General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
We can all pick winners on good days and can't catch a winner on a bad day. I amn't bad at picking winners. Not saying I can make money in the long run or anything, just that If i had a strict staking system, I would at least not lose much in the long run.
What do you find is more important? Obviously I know how important staking only a small percentage of a bankroll, but is it the case that I should have by staking system 100 percent perfect, before I should even think about how to pick horses?
What do you find is more important? Obviously I know how important staking only a small percentage of a bankroll, but is it the case that I should have by staking system 100 percent perfect, before I should even think about how to pick horses?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 125
|
By:
There are two things that are important about gambling imo:
1. Finding an edge. 2. Being disciplined. But to answer your question: If you have "a system for picking winners" without a staking plan is still something with potential. To have a staking plan without an adge is nothing. It's like a tool you don't have use for. |
|
By:
Sorry for all the mistakes.
|
|
By:
Neither. The most important thing is prices, with neither
of the other two (picks and staking) even close. |
|
By:
spot on again kenilworth
|
|
By:
I think this is a silly question.....so all you have to find is a load of losing bets and as long as you have the right amount of money on each one you'll win? Is this what the author of this thread is asking? Well in my opinion its just possible you may lose money with stratedgy I could be wrong though, who knows try it.
 |
|
By:
"Picking winners" suggests you want to pluck one horse (?) for the field and bet it. Most thorough gamblers examine every runner (and all their strengths and weaknesses) first. If one or two appeal to them as likely winners then they look at the price. If the price is much greater than their chance based on analysis it might be a bet. But first they will look at all the other races that interest them.
And bet more on big odds horses. |
|
By:
Not sure about the last line. I find it hard to differentiate
between the bigger prices. Around 3/1 max for me, above that it gets a bit hard to be precise (for me anyway) |
|
By:
there must be another way apart from the 'value' approach
I think that the OP's question is valid. If you look at your betting history and can see winners interspersed amongst the losers, it's perfectly reasonable to try to devise a staking plan that would seek to optimise the winners. So to answer your question directly, I think that the staking plan is the more important. Over a sufficient number of selections, a certain percentage are going to be winners anyway. |
|
By:
swift-tuttle, that is the biggest load of nonsense I've seen in quite a while.
Optimise the winners? How do you know when the winners will arrive? Here's a better one, why not just back the winners and leave the losers? |
|
By:
I must say, I agree with DaveEdwards.
|
|
By:
'seek to optimise the winners'
Your suggestion of just backing the winners and leaving the losers is an ideal that you could never hope to achieve. A staking plan could be devised based on patterns from your betting history, longest losing run being one of the key factors. It's just an idea but seeing as you think it's a complete load of rubbish I may have to forget the whole thing. I notice that you still have the habit of rubbishing other peoples' ideas; this assumes that you actually know everything that there is to know. |
|
By:
the games changed, in the ten years on here, i used to back 33/1 shots at 250/1 before the race you cant do that now, in fact those that go for value are those that lose, you have to be at the head of the market now, the days of backing outsiders and value are long gone, the game has changed you have to be clever enough to see that
|
|
By:
swift-tuttle
Date Joined: 22 Mar 04 Add contact | Send message When: 05 Jan 11 10:37 there must be another way apart from the 'value' approach NO. |
|
By:
As implied, it's a rubbish idea, however as exactly written it's precisely what Kelly does (and it can't be bettered.)
The pros and cons of Kelly have been listed to exhaustion on here so there's no point in getting back into it. If you're looking for patterns and "due a winner" however, then just give up now. Man Utd aren't going to score a late winner just because you've bet 11 losers in a row. |
|
By:
I notice that you still have the habit of rubbishing other peoples' ideas; this assumes that you actually know everything that there is to know.
................................................................... I do not claim to know everything there is to know. Nobody operational on this site does. Not even the best & no I don't include myself in that bracket. The only ideas I rubbish are the ones that are just that, rubbish. As for looking at your past history of losing runs, are you mad? Next thing you'll be coming up with a martingale roulette scheme. |
|
By:
A rule of thumb that I have when trying to look for new things:
If a system is not profitable at flat stakes it will not be profitable under any other staking plan. HTH |
|
By:
Think that's pretty obvious kef4o tbf
|
|
By:
Might be the case, yet we do have this thread and OP's question does indicate that he doesn't understand that.
|
|
By:
Well it's implied that "level staking" is under the kelly threshold.
Obviously if you're level staking too big, then Kelly would turn your losing level stakes system into a winner. (As would simply lowering your level stakes) The OP seems to imply he's betting too big, in the same way that your post implies that you're betting small enough. |
|
By:
Level stakes:
2/1 W 2 L 1 L 0 L -1 L -2 3/1 W 1 1 pt profit after this sequence ===================================== Increase stake by 0.5 after a loser 2/1 W 2 L 1 L -0.5 L -2.75 L -6.125 3/1 W 9.0625 9.0625 points profit after this sequence |
|
By:
The problem with threads as opposed to real life chat is that people express themselves in very different ways and it takes a lot to work out what they really mean sometimes.
There's a chance that s-t means he's looking for a definition of Kelly, there's also a chance that he's trying to re-invent the martingale. I suspect that there are people reading my posts thinking I'm barking mad because I've posted that lowering your stakes can turn you from a loser into a winner. Those will be the people who thinkin in EV not EG, easy mistake to make if you don't take posts literally, or if the poster makes a small error in description (I do it as often as anyone, before anyone thinks it's a dig at them) |
|
By:
Increase stake by 0.5 after a loser
Ok, I'm happy to join the "You're talking rubbish" brigade. Feel free to dig up Schalke04s most recent thread and go to page, um, about 17 or so where I do an analysis of his actual bets and show what's going to happen before it happens. It's a similar enough "system" to yours that you may find it useful. |
|
By:
bring it down from 0.5 to a figure that you'd feel happy with, 0.0125 for example
the principle is the same |
|
By:
I've bumped schalkes thread for you and listed where to find the relevant stuff.
I wouldn't be happy until the number is negative. Raising stakes because you're losing is ridiculous and easily shown to be such. Example: Your first ever bet and you have $100 and $5 is the correct bet. The next day you have the same reason for betting again If you can justify now betting $5.01 from your $95, then why didn't you bet $5.27 the day before? The teams that are playing have no idea that you had a bet yesterday. |
|
By:
Increasing stakes after a loss has a name, it's called chasing. All it needs is a losing sequence. And b/c you wrote something ridiculious earlier about losing runs. A losing run can always be lenghened. If you lose 10 bets@evens, the next bet, provided market has it right, has a 50% chance to lose.
|
|
By:
If the losing run thing was right, you'd bet 2 quid on everything (assuming you didn't want a telling off from the Betfair minimum bet police) until you'd lost x times in a row, then start betting gigantic sums.
|
|
By:
Btw, I have to say, I've never liked Kelly. Doesn't it imply a dangerous amount of selfjudgement? It looks to me as if varying bets according to how valueable the odds are is just stupid. It changes the focus from a longterm approach of constantly looking for value into betting too much on certain events at the expense of others.
|
|
By:
I suppose it comes down to confidence (or lack of confidence) in the data patterns.
If you had a history of 100,000,000 bets using exactly the same system and the longest losing run was 10, is there any reason why the longest losing run should jump to e.g. 24 simply because you have started to use a progressive staking plan? |
|
By:
That's the big downside kef4o yes. To cut out all the middle arguing, it usually ends up with a compromise of something like "Know what Kelly is, for god's sake don't bet over the number and probably a lot less, and find a way to use the principles to aid you"
Some believe you can get much higher degrees of accuracy than others, and that seems like it could be sport/market dependent. |
|
By:
If you had a history of 100 million bets, and the longest losing run was 10, then then youd be betting on something like 1.10 shots, so you first bet would be a quid, your third bet would be 100 quid, your tenth bet would be rather pricey
|
|
By:
1. The game has charged, so the data bears no significance any more.
2. Again, after losing a bet, chances of winning the next one do not change. 3. You seem to assume that the bets are always at the same odds or at best within a very narrow range. In reality though, this is very hard. Your bets will not always breakeven after you add half a unit. So you'll have to vary. |
|
By:
The price generates the data patterns, so you don't need anything other than the price to work out what the longest run is going to be. There are sites that do this for you (I don't know any as I don't understand the need for them)
There is no need to overcomplicate what is actually quite a simple issue. I have no reason to believe you'd trust anything a stranger on an internet forum says, but find someone you do trust with a maths background and ask them and hopefully they can explain to you why you're making this overly difficult. |
|
By:
^^^3 reasons why assuming a abolute worst cae scenario as a given is a very bad idea.
When a situation is grim, it can always be grimmer. Think about the worst period of your time and you'll find how easy it is to just add a bunch of s*** that will make it worse. |
|
By:
and please look at the data in the Schalke thread. The post with how each bank is getting on is the closest I've ever come to being able to "show" why the progressive stuff isn't working. It's based on actual bets so it may be easier to take in.
(The short version is that each bank (in your case bet 1, bet 2, bet 3) quickly went negative when the sample sizes went up, and it was quite clear the only thing that kept him alive was the bigger banks. You could get a feel for roughly how long it might take for him to run into a situation where he'd bet too many times with the final bank (There's no way to say exactly of course) as you saw the other banks going into the red after a while. |
|
By:
you're better at this wording stuff than me kef4o, sorry for the cross-over here.
|
|
By:
I'll start a thread
|
|
By:
Cheers Lori, that's about my only asset.
|
|
By:
swift-tuttle - I suspect you are dealing with MAINLY FOOTBALL punters here.....as their "edge" is limited compared to horse racing........
 |
|
By:
'Picking Winners' is pretty much irrelevant to gambling success.
Anyone who bets will pick out a few winners, wether they are backing or laying them. As a few have said the essential thing is to bet at good prices. So the 3/1s you back should be winning, say, 27% of the time, and so on . So being able to judge when the 3/1 chance should be shorter is what is crucial. A sensible staking plan is important of course . But without getting value you will lose anyway. |