Thanks for those replies guys - yes that's what the sort of progression Im looking at - when the bank increases, increase the bet sizes.

Completely agree with the method before betting plan, which is why Im asking about the betting, not sure about how to go forward, but it looks like Im on the right track.

I think I misunderstood progressive betting - it must mean betting different amounts depending on whether the last bet won/lost etc, rather than moving up (progressing) the $ amounts, as the bank increases.

Cheers again.

"Progression betting" is simply a euphemism for loss-chasing.

As is nearly every other fancy staking plan.

Silver_and_sand, G'day again, I must say all this dialogue is good, though I'm not sure who you are mixing me up with, hang on I'll quote myself [In short I agree with you, in the long term it's much better on the nerves to be betting levels, or at least say 1% of bank never reducing.

I do think Mad is into an area where there are possibilities though, I've never completed any extensive research but have noticed many cases where a nag is QUOTED odds on (Pre-post) and often wins at a greater odds or where the Top Fluc was much better. food for thought!]

If my mathes is correct I'd need a losing run of 100 to bust the bank wouldn't I? (still presuming 48%S/R and even 8% POT)

G'day Partypooper. Sorry, I might have gotten things mixed up by replying to several people in the same post. I think I was assuming you thought progressive betting on short-priced favourites held possibilities. I understand now that you were really talking about using 1% of the bank per such selection, non-reducing.

Honestly, I don't think the 48% strike rate will hold up over an extended period, and if that's the case, then it's unlikely such a selection method would be capable of producing a profit at level stakes, and therefore betting it even at 1% of the bank would bust the bank in the long run, though granted it would hold up for quite a long time. You wouldn't actually need a streak of 100 losers though to bust the bank using the percentage of bank staking plan. For instance, you could even have 3 winners with an average price of $2.50 for every 10 selections, while betting 1% of the bank on each selection, non-reducing, and you would still eventually bust the bank. For example:

Assume bank of $1,000. 1% bet on each selection, non-reducing. Winner's average price is $2.50. Assume 20 selections per day.

Day 1. $10 x 20 selections = $200 out. 6 winners x $2.50 = $150 in. New Bank = $950.
Day 2. $10 x 20 selections = $200 out. 6 winners x $2.50 = $150 in. New Bank = $900.
Day 3. $10 x 20 selections = $200 out. 6 winners x $2.50 = $150 in. New Bank = $850.
...

So you can still have several winners, and end up breaking the bank in the long run while betting percentage of bank, non-reducing.

The reason why I like the percentage of bank staking plan though is that as long as you have a system that achieves a profit at level stakes, betting a percentage of the bank will end up far out-performing level stakes, and if and when your system manages to stumble into a losing streak, the system is relatively forgiving compared to progressive stakes betting, and hopeful will protect your bank long enough for your system to find it's feet again.

Realistically, I just think Mad Gambler's 48% strike rate will fall considerably the longer he monitors, and if that's the case, then it will lose in the long run even using percentage of bank staking.

Hope this clears things up. Let us know what you find out if you decide to research pre-post odds-on favourites that end up returning better than odds-on prices. Have a good one, mate.

Silver_and_sand, yeah I know mate, but that got a bit too hard to go into, I often think of that when I see the Retirement Plan outlined, i.e. built to withstand a run of 48 losers, mmmmm! what about a run of 30 losers followed by a $1.50 winner followed by ???????????? anyway yes I agree with all you've said really, I was just supplying feedback PRESUMING a 48% sustainded S/R and 8% POT.

As far as Pre-post odds on etc. yes well, no stats to go on, but I'd take a stab that you would be pretty well break even , "if" backed at Top Fluc, and with a few filters .......... who knows.

Though your Graph, interesting but with a 48% S/R of course you would AVAERAGE 9.6 winners per 20 selections winners not 6 , if you only averaged 6 @ $2.50 i.e. LOT of 25%, well you wouldn't be in business for long would you?

Good Morning Partypooper. A 48% strike rate just seems way too high. I don't ever recall seeing such a high strike rate, and so I would think it has to be just an anomaly given that it was based on only 25 paper bets.

You mentioned the retirement staking plan. I actually looked at that a few weeks ago, and thought I'd look over my system's selections for this year, to see how it would have performed compared to my percentage of bank staking (I actually use 2% of the bank per selection). At one point, the retirement staking plan would've come within 3 bets of wiping out the bank, which was after experiencing a horrid run of just 3 winners from 64 selections, and although there were nine 2nds and eleven 3rds in those 64 selections, I only bet the win. By comparison, the percentage of bank staking has never ever ventured even remotely close to busting the bank. That said, the retirement staking plan would have ended up with triple the bank that my percentage of bank has achieved, even despite that horrid run, which is interesting to know, but I guess I'd rather go with the safer staking plan for a little security and peace of mind.

Morning Men/women, just for the benefit of all, have any of you stats blokes got an answer for S&S there, I would have thought that 48% S/R for horses quoted odds on was about right? anyone know for sure?

I know it's not what you're realing asking for Partypooper (I don't know what the pre-post prices were today), but I just thought I'd mention that of the 12 favourites priced at $2.50 or less that raced today (according to tabonline.com.au anyway), only 2 of them won.

S&S, wow that's bad but I remeber someone posting the other saturday when 30 odd won from 40 odd so there you go.

But I do rememeber from some research I did do a few years ago; say take favs (all favs) the S/R hovers around 31% the LOT about 12-15%, then take the Pre-post fav for the same period, RESULT almost identical , even though the horses differed in some cases (either way)

Then if you only took those quoted at $2.50 or less S/R improved slightly directly in line with a tighter Divi .in asliding scale down to 1-1, here S/R was up there high forties with a LOT nearer to 5-6% that's from memory, but I'm sure that's close.

So I reckon 1-1 or less would produce around 48% S/R,

Any help on this one Wes/Bhagwan maybe?

Hi S&S,
It looks like the stats will not be denied & a run like that is to be expected at some stage according to the stats.

The possibbility of a horror run is usually reduced if one targets the first 4 races only, this is usually because of the slightly smaller fields.

The run of outs seems to be reduced for some reason if the 2nd Fav in the field is in barrier 8 or more in 1400m races & less.

Cheers.

__________________
Cheers.