Wine from Water... can it be done ?
 

POT from LOT... can it be done ?

eg turning a loosing strategy into a winner over the longer term by changing the way one stakes the selections, without changing the selection method itself.

Many times I have seen the merest suggestion of this gunned down on here. Can't seem to remember if anyone has actually provided the gunpowder to back up their stand being common sense, maths, statistics ??

That you, Blondie ???


Cheers LG

I think it was Partypooper that provided this commonsense explanation originally. It went something like this:

Lets say you have a strategy that loses 3% on turnover. And you play this strategy over a long period, say 20 years to eliminate the chance of variance in the results. So over the 20 year period it loses 3% on turnover.

Now, over this 20 year period, the bets you have 1 unit on will probably lose 3%, and the bets you have 2 units on will probably lose 3% as well, and the bets you have 3 units on will lose 3% as well.... on and on it goes. No matter how you work it, the results will even out over a long period and the same loss on turnover should apply across the board.

Makes sense to me.

You should ask Useless Bettor how his sports target betting approach ended up.

It may depend on what you are doing. Maybe staking to win a set amount or laying to liability may be a better option as, in the case of backing, you are then putting more on the lower priced horses which, theoretically, should win more often than the higher priced ones.

Having said that you will still be winning or losing x% of races.

Im still betting my harness and thouroughbred selections (and certain sports) using the fibonacci plan. But I have to admit its actually showing a very small level stakes profit though.

I have doubled the bank several times now without losing a bank yet. It will happen at some point but until then I will enjoy the spoils.

Do you ask for the Weather Forecaster to provide gunpowder?
Once the answer is provided by respectable and authoritative and knowledgeable ecksperts in the Field , then thats that.
You don't need to know how it works.
Just that it does or doesn't , and then move on to something useful.

Interesting feedback. Perhaps replace the 'You' with 'I' given that this would be your point of view (i.e. relating to yourself), whereas some of us are somewhat more inquisitive and like to get to the heart of the matter.

As far as I'm concerned.. this is useful to know - hence my question, and this thread.

Some very interesting feedback to date, thanks chaps!

LG

LG,

It can be done with a small loss at level stakes and a high strike rate. You wouldn't want to be losing more than 5% though or it will hurt you and you need a very high strike rate to make it work (85%+).

These 2 things mean the inevtiable losing run is usually going to be few and far between and you can take advantage of the winning runs in between.

A losing run will come that knocks out your bank. It just depends on how many times you can double your bank before the losing run strikes.

Excellent input. Thanks UB.

I assume that being well over-capitalised from the outset and seeking superior dividends are crucial to pull off this kind of strategy eg 2-5 x minimum bank and BF SP ?

Cheers LG

So you are a Professor of Mathematics then?
Show LG the bit about HOW IT WORKS , after all , that is why he posted the thread.

UB ticks all boxes in my book, having provided HOW IT WORKS on an earlier thread this year which I followed with interest, at the time. His update above is further clarification of how this strategy is still working for him = proof of the pudding. It is also in direct response to my question at the outset of this thread

As a credible source of information, there is ample proof on here - he rates at the very top imho

Cheers LG

PS If UB is Professor in anything, it would be as a senior academic of the high SR system with a gearing strategy and matching money management plan in place. Add to that a dose of realism and propensity to share his learned experiences and in these respects... yes, he is a 'professor'!

I think the larger the bank size the more you can challenge a losing system into a winning one. Its not that the system will not make profit - its a matter of running out of money.

So what you do Vortech , is take your Folder of notes of the Process of how the slightly losing System can be converted into a winning System and show it to your Bank Manager.
I'm sure he would be as pleased as Punch to borrow you the money , and then some.

Proof here :

http://www.propun.com.au/racing_for...ead.php?t=25084

More Proof here (laying):

http://www.propun.com.au/racing_for...ead.php?t=25151


The first thread was followed live online for over a month and showed a profit.
With 120 winners, 24 seconds, 8 Thirds, 5 Unplaced from 156 selections.

The second thread was followed for


1313 selections
Current Sequence is 1
Max Sequence was 55
Biggest drawdown -55.57
Lowest Bank Level -6.31
Profit/Loss = $96.06 Profit

Yes- mooee.

So UB has turned a losing level stakes system into a winning one. It can be done. The next statement by UB though is also very important to consider.

A bloke would be here for a million years reading all those posts and verifying the truth in them , if it was even possible.

I'll stick with what Raven said.

And I will refrain from posting for a while.
There is no point.
Punters are a stubborn lot and just won't be told.
ME INCLUDED.

Xmas came late for many posters on here but it was worth it!

So you only want members to post how clever you are?

My efforts are to educate and to bring to earth those lost souls that have erred and strayed from a winning path.
Its obvious very few members want this to be pointed out.
Their pride gets hurt and they start flailing their arms and send TOU's.

LG,

The Strategy I use for loss recovery is as follows:

1. Determine the average number of losses for your system and the maximum losing streak (6-12 months of data required). eg. average = 3, max. = 10.

2. Your loss recovery should incorporate a stop loss point, ie. avg + 1 = 4. We do not want to chase all of our losses or you will bust your bank.

3. Develop a multiplier for loss recovery tailor made to your betting system. Don't just rely on fibonaci or other well known systems. Your recovery multipliers should not be too agressive ie. recover your losses only and not try to achieve a profit as well.

4. Most importantly keep your stakes small to deal with the run of losses. For example using an initial stake of $10 or $20 and not $100 or $1000 will mean that your outlay after 4 losses will not be too stressful.

I would not use loss recovery for any system that has a winning strike rate of less than 50%.

Analysis of yesterdays betting data showed a level stakes LOT of 4.68% which I turned into a 4.61% POT using loss recovery.

I wonder if it is possible that had you selected a number of days , rather just yesterday , and whether your recovery idea actually turned a winning day level stakes into a losing day.

moeee,

I have shown proof of it working already over more then 1 day.
It does work. You need to understand its limitations and when it can and can not be used.

The limitations are :

1. You do not have an endless supply of money, so
2. it will eventually bankrupt your bank.

Looking at this you need to know

a) how much you can stake intially and how it can be incremeted and ;
b) multiple banks

Your aim with a progressive staking plan is to double your bank before you bankrupt your bank. If you can double your bank 2,3 or 4 times and only then lose your initial bank you will end up in a profit.

Mathematically you lose long term.
Mathematically you also win short term.

You are trying to achieve more in the short term wins then the long term loss with the understanding that any profits you make are seperate to your betting bank.

If your Recovery System was worth more than a grain of salt , then you should be able to go to Crown Casino and play Roulette and win a fortune on the Odds and Evens.
And another Fortune on the Red and Black.
BUT YOU CAN"T.

You can't turn a Losing System into a winning one with ANY wagering series.

Anyway - I'm done with this.
I know what I know.

Re read what I said earlier. In order for it to work you need :

1. A low loss level of 5% of less. This might be the case in roullete. I don't play it.
2. A high strike rate of at least 85%. This is not the case in roulette.

Based on the second condition above for roulette a loss chasing staking plan will not work. So yes you are correct in regards to roulette but you are generalising all gambling into the same category.

There are some punters who realise all gambling is not the same and that you can pick niche areas in which to profit. Build up enough niche areas and you are going to have a nice set of diversified bets which will be profitable long term.

Yes you are right UB.
My only concern is my Methods and I keep forgetting that other people are not doing what I am doing.

And thats a good thing.
Informed wagering ALWAYS wins over Uninformed wagering in the Long Run.

And if Uninformed Punters are having success , then it must be from other Uninformed Punters.

Maybe life times
 

Its 36 NUMBERS plus I GREEN there are two greens on some and the correct number pays 36 to 1

The 1 green tables make for a 2.5% loss on red ,black odds ,evens which pay even money and apart from table biaises i dont think any one has ever won over longer times no matter what staking plans they have tried.

These odds are fixed and any random bets at any size you still lose and while you may double your bank a couple of times then lose one you should hit a point where you lose 3 banks in a row to equal things out - the trick is to hope it dosent happen in your life time - all these things have been run through computers and if its a fixed loss they dont work.

But if its a small profit it still comes down to turn over - these runs of good and bad can take years to play out with massive runs both ways.

So the strike rate would be slighty less than 50% long term on backing any one red or black,odds or evens.

Think I actually get this now - having banged my head up against multiple threads over the last week, examining the various viewpoints, discussions, arguments, rants, watching individuals openly berate themselves in the corner of a room (including myself)...

Synopsis as follows:
1. A system that generates a LOT at LS will eventually break the bank, no matter what staking strategy is applied

2 Any form of progressive staking plan is just a multiple of betting at level stakes i.e. it will add leverage to the upside = magnify the gains, but will also ramp up the the downside risk i.e. ramp up the losses

3. Human psychology with it's inbuilt bias towards seeking (and expecting) positive outcomes suggests that many of us would prefer to believe that LOT to POT / wine to water is possible and also that it is within our power to make this happen, despite the proof / maths / stats / any cold-hard logic put in front of us.

4. None of us have unlimited resources to keep feeding the increasing stake requirement - even if we did, finite market pools and an individual's reduced appetite for taking on increasing risk would make a positive outcome unlikely

5. Cheating the hangman = coming out ahead is still possible over the short term / initial period however, but this will depend largely on (a) lady luck and (b) a small LOT at Level Stakes to begin with of say 5-10% = easier to flip (or swing*) into a POT scenario eg choosing where to place the initial bet


Just my thoughts.


Cheers LG

* The aha moment for me? I 'saw' a pendulum swinging gently, but with a slight bias to the left or right.. and equated this to betting at level stakes for a small POT or LOT. Now add some energy to it = a progressive staking system and depending on where you are standing (and when?), you might be witnessing a large(r) gain or large(r) loss. If one is lucky / clever / organised enough in advance to find himself on the 'right' side of a big swing at a given point in time, and has the fortitude to stop the pendulum in mid air = quit while still in POT territory (a BOT would make this easier?), then at that precise point in time they have converted a loosing system into a winner.

This being possible over the short-medium term, if one is prepared to walk away from a temporary winning position by :

(a) giving up on the illusion of a much bigger outcome to come
(b) correctly assessing the reality that to continue playing equates to 100% certainty that the pendulum string would end up tightly around one's neck = Impossible to make a profit on turnover over the longer run, for the reasons given above.

Now, I reckon it's about time I took myself over to the corner of the room and started berating myself... eh beton?!! More gin please, hold the tonic.

" A system that generates a LOT at LS will eventually break the bank "

A system that shows a profit on turnover can also break the bank. It just depends where the winners fall.
Chasing losses is the bane of most punters lives. (including mine I may add, sad but true).

How very true. Have given up on chasing losses however. Time is better spent fine tuning the selection process, perhaps?

LG

Spot on LG.
Getting the head in the right spot is the key IMHO.
Which is something that I shall work on this year.