Well I'm around that age and I'd love to know how the system works[?] I get offers of credit cards on almost a weekly basis [currently her-in-doors and self have a $6,500 card each].

I believe if I go belly up on a pension [I'm a pensioner], the banks can't claim court costs and if I pay something [$1 a week I think is all thats needed] the banks can't even take me to court! lol, lol:-))

Oh I love this thread. Just like the good old days [fire in their bellies]!

Sounds like the same theory of backing both red and black in roulette.
You'll be up and down, but will eventually do your you know whats.

Yeah, I was always bamboozled by the experts telling me that I have to get value which by definition means that I need better odds than the true odds (overs) whilst at the same time we are led to believe that winners and shorteners (unders) are one and the same i.e. "smart money" huh?

Crash I've forgotten the details about that software, but basically the idea was to use a card up to it's limit..... paying the payments from cash advances from another card etc etc but the $ limits he was talking about were way more than you are quoting, just as a matter of interest I have a business Amex with NO- LIMIT (I've never put em to the test, but there is no limit) and a platinum Mastercard with $80,000 limit, I didn't even ask for it, every few months they just send me a notice to say that my credit limit can be increased if I want it, scary.

Thanks, Burrah.

I'll have a look at it.

Rattled a few cages there Wes

I have to say I'm sceptical but if you have indeed found a method of getting even money 70% of the time then more power to you. I still don't understand how you can back and lay the same horse at the same price and make a profit as you stated in your opening post.

Good luck you've injected a bit of life today

__________________
Pixie

"It's worth remembering that profit isn't profit until it's spent off the racecourse." -- Crash

Crash,

I gave you the maths a few posts back (Post #26)

But to clear things up using proper maths here you go :

Rick Of ruin stats the probability of a run of outs occuring in a given set of runs.
I have chosen 10,000 runs with a win strike rate of 30%. Roughly the win strike rate of favs.

At the retirement plans staking I am using on a $1000 bank you would need a run of 13 consecutive losers to blow your bank.

In a sample of 10,000 races this will happen at least 95 times.

This accounts for 13 * 95 = 1235 of the races. This is 12% of the time. Lets say its double that due to runs of outs that are only brken by 1 win in there somewhere so thats still only 24%.

This leaves you with a 76% success rate for increasing your money in any given series of bets.

Go back to my last post and you will see that if I make a profit 76 times out of 100 and they are at least going to cover the 24% of the time I make a loss then I am going to make a long term profit.

This is obviously a simplified version. Show me the maths where you can prove this is wrong and then give me the result set that proves it is wrong and that it doesn't work as I can provide many result sets where it does work.

I am happy to be proven wrong but at the moment I am the only person showing any maths to prove my point.

Good Luck.

Sorry, but that's 'magic' maths.

You mentioned strike rate but not average win price. Why not?
Because that [well known ] win strike rate for favorites equals an average win price that is just not profitable and every punter with half a brain already knows that [what happened to your progressive staking 'maths'?].

There is NO maths in your post to support your original claims whatsoever, just magic puddings :-))

Crash

With a success rate of 75% i need an avg win price of $1.33

But as i said it is double the bank ( so works out to be $2.00 ).

Does the magic maths work now ?

have fun.