Hi Duritz,
The runs of outs was arrived at by running 10x10,000 simulations.

You may like to keep a copy of this as a ready reconner , it is fairly accurate

%SR---Max Outs
10%---65
15---42
20---31
25---24
30---20
35---16
40---14
45---12
50---10
55---9
60---8
70---6
80---5
90---3

This is a start to working out what your bank to bet size could be .
The 3.5 multiplier X run of outs, is as resonable as anything else , but at the end of the day one has to have some ability in picking selections that win at resonable divs. so as to acquire a profit.

You could ignore all this as rubbish as our arrogant friends suggest & listen to only them alone .
I can only feel they were not the oldest in their family & had to yell loader than any one else to make themselves heard when they felt they were being ignored & by trying to invalidate others ,helps to to feed their imature egos.
PS
Could you please tell JFC to JGF.
And take his Dr. Z & Cat in a Hat with him.

Cheers.

__________________
Cheers.

that means at max drawdown you would be betting way more than 1% of your bank,i thought this was all about the reduction of risk....at your rundown what would the% after 26 loses.........cheers,,gazman...

Your figures are pretty much what I work to, and despite what some people may believe, it is inevitable that one will encounter runs of outs to match those figures... if my punting experience is anything to go by. Almost all of my various plans have run to their maximum expected run of outs at least once.

Stebbo correctly points out that once that maximum expected run of outs has been met and ended, there is absolutely nothing to stop the same run repeating itself immediately after the previous drought-breaking winner.

Runs of ouits is one of the prime reasons, I believe, why no amount of posting of succesful methods on this forum will ever dent prices on offer for any significant period of time.

Stebbo,
I feel you are doing our friend Duritz a mis-service by offering this advice. Using JFC's simulator I did only 5 runs of 2000 bets and got maximum drawdowns of 46, 120, 66, 57 and 65. The average maxDD here is only 49 so you could say I was "luckier" than you who averaged 73.
Now poor Duritz who was probably thanking you for your advice after the first 2000 bets would still be using 1% of his bank non-reducing during the second batch of 2000 bets and whammo. His drawdown of 120 units would have sent him back to his day job.
Averaging a bunch of 2000 bet batches is not SAFE. Look at your 5000 figures for maxDD and count how many times you would have blown your bank at 1%. On my five figures you have a 1 in 5 chance of losing ALL your money for each batch of 2000 bets. Maybe that's OK if you are one of these people who have a lot of banks running concurrently (and I'm not knocking that) but if you rely on one bank like I do, no thanks. I doubt if I'll ever have a million bets either but it gives a more realistic view of what can happen when "Sod's Law" comes in to play.

KV

Yeah I'm like KV, don't want to lose bank and don't run more than one.

Thanks though Stebbo, it all contributes to getting a good feel for what I should do.

Again, Bhagwan, I like the idea of the 3.5 ratio, though I had independently set it at 4.0 (therefore lose 1/4 of bank when longest "anticipatable" losing streak is struck). Thanks for the "ready reckoner", handy to have.

Who is this Dr Z fella? And does he know how to fix my sore neck?

DURITZ.

A bank is a bank.And if the bank goes,then all is lost.
Unless you have a reserve bank.
At your suggestion of 22% strike rate,there is a 1% chance,(yes-A hundred to one),of there being a losing streak of 60.
That is over a run of 100,000 bets.
So if you ain't daunted by the prospect of a hundred to one chance of your bank being wiped out,then 1.5% of your bank is quite in order.
OR IS IT?

Problem arises if two long losing streaks occur close together.
Supposing we just had a run of 30 outs,which will happen.
Then a winner or two followed by a string of 30 or so losers.
I suggest that this scenario is also about a 100 to one chance.

So your answer is 1.5%,if you can handle a hundred to one chance of losing your bank before losing your life.
100,000 bets is a lot of bets!

Hi Kenny,

averaging the figures may not be entirely safe, but it's probably as safe as anything else we're doing around here. :-)

Running my 5000 tests, then all things being equal, there's a little more than a 12% chance of losing the bank if betting 1% of bank.



Why don't we go to 1 billion bets then... on one single test, the LRO is 90 and the MaxDD is 460 units. I can tell you right now that there would be very few punters who would keep betting a strategy if they got 90 losers in a row. I would reckon that most punters would ditch a new system if they got 10 or 20 losers in their first 10 or 20 bets..... These sorts of numbers are great for academic purposes, but get thrown out the window in RL.

Should we seriously start betting this strategy with 0.2% of bank? If we did, then I'd need $25,000 to begin with a $50 bet and a chance to actually make serious money.... I'd much rather put that $25,000 to work over a number of strategies...

This is, after all, punting... It's a gamble. I'm in it for the money, and I'm quite prepared to lose a bank on a bad run if it means I can actually make some serious money from it. I only ever bet as low as 1% of bank on longshot systems... My usual percentages are 2%, 2.5% or 3%. (one particular longshot system I run at 1% has already had a maximum drawdown of 87 units.... that was a harrowing time, but it bounced back very nicely indeed)

I also add some other bank saving procedures to my punting... Once I double a bank, I start to slowly syphon my original starting bank out of the pool. This allows me to introduce new methods to my aresenal. I have a number of strategies who's starting banks are in the negative numbers... meaning that I can never lose on those stratgies :-)



Gazman, you are correct in your assertion that I'm betting more than 1% of my *remaining* bank when I'm in the middle of a bad run. However the key to this game is not necessarily about reducing risk. It's about balancing risk and reward. If I'm confident that my bank can ride out the bad run, then I'm prepared to take on the risk involved.

Cheers,
Chris.

__________________
Permanence is an illusion

Hey Stebbo,

I guess we end this discussion in the usual way with the ever truthful comment of "Each to his own".
You see, I get quite some comfort from your Billion bet experiment. A MaxDD of 460 is not a great deal more than I was getting for a million bets. It looks like the MaxDD is like one of those exponential shaped curves that rises sharply at the start and then levels out at around the 460 - 500 mark. I wouldn't mind betting also that the variability from run to run on consecutive runs of the same number of bets would even out when the number of bets is high - wheras they vary a lot (proportionately) in the 2000 bet range - I think this is important too.
Now if I had a $25,000 bank to use I would feel quite comfortable using it knowing that there is little chance of it reaching 0 if I made a billion bets. I wouldn't risk it in a fit if I thought there was a 12% chance of it dissappearing.
But then I don't regard backing horses as gambling - I'm one of these weirdos who consider it an investment. :-)

May your MaxDD never exceed your bank and your POT grow luxuriantly.

KV

I agree KV, many plans may lose overall, but some spectacular runs, the winners do seem to come in clumps. Therefore i think it makes sense to try and capitalise on these with an agressive approach with a fixed bank that you are prepared to lose.

Hi KV,

as you say, each to their own. One thing I've learned in this game is that there are many ways to skin the punting cat....

If the best I could do was a 22% S/R and $4.80 dividend, then I'd take that $25,000 and split it into 5 banks. I'd bet 1% of bank for each bank. I'd find 5 different strategies that gave me the 22/4.8.

While there's a 12.5% chance I'd lose one bank, there's around a 0.003% chance that I'll lose all five banks. With 5 banks in operation, I'll be betting about 5 times as many bets, I'll be turning over about 5 times as much money, and presumably making about 5 times as much actual PROFIT.

Like you, I consider this an investment... I make my money work very hard for me... At the present, I turn my original punting bank over about once every 8 to 10 days.

Happy Punting.

Cheers,
Chris.

__________________
Permanence is an illusion