Staking Plan Discussions (singles v doubles or trebles etc.)

[harry_rag]

I've started this thread for any general discussions or queries that may arise over time but, specifically, to continue the discussion that started here, on @Xtc12's excellent thread.

I'm conscious of hijacking that thread further for discussion of the nuts and bolts of the staking plan so I though if anyone did have the will to discuss it any more, we could stick it in here. I'm just running something through a spreadsheet now as my curiosity has been piqued. I'll post shortly.

[harry_rag]

Here's some observations on singles v "simple" trebles based on 180 selections in the 4-6 cards market in football. 90 of the games saw 4-6 cards which is always priced at odds against. For the sake of this exercise we'll assume all the games were 6/5 (perhaps slightly generous). We'll also assume I placed 3 bets every day so we can compare backing 3 singles every day to just having 1 treble.

Singles is nice and easy, a 50% strike rate so 90 winners at 6/5 from 180 bets, 1 point stakes show a profit of 18 points with an ROI of 10%.

There would have been 6 winning trebles out of 60,1 point stakes showing a profit of 3.89 points with an ROI of 2.16%.

6 trebles is less than you'd expect in the long run from a 50% strike rate for the individual selections. Getting 6/5 about a "true" even money shot equates to a 10% edge as reflected in the ROI for the singles. Getting 10.648 about trebles that should be only 7/1 offers a 33.1% edge so that's what the expected ROI would be over a large enough sample. We can expect 7.5 winners from every 60 trebles (15 from every 120 if you want whole numbers) which would, indeed, give an ROI of 33.1%.

So that illustrates why trebles beats singles in terms of value assuming we're beating the odds in the first place. Now to run those selections through the "Three day trebles" staking plan! 

[harry_rag]

43 minutes ago, harry_rag said:

Now to run those selections through the "Three day trebles" staking plan!

Ok, I've just about burnt myself out with this now! 

My spreadsheet tells me that I'd have staked 341 points to return 206.5 for a 134.5 point loss using the staking plan. Perhaps it doesn't work with short priced selections!

My conclusion is that this staking plan is unlikely to offer much of an edge, if any, over level stakes, provided you compare properly, e.g. total stakes for all bets placed v total return. It's not 1 point on a treble, it's one point on the first leg, 4 points on the second and 12 on the third. Perhaps the main weakness is that you only have one point on the first leg. There are more of those bets than any other and they're at bigger odds. So you're under staking on most of your winning bets. 

None of which is to detract from a very successful thread, where the key thing is the quality of the bet selection. My ultimate question is would you be better off working out what your average stake has been on every selection so far and just staking that much on every bet from now on?

[alancraik]

Harry

Where do you find the time to do all the calcs, it takes me most of the day to keep track of a few horses.

 

?

[harry_rag]

Sometimes I get lured down a rabbit hole! Read the discussion last night and ended up turning it over in my mind when I was trying to get to sleep. Had to do the work and get my thoughts down then to dump it out of my head. Besides it's more fun than confronting the reality of my fixed odds bets performance recently! 

[MCLARKE]

I have been betting for 40 years and in that time I have tried numerous staking plans but none of them have beaten LSP, with losing systems they have made them a lot worse.

I can see the potential of betting in multiples if there is a hidden factor in the selection criteria that causes "purple patches" in performance.

As an example if we have a winning system that performs better than average on heavy going then if we have 3 consecutive bets on heavy going then there is going to be a better than average chance of the treble being landed.

I might start having small trebles on my systems to see how they perform.

 

[harry_rag]

I think there's a difference between the merits of staking plans and whether to back your selections in doubles, trebles, or even tenfolds but our discussion got a little muddied because we were talking about a staking plan that involved backing selections in singles as if they were trebles. (One of the benefits being that you could back a selection each day at the best price and at BOG etc. One of the negatives though could be having your stake limited when you try to place the third leg and having to back it with 2 or 3 different firms to get on!)

If you can regularly get 6/5 about an even money shot then you are "guaranteed" to win more in the long run by combining your selections in doubles or trebles because you are multiplying your edge. The double is better value than the single and the treble is better value still. That's a simple matter of mathematics. It's why most punters lose their money more quickly; they haven't got an edge with singles and they are multiplying the bookies edge by backing accumulators.

Take my example of 180 selections at 6/5 with a 50% strike rate. 180 is not a huge sample but, backing singles, I'd expect to get fairly close to that 50%.

Doubles would pay 4.84 for a true 4.00 shot so it's a bigger edge and better value. If I back those selections as 90 doubles I'd expect a 25% strike rate but, at bigger odds and less bets, there's a greater risk of me doing better or worse than expected due to chance,

That's even more true about the trebles where I get 10.65 about an 8.00 shot. It would take a lot longer to build a big enough sample to be confident of the actual returns being close to the expected ones. There's also the risk that your edge could disappear before you get chance to properly exploit it (e.g the firm stops offering the market or corrects their pricing of it).

SIx folds would pay 113.4 about a 64 shot. Huge value but I could have to place a lot of bets before I saw my first winner.

So the decision on whether to back singles or doubles etc. depends on how happy you are with the odds, your bankroll, and your appetite for long losing runs.

How to stake your selections is a subject for another day! Have you ever tried the Rising Floor Staking Plan? 

[Xtc12]

7 hours ago, harry_rag said:

It's not 1 point on a treble, it's one point on the first leg, 4 points on the second and 12 on the third. Perhaps the main weakness is that you only have one point on the first leg.

Even though you have placed 12 on the third leg you still have only spent  1 Pt from your initial Bank. Do not count the loss until the bet is complete. If you do a £5 treble on a Saturday, you do not lose more than £5 and only when you have a loser. If the first two win at the odds we have been using and the final one loses you have only lost £5 not £60 that was placed on the last bet.

Will have a read on and come back with some more info. Thanks, we will get to the end of it.

[Xtc12]

8 hours ago, harry_rag said:

My spreadsheet tells me that I'd have staked 341 points to return 206.5 for a 134.5 point loss using the staking plan. Perhaps it doesn't work with short priced selections!

As you had 180  bets under the "staking plan " you could not have had a total stake of more than 168 pts. You had 6 winning trebles (18 of your 180 selections - 6 Pts staked) if all the rest were losers you would have staked another 162  pts. As I don't know the order the other 72 selections won I cant say how much you would have staked in total. 

Lets take it as the best case scenario, the other 72 winning bets all won creating 36 doubles.

What we have now is 180 selections

90 winners - which includes 6 trebles (18 selections)

36 doubles (72 selections)

90 losing singles.

In total it turns out we had 6+36+90 bets = 132 bets or 132 pts staked

Each treble - all odds 6/5 returns 10.65 .......... 6 trebles returns 63.90 Pts

This in turn gives a loss of 58.1 Pts

 

9 hours ago, harry_rag said:

There would have been 6 winning trebles out of 60,

@harry_rag its not going to make a difference to what I have stated above in this post "a loss of 58.1 Pts" but did you just do 60 trebles from the 180 selections or did you stop the treble at a loss.

Edited March 30, 2021 by Xtc12
Add name

[Xtc12]

11 minutes ago, Xtc12 said:

its not going to make a difference

@harry_rag well it might do if you didnt stop the treble at a loss you may have had more winning trebles especially with a 50% SR

[harry_rag]

I probably cocked up the bit where I tried to run my selections through your staking plan. I’ll revisit that. 6 trebles from 60 was simple trebles, imagining the 180 selections were 3 per day staked as a treble so comparing the 180 singles to the 60 daily trebles.

I take your point re the difference between how much is spent versus how much is staked and appreciate the merits of the plan if you only want to bet increased stakes with money you’ve won. I’d still be interested to know the results for total amount staked and returned it that’s easily extracted.

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

[Xtc12]

9 minutes ago, harry_rag said:

I’ll revisit that. 6 trebles from 60 was simple trebles, imagining the 180 selections were 3 per day staked as a treble so comparing the 180 singles to the 60 daily trebles.

Yes I think with a 50% strike rate you should have more trebles than 6. If they were actual selections that you picked from your bets do it using "stop the treble once you lose and restart".

Do you want my actual results from the thread ?

Is that the Amount staked, returns, Strike rate or each individual bet ?

Edited March 30, 2021 by Xtc12

[harry_rag]

1 hour ago, Xtc12 said:

Do not count the loss until the bet is complete. If you do a £5 treble on a Saturday, you do not lose more than £5 and only when you have a loser. If the first two win at the odds we have been using and the final one loses you have only lost £5 not £60 that was placed on the last bet.

I think this is at the nub of the difference in how we are viewing it. I agree with what you say about the Saturday treble. I see it as a “single” bet, £5 at 23/1 that either wins or loses. Doing it your way I’d see it as 3 singles, £5 at 3/1 followed by £20 at 2/1 then £60 at evens. That’s how I’d record it. I think it’s legitimate to record it the way you do but I’d always do it the other way. Tracking both probably gives you a more rounded view of how your bets are doing (i.e. knowing how much you’re actually staking and getting back as well as how much you’re spending from you’re bank). I understand your approach much more now.

[harry_rag]

16 minutes ago, Xtc12 said:

Do you want my actual results from the thread ?

Is that the Amount staked, returns, Strike rate or each individual bet ?

If you took my view that they were all individual bets rather than a series of trebles, I’d be interested in the number of bets, wins, total staked, returned, profit and ROI. So a treble that fell at leg 3 would be 2 winning bets followed by a losing one with their different stakes rather than just a one point losing treble. As a say, if it’s easily arrived at. I’ll look in again in the morning.

[Xtc12]

9 hours ago, harry_rag said:

So a treble that fell at leg 3 would be 2 winning bets followed by a losing one with their different stakes rather than just a one point losing treble. As a say, if it’s easily arrived at.

Lets call the original stake £5, in the above scenario, you are looking for a complete list with Leg 1 - £5 stake @ 3\1, 2nd Leg - £20 Stake and the losing leg 3rd - £60  stake.

[Xtc12]

@harry_rag I have done calculations on the following :

From 26\04\2019 until 29\03\2021

I have still kept the trebles at stop at a loss.

The stake for each bet has been taken into account as above 

Total Bets 597

Total Win Bets 228

Total Stake 6792.07

Total Returns 7636.42

Profit 844.35

ROI 12.43%

Compare this to counting £5 Treble as per my thread from the same dates :

Total Bets 399

Total Win Bets 30

Total Stake 1995

Total Returns 2863.21

Profit 868.21

ROI 43.52%

 

[harry_rag]

4 minutes ago, Xtc12 said:

Lets call the original stake £5, in the above scenario, you are looking for a complete list with Leg 1 - £5 stake @ 3\1, 2nd Leg - £20 Stake and the losing leg 3rd - £60  stake.

Pretty much, though I'm not so much after the list as the results, e.g. that would be represented as 2 winners from 3 bets, total staked = £85, total returned = £80 for a £5 loss with an ROI of -5.88%.

I would then calculate the average amount staked as £28.33 and work out that level staking that would have returned £198.31 for a profit of £113.31 with an ROI of 133.3%.

Obviously that's of little relevance for just 3 bets but you'd do it for all the bets you've placed. I'm just about to revisit the analysis I did for the trebles on those booking bets.

[harry_rag]

What was the level stakes return for the 597 bets?

[harry_rag]

Back to my 180 bookings bets with the 50% strike rate and assumed odds of 6/5.

With £5 singles I'd have staked £900 to return £990 for a £90 profit and an ROI of 10%.

Had I backed and recorded them using the 3 day treble methodology there would have been 13 winning trebles from 103 (52 lost at leg 1, 25 at leg 2 and 13 at leg 3)

With £5 trebles £515 points returned £692.12 for a profit of £177.12 and an ROI of 34.39%.

As I'd record it, I placed a total of 180 bets staking £1705.20 to return £1882.32 for that £177.12 profit giving a "true" ROI of 10.39%.

My average stake for every bet placed would've been £9.47. Had I simply staked that much on very selection the profit would've been £170.52 with an ROI of 10%.

So the trebles approach very slightly outperformed level stakes but I'm not sure it would be enough to dissuade me from simply choosing my stake and sticking to it.

I trust that makes sense and illustrates what I've been trying to get at.

[Xtc12]

Yes your description above describes it perfectly.

The only thing different

23 hours ago, harry_rag said:

. I think it’s legitimate to record it the way you do but I’d always do it the other way.

Thank you @harry_ragfor helping me to pass away a few hours. As our views  differ in how it should be recorded, I think I will continue to record my way as its what my bank balance states.

Maybe someone else can add to the conversation.

[harry_rag]

I’m on a roll now, I’m going to dust off an old staking plan I’ve used in the past (The Rising Floor Staking Plan or RFSP) and put those booking bets through it to see if it improved the return.

[harry_rag]

23 hours ago, harry_rag said:

What was the level stakes return for the 597 bets?

@Xtc12 I'd still be interested in this if it's available without any extra effort.

[Xtc12]

@harry_rag those 597 bets were broken up into  trebles (my way stop at a loss) so this is the returns for the singles. It may seem unusual that I have less singles but the trebles contained Non Runners the singles don't, if that makes sense. 

Singles from the same dates

 

I am going to check over the trebles just to see if I am right.

[harry_rag]

13 hours ago, harry_rag said:

I’m going to dust off an old staking plan I’ve used in the past (The Rising Floor Staking Plan or RFSP) and put those booking bets through it to see if it improved the return.

Think I'll stick that back on the shelf! It's a plan that has a degree of loss recovery that can be set to be as cautious or aggressive as you prefer. Didn't matter where I set it for these bets, level stakes outperformed it every time. I know that a staking plan can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear but I do remember getting reasonable results with this one in the past.

[MCLARKE]

On 3/31/2021 at 11:25 PM, Xtc12 said:

Thank you @harry_ragfor helping me to pass away a few hours. As our views  differ in how it should be recorded, I think I will continue to record my way as its what my bank balance states.

Maybe someone else can add to the conversation.

I think the problem with betting in trebles is the long losing runs and the potential for a significant drawdown on the bank balance. I suppose it depends whether you like the thrill of the occasional big win or the satisfaction of consistent smaller profits. I prefer the latter but we are all different I suppose.