I have noticed every now then a horse that is odds on before they jump finishes up at $2 most of the time. Sometimes It's between $2.20 and $2.50

Durnig my test on paper there have been 25 such bets for 12 winners and 17 places.

Outlay: $25.00
Return: $54.90

What would be a suitable staking for the win betting?

I have considered the following. 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55. You stop afer a winner. And a winner any where would make a profit. No need to get greedy.

mad gambler

G'day Mad. presumably the $54.90c is for an EW outlay of $50 ? I think your idea of a staking plan is sound, almost a bet to nothing I would say. i.e. you couldn't do much harm.

G'day Mad Gambler. Let's take a look at what you're considering. Your strike rate for the win is 48%. Looking at your series of proposed bets, you've allowed for a streak of 9 losers in a row, with the 10th loser wiping out your bank. I wonder if you've ever been to a casino. The roulette wheel comes to mind. If someone were to bet on red, black, odds or evens they would have roughly a 48.64% chance of winning, which is similar to what your system is achieving. I've only been a casino a handful of times, and I've lost count of the number of times I've seen a series of 10 or more losers up come up on the board in regards to if one had been betting on red, black, odds or evens. Essentially what I'm saying is, yes the majority of the time you will hit a winner within your series of progressive bets, but it only takes one run of 10 losers to lose the bank. I'd recommend against any kind of progressive betting. It might win in the short term, but eventually it will wipe out your bank. If you interested in developing a system, I think you would really be better off not considering favourites. Just my thoughts. Good luck, regardless.

Silver_and_sand, mathes 100 % correct of course, as the method though shows better than 1/1 money return surely the odds over a long long period couldn't do any harm whether you used levels or a progression? I mean if you used the progression you would have say 400 bets @ 1 unit, say about 300 bets a @ 2 units etc etc etc all with a 48% win S/R at ave odds of about 2.25.

Betting level stakes with Mad Gambler's system would be safe assuming the strike rate and average price are consistant, but pretty pointless as far as I can tell. If $2.25 is the assumed average price of a winner at a 48% strike rate then level stakes betting would result in only an 8% profit, which seems fairly low really, though some might be happy with that. Realistically, the 48% strike rate seems quite high, and most likely is just an anomaly, especially considering that it is the result of only 25 paper bets. Mad Gambler needs to monitor his system on paper much longer so he can establish what the long term strike rate and average price really are. If the long term strike rate drops to 44% or less, or if the average price drops to $2.08 or less, then the system will lose money in the long run even at level stakes.

I'm not sure I entirely follow what Mad Gambler is saying regarding his staking idea. He says a winner anywhere in the series makes a profit. Unless there's something I'm not understanding, using the 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55 sequence, assuming an average price of $2.25 means that any winner after 3 or more consecutive losing bets will result in a loss.

Bet #1. 1 unit. If win, then profit = 1.25 units. If lose, then total loss = 1
Bet #2. 1 unit. If win, then profit = 0.25 units. If lose, then total loss = 2
Bet #3. 2 units. If win, then profit = 0.50 units. If lose, then total loss = 4
Bet #4. 3 units. If win, then loss = 0.25 units. If lose, then total loss = 7
Bet #5. 5 units. If win, then loss = 0.75 units. If lose, then total loss = 12
Bet #6. 8 units. If win, then loss = 2.00 units. If lose, then total loss = 20
Bet #7. 13 units. If win, then loss = 3.75 units. If lose, then total loss = 33
Bet #8. 21 units. If win, then loss = 6.75 units. If lose, then total loss = 54
Bet #9. 34 units. If win, then loss = 11.5 units. If lose, then total loss = 88
Bet #10. 55 units. If win, then loss = 19.25 units. If lose, then bank is lost.

And to work out how often one would expect to bust their bank with this system, the calculation would be 0.52 multiplied by itself 10 times = 0.0014555, which would be roughly once in every 687 bets, though there's no reason why 2 series of 10 straight losers couldn't occur within a few dozen bets of each other.

I hope all this makes sense. I'd suggest steering clear of progressive betting, as sooner or later, the unexpected run of outs will occur and bust the bank, and your confidence. Again, just my thoughts, and good luck if you decide otherwise.

Everyone seems to say that the progressive stakes method will kill you in the end. Fair enough, you're all more experienced than I - but how do you get ahead? Once you have accumulated enough units of profit, you would want to change the unit size, to accomodate this. I can see how if things go bad then you'd be done for, but you would want to accelerate profit size, surely?

I really know nothing about staking plans, Im curious.....

Silver and sand /Mad, point taken, but [quote] I have noticed every now then a horse that is odds on before they jump finishes up at $2 most of the time. Sometimes It's between $2.20 and $2.50
so maybe the average is nearer to $2.35, and needless to say I was presuming that the S/R etc are consistant.

In short I agree with you, in the long term it's much better on the nerves to be betting levels, or at least say 1% of bank never reducing.

I do think Mad is into an area where there are possibilities though, I've never completed any extensive research but have noticed many cases where a nag is QUOTED odds on (Pre-post) and often wins at a greater odds or where the Top Fluc was much better. food for thought!

How do you get ahead? By having a selection method that returns a positive advantage at level stakes. Selection plan first, staking second.


If you stake to a % of bank then as your bank grows so would your bet size. You could also look at techniques whereby you stake in accordance to your advantage and the price available on your selection.

__________________
Pixie

"It's worth remembering that profit isn't profit until it's spent off the racecourse." -- Crash

The longest run of outs one should experience is approx 11.

A staking plan that can work with this is the Duel Progression Plan .
It can be used for place & EW betting also.
Use the search bar at the top to find it.

It goes something like this .
1L 1L 2L 2L 3L 3P 5P 7P 9L 9L 10L 10P 12P 14 ect.

Until in profit, then start again.

Cheers.

__________________
Cheers.

G'day Usurper. I agree with Angry Pixie. Focus more on developing a system or method or whatever you wish to call it, that can produce a healthy profit over a long period of time. If you can do that, then my guess is that you've achieved something the vast majority of punters will never achieve. Then you can worry about what is the best staking plan.

As Angry Pixie suggests, I too would recommend the percentage of bank staking plan once you have developed a system that can win at level stakes. For instance, if one were to have say an average of 10 to 20 bets every Saturday, then maybe consider wagering for example 1% of the bank on each selection for that day. Let's assume a starting bank of $1,000, and a bet size of $10, which is 1% of the bank, on each of your selections. At the end of the day, say your bank has increased to $1,100, then the next Saturday your standard bet size would be 1% of $1,100, or $11 on each selection. If at the end of the day, if your bank decreased to say $900, then your next betting outing would see the standard bet size fall to $9, which is 1% of the bank, on each selection (though I believe some people prefer to never decrease the bet size for the next day of betting if they run into a losing day - to each his own). Clear as mud?

G'day Partypooper. I'm not arrogant enough to say that it would be impossible to develop a system centered around short-priced favourites that can win long term, it's just that I can't think how without putting the bank at a very real risk of busting. Good luck to you though if you do find a way.

G'day Bhagwan. I don't recall ever conversing with you in the past, but I've noted that you've often presented progressive, loss-chasing, staking plans. Nothing personal, I just believe sooner or later, the unforeseen run of outs will come, and bust the bank. I'd rather play things a little safer by using the percentage of bank staking plan. I hope your progressive staking plans work for you though, and I wish you luck mate.