STAKING TO WIN

Most punters spend 99% of their time trying to find winners. Betting smart is just as important but attracts about 1% of a punters attention. This page will help you sort good staking ideas from bad and maybe help you maximise your winnings at the races.

1. STAKING PLANS

A systematic approach to wagering is essential to long-term success but many popular staking plans are flawed and extremely dangerous.

The Martingale System is almost as old as racing itself and on face value seems sound. It is simply betting enough on each selection to win back all you have lost in a sequence of bets plus your initial target. For example if you are 20 units behind in a betting series and your profit target is 25 units and your next bet is a $5 chance, you stake $11 to profit $44. This recoups your 20 lost and just about gets your 25 target.

Clearly the problem with this method is the dreaded run of outs. A sequence of 10 losers straight if betting $5 chances is likely to happen regularly. The 11th bet would be some extraordinary amount of money that most bookies wouldn’t accept in order to win the modest target that was originally set. Obviously a dumb way to bet.

Progression betting methods of varying types are similar to the Martingale in that they expect a winner on a regular basis. Unfortunately it isn’t always so neat. Building your bet size up as a losing streak lengthens is both psychologically tough and mathematically stupid. Some selection and ratings “services” pin their hopes for success on progressive staking. They clearly have no faith in the selections and hide behind some convoluted bet placement scheme, which cannot and will not turn losing into winning

There is a mathematical formula known as the Kelly Criterion that calculates the “correct” amount to wager on each selection based on winning strike rates and average winning dividends. Originally designed for casino games, it has been adapted to the racetrack but it is also flawed.

Kelly tells us to bet a certain percentage of the bank on each selection and the figure is adjusted after each bet. The bet obviously decreases after each loser as the bank is decreasing also. When we finally crack a winner, we are staking the lowest amount since the last winner. The bet size increases after the winner but unless our very next bet also wins, we are on the downward spiral again. Kelly is typified by placing bigger bets on losers and smaller bets on winners. There seems no logic to this method.