Higher stakes on winning bets, lower stakes on losing bets works best
Easily done, increase after a loser, decrease after a winner. You will always have more on the winners than the loser. 2 provisos though, You must have more winners than losers, and no serious losing runs.
cpfc4me 13 Mar 23:20 Higher stakes on winning bets, lower stakes on losing bets works best Easily done, increase after a loser, decrease after a winner. You will always have more on the winners than the loser. 2 provisos though, You must have more
If you're placing straight bets, fractional Kelly.
If you're trading, things get a lot more complicated. A guy called Ralph Vince has written some decent stuff about this. Essentially the formulae used are still nothing more than an adaptation of the Kelly Criterion though.
There's a lot to consider when you're trading:
- How likely is it that my bet will get matched? - Could this money be put to better use in another market? - How will different events impact the prices? - What is the chance that things go wrong very quickly before I can trade out? - When will I close the trade? etc.
I tend to spread my money out across many markets, and due to this I rarely get close to the 'maximum' I could be risking.
If you want to keep things simple, just spread your money across a few different markets and have a predetermined price or time to exit your trades.
If you're placing straight bets, fractional Kelly. If you're trading, things get a lot more complicated. A guy called Ralph Vince has written some decent stuff about this. Essentially the formulae used are still nothing more than an adaptation of the
Is Kelly the one where you have to know the probability of the bet winning? That's where I fall down - if I knew that I would just win on level stakes.
But genuinely thanks Investor, I wasn't actually expecting a serious answer, not that I don't want one.
I've settled on 10% of bank, no reducing after a loser, for betting over 1.5, what do you reckon?
Is Kelly the one where you have to know the probability of the bet winning? That's where I fall down - if I knew that I would just win on level stakes.But genuinely thanks Investor, I wasn't actually expecting a serious answer, not that I don't want
Kenilworth, on another thread you said the opposite - increase after a winner, decrease after a loser, which I thought sounded quite good. Tried it before though and it didn't really work too well.
Kenilworth, on another thread you said the opposite - increase after a winner, decrease after a loser, which I thought sounded quite good. Tried it before though and it didn't really work too well.
howardisawinker, if you're not making a profit with your betting, the best staking system would be to bet with a little as possible and try to make a consistent profit. Even if you only make an average of 10p per game, it's a lot better than losing money.
Once you've been able to make a small amount of profit per game with a fair level of consistency for 3-6 months or more, you can look at increasing the stakes.
howardisawinker, if you're not making a profit with your betting, the best staking system would be to bet with a little as possible and try to make a consistent profit. Even if you only make an average of 10p per game, it's a lot better than losing m
Howard, I can't remember the post you refer to, but it's possible I did, probably in relation to a different strike rate. What I suggested here ensures you have the higher stake on the winners etc, but every staking system is at the mercy of the losing sequence which is unpredictable.
Howard, I can't remember the post you refer to, but it's possible I did, probably in relation to a different strike rate. What I suggested here ensures you have the higher stake on the winners etc, but every staking system is at the mercy of the losi