Staking Plans
 

Hi just a quick question from a new contributor to this forum.I have been searching the web for a good staking plan and was wondering if anyone had any advice.Does the strike rate and average dividend matter for all selection types or is there an "all round" plan that is suitable for all types of betting?I have read a bit about the Diabolical Staking Plan and the Power of Ten?Has anyone used these and have any feedback or advice.
Thanks in advance.

I have used both with good results.

I prefer target betting myself favoring the 6 Point Divisor plan.

The correct formula ( made after each 100 bets)
is.

Expected win % x expected win odds x .08

Cheers.
darky

Don't pay for somthing free just do a search of this forum for staking plans

I've been trying to get this across for many years without success, but I feel impelled to try again.

OK so no matter what the staking plan, over many many thousands of bets you would end up with so many hundreds @ stake "a". so many hundreds of bets @ stake "b" etc etc etc do you agree? eg. say you were to stake 1,3,7,15,31 etc increasing after a loser (just for an excercise) so....... after many thousands of bets you would have several hundred @ $1, several hundred @ $3, several hundred @ $7 etc etc etc get the point?

Well the point is that they would have to show a profit at levels anyway so you may as well have divided the TOTAL amount staked by the number of bets and bet at level stakes, say $10 on each levels.

Make no mistake if it doesn't show a profit at levels it is DOOMED!

I can agree with you there, and the next step if it does show a profit is a percentage of back, that way as the bank grows so does the bets.

Agreed! so let's say 1% of the bank never decreasing betting level stakes, now you're talking!

With most staking plans it is usually best to start at the beginning as soon as any profit is made. No matter how small.

That way there is less chance of being caught out on a loosing run of no return due to bank being descimated.

Here is one staking plan that will show a profit if one restarts as soon as any profit is made & requires the punter to be able to hit upon a result that hits approximatly half the odds at level stakes to break even.

2 Step Ladder Progression.
Bet 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 ect.
If a winner is struck that does not put us in profit, repeat that bet.
Recommended bank $1000
This allows for 61 outs in a row.

From the above example out of say 12 bets, a $7.00 winner on the 12th bet or say 2 winners at $3.50 on the 11th & 12th bet, would have us break even , where at level stakes , we would still be behind.

To make any staking plan work , one must have the ability to strike winners , even betting level stakes .

Here is the 60 Pt Target plan.
Divisor is 60 to start with , to a target of say $100 plus any future losses. Using a bank of $200

We reduce the divisor by the winners dividend + 1 , so as to calculate the next divisor, e.g. 60 - ($3.00 div + 1) = new divisor 56
We stay on this divisor until another winner is struck ,before reducing the divisor accordingly.

It is a good idea to start again once half of the target , has been acheived
e.g. $50 , that way one is not risking resources to get the other $50 because one will see that the bets start getting higher to acheive the remaining $50

With this plan, one could have 60 loosers in a row & still have plenty left over to continue.

A good source of winners can be had by targeting a reliable tipster's top 2 selections & betting the horse with the best place percentage between
1%-69%

Let us all know what your findings are based on past results.

Cheers.

My belief is that the margins on win betting are too slim to profit using level stakes.
But everyone to their own.

Cheers.
darky.

G'Day Darky, yes I know where you are coming from, its seems popintless to try to make 3 or 4% doesn't it??? I used to think like that. I heard a quote from a bookie one day in England, he said most punters go to the track with $100 and expect to make a $1000, whereas the bookies go to the track and expect to make $100 for every $1000 taken to the track.

With staking plans, you need to compare the PROFIT ON TURNOVER, eg. say we have a progression 1,3,7,15,31 stop at a winner, so bet no 5 wins @ 1-1, so you are $1 in front but you have invested $57 = 1.75% POT, yes I know with this example you would be 3 points down at levels, but we are talking about the situation after many thousands of bets.

Just for an excercise, have a look at a plan where you are using a staking plan, add up the total amount you have bet divide by the number of bets and see what the POT would have been if you'd just bet the lot at level stakes.

eg. total amount bet = $2500 total no of bets was 100 , so what would have been the pot if youd just put $25 level stakes on each??

I'm sure that you will find that the POT doesn't alter, so what's the point in betting with a staking plan??

Just throwing brain cells around (the few that are left hee hee)

Very true party,and here is another thought, take a look at that staking plan after say 15 losses in a row and see how far down you are compared to flat stakes.

Spot on Shaun.

Punters championing staking plans only see the up side, as in hitting winners with the higher bets, not losers. Party was dead right in his first and second post. Any maths site destroys progressive staking arguments. Progressives can win but only by chance outcome. However, they will always eventually lose and lose badly. Races are not connected, but many punters think they are [it's an emotional thing] so we invent the progression based on pseudo-maths.
There is no more reason that a 7th bet after 6 losers will be a winner anymore than another loser. If a loser is hit on the highest stake in a progression, bad luck if your next winner is at the lowest bet, the beginning of the progression!

Progressives are no more than a game of chance, not a road to turning level stakes loses into profits, if they could the 98% of losing punters would all be rich and that would be the end of punting!

Progressive staking plans can work but they need to be used only when their is a very high strike rate (at least 75%+ probably higher) as they can not handle long runs of outs.

It is the run of outs tht kill the progression plan. If you can limit the run of outs to 5 to 10 then they can be useful. It also won't add much more then 5% to the level stakes total so it won't bring a losing system into profit unless itis showing 95% + on level stakes.

Good Luck.

imho while i agree that staking plans will not turn a losing method into a winner, i have been using the retirement plan for my win betting for a few years now & find it works well & gave me what i had previously been lacking with my punting - DISCIPLINE

so if one is to go down the staking plans route then my only suggestion would be to find something not too aggressive, boring almost, the retirement plan or variation of same fit that bill

party's suggestion of 1% of bank non reducing also works as well, in fact 0.5% is even better & what i use for my place betting

"Wilsons proof" Allan Wilson provided a mathematical proof of the fallacy that a progression can overcome a negative expectation.

What is common to all progressive believers is they first draw the conclusion that progressive sytems can win and then look for 'evidence' that their conclusion is right. Meanwhile ignoring all other evidence to the contary.

For a deaperlook at progressions [and 'Wilson's proof'] try here:

:http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/progress/progress.htm

"All of the systems described have many variations, but they all purport to give a person the edge in a negative expectation game. The fact is, they don't. No amount of tweaks, twists or twiddling is going to make them winning systems.
Any system that relies on a betting progression to beat a negative expectation game just means, in reality, that you are putting more money on the table than you would flat-betting and, thus, losing more. If, as in many blackjack games [or horse racing], a basic strategy player can expect the house to have a half a percent advantage, the fact is, he is losing one half percent of each bet he makes. The more he bets, the more he loses. I know. I have bet each one of these systems at one time or another, and I've never won a dime in the long run. Sort of led me into card counting. I got tired of losing."

Just for a bit of fun I ran my WIZ PUNT through the bets at $20 Level stakes .

6 point divisor plan .Av bet size $20 /Bank now $1942.


Level stakes $20.

Outlay $1520 /NETT $1534 /Bank now $3054 /Profit over 76 bets .
$1000 starting bank.

Cheers.
darky.

point taken there darky on that particular example, but to anylize further, more than 100% profit on turnover at level stakes is fantastic why would you want to bet any other way?

Another thing, is: with the divisor method, what was the total amount bet over those selections? divided by the total number of bets ? i.e. average bet size? greater than $10 or less?

Sorry Darky our posts crossed there.

Which proves?

Which proves ?

1/ A great shock to the system for me.

2/ I might have to reasess my staking plan with this system.

Cheers.
darky.

Darky,

I think it proves mate you have a profitable selection ability or system, not a profitable progression system [your not turning loss into profit]!

Hi folks...just googling staking plans and came across the thread :)

I wonder if PelicanPete, when he talks of a staking plan is really talking of a betting plan to build the bank?

That's certainly my current query.

I have a method I've followed closely since late last year and put money down since Feb this year. Over 100 bets later I'm showing a profit and POT which I'm happy with. Therefore I'm not interested in trying to increase the % but trying to work out the best way to go about building my bank.

darkydog can I ask...when you talk of the 6 Point Divisor Plan are you referring to something similar to the Retirement Staking Plan and are you able to expand on the plan and how to use your formula mentioned?

cheers

'I prefer target betting myself favoring the 6 Point Divisor plan.
The correct formula ( made after each 100 bets)
is.
Expected win % x expected win odds x .08'

'Target betting' isn't it?

Hi Steve M

The 6 Point divisor plan bears no resemblance to Grandstands.

Re the CORRECT formula for TARGET betting as an example .
35 % Win % X Av dividend 3.3/1 ( $4.30) X .08 =
MAXIMUM DIVISOR 9.24( say 9) MINIMUM DIVISOR 3.3 ( equal to your av dividend odds).

Reasess every 100 bets.

CORRECT BANK for Target betting is 40 times the target you want .
i.e Target $100 /Bank Required $4000

Cheers.
darky.

I've thinking about this thread more and STUGOTS is right about DISCIPLINE, when I think about it , that's the process that changed my way of betting as well, I went through the Target betting stage, then the staking plan stage, and only when I disected the result of that thoroughly, realised that there is no point in a staking plan............ just increase the level stakes instead, and sleep much better!

Partypooper.
Couldn,t agree more re discipline.Without that we,re sunk.

Cheers.
darky.

100% correct Party but regardless, many losing punters at flat stakes will draw the conclusion that there must be some magical way to beat the bookies by tweaking their betting method. Even a Professor of mathematics won't sway them ...they are BELIEVERS [it's all a bid sad really]. All they can do with staking plans is bet more and eventually lose more. If they could come up with a betting strategy that could turn a loss into a profit, all casinos and bookies would go broke.

Seems that most of us here are starting to understand the realities of the mathematics BUT, I am now going to astound you (in true Gemini style) by advocating a small side bank to the same selections that we are betting at level stakes (or 1% of bank etc) the exact size of this side bank depends on the average SP of the horses you back. In my case most of the nags I back (for the win) are between 3-1 and 10-1)

So I have a small side bank of $50 and I bet 1/5 of the bank never decreasing, in sequence and when there isn't sufficient funds to make that 5th bet (i.e. 4 losers @ say $30 on each then we only have $26 dollars left) then we abandon that bank and start a new sequence with a $50 bank betting 1/5 again.

Why do I do this? well the main reason is to curb the boredom of level stakes, a bit of fun, and the other is to hopefully "cash in" on those amazing runs that we all have some time, you know what I mean, how the winners always seem to come in bunches, but without doing much damage when we break the bank (very often)

Eg. L,L,2-1, L, 4-1, 5-1, L, L , 8-1, L,L,L 3-1, L, 5-1,6-1,L 5-1, L, L 4-1 this sequence hit $1029 in the bank after the last bet, so I quit and started again with a $50 bank and so on.

I stress that is just run along side my normal betting activities which is :LEVEL STAKES BETTING.

And before anyone says it NO this is not a typical run ovedrall (of course) but the wins do come in similar clumps sometimes.

We'll partypooper I'm astounded .....Bank of $50 betting 1/5th -never decreasing ...sofar so good ...then there's 4 losers with $30 on each of them ...way over my head ...back to the form guide for me

Many thanks for the info Darky :)

Having read http://www.propun.com.au/forums/showthread.php?t=9181

So to understand, do you choose the figure of your Miximum Divisor to get your own divisor as per the Six Point Divisor Plan? Where does the Min Divisor fit into things?

Cheers

Draw a conclusion [progressive stakings wins], ignore the real maths and look for a pseudo-math that agrees with the losing punters conclusion ..money for nothing [from loss to profit]. The Casinos and bookies are about to go broke. Whahaaah!

Reded, sorry it was all too much for ya mate, but I havn't done much in the way of rocket science lately.

The EXAMPLE was: that IF after a few winners, your $50 bank had grown to $150 so your next bet is $30 ...... so after a loser or 2 then a winner or two your bank stood at $146 so your next bet is still $30 (remember NEVER decreasing) so you then have 4 losers @ $30 on each so your bank is depleted to $26 (i.e. insifficient funds for the next/last scheduled bet of $30) so you then abandon the sequence and start again with another $50 bank. and $10 bets.

If you are wondering why I do this, I can tell you that it all depends how the winners/losers fall & what price and when you started, I've had several cases where the bank stood at say $876, with bets at $250 then hit 3 losers, (not enough for another bet of $250) so I started again with $50 and pocketed the remainder of the bank which was in this case $126, so even though the bank was broken, I didn't lose the lot.

The $50 by the way is just by means of example, betting 1/5 , if you are a high roller then maybe you would start with $500 and $100 bets??

I'm currently testing one of my systems by using a staking approach of multiplying the average dividend by the strike rate (e.g. 35% S/R x $5.00 average div = 1.75). Calculated after each day's racing, so next race day I would bet 1.75% of the bank on each selection.

The actual example for today for the system I am testing is 1.91% of bank for the win (34.38% x $5.55) and 1.34% of bank for the place (68.75% x $1.91).

I'm not real flash at the mathematical side of things, so I would welcome any comments on the sense or otherwise of using this staking method.

A sensible approach for a side bank that adds interest. 1/5th of bank [20%].
Simple and safe version of percentage betting, not progressive betting.

It's that discipline again, sounds practical to me, level stakes but constantly up-dated. It does remind me of something from Trevor Hindmarsh (think that's his name) had something to do with the Wizard I remember, anyway he advocated this correlation between S/R and ave. divi.

Steve M

MINIMUM divisor must NEVER fall below that figure.

Remember your taking the ODDS of winners off your MAXIMUM divisors and what divisors are left thereafter.BUT never go below your MINIMUM divisor.

In the case of the 6 point plan the MINIMUM divisor is 2.

In my approach IF the stake exceeds the target I am aiming for I add another MAXIMUM divisor for safety reasons.

i.e TARGET $60 bet size $62 I add another 6 to the remaining divisor.

Hope that helps.
Cheers.
darky

ps .A mate bets level stakes and adds the square root of any profit to the bet.
Horses for courses I guess/

Thanks for that partypooper

just a further thought on this one, I spent many, many hours trying to turn a slight loss into a slight profit, with a staking plan (i.e. when I got real , I am happy with 4% POT)
The time was better spent weeding out that the types of selections that were definitly not profitable over a long period of time eg. Races for Mares & Fillies only, horses ridden by a 3kg claimer etc etc.

Then concentrating on getting the best possible odds, i.e. say your method shows a slight loss say 2% on turnover, and you have 1000 bets a year of $100 each, so you will lose $2000, for an argument say your S/R is 30% so in this example your average divi is $3.27........ NOW concentrate on getting 10% better odds by using betfair, Best Tote, bookies etc, IF you achieve it, you will return 300 winners @ $3.6 = $8000 PROFIT (8%) talking averages of course! With exactly the same selections!!

sound logic once again there partyp,

getting the best price one can certainly is the way to go, i would add that also attempting to identify when a selection represents poor value & passing not just backing at any old price just because the 'system' says so is worth some thought.

with regards to best price, time constraints of late have often meant ive had to place most of my bets on well before start time (which i normally hate doing because it meant betting with the tab), but i have had a go at betfairs 'sp' & so far its held up when compared to tote prices.

some of the shorties have been under but the longer priced nags have all paid over the tabs, on one ocassion >$5 better :) , interested if anyone else has had a go?

ahh! the question of "Value" all things to all men. I mean say a selection is showing $1.50 for the win and $1.20c for the place, there is an argument that is good value for the place, but does that stand up statistically? I mean if we take ALL starters @ $1.50c what % are placed ? if the answer comes up @ less than 85%, there is an argument to say that it is NOT good value as you would lose overall, hee hee! I'm just being naughty here! of course there's a myriad of other parameters that have to looked at as well.

But just for further food for thought , STUGOTS, I also have to place some bet's well b4 racing, so I always use Best Tote, or if the selection is also pre-post fav I take Top Fluc, I seem to get some great "overs" doing that, I would be interested if anyone has actual figures to show a definite advantage?

Thats just crap, becau se you know on cups and group races that evey aaaaaa horse is trying to win not just having a a run.

PartyP be interesting to be able to compare the 2 over time, Best Tote & Betfair SP,

just to illustrate my point i snagged Happy Honey today 1st at Bendigo - the tabs paid around $17-$19, BFSP delivered me $23

those 2yold maidens - got to love em:)