I know my neck is in the noose here, but I would like to ask the opinions of those who are interested. I'm sure that many people like the idea that when covering to win race to race you only need to have one winner on the day and you're in front, whereas with level stakes ( and let me say that most of MY investments are at level stakes) extracting a profit can be a long boring process

But given that the method of selection shows a level stakes PROFIT to start with. My idea is to have several banks to work with, capped so to speak, so that the house doesn't go on that shocker of a losing streak !!!
Any ideas????


[ This Message was edited by: partypooper on 2004-05-30 00:40 ]

Hi partypooper.

Nice impersonation you did of me on that other thread.

Hope you don’t get me into trouble with that butt joke :grin:

__________________
Ta me go maith

Hi paddy, definitly DON"T know what you're talking about there!!!! maybe someone has been winding us BOTH up????

Nothing wrong with Target betting ,so as long as you have a "what if plan" in place .
e.g. what would you do if you had 10,20 or 30 outs in a row.

One could halve their target over say the next 10 bets & recover in stages.

One could stop betting after losser No.13 & wait for one of your selections to get up before commencing betting again.

13 by the way is the mediam for a 20%SR.
In other words ,the majority of winners are struck within this range ,with the odd few blowing out,up to 45 outs in a row, based on 20%SR.

Stopping at the first winner ,definitly has its merits , at the same time ,one has to respect the fact that a long run of outs is still possible , maybe not this year but maybe the next, so one has to have contingincies in place with their "What If Plan"

__________________
Cheers.

Hi Partypooper,

Target betting is progression betting by another name.

We [most of the regulars here anyway] all know that the progression, regardless how it's done is mathematically inferior in profit/loss terms, to flat stakes betting.

Stopping after a winning bet however [without progression], has psychological merit if nothing else.

Working around the minimum bet/effort repetition theme though, is worth pursuing.

When real odds are less than 50%, the more bets we have the less chance we have of coming out on top. It doesn't take a genius to work that out.

When the odds are worse than 50%, luck is our lady. We have more chance of being lucky once in this instance than we have of being lucky in the average outcome of 100[name your number] results. Long term however we will always eventually loose if we can't improve our overall betting odds.

Having more than one bank just multiplies the problem.

The quest is to achieve a better than 50% chance overall average for all our betting endeavors.

Reducing the number of our bets to minimize reasoning error, would be a step in the right direction of improving our odds. This could be 1 bet a day instead of 5 [or 5 instead of 20] or 1 bet a week instead of 25 etc.

If we sat down and looked at say our 5 bets for the day and rated them as to how we truly consider the winning prospects of each bet, we would find that one or two stand out. Using our outlay for the day on those one or two bets instead of all five would improve long term, our overall winning SR and odds.

The problem for punters [perhaps your real question here] is the nature of the punter, not the nature of maths.

Cheers.


PS: I have been following this theme of reduced betting instances since the 1st. of this month and have turned a loosing year.

My profit is approx. 70% of outlay this month. Some days are no bets and one Saturdays I only had 1 bet [lost]. However yesterday saw 4 bets for 2 wins and on another, 7 bets for 5 wins. Overall my number of bets have reduce by about 70% [same weekly outlay though].



[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2004-05-30 07:59 ]

Bhagwan & Crash, yes I agree with most of that. Except I'm thinking of not stopping after a win, but reverting back to the beginning. I have a method which produces 6 bets each Saturday, there has only been 13 saturdays without at least 1 win that's after 145 saturdays. Level stakes shows around 16% POT , SR is 29%. What's in my mind is target a set amount per race, reverting back to bet no 1 after a win, thats betting race to race week to week. Not rocket science I know, been tried many times and all that, but I'm more interested to try it using a method that shows a constant level stakes profit. The saftey brake I think though is a maximum bank, and backing all selections under 3-1 as if they were 3-1, so of course there would be a residue left to iether recover next bet, or over say the next 10 bets, any thoughts appreciated.

I love the idea of target betting but when your on a losing streak you wish it was at level betting.
Try the power of ten
You still gotta pickem though.
Any kind of plan works if you can finish 1 point ahead I reckon....

I think winning is the easy part of this game, it's how we deal with the loss thats the hard part to overcome for me anyway, If I, we could find a way to recoupe those losses along the way with out lossing the lot it would be a reliable source of income.
I wish i could pick one / jag one winner at odds to return a profit but its all so unstable most days...

GD4TH

assuming that one has developed a selection method that can consistently show a profit at level stakes, i do not see any point in betting in any other way.

level stakes betting is the only way i am able to maintain the integrity of my bank, as i have learnt the hard way (many, many times) that any other form of betting - increasing/decreasing/whatever after a loss or a win - is usually masking problems with my selection method & that i have been deluding myself into thinking "this works" when the opposite is true.

so if you have been clever enough to develop such a method, thank your lucky stars, bet a level stakes & enjoy!

davez, your point taken and I am doing just that with my main investments, the point of this post is to highlight the effect of treading water, eg. at one stage I was showing a slight loss on T/O this went up and down like a yoyo for 16 weeks before starting to creep ahead.
Good4th, yes the dreaded losing run gives most of us the "runs".

Consider this then, out of 145 weeks there was 13 without a winner. Target to win $60 each week on the 6 contenders backing anything under 3/1 (the average pice of the winners historically) as if it was 3/1, so the bank needed is a maximum of $530 (thats if all selections were 3/1 or under)
It failed 13 times , so total loss = a maximum of $530x13= $6890, but in reality, the figure is something like half of this as the selections are at all prices up to 20/1.
The other 132 weeks we won , so $60 x 132 = $7920.

My reasearch shows that if a stop at a win is employed regardless of the SP, overall the winnings are about equal to $60 a week (just using $60 as an examle as it's $10 per race) as sometimes the win comes at less than 3/1, but not enough to make a great deal of difference, to counteract any horse over 8/1 is backed as if it were 8/1, so when occasionally we hit a winner better than 8/1 the win is greater than $60 to give us our average.
All comments and views welcome!

With the POWER OF 10 the recommended bank required is 40 times what you want to win over 10 bets.
i.e $100 ($10 a race )requires a bank of $4000.
Cheers.
darky.