I am glad that there has been some response to this post. The way to reduce the human element is to reduce the risk of losing your money. This effectively means level staking. Otherwise if you increase stakes and have a run of outs the human element makes it difficult to eventually place a bet that is 5 or 10 times your original bet. As someone else here said, you will probably chicken out.

This is why I am an advocate of keeping your bet constant and increasing the price you require before placing a bet. Some have replied that you will miss shorter priced winners and this is true but in the end a longer priced winner usually comes along, and the name of the game is to make a profit and not just winners at any cost.

My simple selection method gets about 1 in 6 winners at a variety of prices and I have returned a small profit for 8 of the last 11 years and the 3 losing years were not that bad. (I am a serious hobby punter and hope to give more time to it when I retire from my day job which I enjoy and it pays okay.) I do have serious runs of outs from time to time though. Recently I had a run of 18 losing bets (and more losing selections since I do not always get my price) but La Serenade came along at $25.50 and not only cleared the losses but left a modest profit. This followed a previous bad run where I cleared the decks with Forcibily at $22.90. The human element was there some times but as I am level staking I was able to maintain my cool. Usually though things do not get quite this bad.

Another writer suggests that we should just improve our selection method. I agree, but my experience is that it is near impossible to get much better than about 1 winner in 5 or 6 bets and produce a reasonalbe return. In other words, most systems I have seen that have a high strike rate usually have a low returns and cannot withstand the eventual run of outs. Mind you I am still refining my selection method.

Regards
John