General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
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?
Show More
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
Some believe you can get much higher degrees of accuracy than others, and that seems like it could be sport/market dependent.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
^^^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.
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.
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.
(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.
you're better at this wording stuff than me kef4o, sorry for the cross-over here.
swift-tuttle - I suspect you are dealing with MAINLY FOOTBALL punters here.....as their "edge" is limited compared to horse racing........
'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.
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.
If you use KELLY......then that takes care of the value and the staking .....
LEVEL STAKING is rubbish IMO...........................
LEVEL STAKING is rubbish IMO...........................
Kelly doesn't really take care of the value DFC , you have to do that yourself with accurate ratings to convert to probablities. And if your ratings are out......
And how does that work, please? Since value is a personal judgement, and staking with Kelly essentially leads to overbetting your strongest selections, and neglecting the luck factor. That's the way I see at least. If I'm wrong, please somebody help me out.
You are only overbetting them if your ratings are not correct
Well, you're not leaving too much pace for error, are you? That's partially the idea of a staking plan imo
If KELLY CALCULATOR shows a NEGATIVE re STAKING ...you ain't got "value" ......You may have a lay bet though
So surely that takes care of "value"......
Of course you are correct T that if you keep getting it wrong re your edge the horse won't win.
So selections are 1st thing IMO.....then your judgment re probability of winning has to be "good" ...."very good".....then a KELLY CALCULATOR can take care of STAING ....the 2nd thing.
So surely that takes care of "value"......
Of course you are correct T that if you keep getting it wrong re your edge the horse won't win.
So selections are 1st thing IMO.....then your judgment re probability of winning has to be "good" ...."very good".....then a KELLY CALCULATOR can take care of STAING ....the 2nd thing.
I think the importance of staking correctly is overlooked by most.
With a single selection in an event and being accurate with your pricing it is hard to top "Kelly Criterion"
In my case where I either bet on or lay 60% of all runners, 'Kelly' is impracticable so I use overlay betting, betting to chances assessed.
With a single selection in an event and being accurate with your pricing it is hard to top "Kelly Criterion"
In my case where I either bet on or lay 60% of all runners, 'Kelly' is impracticable so I use overlay betting, betting to chances assessed.
Of course ...some people don't believe SELECTIONS THAT WIN or STAKING is as important as "VALUE".......However, if you don't select WINNERS.....you lose...and if you LEVEL STAKE you are betting badly IMO, indicating no edge held....or no idea what chances of horse winning is.....
KELLY appears to be part of solution re STAKING......selecting WINNERS , with edge, still first priority though.....
KELLY appears to be part of solution re STAKING......selecting WINNERS , with edge, still first priority though.....
If you are betting flat you are essentially giving very imilar importance to every bet you make. With Kelly, the way I see it regardless of how good your judgement is, you are done if a big value election fails to win. On a different note, essentially, only your big bets would really matter for the overall bank balance, so you don't even need to bet small.
In other words, using Kelly, you end up betting flat but too big of a percentage on all your big value plays and you mix it up with a few smaller bets.
In other words, using Kelly, you end up betting flat but too big of a percentage on all your big value plays and you mix it up with a few smaller bets.
there is no real answer to your question...i have a simple way of doing things....lay to bookmaker prices and back to betfair prices..
if your a layer of favourites then u hav to lay as close to bookie prices as possible..bookies prices trade about 8 to 9 % shorter on average over betfair prices..this is where ur profit will be in the long term..prices r key..i have noted that laying favs at level stakes to betfair prices leads to losses or breaking even... but laying to bookie prices leads to profit over time..how to lay to bookie prices u ask...????use a bot
bfmanager bot V2 offers u the option of layin any fav under its betfair price.the bet is put in unmatched of course e.g if the fav is 4.5 on betfair then the bot will lay it at 4.0 depending on steps below u set it to(it goes above as well if ur a backer)..i work at 5 steps below betfair prices 5 seconds before the off and always get matched in running..i have asked makers of bot to give me a percentage option which will work better across all price ranges(this is on the way)..the average return over each year is 10% profit on stakes:)))..just by doing this to 10 euro stake yielded over 400 pts profit in 2010...2011 has started with favs winning 39% of races which is bad for fav layers and me haha..at betfair odds to 1 pound level stakes u would be down 26 pts but to bookies odds u would be down 14pts i am down 16pts(i hav one unmatched bet in2011) and this is a bad run...but over time and with volume of bets i will get ahead..all these stats can be found at www.adrianmassey.com a brillant free stat site for serious backers or layers(...this rule applies to 2nd and 3rd favs also..the most profitable fav to back at betfair odds over the years is the 5th fav..it shows massive profit over time..
if u want to be sucessful at laying u hav to think like a bookie and offer no value at all.. be a scrooge,its ur money after all..lay under the odds and grind out the bad runs..i dont lay above 4.1..even when the fav is 6.0 i put a lay in at 4.1...u dont feel so bad if it wins as u still feel like u saved money...(this saved money will b ur profit at end of season...)
value is key... achieving it is hard work...
if u need any more advice i will happily reply..there is no hard and fast answers,,value, disipline and patience work best..oh and buy a bot like bfmanagerv2,,its vital and u dont need to sit in front of laptop all day..
i hope to do better with percentage option as 5 steps below at 4.5 (4.0) is different to 5 steps below at 2.o(1.95) because of betfairs decimal prices...
lol dodge
i
if your a layer of favourites then u hav to lay as close to bookie prices as possible..bookies prices trade about 8 to 9 % shorter on average over betfair prices..this is where ur profit will be in the long term..prices r key..i have noted that laying favs at level stakes to betfair prices leads to losses or breaking even... but laying to bookie prices leads to profit over time..how to lay to bookie prices u ask...????use a bot
bfmanager bot V2 offers u the option of layin any fav under its betfair price.the bet is put in unmatched of course e.g if the fav is 4.5 on betfair then the bot will lay it at 4.0 depending on steps below u set it to(it goes above as well if ur a backer)..i work at 5 steps below betfair prices 5 seconds before the off and always get matched in running..i have asked makers of bot to give me a percentage option which will work better across all price ranges(this is on the way)..the average return over each year is 10% profit on stakes:)))..just by doing this to 10 euro stake yielded over 400 pts profit in 2010...2011 has started with favs winning 39% of races which is bad for fav layers and me haha..at betfair odds to 1 pound level stakes u would be down 26 pts but to bookies odds u would be down 14pts i am down 16pts(i hav one unmatched bet in2011) and this is a bad run...but over time and with volume of bets i will get ahead..all these stats can be found at www.adrianmassey.com a brillant free stat site for serious backers or layers(...this rule applies to 2nd and 3rd favs also..the most profitable fav to back at betfair odds over the years is the 5th fav..it shows massive profit over time..
if u want to be sucessful at laying u hav to think like a bookie and offer no value at all.. be a scrooge,its ur money after all..lay under the odds and grind out the bad runs..i dont lay above 4.1..even when the fav is 6.0 i put a lay in at 4.1...u dont feel so bad if it wins as u still feel like u saved money...(this saved money will b ur profit at end of season...)
value is key... achieving it is hard work...
if u need any more advice i will happily reply..there is no hard and fast answers,,value, disipline and patience work best..oh and buy a bot like bfmanagerv2,,its vital and u dont need to sit in front of laptop all day..
i hope to do better with percentage option as 5 steps below at 4.5 (4.0) is different to 5 steps below at 2.o(1.95) because of betfairs decimal prices...
lol dodge
i
Nice write up ykickamoocow, a guy called BTO used to have a similar method but the chosen lay for each race would be selected by the first one to be matched after the off.
Do you have a comparison of profits for handicap versus non-handicap races?
Do you have a comparison of profits for handicap versus non-handicap races?
Lol, I just got your name, and I was thinking you may be Russian!
hey trev,
i find handicaps more profitable overall...although as i lay to a minimum of 4.1 i dont really have a preference..the only races i avoid are ones with no runners ha ha....i have used this method for a while and do very nicely out of it..i also run the maria laying system which bfbotmanagerV2 have built in to their V2bot..very handy indeed...its still the the best laying system out there in my mind..and trev check out www.adrianmassey.com and click on fav statistics and then on custom report and u can find out any stat u want..and compare betfair odds on any fav(click betfair odds box at bottom) to industry odds on fav . and u will see where i am coming from very quickly....and today was a good laying day...haha
i find handicaps more profitable overall...although as i lay to a minimum of 4.1 i dont really have a preference..the only races i avoid are ones with no runners ha ha....i have used this method for a while and do very nicely out of it..i also run the maria laying system which bfbotmanagerV2 have built in to their V2bot..very handy indeed...its still the the best laying system out there in my mind..and trev check out www.adrianmassey.com and click on fav statistics and then on custom report and u can find out any stat u want..and compare betfair odds on any fav(click betfair odds box at bottom) to industry odds on fav . and u will see where i am coming from very quickly....and today was a good laying day...haha
Excuse me ykick etc
Why exactly are you describing your so called system in such great detail if it is such a winner ?
A bit self defeating I would suggest, if nothing else.
Oh I'm such a cynic I know.
Why exactly are you describing your so called system in such great detail if it is such a winner ?
A bit self defeating I would suggest, if nothing else.
Oh I'm such a cynic I know.
A system for picking winners is doomed (without proper consideration of value).
A system based on staking is doomed (if it has no other logic).
You need a system that can identify value coupled with a sensible staking plan to optimise winnings and protect against losing runs.
A system based on staking is doomed (if it has no other logic).
You need a system that can identify value coupled with a sensible staking plan to optimise winnings and protect against losing runs.
Why exactly are you describing your so called system in such great detail if it is such a winner ?
A bit self defeating I would suggest, if nothing else.
Oh I'm such a cynic I know
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
well its not exactly a system..its just common sense at end of day..getting value always feels good..we all do it while shopping.y not in our betting.and the maria system is well know by serious layers...no secrets there and we like to share the knowledge its hard enough to make it pay..
i hear so many ppl going on about systems..most of which r off the wall..keep it simple..u dont see the bookies throwing out all these systems to make money..they have one system and over time they make their money.when betfair first came online we all thought now i can be the bookie and finally make it pay etc etc.to be the bookie we must think like one.thats where we all need to be...the latest system i have read is find a horse who is fav between evs and 2/1 on racing post racecards..find the decimal difference between it and the 2nd fav and multiply it by the number of tipster who tip it...the one with the lowest score is the lay of the day...i could add another 50 like that..ur better off random picking horses.now theres a good system oh i am such a cynic:_000000000.haha
A bit self defeating I would suggest, if nothing else.
Oh I'm such a cynic I know
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
well its not exactly a system..its just common sense at end of day..getting value always feels good..we all do it while shopping.y not in our betting.and the maria system is well know by serious layers...no secrets there and we like to share the knowledge its hard enough to make it pay..
i hear so many ppl going on about systems..most of which r off the wall..keep it simple..u dont see the bookies throwing out all these systems to make money..they have one system and over time they make their money.when betfair first came online we all thought now i can be the bookie and finally make it pay etc etc.to be the bookie we must think like one.thats where we all need to be...the latest system i have read is find a horse who is fav between evs and 2/1 on racing post racecards..find the decimal difference between it and the 2nd fav and multiply it by the number of tipster who tip it...the one with the lowest score is the lay of the day...i could add another 50 like that..ur better off random picking horses.now theres a good system oh i am such a cynic:_000000000.haha
Surely you are looking at a very complex problem of which you have only got two sides to the angle whersas this is not true.I have ridden horses in every track in the uk ireland most of france all the few in gremany all in italy 28 in the us 12 in japan and god knows how many in australis.The one thing that is world wide is the perception that trainers know.They know about their own horses but not alot about the opposition.They expect you to know as if we had some special code in the weigh room.Trust me you will be better off looking at the overall picture rather than focus on the two sides of a very astute system.
If it were possible to do what you were aiming at this would have been well exploited i can asure you.Just think of the draw advantage as it is normally overplayed and not that important at most tracks.There are host of other plays which are common misconceptions.If this helps you build a strategy you will be ahead of most trainers as they only concentrate on their horses which is correct for them but they do not have a true grasp of the opposition.Therefore tactics come into play.
If it were possible to do what you were aiming at this would have been well exploited i can asure you.Just think of the draw advantage as it is normally overplayed and not that important at most tracks.There are host of other plays which are common misconceptions.If this helps you build a strategy you will be ahead of most trainers as they only concentrate on their horses which is correct for them but they do not have a true grasp of the opposition.Therefore tactics come into play.
i agree with REM 100%..a good staking plan is half the battle after that its down to u..the maria laying system is a good example of a simple staking plan..i have run this plan for a while and even with the bot random picking the horses to lay it gets ahead longterm...and here it is the worst keep secret in laying history..this plan made the user 100000£ in under one year with a startin bank of 3000..all selections were posted on the morning of races on a managed forum..all selections were picked by user and i think the thread is still online somewhere,,,a great read
1.if price is below 3.5 use 1% of betting bank
2.if price is from 3.5 to 7.4 use 0.60% of bank
3. if price is from 7.5 to 11.0 use 0.40% of bank
stakes r increased on a daily basis,so if at the end of day betting bank has increased then new stakes r calculated for next day..if betting bank decreases then stakes stay the same and so on...
if 35% of bank is lost then plan is restarted again
if betting bank is 500 then stakes r £5 £3 £2
as i said before bfbotmanager v2bot has this system built into its bots and u can fine tune if u wanted...it layed 15 winning bets in a row yesterday and had 3 losers to 28 bets and this was random picking lays..i know if it stays around the 81.5% strike rate it will make money.it is currently running at 85.6% for 2011..early days but on track....
good luck ppl
1.if price is below 3.5 use 1% of betting bank
2.if price is from 3.5 to 7.4 use 0.60% of bank
3. if price is from 7.5 to 11.0 use 0.40% of bank
stakes r increased on a daily basis,so if at the end of day betting bank has increased then new stakes r calculated for next day..if betting bank decreases then stakes stay the same and so on...
if 35% of bank is lost then plan is restarted again
if betting bank is 500 then stakes r £5 £3 £2
as i said before bfbotmanager v2bot has this system built into its bots and u can fine tune if u wanted...it layed 15 winning bets in a row yesterday and had 3 losers to 28 bets and this was random picking lays..i know if it stays around the 81.5% strike rate it will make money.it is currently running at 85.6% for 2011..early days but on track....
good luck ppl
theonlyway4ward....u mention 2 words.. Complex Problem in the 1st sentence..everyone makes bettin a complex problem...this is the problem..respect to a fellow ex pro jockey..u talk sense..unlike me haha
Maria's staking plan is pretty sensible. Low stakes compared to bank, and no chasing. But there are a myriad of such systems you could invent along the same lines. And if you are betting at value odds, they'll all make money, but at slightly different rates. The more aggressive staking plans will be more profitable during good runs, but you'll lose more during the inevitable bad runs, and have a greater likelihood of losing most of your bankroll. It's like investing in shares. Riskier shares will give you a better return.
Maria did post her selections pre-off, but she aftertimed the odds she got. I could randomly select horses to lay at BF prices, and if I said I'd managed to lay them at 5% under BF SP I'd probably have a winning system on my hands.
Maria did post her selections pre-off, but she aftertimed the odds she got. I could randomly select horses to lay at BF prices, and if I said I'd managed to lay them at 5% under BF SP I'd probably have a winning system on my hands.
Simple things have always worked because they are true.Horse racing is a system wich is man made and there are flaws.A big mistake is to not know how to create an advantage when you do not understand the problem which as far as i can see on this forum is the issue.
Yes theonlywayforward.
First understand the question before you try to answer.
And in HR that is totally beyond me.
But apparently it doesn't apply to all on here.
A certain few have come on here and have claimed, quite credibly, that they have programmed bots to react to price movements alone, and that they have neither any interest in or any understanding at all of the underlying sport related reasons for such movements.
The sport involved is essentially irrelevant.
First understand the question before you try to answer.
And in HR that is totally beyond me.
But apparently it doesn't apply to all on here.
A certain few have come on here and have claimed, quite credibly, that they have programmed bots to react to price movements alone, and that they have neither any interest in or any understanding at all of the underlying sport related reasons for such movements.
The sport involved is essentially irrelevant.
REM
You need a system that can identify value coupled with a sensible staking plan to optimise winnings and protect against losing runs.
Utopian dreams. Does anyone have such a system ?
You need a system that can identify value coupled with a sensible staking plan to optimise winnings and protect against losing runs.
Utopian dreams. Does anyone have such a system ?
you as the human(in my case anyway:-))) need to identify the value and implement a good staking plan with that value.limit ur liabilites and maximise ur profits.a bot cant do that for u..u have to input the info into it...ultimately the bot only bets on ur thinking and ur opinions ...bots r a great tool..but only if they r set up correctly by you and u let them alone.they take emotion out of betting which is a good thing..it comes down to u in the end..there is no right way or wrong way..the sport doesnt matter..the maria staking plan is sensible and thats why i use it but it isnt the perfect solution..it has bad days like all systems..if u can stick it out for the long haul u will be ok..i dont want to sound like a know it all because i am not and it took me a long time to get to where i am now and i had times when i could of said enough is enough....but i stuck with it..
even today a guy was interviewed from bluesquare at lingfield i think and they were offering one point extra on any winner u backed with them..that says a lot to me...if i did that to every lay i lost i would b loser.
sorry for going on..
even today a guy was interviewed from bluesquare at lingfield i think and they were offering one point extra on any winner u backed with them..that says a lot to me...if i did that to every lay i lost i would b loser.
sorry for going on..
ykickamoocow 
Are you just a layer...or do you back as well???
Are you just a layer...or do you back as well???
Yes theonlywayforward.
First understand the question before you try to answer.
Have i missed something as the question is about a plan to make a profit.
If you wish to make a profit from any business one would understand it.Quite a few people do not.As for bots surly they are only as good as the info one would direct them to.
Which brings back the same ?.the amount of different factors to be taken into account some of which you would or most of the public are not aware of all contribute in either a positive or negative way.
Most people think that they can narrow down it to 3 or 4 critrea whereas most defeats happen in the horse box going loading arriving stable .
These are never made public .If you direct you bot in this direction i do not think you will increase your bank which is your plan.There are many more factors at play and trust me they all play a part in the end result as i do know this first hand .Stats are reliant on the info.If this does not operate correctly it will create a new stat and somebody else will have your money.
If you do not have an angle with positive proven record the best way imho would be to concentrate on both early market and late market moves .
They do tell alot if you are aware of the ealier prices and as horse
racing does not envolve alot of people it can be viewed and used to good advantage.
First understand the question before you try to answer.
Have i missed something as the question is about a plan to make a profit.
If you wish to make a profit from any business one would understand it.Quite a few people do not.As for bots surly they are only as good as the info one would direct them to.
Which brings back the same ?.the amount of different factors to be taken into account some of which you would or most of the public are not aware of all contribute in either a positive or negative way.
Most people think that they can narrow down it to 3 or 4 critrea whereas most defeats happen in the horse box going loading arriving stable .
These are never made public .If you direct you bot in this direction i do not think you will increase your bank which is your plan.There are many more factors at play and trust me they all play a part in the end result as i do know this first hand .Stats are reliant on the info.If this does not operate correctly it will create a new stat and somebody else will have your money.
If you do not have an angle with positive proven record the best way imho would be to concentrate on both early market and late market moves .
They do tell alot if you are aware of the ealier prices and as horse
racing does not envolve alot of people it can be viewed and used to good advantage.
The question posed in the OP is badly phrased as "picking winners" and "staking systems" are not mutually exclusive options.
As has been pointed out, picking "winners" can be done with a pin providing you are happy with the "losers" found by the same method.Without a "price" variable, picking winners is meaningless.
A staking plan is essential and should be based, in order of importance, on a) bank size c) chance of losing/winning c) value.
The 2002 Nobel prize for Economics was won by some guys who drew some conclusions which a lot of posters should give some thought to:
1. Hindsight bias -the way in which a random sequence of events is given structure and narrative by the false perspective of looking back after the outcome
2. The Law of Small Numbesr referring to people's tendency to draw over-confident conclusions from small amounts of evidence
3. The "patterns" that people see in data often do not exist (my interpretation)
Above all, the future is unreliably determined by the past.
As has been pointed out, picking "winners" can be done with a pin providing you are happy with the "losers" found by the same method.Without a "price" variable, picking winners is meaningless.
A staking plan is essential and should be based, in order of importance, on a) bank size c) chance of losing/winning c) value.
The 2002 Nobel prize for Economics was won by some guys who drew some conclusions which a lot of posters should give some thought to:
1. Hindsight bias -the way in which a random sequence of events is given structure and narrative by the false perspective of looking back after the outcome
2. The Law of Small Numbesr referring to people's tendency to draw over-confident conclusions from small amounts of evidence
3. The "patterns" that people see in data often do not exist (my interpretation)
Above all, the future is unreliably determined by the past.
kenilworth, the original thread seems to be not available anymore, yet I think that this is a good summary of the essential info:
http://soccerchum.com/maria.php
http://soccerchum.com/maria.php
kef4o
There's a typo in TSM's version of the Maria staking plan.....
# Prices below 3.5: lay to 1% of bank - backer's stake £30 (liability is always under £75 in this price range)
# Prices from 3.6 to 7.4: lay to 0.6% of bank - backer's stake £18 (liability is always between £46.80 - £115.20 in this price range)
# Prices from 7.5 to 11: lay to 0.4% of bank - backer's stake £12 (liability is always between £78 - £132 in this price range)
- the second line should read "# Prices from 3.5 to 7.4:......"
I emailed them ages ago to tell them about it but they've never bothered to amend it.
There's a typo in TSM's version of the Maria staking plan.....
# Prices below 3.5: lay to 1% of bank - backer's stake £30 (liability is always under £75 in this price range)
# Prices from 3.6 to 7.4: lay to 0.6% of bank - backer's stake £18 (liability is always between £46.80 - £115.20 in this price range)
# Prices from 7.5 to 11: lay to 0.4% of bank - backer's stake £12 (liability is always between £78 - £132 in this price range)
- the second line should read "# Prices from 3.5 to 7.4:......"
I emailed them ages ago to tell them about it but they've never bothered to amend it.
Excuse me ykick etc
Why exactly are you describing your so called system in such great detail if it is such a winner ?
Because putting up poor value odds on every horse race is boring and most people could just not be bothered with the tedium of it. And you might have to do it for several hundred races before you had any profit .The thinking is sound so likely to yield a profit overall, but very much a long term thing which few would have the patience for. It has been discussed in a few threads on here in the past - i have done it myself - and no one that was doing it was losing , but you can go a long time without winning anything.I don't understand why Ykick would let his unmatched Lays go in play though (unless he is cancelling them within seconds of the off).
The Maria Staking i doubt is any better than most staking plans.Maria's results are very dubious as they rely on the aftertiming of prices.
Why exactly are you describing your so called system in such great detail if it is such a winner ?
Because putting up poor value odds on every horse race is boring and most people could just not be bothered with the tedium of it. And you might have to do it for several hundred races before you had any profit .The thinking is sound so likely to yield a profit overall, but very much a long term thing which few would have the patience for. It has been discussed in a few threads on here in the past - i have done it myself - and no one that was doing it was losing , but you can go a long time without winning anything.I don't understand why Ykick would let his unmatched Lays go in play though (unless he is cancelling them within seconds of the off).
The Maria Staking i doubt is any better than most staking plans.Maria's results are very dubious as they rely on the aftertiming of prices.
Tobermory, ykick's whole method relies on getting matched in play on every bet. He lays 5 ticks below the price at the off, so a 3.5 fave would be laid in running at 3.25.
The obvious question is, does that really represent value? The in running boys watching the race aren't mugs, and if they back the fave in to 3.25 from 3.5 you would expect there to be a reason, but if Ykick made 400 points profit 09/10, it would appear not.
The in play method used by BTO was similar, but he would cancel the lay if unmatched after 10 - 20 seconds in play, depending on race length, as the longer you leave the lay up the more accurate the price will be when it's matched, and you're not laying at value.
Any thoughts from other posters? The question is, does laying in running at start price minus 10%, represent value or not? To my mind you would simply be laying at the correct price, unless the horse is backed in for no reason.
The obvious question is, does that really represent value? The in running boys watching the race aren't mugs, and if they back the fave in to 3.25 from 3.5 you would expect there to be a reason, but if Ykick made 400 points profit 09/10, it would appear not.
The in play method used by BTO was similar, but he would cancel the lay if unmatched after 10 - 20 seconds in play, depending on race length, as the longer you leave the lay up the more accurate the price will be when it's matched, and you're not laying at value.
Any thoughts from other posters? The question is, does laying in running at start price minus 10%, represent value or not? To my mind you would simply be laying at the correct price, unless the horse is backed in for no reason.
Trevh
Many of the " experts" on here maintain that IR the value factor is eroded considerably, with emotion more the setting point for prices.
As such IR prices can and do represent anything you want them to represent.
Or at least I think that's what they're all saying.
Many of the " experts" on here maintain that IR the value factor is eroded considerably, with emotion more the setting point for prices.
As such IR prices can and do represent anything you want them to represent.
Or at least I think that's what they're all saying.
Typo well spotted top2rated.
Horses IR is a different world. It' like the cocaine of gambling. I've also seen a few dog races IR, basically they were the purest form imo.
Is there value? I suspect there is, mostly b/c it's the only sport that I can think of where 10-20 seconds before the end of an event you can have two outcomes being traded at odds on simultaniouly. I don't see a reason why IR traders should be given vradit that they are that much better at assessing a race during its beginning.
Horses IR is a different world. It' like the cocaine of gambling. I've also seen a few dog races IR, basically they were the purest form imo.
Is there value? I suspect there is, mostly b/c it's the only sport that I can think of where 10-20 seconds before the end of an event you can have two outcomes being traded at odds on simultaniouly. I don't see a reason why IR traders should be given vradit that they are that much better at assessing a race during its beginning.
ty Trev, misread his post . If all the bets are going to be matched IR only then yes, depends how long he is going to leave them up for.
I can see how it could be value in the first 10 seconds of a race - unless a 5f race i suppose - as a backer who really wanted to get on at a price but didn't quite get matched before the off may dive in for fear of 'missing a winner'.
BTO was more concerned with laying pre off, and most of his matched bets would be pre off, he did leave them up briefly IR but then would cancel quickly if not matched (how quick depending on the race type i expect).
I can see how it could be value in the first 10 seconds of a race - unless a 5f race i suppose - as a backer who really wanted to get on at a price but didn't quite get matched before the off may dive in for fear of 'missing a winner'.
BTO was more concerned with laying pre off, and most of his matched bets would be pre off, he did leave them up briefly IR but then would cancel quickly if not matched (how quick depending on the race type i expect).
KEFO................. u have an error with ur figures regarding liability on maria plan between prices 11 and 7.5 ... 12 £ to 11.0 is 120 not 132.....and its not prices from it prices between...
HOVA
i am just a layer FULL TIME and have been for 3 years...
ZEALOT
whether maria lied or not her staking system was solid and her selections had AN 82%+ strike rate...so she would have made money either way...
KENILWORTH
THE PLAN IS JUST BELOW UR POST....I POSTED IT EARLIER...:-)))
HOVA
i am just a layer FULL TIME and have been for 3 years...
ZEALOT
whether maria lied or not her staking system was solid and her selections had AN 82%+ strike rate...so she would have made money either way...
KENILWORTH
THE PLAN IS JUST BELOW UR POST....I POSTED IT EARLIER...:-)))
I just picked what I thought was the best written, didn't really look into the numbers as I know what the broad idea is.
kenilworth
REM
You need a system that can identify value coupled with a sensible staking plan to optimise winnings and protect against losing runs.
Utopian dreams. Does anyone have such a system ?
er... yes.
REM
You need a system that can identify value coupled with a sensible staking plan to optimise winnings and protect against losing runs.
Utopian dreams. Does anyone have such a system ?
er... yes.
whether maria lied or not her staking system was solid and her selections had AN 82%+ strike rate...so she would have made money either way.
No, wether she made money depended entirely on what prices she was matched at .She posted the prices she claimed to have been matched at. After racing had finished.
She stated on here thread that 2/3 of her lays were matched by 12pm, and posted these Lays .But she never said at that time what price. She waited til the race was over and then claimed to have been matched at the lower end.
If she was genuine, surely easy to say 'i've layed Dobbin at 7.8', then people can check to confirm money has been matched at those odds at that time.
If she was dishonest, but wanted her thread to show a profit, then she would wait to see if Dobbin wins ,then see what was matched , and if the lowest price was ,say, 7.4, claim to have layed @7.8, even if most of the matched money was between 8.6 and 10.0.
If she did it the latter way then people following her on the thread would have been losing while she was winning, even with the same selections.
Which is what happened.
No, wether she made money depended entirely on what prices she was matched at .She posted the prices she claimed to have been matched at. After racing had finished.
She stated on here thread that 2/3 of her lays were matched by 12pm, and posted these Lays .But she never said at that time what price. She waited til the race was over and then claimed to have been matched at the lower end.
If she was genuine, surely easy to say 'i've layed Dobbin at 7.8', then people can check to confirm money has been matched at those odds at that time.
If she was dishonest, but wanted her thread to show a profit, then she would wait to see if Dobbin wins ,then see what was matched , and if the lowest price was ,say, 7.4, claim to have layed @7.8, even if most of the matched money was between 8.6 and 10.0.
If she did it the latter way then people following her on the thread would have been losing while she was winning, even with the same selections.
Which is what happened.
TREVH.........u r right about the longer a race goes on without been matched the more likely u will get hit if matched late on..the value is def gone then..i exit at a certain time during a race if unmatched and move on(depends again on horses running style) ...having ridden on the flat and over jumps i have a fair idea of when things start really happening in a race over all distances...i mix my stakes depending on price..i find it best to always lay to liability odds on and level stakes from evs to 4.1..and i never ask for 5 steps below on an odds on shot unless i know the horse runs from front..i find the value is already there..a good example on a bad day for laying favs today was the 1/10 shot beaten at lingfield today..layin to liability returned 10 times ur stake..half the favs won today but this bet alone covered a lot of losses..just about..:-))
and yes i totally depend on been matched in running...and i lay to bookie prices if i am on the laptop all day and 5 steps below when away from computer with bot...and as axl rose said all u need is just a little patience...i even go as far as havin a stopwatch in my hand..can anyone guess y that is..and piss taking answers r accepted..haha
and yes i totally depend on been matched in running...and i lay to bookie prices if i am on the laptop all day and 5 steps below when away from computer with bot...and as axl rose said all u need is just a little patience...i even go as far as havin a stopwatch in my hand..can anyone guess y that is..and piss taking answers r accepted..haha
kef4o Joined: 05 Sep 07
Replies: 274 05 Jan 11 13:48
If you are betting flat you are essentially giving very imilar importance to every bet you make. With Kelly, the way I see it regardless of how good your judgement is, you are done if a big value election fails to win. On a different note, essentially, only your big bets would really matter for the overall bank balance, so you don't even need to bet small.
In other words, using Kelly, you end up betting flat but too big of a percentage on all your big value plays and you mix it up with a few smaller bets.
==================================================================
If you check the results shown on my last post on the KELLY HORSE BACKING thread , you will note that, of the 18 selections using the KELLY CALCULATOR on thread, there were ONLY 3 bets where STAKING was over 3% of bank ( reflecting the "edge" I believe I hold on those races) AND ALL WON.
However, there were also 3 return bets where the staking risked was under 2% of bank ( reflecting the competitive nature of race.....even though "edge" held).....and they ALL WON.
So are you saying I should NOT have bet on those 3 bets ( under 2% risked)......even though the contribution to profits was high due to high odds re the 20-1 SP horse being placed and there being 2 winners out of the 3....?
There will be days where the bulk of my returns will come from the under 2% risk bets. As many of such bets are at high odds eg BLAZING BOLT at average odds bet of 6.91 in PLACE market, I don't believe what you suggest would be beneficial to profits.( ie ignore doing the "smaller" stakes bets)
kef4o -Have you ever tried using KELLY CALCULATOR ?
YES - you have to be reasonably accurate on weighing up the probability of a horse winning/placing to use KELLY, but IF YOU HAVE "EDGES" THIS WULD ASSIST IN SUCH WEIGHING UP........
Of course, if you DO NOT HAVE AN "EDGE", you will lose anyway.......
Replies: 274 05 Jan 11 13:48
If you are betting flat you are essentially giving very imilar importance to every bet you make. With Kelly, the way I see it regardless of how good your judgement is, you are done if a big value election fails to win. On a different note, essentially, only your big bets would really matter for the overall bank balance, so you don't even need to bet small.
In other words, using Kelly, you end up betting flat but too big of a percentage on all your big value plays and you mix it up with a few smaller bets.
==================================================================
If you check the results shown on my last post on the KELLY HORSE BACKING thread , you will note that, of the 18 selections using the KELLY CALCULATOR on thread, there were ONLY 3 bets where STAKING was over 3% of bank ( reflecting the "edge" I believe I hold on those races) AND ALL WON.
However, there were also 3 return bets where the staking risked was under 2% of bank ( reflecting the competitive nature of race.....even though "edge" held).....and they ALL WON.
So are you saying I should NOT have bet on those 3 bets ( under 2% risked)......even though the contribution to profits was high due to high odds re the 20-1 SP horse being placed and there being 2 winners out of the 3....?
There will be days where the bulk of my returns will come from the under 2% risk bets. As many of such bets are at high odds eg BLAZING BOLT at average odds bet of 6.91 in PLACE market, I don't believe what you suggest would be beneficial to profits.( ie ignore doing the "smaller" stakes bets)
kef4o -Have you ever tried using KELLY CALCULATOR ?
YES - you have to be reasonably accurate on weighing up the probability of a horse winning/placing to use KELLY, but IF YOU HAVE "EDGES" THIS WULD ASSIST IN SUCH WEIGHING UP........
Of course, if you DO NOT HAVE AN "EDGE", you will lose anyway.......
Sorry ...when I said "However, there were also 3 return bets where the staking risked was under 2% of bank ( reflecting the competitive nature of race.....even though "edge" held).....and they ALL WON." .....I meant by winning I obtained RETURNS giving a PROFIT ( 2 actually won and 1 placed).
REM
kenilworth
REM
You need a system that can identify value coupled with a sensible staking plan to optimise winnings and protect against losing runs.
The underlined doesn't exist IMO. If it does, perhaps you can divulge ..?
kenilworth
REM
You need a system that can identify value coupled with a sensible staking plan to optimise winnings and protect against losing runs.
The underlined doesn't exist IMO. If it does, perhaps you can divulge ..?
It's not just about the presense of an edge. Kelly requires quantifying it. So we have an extra decision, not just what is valued wrongly but how much exactly is it under/overvalued. It's too much, for me anyway.
18 bets don't constitute a good sample size. Plus, in order to prove your point, you need to compare it with flat stakes.
Don't get me wrong, if you are that good that you can use Kelly effiently, great for you. But as far as I'm concerned it'd be just too hard.
18 bets don't constitute a good sample size. Plus, in order to prove your point, you need to compare it with flat stakes.
Don't get me wrong, if you are that good that you can use Kelly effiently, great for you. But as far as I'm concerned it'd be just too hard.
Tobermory : BTO was more concerned with laying pre off, and most of his matched bets would be pre off, he did leave them up briefly IR but then would cancel quickly if not matched (how quick depending on the race type i expect)
The method he was using in 2007 was purely in-running lays and cancelling at a pre determined point. He lives in Oz so couldn't actually bet in-running, only cancel.
If she did it the latter way then people following her on the thread would have been losing while she was winning, even with the same selections.
Which is what happened.
I haven't read the Maria story, but yes I can believe that. It's a similar story to the Daily Donkeys, if you google their website their results are fantastic but cannot be replicated here on BF, simply because they calculate their winings to industry SP, so the whole thing is a con in that respect.
The method he was using in 2007 was purely in-running lays and cancelling at a pre determined point. He lives in Oz so couldn't actually bet in-running, only cancel.
If she did it the latter way then people following her on the thread would have been losing while she was winning, even with the same selections.
Which is what happened.
I haven't read the Maria story, but yes I can believe that. It's a similar story to the Daily Donkeys, if you google their website their results are fantastic but cannot be replicated here on BF, simply because they calculate their winings to industry SP, so the whole thing is a con in that respect.
Ykickamoocow : i even go as far as havin a stopwatch in my hand..can anyone guess y that is..and piss taking answers r accepted..haha
Apart from the obvious cancelling at a certain point, no I can't think why?
Btw, do you stick to one lay per race?
Apart from the obvious cancelling at a certain point, no I can't think why?
Btw, do you stick to one lay per race?
Re. the Maria staking plan
I've always been puzzled as to why the highest stakes (1% of bank) are used for an odds range where statistically most winners come from and similarly the lowest stakes (0.4% of the bank) are used for an odds range where fewer winners are likely to be encountered.
I realise that her selection method may have been able to identify bad value bets at odds below 3.5 hence the higher stake but my first impression was that it was more of a backer's staking plan than a layer's.
I've always been puzzled as to why the highest stakes (1% of bank) are used for an odds range where statistically most winners come from and similarly the lowest stakes (0.4% of the bank) are used for an odds range where fewer winners are likely to be encountered.
I realise that her selection method may have been able to identify bad value bets at odds below 3.5 hence the higher stake but my first impression was that it was more of a backer's staking plan than a layer's.
nice one frog..lets not go there..haha
i hav been know to lay 2 horses in a race..not often but if there is joint favs i will multi lay to minimum of 4.1.i also have been known to divide my stake over the 5 steps below, starting with lowest amount on first step below and increasing it the 5th step.....i also know most horses running styles after years of watching them and notin them in runnin...
the maria plan can be used for backing..i guess the thinkin behind the lay out of her staking plan is to reward u more for layin shorties..which is correct..i always think and do things the opposite to most people.and that goes for betting..if u lay a draw in football i will back it..if u lay nil all a popular lay i will back it etc etc..if u back a 1/10 shot i will lay it..i always look for value and prices r key to that...the money i save getting value adds up at end of year...
i hav been know to lay 2 horses in a race..not often but if there is joint favs i will multi lay to minimum of 4.1.i also have been known to divide my stake over the 5 steps below, starting with lowest amount on first step below and increasing it the 5th step.....i also know most horses running styles after years of watching them and notin them in runnin...
the maria plan can be used for backing..i guess the thinkin behind the lay out of her staking plan is to reward u more for layin shorties..which is correct..i always think and do things the opposite to most people.and that goes for betting..if u lay a draw in football i will back it..if u lay nil all a popular lay i will back it etc etc..if u back a 1/10 shot i will lay it..i always look for value and prices r key to that...the money i save getting value adds up at end of year...
kenilworth
REM
You need a system that can identify value coupled with a sensible staking plan to optimise winnings and protect against losing runs.
The underlined doesn't exist IMO. If it does, perhaps you can divulge ..?
Kenilworth,
In your opinion, does understaking and/or overstaking exist?
REM
You need a system that can identify value coupled with a sensible staking plan to optimise winnings and protect against losing runs.
The underlined doesn't exist IMO. If it does, perhaps you can divulge ..?
Kenilworth,
In your opinion, does understaking and/or overstaking exist?
andy newtons lays on easyodds.com are a good example of misleading the public..all his lays r shown to industry sp's with no commission taken off his wins..he always show a nice profit the latest 2010 figures read 12000 plus profit to 100 stakes...
nice if u can get it but false in reality...
if he layed to betfair price and paid commission he would lose..misleading to say the least...
his lays show a loss of 683 after todays results at industry sp but to betfair sp -5%comm it should read -£927...and this after 8 bet..imagine after 1000 bets wat the difference would be...
this highlights the importance of value and getting the best price especially for layers..its vital..also it highlights what little value bookies prices r compared to betfair...
http://www.easyodds.com/sports-betting
nice if u can get it but false in reality...
if he layed to betfair price and paid commission he would lose..misleading to say the least...
his lays show a loss of 683 after todays results at industry sp but to betfair sp -5%comm it should read -£927...and this after 8 bet..imagine after 1000 bets wat the difference would be...
this highlights the importance of value and getting the best price especially for layers..its vital..also it highlights what little value bookies prices r compared to betfair...
http://www.easyodds.com/sports-betting
ykicketc
I'm interested in why you differentiate between laying and betting ?
After all , laying is just betting on more than one horse in the same race instead of just the one horse.
Surely value factors apply equally no matter if you're laying or betting.
What am I missing here that's so important ?
I'm interested in why you differentiate between laying and betting ?
After all , laying is just betting on more than one horse in the same race instead of just the one horse.
Surely value factors apply equally no matter if you're laying or betting.
What am I missing here that's so important ?
REM
kenilworth
REM
You need a system that can identify value coupled with a sensible staking plan to optimise winnings and protect against losing runs.
The underlined doesn't exist IMO. If it does, perhaps you can divulge ..?
Kenilworth,
[b]In your opinion, does understaking and/or overstaking exist?
Only in hindsight, with the knowledge of results, or by accident.
There is no other way.[/b]
kenilworth
REM
You need a system that can identify value coupled with a sensible staking plan to optimise winnings and protect against losing runs.
The underlined doesn't exist IMO. If it does, perhaps you can divulge ..?
Kenilworth,
[b]In your opinion, does understaking and/or overstaking exist?
Only in hindsight, with the knowledge of results, or by accident.
There is no other way.[/b]
Don't be so sure K.
After all it's only your opinion, not fact.
Overstaking or overbetting is widely regarded by most experts as the single biggest fault in gambling and in fact in investing in general.
After all it's only your opinion, not fact.
Overstaking or overbetting is widely regarded by most experts as the single biggest fault in gambling and in fact in investing in general.
Many punters who "CHASE" losses....are aware they are OVER-STAKING BEFORE THE RESULT .......but K ....you know everything .............allegedly
Ah! The all important edge How do we define it? How is it found? What do we do with it when we A. find it, B. When it becomes clear how much we have of it what is the best way to exploit it?
Does everyone agree that you have to have an edge to make a profit (long term)?
Is everyone in agreement that level stakes is equal liability on each selection whether it is betting to win or laying?
There are many more questions that need to be answered before risking money foolishly.
Staking, when the discussion of a staking plan comes up, most immediately think of some sort of recovery plan. There are a lot of staking plans
that do not involve chasing, just sensible optimization of capital.
Any thoughts?
I am going to try an answer some of these questions. I have 'one note' open and as I don't have the gift of the gab will write and re-write
my answers till they make sense and are accurate as far as I can tell. (Could take a while)
Does everyone agree that you have to have an edge to make a profit (long term)?
Is everyone in agreement that level stakes is equal liability on each selection whether it is betting to win or laying?
There are many more questions that need to be answered before risking money foolishly.
Staking, when the discussion of a staking plan comes up, most immediately think of some sort of recovery plan. There are a lot of staking plans
that do not involve chasing, just sensible optimization of capital.
Any thoughts?
I am going to try an answer some of these questions. I have 'one note' open and as I don't have the gift of the gab will write and re-write
my answers till they make sense and are accurate as far as I can tell. (Could take a while)
FINE AS FROG HAIR
Don't be so sure K.
After all it's only your opinion, not fact.
Overstaking or overbetting is widely regarded by most experts as the single biggest fault in gambling and in fact in investing in general.
I wasn't just talking just about overbetting or overstaking, but also understaking. If those two culprits
are 'regarded by most experts' as being a fault, is understaking 'regarded by most experts' seen as a virtue ?
I asked the poster to be a little bit more specific about staking highlighted in his mention of a staking plan
that 'optimises winnings and protects against losing runs' which IMO doesn't, in isolation, exist. He answered
with a question !
FAFH, for the record, IYO is there such a staking plan ? YES or NO ?
Don't be so sure K.
After all it's only your opinion, not fact.
Overstaking or overbetting is widely regarded by most experts as the single biggest fault in gambling and in fact in investing in general.
I wasn't just talking just about overbetting or overstaking, but also understaking. If those two culprits
are 'regarded by most experts' as being a fault, is understaking 'regarded by most experts' seen as a virtue ?
I asked the poster to be a little bit more specific about staking highlighted in his mention of a staking plan
that 'optimises winnings and protects against losing runs' which IMO doesn't, in isolation, exist. He answered
with a question !
FAFH, for the record, IYO is there such a staking plan ? YES or NO ?
kenilworth
I disagree with your opinion ~ which IMO doesn't, in isolation, exist.
Your quantifier of 'in isolation' needs expanding on. There are such plans that 'optimises winnings and protects against losing runs'
I disagree with your opinion ~ which IMO doesn't, in isolation, exist.
Your quantifier of 'in isolation' needs expanding on. There are such plans that 'optimises winnings and protects against losing runs'
Kelly protects against losing runs? And if you encounter a tough losing run of your high value bets?
kef4o
If Kelly is used correctly and the bets are true to perceived advantage that you allocate and that the advantage is also enough to cover
commission it will end up making more profit long term than any other type of staking. If you lose using Kelly it is not Kelly that is at fault but
your calculations on the winning chance of the selections that you support.
If Kelly is used correctly and the bets are true to perceived advantage that you allocate and that the advantage is also enough to cover
commission it will end up making more profit long term than any other type of staking. If you lose using Kelly it is not Kelly that is at fault but
your calculations on the winning chance of the selections that you support.
Compound Magic - The first sentence of your post 09 Jan 11 00:11 may have opened up a can of worms. 
With the questions you've raised in mind, I'd be interested to read your observations on the statement below.
The key to optimising staking is to know the edge in favour of the punter. More should be staked when the edge is greater. With cards, the edge can be calculated with exact precision. The card-counter knows how many of each valuable card have already shown and the number of cards left. Therefore the odds of turning up a valuable card on the next deal can be calculated exactly and hence the edge calculated exactly.
Horse-racing simply is not like this.
The probability of a certain horse winning can never be known with perfect accuracy. This would entail knowing precisely the details of every variable with a bearing on its chance of winning - its blood white cell count, how it was feeling before the race, the “vibes” it was picking up from its jockey, whether it had digested its last meal adequately and so on , almost ad infinitum. Calculating prior chances for every horse in the race is a very, very uncertain process. It depends first on the quality of the information that is fed to the computer which calculates them, next on the ingenuity of the measures used to estimate various aspects of the horse’s fitness and ability and the connections’ will to win and finally on the sophistication of the calculating algorithm. Thus a calculation can be made based simply on ability factors, but it will never reflect the actual chance of that horse winning accurately. More factors can be added to the equation, but the estimation will still be inaccurate. Even if figures are re-jigged at the last minute to account for odds and market movements, the figures will still fall short of perfection.
If you cannot know the true odds for your bet, then you cannot know the true edge.
With the questions you've raised in mind, I'd be interested to read your observations on the statement below.
The key to optimising staking is to know the edge in favour of the punter. More should be staked when the edge is greater. With cards, the edge can be calculated with exact precision. The card-counter knows how many of each valuable card have already shown and the number of cards left. Therefore the odds of turning up a valuable card on the next deal can be calculated exactly and hence the edge calculated exactly.
Horse-racing simply is not like this.
The probability of a certain horse winning can never be known with perfect accuracy. This would entail knowing precisely the details of every variable with a bearing on its chance of winning - its blood white cell count, how it was feeling before the race, the “vibes” it was picking up from its jockey, whether it had digested its last meal adequately and so on , almost ad infinitum. Calculating prior chances for every horse in the race is a very, very uncertain process. It depends first on the quality of the information that is fed to the computer which calculates them, next on the ingenuity of the measures used to estimate various aspects of the horse’s fitness and ability and the connections’ will to win and finally on the sophistication of the calculating algorithm. Thus a calculation can be made based simply on ability factors, but it will never reflect the actual chance of that horse winning accurately. More factors can be added to the equation, but the estimation will still be inaccurate. Even if figures are re-jigged at the last minute to account for odds and market movements, the figures will still fall short of perfection.
If you cannot know the true odds for your bet, then you cannot know the true edge.
top rated has very succinctly explained the flaws in
Kelly. I can add nothing to that, other than ask why, if
Kelly is so bomb proof, why do those who use it tinker with
it ?
Kelly. I can add nothing to that, other than ask why, if
Kelly is so bomb proof, why do those who use it tinker with
it ?
i agree with sea the stars...the only difference is i learnt to pick losers as a layer..:)))
its all about risk management over a long period of time..the more people realise this the better..systems r just that systems and most people dont stick to them long enough to get the answers..one years results is not enough to gauge if u have an edge.i feel 3 years of running a so called system will highlight all u need to know..do u have the patience to run ur system for 3 years without changing tact..most ppl would say no,they will pull out on the first losing run...if u can model ur betting on that of a bookie then its a good start..an egde of just 1% makes a huge difference over time believe me...ask any bookie..if u made 1% on ur betting bank evryday it would add up to a nice bank at the end of the year...i have talked about the maria staking plan here(not the person who invented it) as its so simple and feel it has a lot of wat i look for in a staking plan over the long term..it uses progressive staking to small percentages of a bank..after a losing run it recovers and if u refine it even more its pretty solid over the long term..i have even run maria over a year and let my bot random pick selections to test its viability and it produced a nice profit.its on year 2 now and its running at an 85% strike rate already in 2011 and this is random picking selections...i have of course refined maria to be more solid in the liabilities department and have 5 price ranges to certain percentages but it works..i have got stick in here for the way i do things but i make a profit and thats all that counts...COMPOUND MAGIC i agree with wat u say on kelly wit regards sports betting and blackjack....the variables of a horserace and a card game r far removed from each other..its laughable to even compare them...and yes as a layer i am a backer of every other horse in a race bar the one i layed..i like those odds overtime..
keep it simple keep it pro :-)))
between 7.
its all about risk management over a long period of time..the more people realise this the better..systems r just that systems and most people dont stick to them long enough to get the answers..one years results is not enough to gauge if u have an edge.i feel 3 years of running a so called system will highlight all u need to know..do u have the patience to run ur system for 3 years without changing tact..most ppl would say no,they will pull out on the first losing run...if u can model ur betting on that of a bookie then its a good start..an egde of just 1% makes a huge difference over time believe me...ask any bookie..if u made 1% on ur betting bank evryday it would add up to a nice bank at the end of the year...i have talked about the maria staking plan here(not the person who invented it) as its so simple and feel it has a lot of wat i look for in a staking plan over the long term..it uses progressive staking to small percentages of a bank..after a losing run it recovers and if u refine it even more its pretty solid over the long term..i have even run maria over a year and let my bot random pick selections to test its viability and it produced a nice profit.its on year 2 now and its running at an 85% strike rate already in 2011 and this is random picking selections...i have of course refined maria to be more solid in the liabilities department and have 5 price ranges to certain percentages but it works..i have got stick in here for the way i do things but i make a profit and thats all that counts...COMPOUND MAGIC i agree with wat u say on kelly wit regards sports betting and blackjack....the variables of a horserace and a card game r far removed from each other..its laughable to even compare them...and yes as a layer i am a backer of every other horse in a race bar the one i layed..i like those odds overtime..
keep it simple keep it pro :-)))
between 7.
I have been trying to log in for at least 30 minutes kept getting a 404, had to shut down and restart.
I think top2rated has copied and pasted the blue statement.
Whoever made the statement was being a bit flippant, It is obvious to anyone that no one could calculate a true edge in sport
as against the flip of a coin or his example of cards.
Lets look at the second sentence ~ 'More should be staked when the edge is greater' That for a starter is silly, if you priced
a horse at 100/1 and could get 200/1 you would not put more on it than pricing a horse at 3/1 and being able to get 4/1. Kelly
Criterion does not suggest that you do.
All that waffle about blood cell count and the horses vibes. LOL
In previous posts I have shown that when you do your pricing you build into that price ~ commission, leeway for the % chance that you may have miscalculated and a small profit margin. This will increase the price you need to obtain to be more certain that on average you are getting value.
People tinker with Kelly for several reasons. They have no confidence in their estimation of the accuracy of % chance they have given
a selection, The fear of losing the recommended size bet that Kelly suggests in relation to their bank size, they don't follow through
when the inevitable bad run comes.
Fear and guessing will see you in the poor house. Before embarking on Kelly betting you have to have confidence in your pricing and the way to get that confidence is to price selections before the event on a trial basis and after few hundred races see how accurate you are. Only when satisfied you are more right than wrong do you proceed.
For me the best way to utilize Kelly is to separate the % chances of winning into groups of 8% blocks and have a different Kelly bank
for each block i.e. all selections calculated to have less than 8% chance would have its own bank, from 8% to 16% another bank etc...
I think top2rated has copied and pasted the blue statement.
Whoever made the statement was being a bit flippant, It is obvious to anyone that no one could calculate a true edge in sport
as against the flip of a coin or his example of cards.
Lets look at the second sentence ~ 'More should be staked when the edge is greater' That for a starter is silly, if you priced
a horse at 100/1 and could get 200/1 you would not put more on it than pricing a horse at 3/1 and being able to get 4/1. Kelly
Criterion does not suggest that you do.
All that waffle about blood cell count and the horses vibes. LOL
In previous posts I have shown that when you do your pricing you build into that price ~ commission, leeway for the % chance that you may have miscalculated and a small profit margin. This will increase the price you need to obtain to be more certain that on average you are getting value.
People tinker with Kelly for several reasons. They have no confidence in their estimation of the accuracy of % chance they have given
a selection, The fear of losing the recommended size bet that Kelly suggests in relation to their bank size, they don't follow through
when the inevitable bad run comes.
Fear and guessing will see you in the poor house. Before embarking on Kelly betting you have to have confidence in your pricing and the way to get that confidence is to price selections before the event on a trial basis and after few hundred races see how accurate you are. Only when satisfied you are more right than wrong do you proceed.
For me the best way to utilize Kelly is to separate the % chances of winning into groups of 8% blocks and have a different Kelly bank
for each block i.e. all selections calculated to have less than 8% chance would have its own bank, from 8% to 16% another bank etc...
all this rubbish about kelly systems and other systems is in fact all rubbish
Another one wants to take on the laws of mathematics.
There are good reasons, already presented, why Kelly isn't for everyone and should be treated with care by nearly everyone. To call it rubbish however is to show your own lack of understanding of an irrefutable mathematical proof.
Another one wants to take on the laws of mathematics.
There are good reasons, already presented, why Kelly isn't for everyone and should be treated with care by nearly everyone. To call it rubbish however is to show your own lack of understanding of an irrefutable mathematical proof.
Compound Magic
You're right, the statement isn't my work. I merely posted it to try and broaden the discussion as to what people mean when they talk of an 'edge'.
As regards the second sentence in the statement, "More should be staked when the edge is greater"; I think you've taken that out of context. The sentence is directly linked to the to the cards analogy and should be read in conjunction with the last sentence in the same paragraph.
Secondly, I think the writer was being semi-serious when he mentioned blood cell count, vibes etc., etc., - he/she was merely illustrating a few of the infinite number of variables that would be needed to remotely come close to assessing true price.
You're right, the statement isn't my work. I merely posted it to try and broaden the discussion as to what people mean when they talk of an 'edge'.
As regards the second sentence in the statement, "More should be staked when the edge is greater"; I think you've taken that out of context. The sentence is directly linked to the to the cards analogy and should be read in conjunction with the last sentence in the same paragraph.
Secondly, I think the writer was being semi-serious when he mentioned blood cell count, vibes etc., etc., - he/she was merely illustrating a few of the infinite number of variables that would be needed to remotely come close to assessing true price.
The good judges can still maximize what they win by correctly staking.
Feel free not to use maths to aid you, but the further away from kelly you bet (whether deliberately because you can't get accurate odds assessments for various reason or by accident because you're not good at assessing odds) the less optimally you're staking.
Thankfully it's not even open for debate, the only debate is how close you should attempt to get.
Of course, I'll be happy as ever to listen to a reasoned mathematical proof of why you think it doesn't work.
Feel free not to use maths to aid you, but the further away from kelly you bet (whether deliberately because you can't get accurate odds assessments for various reason or by accident because you're not good at assessing odds) the less optimally you're staking.
Thankfully it's not even open for debate, the only debate is how close you should attempt to get.
Of course, I'll be happy as ever to listen to a reasoned mathematical proof of why you think it doesn't work.
Lori Joined: 20 Apr 04
Replies: 28197 09 Jan 11 12:12
all this rubbish about kelly systems and other systems is in fact all rubbish
I've read that line several times and still not sure what is meant. Is it a double negative ?
Is he saying 'Kelly' is good or bad ? if the rubbish is rubbish, what is rubbish, kelly or
what is written about it ? I'm confused. I think I will stick to the 'Kenilworth' staking plan.
Replies: 28197 09 Jan 11 12:12
all this rubbish about kelly systems and other systems is in fact all rubbish
I've read that line several times and still not sure what is meant. Is it a double negative ?
Is he saying 'Kelly' is good or bad ? if the rubbish is rubbish, what is rubbish, kelly or
what is written about it ? I'm confused. I think I will stick to the 'Kenilworth' staking plan.
Many of the posts on this thread demonstrate the relative inexperience of the posters (this is not meant to be patronising but I realise that it might be interpreted as such.)
The longterm success at gambling requires the player to understand the effect of the most important variable involved which hardly gets a mention. It is not selction. It is not staking plan. It is not % edge. It is VOLATILITY.
Let me explain. Most players would probably agree that an edge that gets you a return on stakes of 10% whether as a backer or a layer represents a desirable and probably maximum return that one could hope for, at least as far as horse racing is concerned.
many speak of having achieved such returns and declare themselves as winners at the game.They would not accept that they have been lucky. they would argue that they have a proven edge.
I suggest that anyone who is able to, puts a simple model together on a spreadsheet and using the random number facility, looks at the effects of volatility on an edge of say 10% across say 1000 bets.
What you will see is that at a small win% say 10% with say an average SP of 11.0 you will be subject to a wide variety of potential returns after 1000 bets ranging from profit to loss involving many ups and downs. Using Kelly staking will only add to the volatility.
Then look at say an 80% strike rate with an average SP of 1.375 giving a return of 10%. The difference in volatility is huge. Using kelly is a much safer proposition.Using such models should demonstrate why a strategy with a low win% irate is not sensible for anyone who bets for a ling, certainly on the horses.
I do not intend to enter into a debate again about Kelly but imo its use in practice as far as the horses is concerned is too risky. It is not possible to be sufficiently precise and consistent in pricing, especially outside the front two and especially when in horse racing too much apparent potential value is an indicator that all is not what it seems.Caveat emptor.
The longterm success at gambling requires the player to understand the effect of the most important variable involved which hardly gets a mention. It is not selction. It is not staking plan. It is not % edge. It is VOLATILITY.
Let me explain. Most players would probably agree that an edge that gets you a return on stakes of 10% whether as a backer or a layer represents a desirable and probably maximum return that one could hope for, at least as far as horse racing is concerned.
many speak of having achieved such returns and declare themselves as winners at the game.They would not accept that they have been lucky. they would argue that they have a proven edge.
I suggest that anyone who is able to, puts a simple model together on a spreadsheet and using the random number facility, looks at the effects of volatility on an edge of say 10% across say 1000 bets.
What you will see is that at a small win% say 10% with say an average SP of 11.0 you will be subject to a wide variety of potential returns after 1000 bets ranging from profit to loss involving many ups and downs. Using Kelly staking will only add to the volatility.
Then look at say an 80% strike rate with an average SP of 1.375 giving a return of 10%. The difference in volatility is huge. Using kelly is a much safer proposition.Using such models should demonstrate why a strategy with a low win% irate is not sensible for anyone who bets for a ling, certainly on the horses.
I do not intend to enter into a debate again about Kelly but imo its use in practice as far as the horses is concerned is too risky. It is not possible to be sufficiently precise and consistent in pricing, especially outside the front two and especially when in horse racing too much apparent potential value is an indicator that all is not what it seems.Caveat emptor.
An extremely cautious but successful investor spends 10 years of his life betting his systems portfolio and makes £1 million. He always uses fairly level stakes and never bets more than £20 at a time.
Is he a genius or an understaking fool who has wasted 10 years doing what could have been accomplished in 5 years using a "staking plan"?
Is he a genius or an understaking fool who has wasted 10 years doing what could have been accomplished in 5 years using a "staking plan"?
Fred
Assuming the conditions you state, and at 1000 bets p.a (20 per week possible) and returning 100% on stakes without commission (impossible), he would win an etsimated £200k so I guess he would be not so much a liar or genius but a fantasist.
Assuming the conditions you state, and at 1000 bets p.a (20 per week possible) and returning 100% on stakes without commission (impossible), he would win an etsimated £200k so I guess he would be not so much a liar or genius but a fantasist.
A level stake profit of 5000 points every year for 10 years ?
You can NOT be serious !
You can NOT be serious !
Sandown
An excellent post as per usual.
The impact of volatility cannot be understated.
Hence why certain hedge funds implode and similarly many, many gamblers.
Too much leverage, or overstaking in layman's terms, being the culprit.
An excellent post as per usual.
The impact of volatility cannot be understated.
Hence why certain hedge funds implode and similarly many, many gamblers.
Too much leverage, or overstaking in layman's terms, being the culprit.
Ok ok my numbers are way out, my hypothetical gambler worked himself into the grave He didn't even get chance to put his results into a spreadsheet, back-fit a staking plan and curse himself for his understaking.
He didn't even get chance to put his results into a spreadsheet, back-fit a staking plan and curse himself for his understaking.
Sea the Stars
You're right essentially about the punter being the ultimate determinant on any success.
But the underlying principle of systems is that betting can be made into an objective an exercise as possible, and thus remove the objectivity factor, or influence of the individual punter if you like, as much as possible.
If that can be done, a big if I admit, then one's betting results should certainly at least improve to a large degree.
You're right essentially about the punter being the ultimate determinant on any success.
But the underlying principle of systems is that betting can be made into an objective an exercise as possible, and thus remove the objectivity factor, or influence of the individual punter if you like, as much as possible.
If that can be done, a big if I admit, then one's betting results should certainly at least improve to a large degree.
i wish the favs would stop winning...42% up to yesterday..thank feck for panto haha..
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539