Simple Staking Strategy

[inertiauk]

Re: Simple Staking Strategy I'm not claiming that this system is fail proof, I just think it has runs long enough to make good profit on if you don't get too greedy. However there is the chance the bank could get swallowed before it doubled ,and therefore I guess it is more of a gamble and less of a system. I have been convinced from reading replies s to this thread that it is flawed and will not be putting my money into it. I think if the gamble was reduced to obtain just 0.01% of the balance (£3 of £3,000 or £30 or £30,000) then it would work with much more confidence, except the return would be slow and not worth brothering with.

[clay747]

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.

Yes you can find better staking plans than level stakes, however you are wrong if you believe you can turn a losing system(negative expectation) into a winning system(positive expectation) by changing the staking plan.

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.

Surly it does, if there is no value in the odds at level stakes, how does betting more change the outcome. The only time you should stake more per bet, is when you find greater value in the odds on offer. something like the Kelly staking plan. Please tell me, what is so special about outsider bets that make them more profitable than other bets?

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!

I agree, the only way to make a long term profit from Massey's blind betting on favourites data, is by applying filters to the data, to find a subset of his data that is profitable at level stakes, and then, and only then, to try find a staking plan that will maximize the profit(adjusting for risk)

[Faxy Fowler]

Re: Simple Staking Strategy

Yes you can find better staking plans than level stakes' date=' however you are wrong if you believe you can turn a losing system(negative expectation) into a winning system(positive expectation) by changing the staking plan.[/quote'] OK. I was going to do this earlier but having decided not to, I will now. Lets imagine I've just identified 11 horses in my own little system I've devised, all of which I think will win. The results at level stakes: 3.00 L 5.50 W 3.00 L 1.80 W 2.00 L 2.20 L 1.80 W 4.00 L 3.00 L 8.00 L 11.00 L That staking plan has just lost me 1.9 pts. However, my staking plan is that anything over 3/1 will have double the points. Therefore, the 5.50 pulls in 9 pts, whereas the 8.00 and 11.00 lose 4 pts. The others are unchanged. I've picked the exact same horses at the same odds and made 0.6 pts. This is my point; it doesn't prove anything long term but it does disprove your assertion that it is not possible for the staking plan to make the difference between loss and profit (OK in this case not a huge profit but you get the point). It could of course be a negative for the staking plan if the shorter prices win and the outsiders all lose, but that is a matter for the plan itself and has nothing to do with value (unless your actual system is based on finding value horses). If I prove to be fantastic at selecting the horses and get a great strike rate, value is irrelevant. When I say "outsider", it should probably say more a case of longer odds. I am trying to concentrate on staking plans but you seem to keep wanting to bring in the issue of systems and value betting etc, which isn't really to do with what I am trying to say. Just for the avoidance of doubt though, I would always go with level stakes!

[clay747]

Re: Simple Staking Strategy

I'm not claiming that this system is fail proof, I just think it has runs long enough to make good profit on if you don't get too greedy. However there is the chance the bank could get swallowed before it doubled ,and therefore I guess it is more of a gamble and less of a system.

This.

I have been convinced from reading replies s to this thread that it is flawed and will not be putting my money into it.

Great!, that's the point of the forum. we want the punters to win not bookies!!

I think if the gamble was reduced to obtain just 0.01% of the balance (£3 of £3' date='000 or £30 or £30,000) then it would work with much more confidence, [b']except the return would be slow and not worth brothering with.

This. And still a good chance you will go broke at some point.

[Faxy Fowler]

Re: Simple Staking Strategy

Surly it does' date=' if there is no value in the odds at level stakes, how does betting more change the outcome.[/quote'] This martingale here is all about strike rate and not value. The stake adjusts to the odds so you have a fixed victory target. Of course the odds dictate the stake but that is not an issue of value. It doesn't make martingale right, infact its disastrous but in this case it would be because you will hit a run of several losers and some at prices that can't be sustained, as opposed to not searching out the value.

[clay747]

Re: Simple Staking Strategy

OK. I was going to do this earlier but having decided not to, I will now. Lets imagine I've just identified 11 horses in my own little system I've devised, all of which I think will win. The results at level stakes: 3.00 L 5.50 W 3.00 L 1.80 W 2.00 L 2.20 L 1.80 W 4.00 L 3.00 L 8.00 L 11.00 L That staking plan has just lost me 1.9 pts. However, my staking plan is that anything over 3/1 will have double the points. Therefore, the 5.50 pulls in 9 pts, whereas the 8.00 and 11.00 lose 4 pts. The others are unchanged. I've picked the exact same horses at the same odds and made 0.6 pts. This is my point; it doesn't prove anything long term but it does disprove your assertion that it is not possible for the staking plan to make the difference between loss and profit (OK in this case not a huge profit but you get the point). It could of course be a negative for the staking plan if the shorter prices win and the outsiders all lose, but that is a matter for the plan itself and has nothing to do with value (unless your actual system is based on finding value horses). If I prove to be fantastic at selecting the horses and get a great strike rate, value is irrelevant. When I say "outsider", it should probably say more a case of longer odds. I am trying to concentrate on staking plans but you seem to keep wanting to bring in the issue of systems and value betting etc, which isn't really to do with what I am trying to say.

I'm sorry, but you have not disproved anything. all you have done is 'cherry pick' some data to fit your staking plan. I could give a sequence of results where your staking plan would lose more than level staking. It proves nothing. Does flipping a coin twice and getting heads both time disprove the odds of a fair coin being 50/50? Of-course not, its all about what happens in the long term. The reason why your sequence of bets return a profit with your staking plan compared to level stakes is because your outsider are winning more often than the odds suggest. As i said before, by increase the stakes for some bets, at random, all you do is increase the short term variance, which might look like profit in a small sample of bets, but, it wont make you a winner in the long run if the underlying system has negative expectation. Why do i keep talking about value? For a system to be profitable(Positive expectation) you must have value in the odds for the bets you select. That is, you must pick winners more often than odds on offer. The reason you can not beat Casino games in the long run, is the odds on offer are unfair, they have no value in them. It's the same for your horse racing system, unless your outsiders(or any horse) you pick are winning more often than the odds on offer, your system will not be in profit in the long run.

[Faxy Fowler]

Re: Simple Staking Strategy To prove me wrong I think you would have to prove my results aren't possible with the right selection of horses. I am not saying I've achieved anything like this because I'd be minted, but I don't subscribe that value is the only way to achieve success just the same that I don't necessarily advocate bigger stakes on outsiders. Any staking system can have positives or negatives but you are still wrong to imply that something with a 92% return cannot be made profitable (or at least more profitable) with a different staking plan, or we'd all just use level stakes and be done. Its worth mentioning that I've never suggested a casino can be beaten nor said anything remotely of the sort.

[clay747]

Re: Simple Staking Strategy

This martingale here is all about strike rate and not value. The stake adjusts to the odds so you have a fixed victory target. Of course the odds dictate the stake but that is not an issue of value. It doesn't make martingale right, infact its disastrous but in this case it would be because you will hit a run of several losers and some at prices that can't be sustained, as opposed to not searching out the value.

I was talking about your outsider staking plan not the Martingale system. The reason why Martingale fails is because it starts with a false assumption that the chance of losing x bets in a row is constant, when in fact it increases with the number of bets made. For example the odds of losing 6 spins in a row at roulette is about %2. However after 73 spins the chance you will see 6 lost spins in a row has increased to %50! see https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Martingale_%28betting_system%29#An_alternative_mathematical_analysis for a full explanation.

[Faxy Fowler]

Re: Simple Staking Strategy I'm not trying to defend martingale.

[clay747]

Re: Simple Staking Strategy

To prove me wrong I think you would have to prove my results aren't possible with the right selection of horses. I am not saying I've achieved anything like this because I'd be minted, but I don't subscribe that value is the only way to achieve success just the same that I don't necessarily advocate bigger stakes on outsiders. Any staking system can have positives or negatives but you are still wrong to imply that something with a 92% return cannot be made profitable (or at least more profitable) with a different staking plan, or we'd all just use level stakes and be done. Its worth mentioning that I've never suggested a casino can be beaten nor said anything remotely of the sort.

I standby my claim that you will not turn a losing system into a wining system by staking plan alone. As this is fundamental to how casinos and bookmakers make their profits, I don't think you will find such a plan any time soon ;)

[Faxy Fowler]

Re: Simple Staking Strategy I accepted long ago that the right selections need to be made. I don't necessarily disagree with the essence of what you say - as I mentioned before we all post here to share thoughts and ideas in the hope we'll figure it out together. My point at point 21 was that the right staking plan can make a difference and I've shown how, fully acknowledging it was hypothetical. You are right to say I've manufactured it a bit; on the other hand, I could have also dropped one of the odds on winners for the 10/1 outsider winning instead. That would have paid for a few odds on bets going wrong. :D

[Mellinge]

Re: Simple Staking Strategy

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.

Valid point. Always dangerous with a martingale system and a negative with level stakes would imply a greater risk. You could start with really low stakes, say 0.1% bank and work from there to further minimise loss but then it gets to the question, is it really worth the effort and risk for so little reward, generally not!! Oh and thanks for the welcome!!:cheers

[batman2011]

Re: Simple Staking Strategy Wondering how this is going for you inertiauk? Came up with a similar idea myself recently but I was going to start off with for example 4 different banks if there were four different meetings for the day or 5 banks for 5 meeting etc. thinking that at least one favourite had to win at each meeting. This is'nt the case unfortuneatly as last week saw 3 meetings on three different days with no winning favs and what would have meant wipe out for the bank. So I modified the system and its the same as yours, thinking that surely out of all the days racing at least one favourite has to win, I have not been on here before today in case your wondering, had been wrecking my head that there has to some way of making money out of horses as why would anyone bother if there was'nt. I hav'nt figured out a staking plan yet other than double up for a profit whatever it may be, maybe going for a fixed profit as the bank grew. I see a couple of problems with the system, one is poor odds, a horse yesterday came in at 1/20, although one would not have had to go as far this as there were fav winners before that its an example of really poor odds, if using bookmakers one would need a lot of different accounts to keep it going long term, possibly getting bets matched if using exchanges particularly if there is a long losing run, needing to have access to a computer right before each race, there are probably more. Still think its worth a try though.