Chrome Prince.

Nowhere have I mentioned 7-1 shots or how to stake them. I thought I made it quite clear that a bet should not be made unless it can return over $7 for every dollar bet.
A 7-1 win bet is fine, a 14-1 win bet even better, and a 28-1 better still. A 4 or 5-1 win bet needs a single parlay, but any win price lower than that needs dismissing. And those I will show how to stake.
Exotics were mentioned though. Not an exotic punter?

Mod 3 said
[ Can a profit of $3,000 in a year actually be made from a starting bank of $400?

Can a profit of $30,000 in a year actually be made from a starting bank of $4000?

This is the main issue brought up by TheEasyRun and needs to be substantiated.

Moderator. ]

I'll go one better Mod 3.

The next few pages will go into detail on the subjects I've already mentioned. Then onto new ones, including why an yearly average Profit on Turnover of less than 80% should be cause for worry.
After the last chapter it will be time to play.


Unfortunently, what with the time constaints involved of finding $7 shots to tip to unsuspecting battlers, and standing at the mounting yard sticking pins in horses, it will take a few weeks to set it up.
Plus this is not yet the right time of year to have a full Punting Stable.

Time to pull out of the debate for me when the *********
It's irrelevant anyway.. if you have decent overs of 20-30% or more long term and bet them sensibly you'll make a killing anyway.

Sahasastar, in fact the Moderator told me to give the Easyrun a fair go, so I don't know where you pulled that one from????

There is no dispute on making a killing at 30% POT either.

The issue, for me, is trying to exude $5000 a month out of a $6000 bank regularly on 7/1 shots, which in fact TheEasyRun did suggest. One would need a lot more bets at greater risk to the bank, and the risk is what has been overlooked in my opinion.

and I'll ask the same question again, either you want to bet $72 on each 7/1 shot to preserve the bank (in my opinion the right way to stake, just not the right method here) or you want to make $5,000 per month off a $6,000 bank...which is it, because you cannot have both - it doesn't add up.

If you ever make it add up, you can do all my betting for me and I'll be a very rich man

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 400,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 30/04/2024
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

gawd, I don't know if I can survive the SUSPENSE!!!!!!

The system and maths boys here are perhaps looking into the wrong envelope on this [their own]. Nothing wrong with that as we all tend to see the world through our own glasses, but it might be missing TheEasyRun's point on staking completely. Hopefully he'll get to a couple of examples to clarify what in some peoples books, can't work.

I don't bet a set % of bank and mostly never have and I'm sure their are plenty of other punters who don't either. I bet mostly flat stakes to win [a bit of place too] but as to staking amount or % of bank it's a [rough] sliding scale depending on the odds and what exposure to loss I feel the bet has.

Generally the average punter bets the largest amounts on the smallest odds and the smallest amount on the largest odds. To many punters that is just crazy as then odds alone are being used as a risk assessment [the punter has no faith in their own assessment ability] and that leads to confusion about SP odds and true odds and also the smallest returns from the best overlay opportunities.

I had three bets yesterday, all with differing odds and exposure to loss based on my own personal judgement. My largest bet [Campeche] paid 4/1 and my smallest [On Bail] paid just over evens. My middling bet [Beautiful Dragon] started at 6/1 and lost. My evens bet was the smallest because it had the least overlay value even though I gave it the best chance of winning. The middle size bet I felt had the most loss exposure, but it was the largest bet in my opinion that has the best value. However, it could have been the 6/1 bet with the largest bet amount if I had felt differently about it's exposure to loss.
Looking at it in pot terms, my profit for the year is running at about 35%, but if all bets had been the same size % of my bank, the profit would be about 20% pot. I'm sure there are much better punters out there than I am.

I'm sure there are plenty of other punter with a similar staking outlook to myself and sitting down with a calculator and working out what is and isn't possible, just never enters our radar. We just bet and keep tabs on progress [or lack there of] and our noses to the ground looking for good bets, not better staking theories of what's possible and what isn't.

Ahhh,the waters are being muddied by mathematics.

Lets see the selection method !

I'd certainly want more than $7 odds about any new quality contributors here after they witness the hostile xenophobic reception given to TheEasyRun for his debut effort.

Presuming he is genuine there is no harm in what he posted and he should be given an opportunity to have his say, rather than being subjected to well-worn despicable tactics such as conveniently misquoting him in order to start a stoush. The challenges should wait until he's been heard out.

There are a number of regulars who would benefit far more from some firm scepticism.

----

Now apropos CP's perplexing position:

Assume fractional odds of 6/1 (= 7$ decimal).

And a 36% POT - hardly that staggering for a selective system, particularly when you contrast that with the p57-esque headlines now embraced by management.

And apply the Kelly Criterion.

That means staking 6% of your bank.

With average luck that equates to notionally growing your bank by 2.16% a bet.

So you'd expect your bank to double after 33 bets.

And triple after 52 bets. Not very long to wait.

If you start with $2,000 betting $120 (and keep your day job as TER stated) then it won't be that long before that triples to $6,000 and $360 bets.

Then cap your betting at that because it gets far more trickier and uncomfortable in leviathan mode.

How much the above fits in with TRE's scheme is yet unknown.

But until we hear more, TRE's claims have not been proved outrageous.

And if Darren Beadman rides the card in Sydney 4 consecutive times, it won't be long......

The reality is it could happen, but the odds are well and truly against it.

Let's remember we are talking about 7/1 shots.

Run of outs is inevitable.

Even at 30% POT, how long do you think it will take to triple the bank on 7/1 shots?

You're not going to make $5,000 per month.

And you jfc, a master at numbers, surely you can see what will happen even if the "system" is even a little out of luck.

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 400,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 30/04/2024
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

CP,

I remind you that the Kelly Criterion formula is the Bank fraction:

Edge/Odds

So the relatively large (fractional) odds of 6/1 are factored into that.

If, for argument's sake, the odds were 2/1 with a 36% Edge then you would expect to triple your bank in only 18 bets.

The formula assumes average luck. It's not too hard to find free on-line graphical Kelly calculators to demonstrate how fickle luck is. But anyone unable to cope with that should find another recreation.

I recall an account by Blackjack entrepreneur Ken Uston where he endured ~30 (from memory) consecutive losing full-time days, but then things picked up again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Uston

Those twits that infest forums with their fanciful ponderings about quitting their day jobs to gamble full-time would do well to consider how they'd like to handle such inevitable runs outside their control, with nothing to fall back on.