bad value.
You will also see how many of the short priced horses actually dont win.
e.g. Desert War at $2.20, its a certanty , cant lose , maybe the 2nd Fav at $2.90 is a threat.
Result , both fell over, beaten by some box headed thing at big odds..
At that price , they deserve to be both ignored.

Cheers.

Well that's a convenient example. All your winners are on the high bets and all your losers at on the low bets :-))

Nice system!

Would you like to demo that with the same amount of up-front selections?

lol, lol.

yee gods crash, now i know your not that simple...or do i?

Simple Simon .....whatever turns your key.

Is this guy some sort of simpleton?.
It's an example for goodness sake , any one can see that.

Why does he want it turned inside out & upside down.?

Unbeleivable !

Especially when he has openly expressed that he does not believe in progressive staking plans.
So why ask?

Maybe he wants to use this site as a vehicle for his constant nit-picking at the expence of others & not replacing what he has denegrated , with something better.
Maybe it's done just to be nasty.

Hi Bhagwan

Do you have an example of the retirement staking plan for place betting?

Seeing as favourites come up app. 66% of the time would not this give you a strike more often?

The only thing is working out a proper divisor, target & also when to apply brakes so bets do not get out of hand.

Target Divisor Bet

60	1.2	50
110	1.2	92
202	1.2	168

The example above shows our divisor aty 1.2 but after 2 losses the next bet would be $168. the bets are getting a bit to high 7 if a winner comes in at 1.50 the profit is not enough to bring the bet down substantially

Target Divisor Bet Dividend Return Profit

60	1.2	50	0	0.00	-50.00
110	1.2	92	0	0.00	-92.00
202	1.2	168	0	0.00	-168.0o
370	1.2	308	1.5	462.15	154.05
216	1.2	180	0	0.00	-180.00

As you can see bets are still to high. you would need a few strikes in a row to get it down

Maybe someone can come up with a plan to insert a brake maybe up one point after 2 losses.

Do not take anything personal Bhagwan as the critics have been proved wrong before. I personally have always enjoyed your threads as they make me think.

keep posting

Savage, I'm no ************ on this plan, but I'm not sure that it is NOT designed for place betting? but your example uses all 1.2 (which happens I know) but the average would be around $1.50c wouldn't it?

( that was ecs pert)

Hi partypooper

I presume it would depend on what the threshold would be. e.g. If paying under $1.40 the place then no bet. but this would probably reduce strike rate.

Maybe wesnip would have these figures.

One thing I have noticed with this plan is that you need plenty of strikes without a long run of outs. my longest run of outs was 3 anymore & the nerves come into play as the bets get quite large.

In the win only situation the plan suggests a brake at 6 losses. This would have to change for places, maybe after 2 losses up the divisor by one.

I have to try bhagwan's suggestion. but he was dealing with wins only

Any thoughts would be appreciated

Savage
I think you've got your divisor wrong.
1.2 is far too agressive. The purpose of the plan, as explained in the Ray Spargo post, is to make a number of bets whose total reach your desired odds level. So if the average odds were $1.20, multiply by say 5 to give a round odds of 6.
This becomes the divisor, so that when a total of six bets @ $1.20 are won, no matter how many losses in between, the objective would be reached.
At $1.20 (~83% strike rate) the longest run of outs should be no more than 3 - 4.
http://www.cdsystems.uk.com/don't_go_broke!.htm

Hi Burrah

The way I came up with $1.2 was adding up 20 strikes & dividing by number of races multiply by 2

I agree that it is very aggressive.

Can you tell me how to establish a proper divisor?

Thanks