I don't bet to live I bet to accumulate so to me not losing the bank is THE most important thing. I try to arrange it so that it will never happen because I know if it does that will be it for me, I will stop punting and move on to something else. You seem almost as cautious as I am Duritz so I'll tell you what I do.
I get a worst drawdown figure over 10 years of bets and then add half again to that figure for safety. That is my starting bet percentage. I bet level stakes never decreasing but increasing when the bank increases. My next increase also has a bit of safety built in. Say I am betting 0.5% of the bank ($1 for every $200) I will wait until the bank grows by $250 before I increase the bet by a dollar. That way as my bank increases I also increase my safety margin. It's fairly simple and just a minor (more cautious) variation on staking systems we've all seen on here before but it makes me feel safe.

KV

Yep. I understand that, I too don't bet to live. I earn full time and punting is separate. Luckily for me I earn from horse racing, but that's besides the point. My interest therefore is like yours, to grow a bank rather than to withdraw dividends from it.

Woof,

I'm flabbergasted at the disinterest shown here in Dr Z and the Benter video (you highlighted earlier). Why are you and I the only 2 interested in the mathematical "secrets" to maximising wealth?

I'm stunned that anyone would go to so much effort to produce that spreadsheet.

Possum (who appears to be a frightfully decent fellow) has a free JavaScript place calculator which presumably has a similar purpose.

http://www.geocities.com/possum_31415/place.htm

Although I'm in the process of a very detailed study of Dr Z's material I'm sceptical about his claims that "his" stuff still works in 2004. Sharks, armed with Native American kickbacks, would have been exploiting and crushing this for years.

Out of the 25 views of Dr_Z I'd say half were expecting "The cat in the Hat".
We are but simple folk here.

KV

JFC,

Quote: "I'm flabbergasted at the disinterest shown here in Dr Z and the Benter video (you highlighted earlier). Why are you and I the only 2 interested in the mathematical "secrets" to maximising wealth?" End quote.

If you have any serious money to bet with, the bookies are lining up to send a limo around, to get you both started on your road to riches:-)

JFC.
And Einstein and all you other scientists!
You are all very clever.
But you take the fun out of gambling.
Bit like that bloke who tells you the answer as to why that woman wasn't really sawn in half.
I know she wasn't really sawn in half.But it sure is entertaining.

Ok Duritz....

I have whipped up a quick application and run some numbers....

I have done 5,000 separate tests of a run of 2,000 bets. I didn't bother going out to 1,000,000 bets unlike others, as I don't expect to ever have 1,000,000 bets for any one of my strategies.... I can fully expect to have 2,000 bets though, so it's a little more realistic.

I calculated Longest Run of Outs and Maximum drawdown based upon the original 22% Strike Rate and $4.80 dividend. I then averaged these over the 5,000 separate tests. For the "average" I used the arithmetic mean. The simulation isn't ideal as we don't have a spread of dividends, but it's probably close enough.

The average Longest Run of Outs for 2000 bets was 26.47.
The average Maximum Drawdown for 2000 bets was 73.20 units.

The ratio of Maximum Drawdown to LRO averaged out to 2.77. Therefore, Bhagwan's ratio of 3.5 is not too far from the mark. If you expect to have a LRO of 30, then you should expect your MaxDD to be around 100.

What does this mean for staking????? Simply calculate your MaxDD and then structure your betting bank to withstand that drawdown. For a 100 unit MaxDD, then you should only be betting 1% of your bank if you decide to bet flat stakes.

Following on from your most recent post, if your plan is to accumulate a bank, then I would recommend that you bet 1% of your bank non-reducing. This means that as your bank increases you increase your bets, but when it decreases you do NOT decrease your bet. I have been using this method of staking for quite a long period of time now, and it has stood me in good stead.

Cheers,
Chris.

__________________
Permanence is an illusion

Increasing betting amount when WINNING is the only progressive staking plan that [in the long run]works. Otherwise stick to flat stakes.

If it has truly been proven that a staking plan will only exaggerate the effects of a negative expectation game, then would it not do the same on the reverse?
If you are profiting level stakes, would you not expect to improve this by a proggressive staking system?

A vauge angle that none of us wants to admit to..........the lady herself, LUCK,
e.g.
I've been operating a win system betting week to week race to race at Belmont/Ascot, 2 weeks ago I'd reached my maximum bet on race 6 (I think, can't be bothered looking) the horse was "Electic" it finished 6th beaten 1-1/4 lengths (the unluckiest loser this year) anyway it broke my bank on that particular race, so what happens the next week??? Yup! Electic @ $8.60c!!!