stake size in proportion of the odds

[Johnrobertson]

I'm looking for opinions on staking plans with regard to bets on the horses

I bet on horses using a level stake plan I usually back 3/1 to 12/1.

I'm considering changing so the stake is in proportion to the odds e.g. 3/1 = 3pts, 5/1 = 5pts, 10/1 = 10 pts etc...

Has anyone else done this, is it worthwhile or are level stakes the way to go be interesting to hear views 

[BillyHills]

Interesting subject,

I would guess a lot of people do the opposite of what you are thinking of to be honest, the most stake on the shorter odds due to it having a theoretical better chance of winning. I get what you are saying though.

It would all depend on your bet record, if you have a big enough sample you could easily back test the results using different staking plans and see which one would have been the most profitable over time.

My suggestion for what its worth would be to have a 3-tier staking strategy, something like 1p, 3pt and 5pt and allocate the stakes on how confident you are about a particular selection, disregarding the odds.

Good luck mate, you seem to post up enough winners anyway, and thats a good start

[artursfas]

Good morning dear Billy Hills, I need to talk to you. Since yesterday I try to send a message to you, but the site says that I have the message available, that is, I can not get in touch. How can I contact you?
I already thank you for your attention and information.
hug

[Valiant Thor]

IMO not enough is discussed about staking as I think it is more important than finding winners.

If you cant get through losing runs then you will run out of money before you hit your winning runs and as its the winning runs that actually create the intrinsic value of any part of betting.

3 hours ago, Johnrobertson said:

I'm considering changing so the stake is in proportion to the odds e.g. 3/1 = 3pts, 5/1 = 5pts, 10/1 = 10 pts etc...

You certainly don't want to be doing what you have suggested above.(unless you can pick 10/1 shots at a similar rate as 3/1 shots)

With a wide range of odds such as yours (without knowing your ave win odds/bank size/cut off point etc) I would go for fixed return staking ,its safe and no big cash swings,which means no major shocks.

Say for example IF 100pts is the max your comfortable with staking on an even money shot for a return of 200pts, you should therefore make 200pts your target return on every bet you make.

For your 3/1 shots you'd stake 200*0.25 (inverse of 3/1)=50pts

For your 9/1 shots you'd stake 200*0.10 (inverse of 9/1)=10pts

 etc,etc, to get the same returns as an even money shot

This way your staking the correct amount in perspective to the odds of your selection while at all times remaining within your comfort zone

[corky]

It’s a tough one, no set method would suit everyone, I used to prefer the level staking as it was profitable with small selective bets , as the meetings increased and more bets being placed I bet  all odds to a “10” including stake

evens 5 point win

9/1 1 point win

as all bets are online,bog,  I get daily /weekly/fortnightly/monthly profit/losses just to watch how it performs

downside is frustration of 1pt winner at 9/1.@ a 5pt bet on an evens loser

as billy hills says, you can get the winners

 

[Valiant Thor]

5 hours ago, artursfas said:

 I can not get in touch. How can I contact you?
 

have you tried a Ouija board

Edited April 12, 2018 by Valiant Thor
some might not see the sarcasm

[Bubbles180]

I have always backed at level stakes no matter the price as I believe each selection I make has the same chance of winning, Like Mark WInstanley use to say why should you have more on an even money shot than a 33/1 shot, if you picked it you think it will win, so I back at level stakes and compound every month.

[Valiant Thor]

3 minutes ago, Bubbles180 said:

Like Mark WInstanley use to say why should you have more on an even money shot than a 33/1 shot,

Certain way to the poor house

Because

33/1 (3%) shots win at approx 46% less (1.4%) than they should A loss of 53p to every pound placed 1/1 (50%) shots win at approx 10% less (45%) than they should A loss of 10p to every pound staked therefore level staking would lose you on average 530% more

Thats most probably why he started up his Mark Winstanley Private members Service If you cant do it sell it

[Snoopdog]

VT is surely correct if you bet ~ Even money chances and ~ 33/1 chances.

However my bets tend to be either ~6/4-2/1 or ~7/2-5/1 (that's what my systems produce). I used to bet 1pt the shorter ones, 0.8pt the longer ones. I have done better since changing to level stakes.

Books like "Betting for a Living" - Nick Mordon and "Against the Odds" - Alan Potts even suggest you should have more on the longer prices. I can't bring myself to that.

[Digressing from staking, The worst value often lies between 4/6 and 6/4 as those are the horses the public love to back - per bookmaker Geoff Banks.]

[Valiant Thor]

1 hour ago, Snoopdog said:

Books like "Betting for a Living" - Nick Mordon and "Against the Odds" - Alan Potts even suggest you should have more on the longer prices. I can't bring myself to that.

Ive read both and didn't really care much for the 'advice' given in either.

One book I do consider worth a read  is 'Value Betting' by Mark Coton who was the original 'pricewise' for the RP, though I do think he may (since 1990) be solely responsible for every man and his dog sticking the word 'value' into every sentence horse related as if they were masters of it 

Ive been told 'Money Secrets at the Racetrack' by Barry Meadows is supposed to be an informative read as is his book 'Secrets of the Pick Six' , but I have not got round to purchasing the former yet and the latter seems as hard to find as hens teeth.

Edited April 12, 2018 by Valiant Thor
grammar

[Bubbles180]

It was just a saying 'back what you think will win not matter the price' geez calm down lads, I only back level stakes anyway no matter the price and TBH I have won as much with double figure horses as single figure so it all works out in the end. 

Well for me anyway.  

[skylark2009]

Interesting topic.

As BH and Valiant Thor have both said, your suggested staking is counter intuitive to what should be bet. The stake (if you wanted to increase/decrease based on price) should be bigger at the shorter odds where the market price suggests the horse would have a better win ratio.

If your own betting history suggests your winners are coming in more at the bigger odds, then by all means, increase your stakes here but at a very much reduced level to your suggested stakes.

12/1 shots have the chance of producing losing runs of 70 or more over as small a sample size as 200 bets, so your betting bank size would need to accomodate this potential losing run (ie 70 x 12pts = 840pts bankl), but  preferably bigger as two or more such losing runs could come together.

Suggestions -

Stick with level staking/variable profits. (best choice)

Try level profits/variable stakes.

Define the profit you want from each bet, then divide the required profit by the odds available to arrive at the stake.

E.g.

Required profit = 10pts per bet

odds =3/1

Stake is profit/odds or 10 / 3/1 (3) = 3.33pts

odds = 15/2

Stake is  10 / 15/2 (7.5) = 1.33pts

Try  1/2/3 points staking.

Where -

1pt is bet on what you consider to be weak bets.

2pts are bet on what you consider to be your medium bets.

3pts ors bet on what you consider to be your strongest bets.

 

Valiant Thor also alluded to the long odd/short odds bias regarding SP's, so here are the last ten years bookmaker SP's showing what he means in table format.

 

 

Odds - show the returned SP's

Required SR - show the returned SP's as a probability

Runners/winners are the number of runners/winners at the returned odds (10 years).

Actual SR - show the probability of the actual results (i.e. winners / runners)

Difference - show actual SR - required SR, (if red then those returned SP's would show a loss)

 

Bookmakers typically make their best profits at the longer odds, hence increasing the stake on those longer odds selections would be detrimental (imo). 

 

 

 

 

[BillyHills]

On 4/12/2018 at 1:01 PM, artursfas said:

Good morning dear Billy Hills, I need to talk to you. Since yesterday I try to send a message to you, but the site says that I have the message available, that is, I can not get in touch. How can I contact you?
I already thank you for your attention and information.
hug

Sorry just seen this @artursfas

Think you need a certain number of posts to send a message?

try @gasarson on Twitter

 

[Trotter]

I've always tended to do level stakes 

For a time I did that 'system' whereby every 20 bets I recalculated my stake as my betting bank had increased or decreased over the series of 20 bets ..........  but I gave all that up and just stuck to level stakes

I suppose if you just have a set stake for every bet it's one less thing to think about .......

[Kingdom for]

On 4/12/2018 at 1:25 PM, Valiant Thor said:

IMO not enough is discussed about staking as I think it is more important than finding winners.

If you cant get through losing runs then you will run out of money before you hit your winning runs and as its the winning runs that actually create the intrinsic value of any part of betting......

Agree.  Tough business this punting.  Especially for a relative novice like me. 

On 4/12/2018 at 9:08 AM, Johnrobertson said:

I'm looking for opinions on staking plans with regard to bets on the horses

I bet on horses using a level stake plan I usually back 3/1 to 12/1.

I'm considering changing so the stake is in proportion to the odds e.g. 3/1 = 3pts, 5/1 = 5pts, 10/1 = 10 pts etc...

As per BillyHills, your suggested stakes where stake = odds is back to front.  I would say that the "dutching" method (albeit across races and not a selection of horses within one race) would have more logic.  Not that I am advocating it.

On 4/14/2018 at 12:07 AM, Trotter said:

I've always tended to do level stakes 

For a time I did that 'system' whereby every 20 bets I recalculated my stake as my betting bank had increased or decreased over the series of 20 bets ..........  but I gave all that up and just stuck to level stakes

+1, I think!  I do level stakes for the most part.  I intend to increase the level stake as I go through a profit target.  For sure I decrease the level stake when I have a losing run.

[Kingdom for]

Oh one other staking plan I keep reading of but not yet got into: The Kelly Criterion and its many spin-offs like generalised, half, ....  Perhaps not for this thread but I wonder what Mathematician Valiant Thor thinks of it.

[BillyHills]

On 4/12/2018 at 9:08 AM, Johnrobertson said:

I'm looking for opinions on staking plans with regard to bets on the horses

I bet on horses using a level stake plan I usually back 3/1 to 12/1.

I'm considering changing so the stake is in proportion to the odds e.g. 3/1 = 3pts, 5/1 = 5pts, 10/1 = 10 pts etc...

Has anyone else done this, is it worthwhile or are level stakes the way to go be interesting to hear views 

@Johnrobertson so what are your thoughts on the replies you got?

[Valiant Thor]

10 hours ago, Kingdom for said:

Oh one other staking plan I keep reading of but not yet got into: The Kelly Criterion and its many spin-offs like generalised, half, ....  Perhaps not for this thread but I wonder what Mathematician Valiant Thor thinks of it.

Just to get the record straight Im not a mathematician, Im an engineer (C&G , HND the whole 9 yrds as they say).

I prefer the math side because math dont lie (unless manipulated for a certain purpose ie Government stats etc) but on a whole they will give you a better indication of which direction your punting is going to go.

To answer your Q... (IMO) 

TKC is in theory the optimal staking strategy to use but in practice is not worth a second look unless the absolute value to plug into the equation can be obtained, Its all fine and good using the coin example 11/10 for a true even money shot but that doesnt happen in real life.

Anyone can make a tissue for a race (subjective) but I very much doubt its accurate enough to plug into the equation,if you underestimate your edge then its not worth using TKC but if you overestimate your edge BOOM your losing money quicker than the taxman takes it, again IMO TKC is mainly used by theorists using past data , I have yet to see it being used pre event (non guarenteed fixed edge) over any extended period of time which usually tells a story.

GL

VT

Edited April 16, 2018 by Valiant Thor

[Johnrobertson]

Thanks guys for all your replies, very interesting views.  

The way I pick horses I think it would be difficult to grade them 1pt/3pts/5pts, with regard to increasing stakes on higher odds I think I will probably get bitten when I have a long losing run, I'm going with level stakes and increase my bank overtime.

 

[Kingdom for]

14 hours ago, Johnrobertson said:

Thanks guys for all your replies, very interesting views.  

The way I pick horses I think it would be difficult to grade them 1pt/3pts/5pts, with regard to increasing stakes on higher odds I think I will probably get bitten when I have a long losing run, I'm going with level stakes and increase my bank overtime.

Well good luck jr. 

17 hours ago, Valiant Thor said:

To answer your Q... (IMO) 

Thank you.  From what I have read (so far), the Kelly Criterion requires "precise calculation of the likelihood of an event outcome".  Erm, not that easy when there are a dozen horses lining up.  So I am not surprised by your response.  

(Off topic aside:  Good for you with the whole 9 yards learning for your career.  )

 

 

[Valiant Thor]

On 4/16/2018 at 12:48 PM, Johnrobertson said:

Thanks guys for all your replies, very interesting views.  

The way I pick horses I think it would be difficult to grade them 1pt/3pts/5pts, with regard to increasing stakes on higher odds I think I will probably get bitten when I have a long losing run, I'm going with level stakes and increase my bank overtime.

 

wise decision

you mention you may get bitten during a long losing run so I'll put up a couple of tables to give you an idea of risk of ruin and bank sizes required for a million to one chance of ruin at odds v edge (the yellow bit at the top) (this is a different equation than simple losing runs)

lets take the examples already stated on here even money to 33/1 at level stakes and lets say a 15% edge

Using the chart you would need a bank of approx 46pts to give you a 1/1mill chance of going bust (1591pts @ 33/1),even if your edge dropped down to 8% you still have only 0.1% of losing your whole bank .

So now you have your bank size for level staking, look what happens when you back 33/1 shots from the same bank even with a 15% edge you now have a massive 67% chance of going bust, even to have a coin flip (50/50) of not going bust you have to have a consistently enormous edge at level stakes over the books of 27% with 33/1 shots , your winner to losers burn rate @ such a large variance in odds will lead to the ultimate losing run that wipes the lot out, and it will come.

The above are only examples of what have been stated in this thread (not by you I may add) and Its not my place to tell punters how they should or shouldn't bet its there money they can do with it as they wish, but poor money management IMO is one of the biggest loss maker to most punters by incorrect staking v risk taken and I think the more punters learn about it the better chance they have of beating the book (or at least losing less ,I may be wrong but Bill Bentner seems to agree and he's not too bad a punter and only using math as well ).

GL with your punting whatever you decide to do

VT