In the first 3 months Jan to March I bet on 130 races for 48 winners for a srike rate of 36.9% using 2 systems only on Sat and public hoilday meetings.

There were a total of 218 selection in those races.

Out--$218.00
in----$263.30

a profit at level stakes of $45.30 A 20.8% ROI

My question is that I''m going to do a dry run on paper using 2 banks of $500 of which one will be a reserve bank and bet 3% of the bank.

Any thoughts on this?

Mad Gambler

Hi Mad Gambler - IMO 3% of bank is a lot. Not because of the actual cash outlay just if you have a bad streak, you'll quickly decimate your reserves.

I've been playing around with staking and bet sizes due to a system I'm developing (see a couple of other threads on this forum re that) and I am finding that a 1% increasing/reducing bet size gives you safety and profitability. Remember, both those things are vital - you'll have bad runs, sure as I'm good lookin'.

Good luck.

If you have a system that works, forget percentage of bank. Fool's paradise.

Just decide what you expect your largest amount of outs or equivalent outs to be over a 12 month period.

By equivalent outs I mean you could have 5 then a winner that pays $4.00 then another 6 losers. At level stakes this is the equivalent of 8 outs.

On your strike rate you are going to say if this system is going to be profitable it will need to be able sustain 30 losers or the equivalent thereof at level stakes.

You are starting with $500.00 500/30 = 16. (approx)

Start at $16. Then when your bank gets to $510, move up to $17. (17 x 30 =510) Then when you get to $540 move up to 18 until you get to 100 dollars(bank of 3000 dollars) or whatever top stake level you reckon is a fair thing.

Then whenever you have an excess over 3000, that's profit.

30 might not be enough losers to allow for but much over that and you just have to say this selection method has problems.

If you bet percentage of bank you can you can support far to many losers.

Each to their own buts that way I see staking.

__________________
pipped at the post

How do I calculate the run of outs.


Mad Gambler

No set way. But would you say that if you had 30 losses that your selection method was the goods?

You could look at all your winners by less than a length and classify them as losers and mulyiply this new numbers of losers by 2.5 and see what your max run of outs is on your so far sample.

To me that should give you a within reason figure of what you can expect to carry.

Just say you do start at $16.00 And your 500 dollars does vanish. At that point you can decide whether it is worth putting another $100.00 up (six losers) or that you have gone far enough with your selection method.

To give you an idea of what I mean, you work out how many losers you can have at 5 percent starting at 500 dollars. You'll find that it is a ridiculous amount.

__________________
pipped at the post

Number of expected losers is flawed because how many losers can you expect?

Really the most accurate thing is using the "maximum drawdown", ie maximum drop from the top level of your bank.

I have been testing a system which over two years and 6000 bets, with a strike rate of 26%, and had a max drawdown of 113 bets. That means that the worst drop from the previous maximum was 113 bets. If you're betting 3% of your bank.... 113 bets drop down and your f**ked. And this system wins, by the way, there's no selection problem etc, it's just that the punt and selection methods are volatile. You should allow for and work with this volatility.

Expected run of outs for 35% is 16
Based on 3 lots of 10,000

I believe one should have a bank of 3.0 x the longest theoretical run of outs.
In this case 48 , if betting level stakes.= 2% of bank.
1% of bank as mentioned prior would be even safer.

50 Point Staking Plan
Heres a safe staking plan one might like to experiment with.
Divisor starts at 50 divided into target of $100.
With a Starting Bank $200
Deduct win dividend price off the divisor after each win & deduct the profit off the target after each win so as to calculate the next bet.
Start from the beginning as soon as half of the target is won , in this case $50
This helps prevent the bets from becoming too large for the bank to cope with.
e.g.
Tar---Divisor--O/L---Dividend---P/L
100-----50-----2-----L
102-----50-----2-----L
104-----50-----2---w$11.00---+20
84------39-----2-----L
86------39-----2---w$6.00---+10
76------33-----2---w$14.00---+26
50------19-----3-----Objetive reached..We would now rule off & start from the beginning because we have reached our objective of reaching half the Target figure.

If one wants to start with a lower divisor (not recomended) , one will see how the bets become larger after a run of outs , so be prepared for it, because it will come , no matter how strong a selection method may be, its just part of punting.

Remember ---Punting does not owe us a living.

Cheers.

__________________
Cheers.

Maybe my maths is weird but I make that a strike rate of 22%. You may have got 48 winners from 130 races but you actually got 48 winners from 218 bets. On your system I could bet every horse in every race and claim a strike rate of 100%

Using 22% and a average dividend of $5.48 over 218 bets I got a max drawdown between 15 and 32 as a rule over several runs. This would indicate a bet of perhaps 2% of bank might be safe.

BUT !!!!

218 bets is not enough to judge a system on - you may have had a good period or you may have had a bad one. The strike rate or average dividend could be quite different from the one you got in your test period.

Heres the maximum drawdown simulator if you want to play with it.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/jfc2000/drawdown.htm

KV

Meanwhile, I have been giving some thought to Mad gambler's question. And now he has his food bank, the other 2 banks are ready to swing into action !

There has been talk here of reducing, non reducing and 1 or 2%. I think Mad's idea of 3% flat stakes probably reflects preferred bet size for a $500 bank to bet from: $15 bets.

Originally he had bets in 130 races for 48 winners for 218 selections in 3 months. That works out at about 18 bets a week or $270 a week in bets of $15

Quote:
out: $218.00
in; $263.30
I'm sure Mad means units here and not $ unless he is having $0.50c bets. [I'm not knocking the 50c punter but they don't need a betting bank, just a spare change piggy bank].

The fact that Mad is in a position to put aside a $500 bank as a spare means his life is not hanging on his betting bank, so for him to have a realistic betting experience, 1% of bank would be 'safe' but at $5 a bet, too low a bet amount for him I think.

I'd plumb for 2% $10 bets non-reducing [keeps the betting simple] as it is a reasonable bet amount and as Mad obviously by his SR figures, bets around the shorties, there is nothing too risky going on regarding runs of outs, nor with his betting habits. Having a $500 spare bank is a good move for 2% bets.

3% of bank is pushing the envelope unless bank renewal is no big deal or hardship.

So there you go, food bank and betting bank sorted :-)

Mad I've been giving it thought too. Over the last 24 hours I've had a great deal of thinking time, as I toiled in the back yard digging my "bird flu shelter", completely quarantined from the outside world, and as I set up my patented state of the art "Duritz's Water Purifier and System Staking Plan" which runs in tubes in concentric circles around my Quarantine Shelter, and I've come up with this for you, Mad:

You've got two banks, $500 each. I think there's some truth in what Crash says, that you've picked 3% because you don't want to have too tiny a bet on the horse, $15 keeps you interested, $5 does not (which is 1%).

However, I still think at some point you'll slaughter yourself with 3%, even with a high strike rate of 35% odd. So here's what I suggest:

Take your two $500 banks, and merge them, marry them if you will. Hell, we can have a ceremony in my Quarantine Pit, the marriage of Mad's banks, Crash can be the priest.

So, marry them, and you have one bank, $1000. I know you therefore won't have a backup, but you won't need it.

Now, because you've got a high strike rate, you can start out a little bit more aggressively than the 1% I advocate, so start at 1.5%, increasing/reducing. Co-incidentally, this equals $15. So, you start out at $15, and also make this your minimum level. If you go below $1000, keep it at $15 because you want to have a little bit of action. It's all very well having an increasing/reducing method but no-one can get on for 20c bets.

So, make it a 1.5% increasing/reducing stake, with a minimum of $15. Now, here's the safety bit, ASSUMING (and that's a big assumption, nothing personal, just that 99.99% of systems fail) that your bank grows, build a safety somewhere for yourself. IE, set a figure at which begin to drop the % you have on from 1.5% to 1.0%. It's safer, and it's all very well punting aggressively but you can't punt aggressively if you don't have a $ to punt with.

Do that, Mad, if your system works, that'll work, and keep us posted with how you're going.

Oh yeah, and if the bird flu comes, stay away from my Quarantine Pit come Water Purifier and System Staker method, patented, dammit!