Staking plans

[bowles10]

We have a number of discussions on here but rarely do we touch on staking plans. This is the worst part of my game to be honest & i always feel i have let myself down when a big winner comes in & my staking has been poor. What i am after is a decent staking plan, you dont have to mention money as we deal in points here anyway. My problems are: - try too many different bets i.e simgles, doubles, patents, trixies, yankees etc - lose money by having more on a 6/4 chance due to price & then have a small amount on a 20/1 winner - i rarely back e/w preferring to back 2 in a race - i want to start off with a bank & perhaps allocate a % to lose each day & then calculate the next bet if it wins etc I am mainly a singles backer now after years of trying the multiple bets. However, last week taught me again that when the big winner comes (big timer 40/1) i didnt get enough on it due to my other bets. My conclusion is to have the same amount on every bet irrespective of how i rate it. Add a % of the winning bank if I am in front to increase the stake but never go below a minimum stake i.e 100pts per week 20 bets of 5pts win any profit over & above 100pts, add 10% to each stake i.e 5.5pts & so on. Any thoughts, advice or just your view?

[fintron]

Re: Staking plans Good topic Bowles, glad you brought this up. It's something I am trying to improve on myself. I have actually just bought David Duncan's book - Winning Horse Racing Formulae - to try brush up on this aspect of betting. Up until now I have tended to back all my selections to single, level stakes, regardless of the odds. On a weekend when races are more numerous I have tended to pick 5 horses and do 10 doubles from those selections. However, it is very rare for me personally to pick out five winners in such a way, and even with the typical return of two winners, I rarely tended to make much profit because of the wasted stakes from losing doubles. When I first started betting I got lured into patents and lucky 15's etc but soon realised that they are silly bets because of all the wasted stakes. However, in Duncan's book he talks of reduction plans which are similar to yankee's/heinz's etc except they don't fully cover all doubles and trebles, only covering the minimal amount, to cut down on wasted stakes. Say you have 4 horses, A, B, C, and D, rather then backing them in a yankee (11 bets) you only cover certain doubles and trebles. There is the chance that you may fail to back a winning double, but because you have staked less, you are better covered in the event that all or most of the multiples are losing bets. I suppose such reduction plans are best for punters that back a lot of short-odds horses. If you back horses around evens and 2/1 and put them in a Yankee then you really need three to come in to make any sort of profit on the bet. However, if you back a lot of outsiders, say 10/1, then it is probably best to stick to the conventional yankee because there is the possibility that you could line up, say a 110 pt double from backing two 10/1 shots but not have it covered in a reduction plan. How gutted would you be in this case, lining up a 110 pt double, from staking just 11 pts, but not having it covered!!