Simple Staking Strategy

[inertiauk]

I had an idea to make 1% interest per day on a bankroll, the idea is translating the martingale system to racing in a really simple form, with a large buffer for safety, I want to test this on past data, but I don't know how i can access this data so I am going to try it on daily data for now and see if it bites me on the bum or if it works. If anyone can point me to historical data I can runt his against I would appreciate it. i want to invest £3,000 initially, and increase the bankroll by 1% per day consistently. I actually have the £3,000 sat for real and am tempted This is an experiment based loosely on reading that ~30% of favorites win their races. How it works is that you bet on the favorite of the first race of the day to win 1% of your balance (taking any commission into account). If that looses you add the lost amount to the 1% you were trying to get and calculate how much to bet on the next favorite, this pattern continues until a winner comes in, and then stops until the next day. If no winner comes in recovery continues the next day with the added 1% for that day too. If there is a joint favorite, go for the horse with the most naps, or if this is also equal choose the horse with the highest rpr, if still equal choose the horse with the lowest number. Its pretty simple and yes theres a risk that lots of short odds favorites will fail to come in in a long line and wipe out the bank, but has that happened before? I have no historical data to check, thats why I want to test it.

[inertiauk]

Re: Simple Staking Strategy 6-3-2010 Today we want to raise £30 -------------------------------------------------------------- The first race was the 14:10 at Huntington, The favorite was Robin De Creuse at 7/2 (3.5) The BetDaq Commision is 5% of the winnings so we need to win £31.50 A round £9 bet would win this, so we stake £9 The Horse Comes Third, we are down £9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Now We need to win £39 The next race was 14:20 Sedgfield The Joint Favorites were EIGHTEEN CARAT and Malin Bay at 2/1 (2.0) Eighteen Carat is the choice due to 4 naps vs Malin bays 1 nap. The BetDaq Commision is 5% of the winnings so we need to win £40.95 A £40.95 bet would win this, so we stake £40.95 The Horse Wins and we get £39 after commission. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Todays ending balance = £3,030 Tommorow will will try and increase by a further 1% (£30.30)

[Grex]

Re: Simple Staking Strategy

..... I actually have the £3' date='000 sat for real and am tempted...... [/quote'] I'm not into racing, but if I were you, I would put the 3 grand on Chelsea to win the Premiership at odds of 10/1... The way United and Arsenal are playing at the moment, they are both sure to blow it :\

[froment]

Re: Simple Staking Strategy Adrian Massey has vast statistics of favorites; he says it covers last 16 years in all UK races; I don't know if format will suit your needs, but I don't know anything better: http://www.adrianmassey.com/fav/index.php

[inertiauk]

Re: Simple Staking Strategy

I'm not into racing' date= but if I were you, I would put the 3 grand on Chelsea to win the Premiership at odds of 10/1... The way United and Arsenal are playing at the moment, they are both sure to blow it :\

thanks, and interesting, but im not looking to risk my full balance on a single bet £30k would be nice, but it must be 10/1 for a reason, im trying a stake system which if it works generates a decent daily income. Without actually doing the maths and only rough estimating, if this works month 1 will make over £900, before month 3 I should be able to withdraw my original risk. If I then allow the bank to increase to £10,000 over several months, the bank would then produce £100 per day which I could take out, £100 per day is more than a lot of people earn. Ive got my doubts, It just takes a long run of loosers (especially at low odds requiring high stakes) and the bank could easily get wiped out. However at a target of 1% there is a lot of buffer to recover before loosing the entire bank. I want to give it a try.

Adrian Massey has vast statistics of favorites; he says it covers last 16 years in all UK races; I don't know if format will suit your needs, but I don't know anything better: http://www.adrianmassey.com/fav/index.php

Thanks for that, very useful, the custom reports you can generate give a lot of information. Im going to run the system for 12 months of historical data when I get time and see what the results are, if they are promising I will run them for 4 years previous as well, If this looks good I might just chuck my £3k into betdaq and do it for real.

[methuselah]

Re: Simple Staking Strategy I remember at one point in the Australian racing last year that there were 16 and 17 consecutive losing favourites in a short period. How would that effect your system,?

[inertiauk]

Re: Simple Staking Strategy

I remember at one point in the Australian racing last year that there were 16 and 17 consecutive losing favourites in a short period. How would that effect your system,?

I just ran some figures through a spreadsheet based on the average favorite odds of 2.0, doesn't look like it would've withstood that, the most it can really handle is 11 consecutive. If we modify it to be a bit less hurried (0.05% earnings per day, still 182% APR, not amazing but not bad either) then it would've just survived this run. When did this happen ? i'm trawling historical UK data as provided above and cant find a run even close to that bad anywhere (yet). Also bear in mind my advice is that yes it can go wrong on a very long run of loosing favorites, so the first thing you would want to do is double your bank then withdraw it, then decide at which point you want to start taking your daily earnings as a wage. Its all still in testing stages, i'm running it through some historical uk data no, just trying to get my spreadsheet right.

[inertiauk]

Re: Simple Staking Strategy Just as a mini test I ran my system for 1 month January 2010 Starting balance = £3000 Ending balance 31/1/2010 = £4043.54 It took a bit of time as I cant fully automate my spreadsheet due to the number of races you bet in each day begin different, so i'm having to do some maths myself. I will run it for the entire of 2010 when I get some free time, and publish all of the results.

[Faxy Fowler]

Re: Simple Staking Strategy I was at Doncaster of Friday and there was no winning favourite until the 6th race of 7. Just checking back the SPs I'd calculate (and granted you are using Betfair odds instead) you will have needed to risk £80.44 on the sixth race in order to get your £30 for the day, having already lost £209.81 by that point. The favourites that lost in succession were 6/5, 7/2, 2/1, 2/1 and 9/4. It seems to me the shorter the odds the more risk, the greater the odds the less liability you carry to the next race. Even with a 3k bank, I'd have been sweating there!

[inertiauk]

Re: Simple Staking Strategy

I was at Doncaster of Friday and there was no winning favourite until the 6th race of 7. Just checking back the SPs I'd calculate (and granted you are using Betfair odds instead) you will have needed to risk £80.44 on the sixth race in order to get your £30 for the day, having already lost £209.81 by that point. The favourites that lost in succession were 6/5, 7/2, 2/1, 2/1 and 9/4. It seems to me the shorter the odds the more risk, the greater the odds the less liability you carry to the next race. Even with a 3k bank, I'd have been sweating there!

This is a fair point, and yes i'm sure you would've been sweating, but it still didn't fail, and there was plenty of bank left for recovery if another race or 3 didn't come in. Its certainly true that the shorter odds favorites that loose leave you in the most trouble, but looking over trends, the shorter odds ones do loose much less than longer odds ones, and longer odds looser are fine because recovery is easier. Plus I'm balancing across all meetings, not just 1. I know the chances of a long loosing run are still very possible, but looking at the data I have been looking at, its pretty slim, I would say the chances of making it 90 days (more than double your money) then pull all profits so you have your money back, are very high. I appreciate the valid feedback. Thanks.

[Faxy Fowler]

Re: Simple Staking Strategy No problem. Just checked over the past week and if you'd started with the first race of the day you would have had to wait until race 4 on the 27th, then a win immediately on the 28th Feb, 1st, 2nd and 3rd March, then on the 4th a wait until race 4, a wait until race 5 on the 5th, and a wait until race 7 on today. I will follow your progress with interest. :hope

[inertiauk]

Re: Simple Staking Strategy

a wait until race 7 on today. I will follow your progress with interest. :hope

Cool, if you look above I made it race 2 today, not race 7.

[clay747]

Re: Simple Staking Strategy

I had an idea to make 1% interest per day on a bankroll, the idea is translating the martingale system to racing in a really simple form, with a large buffer for safety, I want to test this on past data, but I don't know how i can access this data so I am going to try it on daily data for now and see if it bites me on the bum or if it works. If anyone can point me to historical data I can runt his against I would appreciate it. i want to invest £3,000 initially, and increase the bankroll by 1% per day consistently. I actually have the £3,000 sat for real and am tempted This is an experiment based loosely on reading that ~30% of favorites win their races. How it works is that you bet on the favorite of the first race of the day to win 1% of your balance (taking any commission into account). If that looses you add the lost amount to the 1% you were trying to get and calculate how much to bet on the next favorite, this pattern continues until a winner comes in, and then stops until the next day. If no winner comes in recovery continues the next day with the added 1% for that day too. If there is a joint favorite, go for the horse with the most naps, or if this is also equal choose the horse with the highest rpr, if still equal choose the horse with the lowest number. Its pretty simple and yes theres a risk that lots of short odds favorites will fail to come in in a long line and wipe out the bank, but has that happened before? I have no historical data to check, thats why I want to test it.

Martingale is a stupid idea at the best of times, short priced odds and Martingale is just suicide, depending on the odds you could be broke by the fourth bet. In short, 1) No staking strategy can turn a betting system with negative expectation into a system with positive expectation. 2) If you have a system with positive expectation, there are better staking strategy(larger profits for less risk) than martingale. in case you missed it on the Massey site linked above,

The first table above indicates that there were a total of 106,693 (clear) favourites analysed. 35% of these actually won while 62% were placed (for a definition of placed, see below). If you had bet the same amount on all 106,693 horses (at SP), your return would have been 92% of your stakes. So, for every 100 units staked, 92 would have been returned (a loss of 8). Similarly, an each way bet on all top rated horses would have returned 91% of stakes (a loss of 9%).

So your system falls under point 1. The martingale will not turn a loosing system into a winning one.

[inertiauk]

Re: Simple Staking Strategy I have just been through 2010, I haven't taken the time to spreadsheet every single date, but I spread sheeted January, with a profit of over £1000, I went through the whole of 2010 looking for loosing streaks and checking that they would have all recovered using this staking, and they would have, I know its only a year, but in that specific year it would have worked. i'm going to check 5 years previous too before I put money into it. Calculated results: If you left the initial £3000 bank (Jan 1st 2010) alone and played every racing day in 2010 always aiming to get 1% of the bank per day, you would have been in profit by £103k by New years eve. I plan to recover my original investment as soon as is viable when I try this, so after 71 Racing days are over, you can withdraw the original £3000 leaving a bank of £3020.29 If you then let this bank run on in the same way until new years eve then you would have been in profit by £53k

[inertiauk]

Re: Simple Staking Strategy

So your system falls under point 1. The martingale will not turn a loosing system into a winning one.

You cannot turn the odds in your favor by any legitimate method on roulette can you, the house has the best odds, full stop, nothing you can do abotu that so its a game you can only loose. In a real Fair Casino with a real table (not an online casino where the results are more than likely fixed) Why do they have minimum and maximum bets on the tables ? and why are outside bets minimum even higher ? For example if you want to play £1 chips on a table, outside bets will be £5, with a maximum bet of £500. If you go to a table where you are allowed to bet £5000 maximum then the single bets are raised to £10 and outside bets to £50. Casino's wouldn't do this if there wasn't a reason, an the reason is without these limits a martingale or similar system with a very large bank (attempting to win 1% or less of the bank each time) would be successful lat taking money from the casino, despite the odds being in the casino's favor, sure its not 100% fail proof, however if the bank % is low enough there is a very good chance the system can run for a long time without failing, and make a lot of money, of course you need to take some of that money out of your main bank before it gets too big, getting greedy isn't advisable, but doubling your bank every 72 race days isn't too greedy, and even if the system fails after 12 or 18 months, and you loose the entire bank then if you have been taking out you will still be in profit.

[clay747]

Re: Simple Staking Strategy

You cannot turn the odds in your favor by any legitimate method on roulette can you, the house has the best odds, full stop, nothing you can do abotu that so its a game you can only loose. In a real Fair Casino with a real table (not an online casino where the results are more than likely fixed) Why do they have minimum and maximum bets on the tables ? and why are outside bets minimum even higher ? For example if you want to play £1 chips on a table, outside bets will be £5, with a maximum bet of £500. If you go to a table where you are allowed to bet £5000 maximum then the single bets are raised to £10 and outside bets to £50. Casino's wouldn't do this if there wasn't a reason, an the reason is without these limits a martingale or similar system with a very large bank (attempting to win 1% or less of the bank each time) would be successful lat taking money from the casino, despite the odds being in the casino's favor,

The real reason casino's have limits is to keep people at the tables longer. The longer people play, the greater the probability the casino will take all their money. In a fair casino game the limits exist for money management reasons. It has nothing to do with Martingale strategy. In a game of equal chance, the player with the largest bank will have a greater chance to beat the player with the smaller bank. See Huygens Result for flipping a fair coin. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Gambler%27s_ruin#Example_of_Huygens.27_Result Casino's and bookmakers love Martingale type staking strategy's.

sure its not 100% fail proof' date=' however if the bank % is low enough there is a very good chance the system can run for a long time without failing, and make a lot of money, of course you need to take some of that money out of your main bank before it gets too big, getting greedy isn't advisable, [b']but doubling your bank every 72 race days isn't too greedy, and even if the system fails after 12 or 18 months, and you loose the entire bank then if you have been taking out you will still be in profit.

If it was that simple, do you think bookmakers/Casinos would still be in business? The Massey site has already proved that blind betting on favourites is a losing proposition. You wont overcome that negative edge with a Martingale strategy.

[HeresTheKey]

Re: Simple Staking Strategy my opinion is that opposite of what you re doing is more profitable since 30% is the probability of the favourite to be winner of course with some fiters on, for example avoid liability when the odds on lay the favourite is more than 3,5 etc just an idea

[Faxy Fowler]

Re: Simple Staking Strategy

Cool' date=' if you look above I made it race 2 today, not race 7.[/quote'] But you said you'd bet on Eighteen Carat and the winner was actually Cloudy Too at 7/1 with your selection beaten 14 lengths ??? This is the sequence for yesterday's meetings at Sedgefield, Huntingdon and Naas 1410 Robin de Cruese 15/8 3rd (staked £16) 1420 Eighteen Carat 13/8 2nd (staked £28.31) 1430 Montan 5/4 2nd (staked £59.45) 1440 Sizing Ireland 5/2 unplaced (staked £53.50) 1450 Lightning Rod 6/4 2nd (staked £124.84) 1500 Cottrelsbooly 4/7 pulled up (staked £546.18) 1510 Cloudy Spirit 11/4 weighed in (staked £312.10). At starting prices you would have had to stake £546.18 on Cottrelsbooly then after it lost would have need to invest £312.10 on Cloudy Spirit. You would by that stage have staked £1,140.38 to win £30. I personally would have to regard that as suicidal in a quest for that sum of money. I mean if you've got £3,000 fair enough but you could easily see the bank disappearing before long. I don't necessarily agree that a 92% ratio with Massey automatically means its flawed though. There are filters and a range of staking plans you could consider that will bring different results. Having said even that, if it was that easy we'd be all doing it....:D

[clay747]

Re: Simple Staking Strategy

But you said you'd bet on Eighteen Carat and the winner was actually Cloudy Too at 7/1 with your selection beaten 14 lengths ??? This is the sequence for yesterday's meetings at Sedgefield, Huntingdon and Naas 1410 Robin de Cruese 15/8 3rd (staked £16) 1420 Eighteen Carat 13/8 2nd (staked £28.31) 1430 Montan 5/4 2nd (staked £59.45) 1440 Sizing Ireland 5/2 unplaced (staked £53.50) 1450 Lightning Rod 6/4 2nd (staked £124.84) 1500 Cottrelsbooly 4/7 pulled up (staked £546.18) 1510 Cloudy Spirit 11/4 weighed in (staked £312.10). At starting prices you would have had to stake £546.18 on Cottrelsbooly then after it lost would have need to invest £312.10 on Cloudy Spirit. You would by that stage have staked £1,140.38 to win £30. I personally would have to regard that as suicidal in a quest for that sum of money. I mean if you've got £3,000 fair enough but you could easily see the bank disappearing before long.

If Cloudy Spirit lost, you would be 2 races from busting your bank.

I don't necessarily agree that a 92% ratio with Massey automatically means its flawed though. There are filters and a range of staking plans you could consider that will bring different results. Having said even that' date=' if it was that easy we'd be all doing it....:D[/quote'] Applying filters could turn the system into a profitable one, being selective with your bets is why we use a system in the first place. But, there is no staking plan that can turn a losing system into a winning one. Massey's results show that blind betting on favourites is a losing system.

[clay747]

Re: Simple Staking Strategy

my opinion is that opposite of what you re doing is more profitable since 30% is the probability of the favourite to be winner of course with some fiters on, for example avoid liability when the odds on lay the favourite is more than 3,5 etc just an idea

If you filter your bets based on the odds, you will find that the probability of winners will increase, so you will be paying out more often. Laying the favourites at starting prices is probably a better idea than backing them. But, you should choose filters based on something other than odds(stable form, track condition, jockey....)

[Faxy Fowler]

Re: Simple Staking Strategy

But' date=' there is no staking plan that can turn a losing system into a winning one.[/quote'] That isn't strictly true. For example, applying a more aggressive staking strategy where the odds are longer can give a positive result where level stakes give a negative result.

[clay747]

Re: Simple Staking Strategy

That isn't strictly true. For example' date=' applying a more aggressive staking strategy where the odds are longer can give a positive result where level stakes give a negative result.[/quote'] Short term variance may give the illusion of winning, but in the long run, with a system that has negative expectation, you will lose more with your aggressive staking than with level stakes, not less.

[Mellinge]

Re: Simple Staking Strategy

Martingale is a stupid idea at the best of times, short priced odds and Martingale is just suicide, depending on the odds you could be broke by the fourth bet. In short, 1) No staking strategy can turn a betting system with negative expectation into a system with positive expectation. 2) If you have a system with positive expectation, there are better staking strategy(larger profits for less risk) than martingale. in case you missed it on the Massey site linked above, So your system falls under point 1. The martingale will not turn a loosing system into a winning one.

clay747 this is not really relevant. The information around 91-2% returns by Adrian Massey is based on level stakes and not a martingale system (although I agree that the system as a whole is flawed :\)

You cannot turn the odds in your favor by any legitimate method on roulette can you, the house has the best odds, full stop, nothing you can do abotu that so its a game you can only loose. In a real Fair Casino with a real table (not an online casino where the results are more than likely fixed) Why do they have minimum and maximum bets on the tables ? and why are outside bets minimum even higher ? For example if you want to play £1 chips on a table, outside bets will be £5, with a maximum bet of £500. If you go to a table where you are allowed to bet £5000 maximum then the single bets are raised to £10 and outside bets to £50. Casino's wouldn't do this if there wasn't a reason, an the reason is without these limits a martingale or similar system with a very large bank (attempting to win 1% or less of the bank each time) would be successful lat taking money from the casino, despite the odds being in the casino's favor, sure its not 100% fail proof, however if the bank % is low enough there is a very good chance the system can run for a long time without failing, and make a lot of money, of course you need to take some of that money out of your main bank before it gets too big, getting greedy isn't advisable, but doubling your bank every 72 race days isn't too greedy, and even if the system fails after 12 or 18 months, and you loose the entire bank then if you have been taking out you will still be in profit.

Martingale and roulette is absolute suicide. You will no doubt win at some points but overall you will lose. If you were to bet on the dozens on the table there is a 2500/1 chance of one of the dozens not coming out 20 spins of the wheel alone. You think this is good odds?? Well its not!!! If you were to bet to try to win £1 each cycle (a cycle being number of spins until a win came in) using a martingale system then in 2500 spins you would spend over £5000 and lose (hope my math is right here ;)) Anyway back to the case in hand. If it was me looking at this I would segment off my initial investment and look at martingale for certain race types/locations or something like that. You tend to get the lower pricings on smaller races i.e. with 4-6 horses so would break them down to maybe only races with 10 horses or more?? Looks like currently it is the lower odds that will kill off your bankroll so if you try to get a way to stay clear of them then this could make possible. Will be interesting to see if any of this works. P.S. Definatly keep that £3k away from this system until you work something better out or you will not be a happy bunny:cry

[Faxy Fowler]

Re: Simple Staking Strategy

Short term variance may give the illusion of winning' date=' but in the long run, with a system that has negative expectation, you will lose more with your aggressive staking than with level stakes, not less.[/quote'] I'm afraid can't agree it is automatic that a staking plan will maintain a system as a winning or losing one. It can increase loss and profit but it can also make a winner into a loser and vice versa. If the staking plan is mixed with the right selections I don't see why not. One pro gambler in particular makes a specific point that he goes big on outsiders.

[clay747]

Re: Simple Staking Strategy

clay747 this is not really relevant. The information around 91-2% returns by Adrian Massey is based on level stakes and not a martingale system (although I agree that the system as a whole is flawed :\)

I make the assumption that any system that fails to make a profit at level stakes with a large number of trials is a losing system. Applying a Martingale to such a system will not change the outcome of that system. Btw, :welcome to the forum.

[clay747]

Re: Simple Staking Strategy

I'm afraid can't agree it is automatic that a staking plan will maintain a system as a winning or losing one. It can increase loss and profit but it can also make a winner into a loser and vice versa. If the staking plan is mixed with the right selections I don't see why not. One pro gambler in particular makes a specific point that he goes big on outsiders.

You can turn a winning system into a losing system with the wrong staking plan. but, you can not turn a losing system into a winning one with the right staking plan. Don't believe me? then give me a staking plan that can beat roulette.

One pro gambler in particular makes a specific point that he goes big on outsiders.

Its a correct staking plan for him, if he is finding more value in his outsider picks than his normal picks, But that does not make it a good staking plan in general.

[Faxy Fowler]

Re: Simple Staking Strategy Roulette is completely random. Horse Racing isn't.

[clay747]

Re: Simple Staking Strategy

Roulette is completely random. Horse Racing isn't.

OK, post an example of a horse racing system with negative expectation that you can turn into positive expectation with a staking plan.

[Faxy Fowler]

Re: Simple Staking Strategy You are asking me to adduce a horse racing system as opposed to a staking plan, which is a different discussion. I've already said if you employ a staking plan that is aggressive on the outsiders it can be profitable in a scenario which it wouldn't be with level stakes. It is still a staking plan. Just because something goes at 92% over level stakes doesn't mean it will automatically lose with higher stakes on outsiders. I haven't in any post advocated going in blind, infact, I've illustrated the potential for this system to require a four figure bet to achieve £30. You still have to do the research to try and get winners and to that extent I would agree that random picking will see you go under eventually. Find the right ones though, and its completely different. That is what we are all trying to do, and I think a good reason why we are here! The point about roulette is that the edge is inbuilt and the ball can land in any of the spaces. You don't get 37 runner horse races that have 37 identical horses.

[inertiauk]

Re: Simple Staking Strategy

But you said you'd bet on Eighteen Carat and the winner was actually Cloudy Too at 7/1 with your selection beaten 14 lengths ??? This is the sequence for yesterday's meetings at Sedgefield, Huntingdon and Naas 1410 Robin de Cruese 15/8 3rd (staked £16) 1420 Eighteen Carat 13/8 2nd (staked £28.31) 1430 Montan 5/4 2nd (staked £59.45) 1440 Sizing Ireland 5/2 unplaced (staked £53.50) 1450 Lightning Rod 6/4 2nd (staked £124.84) 1500 Cottrelsbooly 4/7 pulled up (staked £546.18) 1510 Cloudy Spirit 11/4 weighed in (staked £312.10). At starting prices you would have had to stake £546.18 on Cottrelsbooly then after it lost would have need to invest £312.10 on Cloudy Spirit. You would by that stage have staked £1,140.38 to win £30. I personally would have to regard that as suicidal in a quest for that sum of money. I mean if you've got £3,000 fair enough but you could easily see the bank disappearing before long. I don't necessarily agree that a 92% ratio with Massey automatically means its flawed though. There are filters and a range of staking plans you could consider that will bring different results. Having said even that, if it was that easy we'd be all doing it....:D

How did I miss that , I got my results off sporting life just after the race, i guess they changed them, still it didn't fail, it just came a bit close.