General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
................ of close to 70% which is showing profit at level stakes, would you
a) continue with level stakes and build bank slowly
b) put a staking plan in place to make a profit by getting losses back on any losers you have, by doubling up etc
a) continue with level stakes and build bank slowly
b) put a staking plan in place to make a profit by getting losses back on any losers you have, by doubling up etc
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 35
|
By:
steady as she goes always the best. You will hit a rough patch.
|
|
By:
a little every day
|
|
By:
Keep lumping on til you do your bank.
|
|
By:
Depends what you are betting on.
|
|
By:
shiraz 13 Apr 17:08
Depends what you are betting on. Why? |
|
By:
Use half Kelly staking.
|
|
By:
Level stakes will save your arse one day, I know some don't agree though, but if you can make it pay to level stakes that's all you need to continue doing, greed won't pay in the long run.
I play a mere 0.5% of bank at level stakes, and while that's boring to most, it has got me through the most awful runs imaginable, where you simply can't buy a win and lady luck would't give you the snot from her nose, so to speak. No matter how strong your strike rate, you will have to endure that at some point. Had I been increasing stakes I would have gone bust at that time without doubt, so I don't believe it's ever good to bring out the tanks, and it's been the downfall of many who thought they had made it. |
|
By:
Nice shout Trev
Gonna leave the tanks in the garage!! |
|
By:
Unless you are able to defy the fundamental laws of the universe, in this case mathematics, any system that increases the stakes after a loss is, sooner or later doomed. It is in fact mathematically guaranteed that if you play the game for long enough you will ultimately get wiped out.
|
|
By:
shiraz 13 Apr 17:08
Depends what you are betting on. Artisan has put it in a more "universal" way than I would, but he/she is, of course, correct. My point is taking that philosophy and applying it on a smaller scale. Just as a "table limit" in a casino will stifle this type of staking plan, so too will market volume here. |
|
By:
Loss recovery is rubbish.
If it was me, I would be increasing stakes as bank increases. So if you are happy with 2% of bank per bet, reassess after the bank has grown by 20%, and up your level stakes accordingly. Then reassess after the bank grows 20% again. Loss recovery is for fools, especially if you really do have an edge. If you don't have an edge and this is just noise in a small sample size, no staking plan will save you. |
|
By:
thanks for the advice folks.....
my decision is made and level stakes it is.... im sure u understand the feeling though when you are winning consistently and regularly and think - i could have got all losses and profits there..... anyhow, decision made, cheers for posting... |
|
By:
If it a system placing bets for the win or place:(not laying)
At a 70% strike rate you need on average, a dividend return for your 7 out of 10 wins of 10.16 to break even. you need to win 3.16 to cover your 3 losses and the commission on 3.16 is approx 0.16 Over 10.16 return on average per every 10 bets means you have an edge. Your staking imo, should reflect your edge. As a rule I use this equation: Divide your edge % by 10 to give you your bet. So a bet with an edge of 5% on a bank of 1000.00 would be: 5% which is 0.05 0.05 / 10 = 0.005 0.005 times bank of 1000.00 = a bet of 5.00 An edge of 12% would be: 12% = 0.12 0.12 / 10 = 0.012 0.012 times bank of 1000 = a bet of 12.00 Some may, and have scoffed at these suggested figures but if your system is like most system and fail 99% of the time you will not lose too much before you are awake to the fact that it is a losing system. If, on the other hand it is a winning system, compounding will see you in big profits in a very short period ~ depending of course on frequency of bets. |
|
By:
magic word.....COMPOUNDING....imo
|
|
By:
its a laying system compound,,,, does that make a difference?
|
|
By:
For laying imo divide your edge by 5 not 10 and that figure should be your liability.
An edge of 12%: 0.12 / 5 = 0.024 0.024 times bank of 1000 = 24.00 liability lay to a liability of 24.00 Selection dividend 1.3 laid to a liability of 24.00 = bet of 80.00 You either win 80.00 or lose 24.00 Re-calculate liability on new bank after each bet |
|
By:
Patented, having seen your choice (sticking with level stakes) there's one important mathematical fact that I should have made clear: in the same way that any system that increases the stakes following a loss is doomed to fail, any system that maintains level stakes following a loss is, sooner or later, also doomed to fail. I suggest you look at Kelly. We can debate the % of Kelly that you apply, but his maths are sound. The fact that they are sound means that any other approach is unsound, and so any system that does not reduce the stake following a loss, is in the long run, guaranteed to result in a wipeout.
|
|
By:
Artisan ~ As good as kelly is there are not many who know the edge on an individual
selection. They could use the overall edge and apply this to all selections and if you then dilute kelly then you are really just betting a % of your bank which is what I suggested. |
|
By:
Artisan - would the size of bank and percentage stake versus bank not prevent failure if you were maintaining the 70% strike rate?
i agree with compound that working out a percentage edge would be tricky |
|
By:
Compound, I agree with you completely. A percentage of the bank is the way to go. The question is, what percentage. Kelly gives you the means of calculating that if you know your edge. But as you say, precision of the size of the edge in some systems is difficult, eg assessing value. So the question upper most in the mind of any would be profitable gambler (having found an edge) should be "what fraction of Kelly should I use?" which translates into what percentage of the bank should I use.
|
|
By:
Patented, strike rate in itself is not enough to go on, you need to look at how much you win when you win and how much you lose when you lose. This translates into the edge. You can then do one of two things: do the Kelly sums adjusted to take account of the likely accuracy of your edge calculations, or go with what Compound suggests which imo looks very sensible.
This will get you going. As time goes on, and your system begins to deliver, you can return, as you will time and time again, to the question "How much of the bank should I put at risk?". The key thing at the moment is the acceptance that increasing the stake, or maintaining level stakes after a loss, will not work. |
|
By:
good stuff, lads
|
|
By:
Tiger .. keep lumping till you done your bank .. thats why i like you ....... your are a STAR ..
|
|
By:
Tiger heres my take .... More or less Lumping on .. ok lets go ..... If the nag cannot win price dont matter .. lay it till your nose bleeds ....... If the nag cannot lose have your Max On . all this 2% nonsense is just that .... winners win ..... losers can please them self ... its a gambling game .. and a bit of fun .
|
|
By:
H he he he Zipper but correct ;)
|
|
By:
Patented 13 Apr 16:55
................ of close to 70% which is showing profit at level stakes, would you a) continue with level stakes and build bank slowly b) put a staking plan in place to make a profit by getting losses back on any losers you have, by doubling up etc ====================================================== The fact that the information provided above is very inadequate for a detailed reply to be given......indicates you have more learning time required BEFORE CHANGING STAKING! For example ....I have a "system" that does produce HIGH ODDS returns.......BUT there might only be 1 winner every 600 bets ! However, I suspect , even with such a LOW STRIKE-RATE, the ROT would still be significantly higher than what you are achieveing with a STRIKE-RATE of 70% ..... The fact you are even considering "doubling up" again indicates you are at very very early stages of mulling over what you are doing. If you ever do go down the "doubling-up" route.......poor house awaits you! Unless you are VERY VERY VERY LUCKY ]:) You have not even indicated the number of bets where your "system" "works" on a 70% strike rate. nor did you mentioned the sport.....which again shows you are no where near to increasing stakes etc. Just a total lack of "thought" to your post. The advice by some of above is pretty "good" considering how RAW your post was.......so I trust you will spend more time checking your "system" has an "edge" over a fairly long series of PAPER TRADING before risking too much money. GL on the path to learning. |
|
By:
achieving ...even !
|
|
By:
DFC ~ excellent post as always. But I have a question regarding paper trading. Do you really believe it works?
|
|
By:
I don't think paper trading is of much use, it's best to use minimum stakes as at least the bets are actually going on at the price you're recording at
|
|
By:
i have paper traded this system for over 9 months now and went live with it on the monday after cheltenham and it is all going well so far.......
i lay horses, one selection in a race and lay from 5/1 and under.... the selection is not based on price but typically falls into that category.... occasionally higher priced horses have fit the criteria however, i have worked out it returns the most profit going for horses priced 5/1 and under..... of a total of over 1400 selections i have had just under a 70% strike rate in a range of prices, the large majority of which are under 3/1.... so therefore i am not having any massive losses at level stakes and considered the option of taking back losses and profits over one or a number of the following races.... someone once mentioned getting square root of what your down over a number of following races after a loss but for now, i have remained at level stakes..... i have heard all the 'cannot win laying one horse' etc but it is phenomenolly consistent so far and i have dealt with runs of winners (3 or 4 max so far) very comfortably..... im off out now but all advice is appreciated and thanks for posts so far |
|
By:
Thanks Patented for information ....that is far better post :D
I'm at early stages re LAYING horses , and you are probably far better that laying horses that are "value" than I am .....based on my record to date! may post later once digested what has been posted...... LAYERS may be reluctant to give you advice....understandably......though some generous sprits already have... Will watch with initerest. GL ============================================= Artisan IMO it is far better PAPER TRADING and not risking money at initial stages.....though Patented is far beyond initial stages by looks of it! Does PT "work"? -........It gets you used to selecting bets and recording bets.......so that can't be a "bad" thing. As long as you go about it in a "serious" way, then it is a "good" way to go IMO. Obviously when using a SMALL BANK, the pressures to push too hard for profit ( OVER STAKING etc) are very very likely to most punters to blow their bank.....no matter how "good" they are. Operating with a DECENT BANK is far better way to bet, as you tend to be satisfied with a chunk of profit ...compared to a few pounds . However, to jump in the deep end without having practiced on choosing size of bets from bet to bet.....with all the ups and downs there can be IF A BACKER.....and with dealing with a HIT when a LAYER.....would be a big mistake IMO. PAPER TRADING can only help to indicate the ups and downs that will occur..........and at least you will see what can happen BEFORE operating with decent size bank. BTW thoses that say it does not matter what size of bank you have are IMO blethering a load of rubbish..........Winning £10 a day with small bank ( say 10 % ROI on £100 bank) psychologically is not same as winning £100 a day from £1,000 bank....and you are less likely to push too hard for profit with a decent bank size. GL with bets today |
|
By:
Patented, I've just done a simple Monte Carlo analysis of a 70% strike rate using a sample of 1400 selections. On 200 cycles the lowest number of consecutive winners I got was 4, the highest was 11. So you would have to budget at a minimum on the high number, and even then you run the risk of there being 12 and getting wiped.
|
|
By:
I agree with you about the psycholical aspects of the size of the bank. I'm not sure about the paper trading. I accept that a level of initial paper trading gives some indication of whether or not you're onto something. But, maybe it's because I have a higher predisposition to self delusion than most (over optimism I can get the bet on at better odds than the reality), my real results have never matched those anticipated by PT.
|
|
By:
Patented
If this system has worked for years (not weeks or months) then keep to plan a) Plan b) will be armegeddon |
|
By:
thanks for all the info guys.... i will update progress over time..... i intend growing my bank at level stakes for the time being and will reevaluate at a later date....
best of luck and thanks again |