Staking

Staking is important according to my studies.

Betting to win (not laying)

If you are a loser, staking to market chances will in the long term lose less than half of what level stakes will lose
for the same total outlay. If you have an edge at level stakes, betting to market chances you will win more than twice as much.
Not saying that it is the best staking method but it is lot better way than level stakes.

My method of staking is betting to return 100 points dependent on stake.
For example an 1/1 chance would carry a stake of 50 points, a 3/1 chance
25 points, a 9/1 chance 10 points etc, accommodating both odds on and
odds against. If your method of selection is sound your bank should rise
and the base figure of 100 can be raised, perhaps by 10%. A good,sound,
method of selection is paramount though. GL.

Racingguru, I think a short run of short price losers will trouble any
one, but it depends on how much you start with. As with any staking, your
method has to be sound, and I only bet when I believe my pick has a better
chance of success than the price suggest, whether it be a 12/1 chance or a
4/6 pick. You can quite easily bet a 12/1 that has a 6/1 chance ? I think
if you can claim that talent you are in a different world from me, and most
others. My staking is how bookmakers bet in theory, that is betting to return
100 (dutching in effect) and has stood me well for a long time, and having
400 on a 2/1, then 1000 on a 12/1 is not for me. Perhaps short ones are simply
not for you.

racingguru, I agree that the inherent risk applies to any horse in any race, and that includes
12/1 as well as 4/6 chances, in my experience proportionately. I almost never play in the 6/1 to 12/1
price range, backing or laying, as I can't handle the losing runs and concentrate on the 1/3 to
3/1 range, an area in which I do ok. You do it your way, I do it my way, besides, what is this
to do with staking ?

racingguru, i don't bet to win the same amount irrespective of odds, but
to return 100 units (see my post at 17.42). I only bet when i am satisfied
the odds are in my favour by a certain percentage, be it 1.80+ about a 1.66
chance or 3.50+ about 3.00 pick.

patrick, I'm saying if I make something a 2/1 shot, and it was 85/40
I wouldn't have a bet, but if it was 5/2 or better, I would. If it was
5/2 my theoretical stake would be 100/3.5 (28.5 to win 71.5) and if it was available at,
say 3/1 my stake would be 100/4.0 (25.0 to win 75.0) The slightly bigger price means I would either win more or lose less, nothing wrong with that IMO. BTW how can that be backing to win irrespective of odds?
I suggest you read the posts again. Another thing, it's how bookmakers work theoretically, to return the same amount irrespective of price.

dlarssonf, i don't know what your problem is, except that you just don't
understand what I am saying. First and foremost, my method of selection is how
I make a profit, staking is how i stake depending on price. Do you understand
''dutching''? In case you don't it is about backing one or more selections to
return the same amount providing one of your selection is successful, that is
what I do. I bet each pick to return 100 points. Simple IMO. How would you stake
say an 1/1 chance, and a 3/1 in the same event ?

and i don't have a problem either, just discussing a post on a thread which is what I thought the forum was for

are you saying you treat all 2/1, for example, shots the same?

so now you are talking about creating a "book".  I thought you were talking about individual bets in individual markets

I agree, but I prefer to stake to the same base, otherwise the stake
loses it's objectivity IMO.

Again for short prices Kelly doesn't work

You've posted this before. It's still wrong no matter how many times you post it.

I should say Kelly for short prices is too volatile for people with non super human powers to use effectively

I don't follow you.Kelly stakes are always ideal for a given edge, short or long odds.

Lori is correct.

Actually, I think I've just worked out what you're talking about.

Do you really price things up as evens 11/10 5/4 6/4 7/4 etc rather than use an exact percentage?

If so, this whole discussion is ridiculous.

*Overstake % of bank (your method) that is of course

Ok, so I ran the numbers, they're very close (having put back into a Kelly calc and checked) but are about .03% out in places.

For the case where you get 10/11 about a 4/6 shot that you made 4/7

You think you're getting an Expected Growth of 2.62%, but you're actually getting 0.91%

For the case where you get 12/1 about a 9/1 shot that you made 7/1

You think you're getting an EG of 1.4% but you're actually getting an EG of 0.04%

In the first case you're losing out on 1.71% perceived profit and the second case you're losing out on 1.36% perceived profit.

However in the second case, you've lost nearly all your actual profit, while in the odds on case you're still on a decent winning proposition.

The actual cost of the overstaking in each instance:

If you had staked 16% in the first case, you'd have an EG of around 1.19% instead of 0.91%

If you had staked 2.5% in the second case you'd have an EG of around 0.35% instead of 0.04%

So the overstaking in the second case is a slightly worse crime if I don't have horrible rounding errors. It's basically the same thing (-0.28% vs -0.31%)

EG    p    o    bet size
2.61%    0.6363    1.909    0.2356
0.90%    0.6    1.909    0.2356
1.18%    0.6    1.909    0.16
1.40%    0.125    13    0.0521
0.04%    0.1    13    0.0521
0.35%    0.1    13    0.025

but the problem is the effect when you get it wrong.

My posts above show you the effects of getting it wrong using the exact numbers you gave me.

EG isn't a red herring, it's what Kelly is all about. I've shown above that you can price a 4/6 shot at 4/7 and bet it at 10/11 and still have an EG of approaching 1% despite coming off the optimal staking.

Yes I bet. I don't know why you're proud of the 14% figure.. If that were me I'd be looking for ways to lower it.

Maybe someone on a forum somewhere can show you where you're missing out on profitable opportunities.

idealised mathematic priciples which really in practice are only for the complete fearless or monopoly money punter.

I've shown you can make a terrible pricing blunder and still come out with a profit. I've also shown that you can make a blunder that you think is equivalent and turn that profit into 0.04% EG , despite you saying that it's a far safer proposition.

Why are you arguing against your own examples. One still turns a decent profit, one barely turns a profit at all.

No I'm not a mathematician, I'm still using maths I learned when I was about 12, this stuff isn't exactly rocket science. I run into stumbling blocks on things I'm trying to do on a regular basis thanks to my fairly sketchy maths.

By the way, I don't want to give the impression to anyone that overstaking is good, it's not, it's the biggest crime you can commit in this game and my fear of it holds me back.

It is however important to keep a sense of scale. If you find a superb bet (Such as backing 10/11 about a 4/7 shot with a drunk bookie), then you can afford to be wrong. It's not "The price is right" where you have to get as near to the maximum as you can without going over, it's just that when you go over you get into trouble if it's too far, while going under is never a losing proposition.

I would always advocate betting less rather than more if you're not sure of the situation you're in (and we've done this at length in multiple threads, it's more common in horse racing than in sport to be in an uncertain situation)

I believe that amongst winning gamblers (myself included) that understaking is a more common crime than overstaking. The thought of "I do well enough so it's fine" is something I used to do when I was beating blackjack, beating fruit machines, beating poker etc..  I've seen so many easy edges come and go (All three of those are still beatable of course, but the skill required to do so has risen massively) that I want to maximize edges I have while they're still around.