Heres a staking plan I feel would work well with chasing the Favs .

$5000 bank required
To win $1.00 per race plus recover all losses
Divisor goes like this , chasing a run of outs ,
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4 etc.
once a winner has been struck , go back one place for another run of three lots e.g. one strikes a winner with divisor 4 . your next three divisors would be 3,3,3 on a loosing run , & so on , until you have cleared the target to 0 .

One needs a big bank so as to keep focused of the job in hand .
Otherwise one can easily loose their confidence.

The Challenge is .
Can any one out there ,make this staking plan fall over ,chasing the Favs , (0n paper that is )Min price to bet is $2.00 or more. Otherwise dont bet that race .
I beleive it will stand up .

Any takers.

__________________
Cheers.

G'day Bhagwan,

At what stage in betting is the $2.00 price-line applicable? At any stage or perhaps 2-3 minutes before jump-time-or just before race-start?
The timing of placing investments is sometimes crucial in these type of plans. As you know there can be a late move for a particular runner which then becomes the new favourite late in betting.

Cheers.

If one is placing their bets on the internet, it would be best to wait until the screen says that it is "0" time left , this usually leaves 60 seconds to place bet.

If ringing through via telephone , plonk it on at one min. to jump.


I realise one is going to get caught out now & then ,but not enough to worry about .
If the selection wins at less than $2.00 , regress the divisor anyway as if it was paying $2.00 or more , as long as you dont make it an ongoing habit , bet after bet, on odds on mules.

__________________
Cheers.

Just for fun I thought I would have a look at this to see how bad it would go. I used Tabcorp prices to determine the favourites and looked at the main Victorian meeting each day for last calendar year which gave me about 2500 eligible starters (ignoring those less than $2.00 at the jump). From Jan to the 23rd of June the bank increased from $5000 to $6800 with a few scares but then it started to go wrong. By the 1st of July the bank was back down to $6200 so target was up around $620 and divisor of 4 (so $155 bets). The 2nd and 3rd of July had 1 winner each - problem is the winners were not big enough to recover the losses but did keep the divisor sitting on 4 or 5 so the bank was down to $4000, target nearly $3000, divisor 5 so nearly $600 bets. 4th of July again had 2 winners to keep divisor low but bank $2500 and target $4300 (bet size $878). 5th July broke the bank with a bet of $1053 required with only $600 left in the account (that bet lost).

If you assume you kept topping up the bank then the lowest bank reached was -$34711 on the 8th of July (divisor of 4, target $40000 so $10000 bet required!)


QUOTE:
One needs a big bank so as to keep focused of the job in hand .
Otherwise one can easily loose their confidence.


If you have any confidence in this loss chasing scheme you had better "loose" it now otherwise you will destroy that big bank you have

_________________
"Computers can do that????" - Homer Simpson

[ This Message was edited by: becareful on 2003-06-04 16:32 ]

Oh dear! That didn't take very long to be shot down.

Scary stuff .

It`s an interesting argument for level stakes betting & seeking value & not constantly chasing favorites.

__________________
Cheers.

What would be interesting to find out , is would the staking plan fall over chasing the Fav in the 8th race each day (regadless if it has 9-10 races at that meeting) ,only, due to research that shows this race tends to throw up better priced Favs.

Keeping in mind ,it was the low value of the Favs that killed this staking plan in the first place.

__________________
Cheers.

Bhagwan,

You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

See my post in other section under "pro punters records"

Cheers,

Chips41

Bhagwan, the way I see it with staking plans, is all you are doing is increasing stakes really. i.e. say you have a progression (to make it simple) of 1,2,4,8,16,32, etc. backing favouites (or anything else) then say over a series of 10,000 bets (just to prove the point) the strike rate would remain constant whether the horse had a dollar on it, or 2 or 4 or 8 etc etc. in other words there would be several hundred bets of $1, several at $2 , several at $4 etc etc each group would have an identical S/R, so therefore you may as well have backed at level stakes in the first place if you see what I mean?????? do you agree with this??? to me it doesn't matter how you muck around with the staking progressions, the above holds true through thick and thin, i.e. if there is not a LONG term level stakes profit, ther is no LONG term profit. Though I would concede that in the short term bringing lady luck into the equasion, you could win ,...... for now....

I am amazed with the regularity in these forums with the proccupation of the analysis of favourites and their performance in betting/staking systems.

I would have thought that it is bleedin' obvious to anyone who has an interest in the "horses" that this is the quickest road to financial ruin. Why do you think that over 95% of us punters lose?

I believe that one has look "outside the square " to have any chance of success in this business.