Kiss, Kiss Bagman!

I think people read what they want as I plainly said (in regard to doubling your stake) that:

"In practivce its just plain stupid "

I was asked for a way to prove it would work and I did. I did say in practice it wouldn't work but that wasn't the question posted.

Anyway from I have seen posted I have the following:

1. You can't do it cause someone said so; or
2. There are maths out there somewhere that say it won't work

So far no one has taken the favs from betfair for the last month ( or even few days) and proven this method will not work.

I am not saying it will work. I am saying it worked for a month on past data and I am trying it out day by day to see if it continues.

I think a lot of people here have a complex about staking plans.... if so,there is no need to continue going on in the thread .. just move on.

I have a 'complex ' about 2+2=4, but I've learned to live with it because 2+2=5 just doesn't hold the universe together.

It needs to be divided into three criteria.

1) Can a staking plan turn a loss into a profit temporarily?
A) Yes, of course.

2) Can a staking plan turn a loss into a profit in the longrun?
A) No, the maths will get you in the end.

3) Can you temporarily turn enough profits on enough banks, to defeat the overall loss or bust?
A) No, if you could everyone would do it.

I think the two main debators here are debating different criteria - hence the confusion - frustration.

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 417,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 30/04/2025
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

What is a longrun? Is 16yrs long enough, or should I have gone bust by now.

Hi Wesmip1
Tried it today (backing) results below,

Flat stakes
out 61 units
return 63.94 units
ave. price 3.55

retirement plan
out 82.5 units
return 89.99 units

Some longer priced Fav. got up.

Cheers

Time means nothing, number of bets means everything.

An 80 year old man has been having one bet a year for sixty years, he says I've been doubling up on losses and I've beaten the maths.

His final outlay is $100,000 to recoup the last ten years losses, up until this bet he's winning, this final bet means he loses everything.

What does he say now?

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 417,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 30/04/2025
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

I half agree with this statement. The best (easy) way to test anything is to use the number of bets and the next question is always how many bets is a statistically significant number.

I usually say around 1000-2000 should be enough to get a feel for a system BUT also a minimum of 3-6 months is a good timeframe. For example there are some systems that work during spring carnival time but fall over the rest of the year.

To tell the truth it is one thing I have lacked on checking this progressive staking plan. While it has had over 1200 bets it has only been over the timeframe of a month. I thought rather than test it on prior random months I would just check it against the next couple of months.

As I have said all along I am trying to see if using a progressive staking plan will work with the favs on betfair (both backing and laying). There may be some reason it works that has nothing to do with the staking. It may work because the prices are so close to breakeven that as they sway in and out of profit from each side(back and lay) it provides the edge the progressive staking plan needs to make a profit. The only way I am going to prove or disprove any theory is to run a semi-live test period which I am trying to do but there seems to be a lot of people hell bent on condemning ideas before they even have some test results.

Good Luck.

Crash, I'm very tentitivly adding my 2c worth, you are probably right when you say the mathes will get you in the end, but there is no telling when, it could be in 200 years time couldn't it?? that's what wes is saying really.

I've got 8 banks working at the moment on win bets betting week to week NOT race to race (spreading the risk) I've lost several banks along the way, but am still a long way ahead, in fact I am so far ahead that I can confidently say that if things turned against me to that extent, I would give up long before I was into my money so I have already proved what wes said if you follow the drift. In the sense that over the 8 banks it shows a loss on level stakes (just) in fact 4 banks were possitive and 4 banks were negative.(AT LEVELS)

Nearly all systems WORK, (sometimes, some most of the time) but probably NONE all of the time,....... where have I heard something like that before???? hee hee! anyway, the trick is to make hay while the sun shines.

In the meantime SPREAD the risk is the way to go.

PS. Haven't travelled 1st class yet but I'm planning my next trip abroad for the whole of 2008, along with the Wife and two kids, and I swear the whole trip will be paid for as a result of betting on the horses, (well + rent from the house to cover every day expenses)

The only thing I have ever disagreed with here is that a progressive staking plan WILL [which means always] turn a loss into a profit. All other claims for them is of course always possible, depending on which way the cards fall. Probability [chance if you like] can end up being very generous, or a real cow of a thing! It's not strictly linear according to odds. That's why we can get long runs of ins and outs. Either might start on your next bet or your 1000th next bet, as we can't see the future.

Any type of bank arrangement combined with any type of progressive staking plan CAN produce a profit [or loss] over a various numbers of bets [time frames are meaningless as has been pointed out] and bet types. But nobody can claim they WILL work over X number of bets, nor use past/present examples as 'proof' of future success.

The shorter the odds, the longer the potential number of bets the arrangement might work over due to the laws of probability. It could be profitable [or disastrous] over 5 bets or a 1000 bets. The lower the risk [shorter the odds], the greater the chances of an extended run of success and vis-a-vis. However, there is no guarantee of success, regardless of low risk and regardless of it being a low or high number of bets.

Some [unlucky] people get killed the first time they travel by car and others travel by car a million times without a scratch. Probability is no guarantee of success for safely riding in a car or a progressive staking plan in a negative expectation game either.

There are very good reasons I never swim in Shark infested waters, or use progressive staking plans anymore either :-))

IMHO any punters time could be far more productively spent, discerning the difference between perceived and real value bets and improving their race handicapping ability [picking winners] than twiddling with the nob's of staking progressions trying to turn loss into profit.