"But basically you don't have an advantage so you don't bet?"

Lol, that's not what's stopping me from sportsbetting and playing poker instead. Making money off sports is the easy part for me, managing my risk is where I got silly in the past. Won't make that mistake again though.

This is the same discussion we've been having over at THE RACES. Level stakes is the only way to go in ANY betting situation. If you have an advantage you will always win long term and if you don't have "the edge", staking will NOT save you. I pose the same challenge as in the racing forum, as follows.
Use a roulette simulator (on-line) or go to your nearest casino. Collect thousands of numbers BUT DON'T BET. Then "pretend" the casino has MADE A SERIOUS MISTAKE and is giving you $2.20 for one of the colours (or odd/even or high/low). This will now mean YOU CAN'T LOSE if you just bet the "advantaged" colour (or whatever) AT LEVEL STAKES. Even a highly unlikely divergence from the expected 50% (it doesn't matter about the zero either), of 5 or 10 percent will STILL leave you a winner (please don't play BOTH sides). Use ANY other staking system and, sooner or later, a long run of outs will blow the bank. I guarantee it!!! You will either see your bets skyrocket, chasing losses (no limit in THIS casino) until you crash OR you will lose and lose and lose (with percentage-type staking) but NOT recover completely when you start winning as your percentage will be OF A MUCH SMALLER REMAINING BANK.
Please don't mock or scoff 'til you try this. And,remember, it's a long-term trial NOT the first flush of success we're talking about here. Cheers.
P.S. Anyone using cut-off levels like , for example "No bets under $1.30" could you explain why, since this is TOO SHORT, why you don't bet the OTHER competitor who will thus be TOO LONG??" Cheers

Here's an interesting link which can further add to this thread,
http://www.hkedcity.net/article/pro...4/iccm_e2.phtml

A much smaller remaining bank?
I am going to presume you are suggesting to use a staking system betting a percentage of the bank?
Should never do this.....

Yeah BJ that's why I was advising against betting percentages of the bank. All staking systems apart from LEVEL go either up in defeat or up in victory and then the other way, whether as a percentage of the bank OR in fixed amounts (ie 1,2,2,3,3,3,2,2,1 etc, etc) OR you bet less when the odds are high and more when they are low (ie $10 at 10-1 to win $100 and $100 at even money to STILL win $100) though you can't know the "true odds".
The example of a CRAZY CASINO is to demonstrate that even the gambler's dream (overs on every event) will be wrecked by straying from LEVEL stakes. That staking systems don't work with a certified built-in advantage (ie a positive expectation) should be enough to scare you away from negative-expectation games/sports (with a built-in DISadvantage) even more!!!. Cheers

The idea is to always bet more on a winning event than a losing one.
Provided you can come up with a system to stay within all limits, then you must return more than level stakes.
I am not saying that you can beat casino games but that the right staking system will always improve your return on level stakes....

If you are betting more on the winners than the losers then how could you not?

If you lose $10 on a tennis match, BJ, how much should you bet next, if the next match is Roddick $3 vs Hewitt $1.40. Alternately, what if the odds were reversed (ie Roddick $1.40 vs Hewitt $3). What would you do in each case to follow your previous advice of betting more "on the winner".
Let's assume you get it wrong (thus losing your bet) and the next match is either Roddick $3 vs Federer $1.40 or Hewitt $3 vs Federer $1.40. What to bet then? It is simple to say "bet more on winners than on losers" except that we don't know which is which until AFTER the match. Can you clarify this advice by showing us what we should do in the above. Thanks.

To P57:
A progressive staking system says that you bet more after a loss, and less after a win.

In 2 events both paying even money. You lose the first bet of say $100. You then bet $120 on the next event and have a win.

You profit $20 with a strike rate of 50% on an even money game.

It is not a matter of who you back, just that you bet more after a loss.

To use 37 spins of Roulette as an example. (Making no claims about roulette, just for arguments sake, let's say that we bet on red for 37 spins, a star represents a red, a - represents a loss. On average you will have 18/37 wins)
In this example I will increase after a loss by 1.2, and decrease by .8 after a win.
eg....
W/L Stake
* 10
- 8
* 10
- 8
* 9
- 7
* 9
- 7
* 8
- 7
* 8
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
* 14
* 11
* 9
- 7
- 8
* 10
- 8
- 10
* 11
- 9
- 11
* 13
- 11
- 13
- 15
* 18
* 15
* 12
- 9
* 11
* 9
* 7

At the end of this series of 37 bets you have.
Profit of $21.
Average bet of $9.92
Total staked is $367.
Total return of 105.7%. An increase of the straight bet return of 97.29%.

Now the average bet on the wins is $10.8
Average bet on the loss is $9.1.


You are staking 120% more money on a win bet than a loss.


Please Note:
This was a quick 30 second spreadsheet job. Figures rounded to whole numbers for presentation here. All sums were from the spreadsheet, so are not completely accurate for you to work out from this.
Also, just used a perfect roulette session as an example.
The figures 1.2 and .8 are just used as a quick example to show what I meant about betting more on a win than a loss.

Because the odds are constant with roulette, the staking was done on the bet size.
For your examples of tennis matches or horse racing with differing odds, I vary the amount to return not the bet size.

" progressive staking system says that you bet more after a loss, and less after a win."

a progression just means you change the size of your bet based on the previous result. What you describe is called a negative progression. Betting more after a win & less after a loss is a positive progression.

"You profit $20 with a strike rate of 50% on an even money game."

Find me an even money game. An no you don't. A progession won't ever be mathematically profitable by itself. The only progession that is actually useful is betting more the larger your advantage, and betting less or not at all when it's small.

"The figures 1.2 and .8 are just used as a quick example to show what I meant about betting more on a win than a loss."

Lol. You won't win as often as you lose in roulette, and that is the problem. Your wins will be worth slightly more than your losses, but you'll lose more often that win which will more than make up for it, and still give you an overall loser. Forget it, and forget trying to give mathematical examples. A progession cannot produce an advantage.

So many people have looked at this in MUCH more detail than you. It's been proven mathematically that progessions don't produce an advantage. This is fact. You are wrong. Don't wanna sound like an ********, but it's all true.

Where is your proof.?
Explain how my example of 2 bets on an even money event doesn't give a profit.

You can't just rock up and say it won't work. What is the reason that a progressive staking system does not give you an advantage.? On the figures I have provided, it does.

Whether I believe beating casino games is possible or not, the example I provided was to show that a progressive staking system WILL give you an advantage over straight bets.....

Yes you are entitled to an opinion, but please if you are going to voice it, provide something to back it up.

You said yourself that the wins will be worth more than the losses. To me this is saying that you agree that it will give you an advantage over straight bets.

You are contradicting yourself.
In the roulette example I provided, I had 18 wins and 19 losses and made a profit.