Totally agree. Eventually you hit that run that knocks out your entire bank.

So to remedy this we use multiple banks. We expect the use by date to hit us a few times but I also expect that the profit from the other days will take care of these unfortuante events.

Good Luck

Hi wesmip1
are those figures from the advantage tool or reel figures?

Well done, Wesmip1.

A point of interest - you are assuming a 5% Betfair take-out. But with real betting, the take-out would very soon have to be less than the maximum of 5%.

Not being familiar with the Retirement Staking Plan I don't know how this would affect the amount to be bet per race, but overall it would have to increase the profit on turnover, maybe even with a snowball effect especially if Betfair's take-out continually reduces due to increased turnover? Could it even prolong the life of the initial bank if/when the inevitable(?) losing sequence occurs?

crackone,

yes it is the BAT prices. They are reasonable for testing purposes.

Good luck.

The BAT tool is the last traded price, so it is a fair reflection.

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 409,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 31/10/2024
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

Wesmip,

Consider this simple level-stakes game:

0% = Edge = LOT = POT
1/3 = Strike Rate
5 = Bank
Lose if Bank busts
Win if Bank doubles

With some effort you should be able to map it out on a spreadsheet.

And you should find:

-5 52% Lose
+5 31% Win
+6 17% Win


I believe that no matter what staking ritual or Bank you choose for this game you will never get your win strike rate above 50%.

Hence your claim of a 70+% win strike rate for a negative game is wrong.

But if you still believe that you can improve on 50% then you should be able to demonstrate how.

Obviously this challenge is open to all.

One post from someone who mastered in maths. and all the staking plan believers have gone dead quite [?]

quite?

I think I mean quiet!

crash,

Its a bit hard to reply when I am asleep.

Jfc,

Not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate. Using your figures I don't think I could ever be in profit because the losing run to knock out a bank of that size is too frequent.

There is a point at which the strike rate will negate a losing system depending on the loss % and the strike rate %. Mind you the strike rate needs to be very high (I think its more than 67%).

I found by using the progressive staking plan you will increase your bank at least 70% of the time(when using a timeframe of a week or double the bank as a stop point). So 7 out of 10 weeks you will make a profit. Providing the profit from the 7 successful weeks covers the complete losses of the other 3 weeks you should come out in front.

I am happy to be proven wrong and rather than argue about it I am running the tests here. No one has yet to show me a large enough sample from punting where it would not work. I have ran this over 4000 bets and it is showing a profit but no one can show me another 4000 bets where this is losing significantly.

Theory is great but we all know those who can't do, teach.... I want to see real results to prove these things, and I would be very happy to be proven wrong.

I am not saying this will work with every system. I am saying this will work on betfair for favs because the ROT is almost break even. This would not work on the totes.

Good luck

Wesmip,

Above you claim that for a non-positive game:

70% Double Bank
30% Bust Bank

which is obviously a profit.

But in your most recent post you dilute that to



i.e.

70% Double Bank or be in front after 7 days.

You cannot infer profitability from that.

In a negative game you would expect that your 3 combined losses would be bigger than your 7 combined wins.