Just thought I’d touch on this one again, as we all know loss chasing per se is doomed to disaster in the end IF it is open ended .i.e. the simple example is all we have to do is double our stake or cover to win until the next winner, simple eh? …….. If only,?? Well of course if you had enough money to fund that you wouldn’t need to do it and there’s no bookie that would take the bets needed, not much rocket science there, but it does get a bit more interesting when you include a “stop loss” ……i.e. let’s say you have a desired amount to win per race or per investment, lets say it’s $5 per bet, so you set a maximum bank that you are prepared to lose, let’s say that is $1000. (not set in concrete) Now multiply that by 5, so you now have $5000 committed. (i.e. 5 banks)

The next step is deciding on your method of selection that suits you…. It could be as simple as the pre post fav. at your local track, or 5 state tracks (time order) , you could include filters or whatever, actually that part of it almost irrelevant, as long as it has a decent S/R and of course as close to break even or in profit as possible, AND as long as you stick to the original selection method like glue.

OK, but we still know that eventually that Bank- breaking run WILL happen. So we could run with just re-grouping and starting again with the new Bank no.2, then Bank No.3 etc, etc. and of course you would have had accumulated winnings along the line so even if you eventually wiped out all 5 banks it’s quite possible that you could still be in front (but not guaranteed)

Now another angle, let’s say as the bank increases (when all is going well) every time the bank increases by say, 10% (variable) we increase the amount we desire to win per bet by 10% etc, etc, etc . OR in fact you could do that daily or whatever.

Make no mistake unless you were particularly born lucky there would be lost Banks, some times Banks that had been built up incredibly only to be shafted by that long losing run, but what we are looking for is that instance when we have the long WINNING run, then get out with the Bacon!!

One last suggestion that I have found most helpful over the years is this little trick: when target betting and the selection is less than 3-1 i.e. $4, back it as if it was $4, eg. Say our target had reached $42 and the next selection is only showing $2, don’t wager $42, only wager $14, now IF it wins we obviously haven’t achieved our target, but we have helped things along a bit, so carry on etc, etc. Now if it loses we have only lost $14 instead of $42. I’ve found this can often get you through to the next winner @$4 or better, whereas if you always bet to the true odds the bank can be quite quickly wiped out if you just happen to have a run of shorties that all get beat.

Sooner or later you will hit that long winning run over months, and you could even put a stop loss rule to that eg. When the Bank reaches $5000 (or whatever) STOP withdraw the cash and start again. You could even have 2 banks running at the same time one with a smaller “stop win” (as it were) and 1 with a much larger stop win, (always going for the big one , BUT over time)

Input appreciated as are questions.

My belief party, is that all you are concocting is an elaborate staking system. It has been proven that any staking system at best can only magnify profit or loss. Therefor surely it would make more sense (heart attack wise) to simply bet percentage of bank and watch it grow steadily. Steadily being the operative word.

__________________
"Not winning on a horse that came first is one thing.....Losing on a horse that didn't come first is something else entirely!!!"

If you throw 10 heads in a row the chance of the 11th throw being a head is even money. Those punting up on the tails knowing that the odds will revert to 50/50 will have lost a fortune.

Instead of loss chasing why not upping the ante for say three consecutive winners? I suspect this too may lose, but if you're looking at only backing those paying $4.00 (3/1 chance) then three winners in a row, all up, gives you the juicy odds of 63/1 with the chances of 3rd horse winning still being 3/1. Probably the odds of this event happening is closer to 100/1 rather than 63/1 ..... I don't know, but I do believe loss chasing is dangerous.

Read up on David Walsh.

TWO BETS, of course you are right in the long run, In fact my main betting method is exactly what you say and that's even for the place, even more boring, but in this case what I'm trying to capitalise on is the occasion when the method hits a decent winning run (yes we know that will be countered sooner or later by losing runs) I think everyone has commented on how most methods seem to have clumps of winners and clumps of losers.

Tipsy, what I was saying is not to just back @$4 +,..... back all selections but if it is less than $4, divide your "target" by 3, that's your bet.

You are correct loss chasing is very dangerous which is why it has to be controlled, and remember the object is to multiply the bank from a winning run quickly and then STOP. By winning run I don't mean consecutive winners I mean a winning period, eg. $4, L,L,L, $2, L,L,L,L,L,$3,2 L,L,L,L $3.4,L,L,L$4 etc etc. so in this example $5 level stakes = $17 loss, V target betting = $100 profit. The amount staked however would have depended on the prices of the losers. (Always taking the best fixed price on offer of course)

Not claiming the Holy Grail here, just discussing using the idea to benefit from a favorable run.

I didn't explain my self too well, all I was looking at was all up three bets in a row on a favoured horse ...... I arrived at the juicy odds of 63/1 for three 3/1 chances winning in succession.

I reckon I've read all your posts on here and there's some really good stuff. I do like the concept of a winning period that you've mentioned but I cannot get my head around turning a losing flat stakes betting into a winner based on a staking system. I just reckon you'll eventually have to put the house up at the odds of what?, 5,000 to one ON to recoup your bank plus $5.00.

I need to re-read your original post tho'. It's good stuff Partypooper.

It can't happen Tipsy, as as soon as you've lost (in this example) $1000 on any sequence that's it STOP, accept the loss i.e. $1000 less whatever you had managed to win up to that point. Then start again with bank No. 2.

I have previously run a thread on here showing how it did in fact work with the right strike rate.

Actually there were a few:
http://propun.com.au/racing_forums/...1&page=13&pp=10
http://propun.com.au/racing_forums/...ead.php?t=25862
http://propun.com.au/racing_forums/...4&page=17&pp=10

Its doable. It works. It works really well with small banks.

I don't use that method anymore. The amount I would make with it is negligible compared to other methods I use.

The trick with the recovery staking method is trying to get set when the stakes required hit a ludicrous amount.

Below is a list of expected runs of outs as listed by the legendary Bhagwan.

Strike Rate (%) = Maximum Losing Run
5 = 135 // 10 = 66 // 15 = 43 // 20 = 31 // 25 = 24 // 30 = 19 // 35 = 16 // 40 =14 // 45 = 12 // 50 =10 // 55 = 9 // 60 = 8 // 65 = 7 70 = 6 // 75 = 5 // 80 = 4 // 85 = 4 // 90 = 3 // 95 = 2


So you can see a 5% strike rate, has a chance of a MASSIVE 135 run of losing bets, enough to put most punters off their weetbix for a long while.

Looking at the above figures, assuming a 40% SR and a chance of 14 outs in a row, could we set our target run to a max run of 8? That way we'd only ever get on bad run in a row, limiting the carnage?

How would we calculate the average worst losing runs and possibly aim for our run of bets to go one bet more to cover our losses?

-------------------------------------------------
Strike Rate (%) = Maximum Losing Run
5 = 135 // 10 = 66 // 15 = 43 // 20 = 31 // 25 = 24 // 30 = 19 // 35 = 16 // 40 =14 // 45 = 12 // 50 =10 // 55 = 9 // 60 = 8 // 65 = 7 70 = 6 // 75 = 5 // 80 = 4 // 85 = 4 // 90 = 3 // 95 = 2

Looking again at the figures above, using a 40% SR (0.4), means that we have a 60% (0.6) chance of hitting a loser.

If look at a run of 6 outs in a row: 0.6x0.6x0.6x0.60x0.6x0.6 = 0.047 or 4.7% chance of hitting 6 losers in a row. Meaning you'd win the target sequence 95.3% of the time. The issue is the massive losses that you would incur on those 4.7 times out of 100 that the shizzle hits the manizzle.

If it's a winning system then you should magnify POT somewhat, however I still need to be convinced that it will turn a losing sequence into a winner.

----------------------------------------------

WHAT I WOULD BE REALLY INTERESTED IN, is hearing if anyone is using a target betting sequence putting on all bets at once, as I believe you once did partypooper using 5 as a divisor? (only working from memory)

__________________
The Schmile

"I buy when other people are selling.”
― J. Paul Getty

Well, I'm not going down the line of secrecy, I mean I'm trying to contribute something positive here, but you all know how it is, after many years of being on the wrong side of the equasian we are all very reluctant to reveal the one thing that has proven to be a life changer. Lets just say that I am still here after many a long year.

TheSchmile, you have a long memory there, and at least I can tell you that , THAT is still going strong, but as much as I would like to scream it from the rooftops, I know that it could seriously affect my families income, but really what I want to convey is that what is supposed to be impossible is NOT.