General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
09 Aug 11
19:26
Joined:
Date Joined:
16 Sep 06
I bet on draws and can easily go 10 without a win (or 20 with only a couple of wins), are there any simple staking plans which are good at dealing with long losing runs like this? Thanks
Show More
Simple answer to that Howard is stake appropriately i.e. 1 or 2% of the betting bank.
Wait till you get a run of 10 without a win, then go in with money ....
If you are losing money betting this way then simply don't keep doing it
It's not really about how long you go without a win, it's more about how far you go down before you return to profit.
You need to know and fully understand the historical performance parameters of your system to get a good and reliable assessment of that.
For example if you have never ever gone down ( say) more than 10% your capital base ( as at the start of your losing run) on a flat bet basis, then if you only want to risk 10% of your increasing capital base ever, but want to gradually increase your flat bet size over time, then you would adjust your bet periodically to be 1% of your current capital level. If you were prepared to ( say) risk 25 % of your capital then this figure would be 2.5 % etc etc.
You need to know and fully understand the historical performance parameters of your system to get a good and reliable assessment of that.
For example if you have never ever gone down ( say) more than 10% your capital base ( as at the start of your losing run) on a flat bet basis, then if you only want to risk 10% of your increasing capital base ever, but want to gradually increase your flat bet size over time, then you would adjust your bet periodically to be 1% of your current capital level. If you were prepared to ( say) risk 25 % of your capital then this figure would be 2.5 % etc etc.
Frogbrain posts a partially intellible response - for once.
But is unnecessarily complex in its simplicity. Oh and only 60% accurate.
But is unnecessarily complex in its simplicity. Oh and only 60% accurate.
There are many staking plans that are well documented and all elaborate over 2 basic rules
which affect all staking system.
1....stake should be large enough proportional of reserve to enable good growth
2....stake should be small enough proportion of reserve to enable protection of reserves from losing runs and periods of loss.
Some staking plans force less risk in the early stage of a losing run and increase the risk and profit
to improve the profit over stake ratio but suffer from to small a risk in initial stage for periods of wining and to large a risk later till reserves are cleared, these are really GAMBLING systems
and are to be avoided.
The best staking plan that meets the 2 above simple rules is the proportional stakes system
where by you bet a percentage of reserve on each runner, it allows for maximum growth in periods of winning and in periods of losses reduces the stake.
The best staking plan of all is level bets where by you have plenty of reserve and bet the same amount each time, the stake size can be adapted to relate to risk or to maximum market volumes
but in principal this system is simple and the best approah.
which affect all staking system.
1....stake should be large enough proportional of reserve to enable good growth
2....stake should be small enough proportion of reserve to enable protection of reserves from losing runs and periods of loss.
Some staking plans force less risk in the early stage of a losing run and increase the risk and profit
to improve the profit over stake ratio but suffer from to small a risk in initial stage for periods of wining and to large a risk later till reserves are cleared, these are really GAMBLING systems
and are to be avoided.
The best staking plan that meets the 2 above simple rules is the proportional stakes system
where by you bet a percentage of reserve on each runner, it allows for maximum growth in periods of winning and in periods of losses reduces the stake.
The best staking plan of all is level bets where by you have plenty of reserve and bet the same amount each time, the stake size can be adapted to relate to risk or to maximum market volumes
but in principal this system is simple and the best approah.
That exactly what the level stakes says and does, well put freddiewilliams
The correct answer is Kelly Staking. It maximizes profits and protects bank against being wiped out.
But does it protect against your bank being severely decimated by one bad result ( not saying a bad bet here )?.
Me, you or someone else ?
And whoever, exactly why ?
And whoever, exactly why ?
Remember we're all here to learn, me too believe it or not.
let me get the question right.
You are asking "if kelly protects against your bank being severely decimated by one bad result?"
You are asking "if kelly protects against your bank being severely decimated by one bad result?"
Hello there FAFH
WIth regards to Kelly The point is not too concentrate too much in any one particular approach ever.
If you do that, all it takes is one flash crash ( or very unlucky result) if not to bring down the whole house then to set you back to where you were a long time ago.
WIth regards to Kelly The point is not too concentrate too much in any one particular approach ever.
If you do that, all it takes is one flash crash ( or very unlucky result) if not to bring down the whole house then to set you back to where you were a long time ago.
Yep. Spot on.
Who said that ?
Must sure be smart.
Who said that ?
Must sure be smart.
As I also said ( smarty pants that I am) , I personally feel that the yields on successful ggambling strategies are high enough as is, without the feeling the need to " maximize" profits with Kelly, full or part.
Anyway don't want to get in an argument of the basic theory of Kelly, as to me there is no argument.
Just saying that as Lori has perhaps just said i better and less procvocatively, it can do more harm than good in the wrong hands.
Just saying that as Lori has perhaps just said i better and less procvocatively, it can do more harm than good in the wrong hands.
kelly is all about "the long run". In the long run we are all dead, but 1 bet is a tad short term to be thinking about kelly imo.
Well we can agree on that then.
Phew.
The inference from that is only use Kelly in isolation only on a very small subsection of your portfolio.
Please say yes.
Phew.
The inference from that is only use Kelly in isolation only on a very small subsection of your portfolio.
Please say yes.
I think the problem I seem to be continually running into on here is that whilst I read a lot of good advice in theory being given on here, it appears to me to be being given in an impractical manner very often.
That is, in many cases it is being assumed that the person being advised is smart enough to translate the general theory into a practical solution for his skill level.
And I don't think they can more often than not.
I believe that many on here will take the advice in its exact literal form, and go away and potentially totally shoot themselves in the foot.
Therefore I preach caution in listening to any of the good advice being given on here.
And many seem to take exception to that and accuse me of saying their advice is poor. Whereas that is not what I'm saying at all.
I'm just saying that sometimes the advice should be more modified to suit the obvious innocence/naivety of the asking party.
After all we're not all super gamblers on here, and never will be.
That is, in many cases it is being assumed that the person being advised is smart enough to translate the general theory into a practical solution for his skill level.
And I don't think they can more often than not.
I believe that many on here will take the advice in its exact literal form, and go away and potentially totally shoot themselves in the foot.
Therefore I preach caution in listening to any of the good advice being given on here.
And many seem to take exception to that and accuse me of saying their advice is poor. Whereas that is not what I'm saying at all.
I'm just saying that sometimes the advice should be more modified to suit the obvious innocence/naivety of the asking party.
After all we're not all super gamblers on here, and never will be.
Just a matter of opinion, but Kelly staking is way more than I would risk from what I've seen, but I do adopt the principle of using slightly larger stakes when greater value is obvious, but that's just common sense I think, i.e. if I can get 3.0 for heads I'll risk more than if I can only get 2.08 :)
Trevh
Even if you can only get the 3.0 one time only ?
Even if you can only get the 3.0 one time only ?
My last post disappeared so I'll try again...
I don't get opportunities one time only Frog, they occur continuously. And when I say "risk more" I'm talking about increasing stakes from 0.25% to perhaps 0.5% of the bank, so still way under staking to any Kelly fans.
I don't get opportunities one time only Frog, they occur continuously. And when I say "risk more" I'm talking about increasing stakes from 0.25% to perhaps 0.5% of the bank, so still way under staking to any Kelly fans.
If you are only planning a few bets, then Kelly Staking will not help you. In fact, for the short term you are better off using a level or fixed stake because Kelly is superior only for a long term series of profitable (+EV) bets.
................The best staking plan of all is level bets where by you have plenty of reserve and bet the same amount each time, the stake size can be adapted to relate to risk or to maximum market volumes
[i]but in principal this system is simple and the best approach...................[/i]
Is the only way to bet. The bank needs to be sufficient to stand - whatever has been historically the LLR( and then doubled)or Minimum 50 x level stake.
Whatever system or method of selection you use - and however successfull it has been, there is no formula for what the future LLR or LWR may be.Therefore the bank is to be robust enough to:-
a) stand the long losing runs, and
b) the stakes reasonable enough to make you feel comfortable about betting them whatever the losing run is.The worst scenario is that stakes are too high in relation to size of bank, and panic sets in when the losers occur. This impact on your mental state - and the subsequent effect it can have on how/what you bet - must never be underestimated.
[i]but in principal this system is simple and the best approach...................[/i]
Is the only way to bet. The bank needs to be sufficient to stand - whatever has been historically the LLR( and then doubled)or Minimum 50 x level stake.
Whatever system or method of selection you use - and however successfull it has been, there is no formula for what the future LLR or LWR may be.Therefore the bank is to be robust enough to:-
a) stand the long losing runs, and
b) the stakes reasonable enough to make you feel comfortable about betting them whatever the losing run is.The worst scenario is that stakes are too high in relation to size of bank, and panic sets in when the losers occur. This impact on your mental state - and the subsequent effect it can have on how/what you bet - must never be underestimated.
When betting on an exchange there are a whole bunch of extra variables to consider that means pure Kelly isn't very useful.
It works if you're placing straight bets, but as soon as you start doing things like offering in markets rather than taking prices, and backing and laying multiple selections within a market, things get a whole lot more complicated. Then there is the fact that bets across markets for a single match will often be (negatively) correlated, which also needs to be factored in. You need to factor in likelihood of getting matched as well. It becomes incredibly complicated which is fine if you're botting, but when betting manually, you need to create quick rules of thumb rather than a more rigorous staking system.
I know the OP is simply betting on draws, but if he was to do this properly to maximize edge, the above variables would come into play.
It works if you're placing straight bets, but as soon as you start doing things like offering in markets rather than taking prices, and backing and laying multiple selections within a market, things get a whole lot more complicated. Then there is the fact that bets across markets for a single match will often be (negatively) correlated, which also needs to be factored in. You need to factor in likelihood of getting matched as well. It becomes incredibly complicated which is fine if you're botting, but when betting manually, you need to create quick rules of thumb rather than a more rigorous staking system.
I know the OP is simply betting on draws, but if he was to do this properly to maximize edge, the above variables would come into play.
I operated a system betting on draws for several years, with (very modest) overall profits.
The only staking system I operated was level stakes, and the only method I could think of to overcome the losing runs was to keep those stakes very small.
One big problem with backing draws is that you're very rarely backing something you actually think will be the likeliest outcome, so it can be hard to keep level-headed in the face of losing runs.
Eventually I had to keep the stakes very small owing to the extreme difficulty in getting on at the best prices, as bookies soon restricted my draws bets, and there is the problem of ridiculously high commission rates on here.
In the end I gave up the system at the end of a season where I was about a hundred quid up after turning over nearly £50,000. Like a politician's career, every betting system inevitably ends in failure.
The only staking system I operated was level stakes, and the only method I could think of to overcome the losing runs was to keep those stakes very small.
One big problem with backing draws is that you're very rarely backing something you actually think will be the likeliest outcome, so it can be hard to keep level-headed in the face of losing runs.
Eventually I had to keep the stakes very small owing to the extreme difficulty in getting on at the best prices, as bookies soon restricted my draws bets, and there is the problem of ridiculously high commission rates on here.
In the end I gave up the system at the end of a season where I was about a hundred quid up after turning over nearly £50,000. Like a politician's career, every betting system inevitably ends in failure.
.......every betting system inevitably ends in failure
Can't agree.Define system?
Any method of betting that requires some form of rules or set of criteria, is a system imo.
Can't agree.Define system?
Any method of betting that requires some form of rules or set of criteria, is a system imo.
'System' as in what readers used to send in to the inside back page of the Handicap Book.
Rigid criteria which throw up a series of definite bets.
Mine centred on examining the last 12 matches of football teams and backing the draw in matches where both sides had been getting a certain number of draws.
In particular when home teams who had been getting 50% or more draws at home were playing away teams who had been getting 50% or more draws away.
Gradually and inevitably, big odds and decent profits dwindled to smaller odds and minuscule profits.
There's probably still scope to relax those rules into guidelines and combine them with more detailed knowledge as a means of finding draws. But as a rigid system, like all systems eventually do, it had run its course for me.
Rigid criteria which throw up a series of definite bets.
Mine centred on examining the last 12 matches of football teams and backing the draw in matches where both sides had been getting a certain number of draws.
In particular when home teams who had been getting 50% or more draws at home were playing away teams who had been getting 50% or more draws away.
Gradually and inevitably, big odds and decent profits dwindled to smaller odds and minuscule profits.
There's probably still scope to relax those rules into guidelines and combine them with more detailed knowledge as a means of finding draws. But as a rigid system, like all systems eventually do, it had run its course for me.
Jeezuz H christ there are just sooooo many ways to win like I said time and time again, time spent researching percentages is the key.
You can not just front up and bet the same result time and time again if you have no idea what the percentages are on that result, how do you know it will win over time if you've not researceh it??
Most PPl are just dumb and lazy thats why there are so many mug punters. I think of something random and go research it to see if its viable, so many angles are viable.
This week I found a new horse racing lay system, today it showed 16 qualifiers for 14 winning bets for a profit of over $600 when betting with a $100 liabillity. And that wa sjust on the metropolitan races, didn't do any country races today.
I've got another angle on that system but it produces about 15 bets a race meeting and with 4 meetings a day midweek and 12 on the Saturdays it is a lot of research that I have to do the figures on so I am not sure of its viabillity yet, I'll know next week if its iron pirate or if it is the real thing.
Point is you just got to do research and find a viable percentage bet.
You can not just front up and bet the same result time and time again if you have no idea what the percentages are on that result, how do you know it will win over time if you've not researceh it??
Most PPl are just dumb and lazy thats why there are so many mug punters. I think of something random and go research it to see if its viable, so many angles are viable.
This week I found a new horse racing lay system, today it showed 16 qualifiers for 14 winning bets for a profit of over $600 when betting with a $100 liabillity. And that wa sjust on the metropolitan races, didn't do any country races today.
I've got another angle on that system but it produces about 15 bets a race meeting and with 4 meetings a day midweek and 12 on the Saturdays it is a lot of research that I have to do the figures on so I am not sure of its viabillity yet, I'll know next week if its iron pirate or if it is the real thing.
Point is you just got to do research and find a viable percentage bet.
think you need longer research than a week's results to make any claim on their success. Minimum of 2 years worth imo.
Something along these lines, Facts?
| Year | Bets | Wins | Strike rate |
| 2011 | 11 | 8 | 73% |
| 2010 | 13 | 9 | 69% |
| 2009 | 7 | 7 | 100% |
| 2008 | 3 | 2 | 67% |
| 2007 | 4 | 4 | 100% |
| 2006 | 3 | 3 | 100% |
Higher volume of bets this year....
Might have to take on an assistant.
| Date | Result |
| 21/03/06 | WON |
| 25/08/06 | WON |
| 30/12/06 | WON |
| 15/04/07 | WON |
| 24/11/07 | WON |
| 24/11/07 | WON |
| 25/11/07 | WON |
| 16/02/08 | LOST |
| 09/03/08 | WON |
| 09/03/08 | WON |
| 29/01/09 | WON |
| 14/02/09 | WON |
| 01/03/09 | WON |
| 14/03/09 | WON |
| 02/04/09 | WON |
| 01/08/09 | WON |
| 02/10/09 | WON |
| 01/01/10 | WON |
| 15/01/10 | WON |
| 09/02/10 | WON |
| 12/02/10 | WON |
| 26/02/10 | LOST |
| 30/03/10 | LOST |
| 05/04/10 | LOST |
| 04/07/10 | WON |
| 25/08/10 | WON |
| 29/09/10 | WON |
| 29/09/10 | WON |
| 02/10/10 | LOST |
| 05/12/10 | WON |
| 23/02/11 | WON |
| 29/03/11 | WON |
| 09/04/11 | LOST |
| 21/04/11 | LOST |
| 25/04/11 | LOST |
| 26/04/11 | WON |
| 26/04/11 | WON |
| 23/05/11 | WON |
| 26/05/11 | WON |
| 04/06/11 | WON |
| 27/06/11 | WON |
Might have to take on an assistant.
of course you need to look at results longer than just 1 week.
What I meant was it will take me 1 week to do the research which will span the previous 12 months
What I meant was it will take me 1 week to do the research which will span the previous 12 months
True goldcoastinvestor there are so many ways to research stats and form for profit but its the time it takes to do the surveys that is the only major hurdle, most aren't valiant enough on that score.
For all the system lovers!
Here is a system that yields approx 2.00 per event on race horses on a bank of 1K
Lay the 2,3,4, and 5th favourite for 30.00 liability, lay the 6,7,8,9,and 10th favourite for 60.00 liability any over 10th in favour lay to a liability of 100.00
So you are laying every horse bar the favourite. You will win on average 45% of all events
When an event is a winner on average it wins 21.00 when an event loses you will on average
lose approx 15.50
The highest use of the bank this year was approx 20% in the markets I operate on.
So a fairly safe method.
Test it over a couple of hundred events in your area/markets that interest you first.
All lays are to BSP liability.
Here is a system that yields approx 2.00 per event on race horses on a bank of 1K
Lay the 2,3,4, and 5th favourite for 30.00 liability, lay the 6,7,8,9,and 10th favourite for 60.00 liability any over 10th in favour lay to a liability of 100.00
So you are laying every horse bar the favourite. You will win on average 45% of all events
When an event is a winner on average it wins 21.00 when an event loses you will on average
lose approx 15.50
The highest use of the bank this year was approx 20% in the markets I operate on.
So a fairly safe method.
Test it over a couple of hundred events in your area/markets that interest you first.
All lays are to BSP liability.
Facts 20 Aug 11 22:43
need to see sp's
No problem.....
need to see sp's
No problem.....
| Date | Result | ISP |
| 21/03/06 | WON | 0.73 |
| 25/08/06 | WON | 0.57 |
| 30/12/06 | WON | 0.18 |
| 15/04/07 | WON | 0.20 |
| 24/11/07 | WON | 0.33 |
| 24/11/07 | WON | 0.25 |
| 25/11/07 | WON | 0.80 |
| 16/02/08 | LOST | 0.62 |
| 09/03/08 | WON | 0.25 |
| 09/03/08 | WON | 1.38 |
| 29/01/09 | WON | 0.07 |
| 14/02/09 | WON | 0.36 |
| 01/03/09 | WON | 0.08 |
| 14/03/09 | WON | 0.08 |
| 02/04/09 | WON | 0.10 |
| 01/08/09 | WON | 0.03 |
| 02/10/09 | WON | 0.36 |
| 01/01/10 | WON | 0.44 |
| 15/01/10 | WON | 0.17 |
| 09/02/10 | WON | 0.15 |
| 12/02/10 | WON | 0.29 |
| 26/02/10 | LOST | 0.36 |
| 30/03/10 | LOST | 0.83 |
| 05/04/10 | LOST | 0.73 |
| 04/07/10 | WON | 0.57 |
| 25/08/10 | WON | 0.44 |
| 29/09/10 | WON | 0.11 |
| 29/09/10 | WON | 0.53 |
| 02/10/10 | LOST | 0.73 |
| 05/12/10 | WON | 0.36 |
| 23/02/11 | WON | 0.40 |
| 29/03/11 | WON | 0.15 |
| 09/04/11 | LOST | 0.29 |
| 21/04/11 | LOST | 0.44 |
| 25/04/11 | LOST | 0.73 |
| 26/04/11 | WON | 0.73 |
| 26/04/11 | WON | 0.20 |
| 23/05/11 | WON | 0.44 |
| 26/05/11 | WON | 0.10 |
| 04/06/11 | WON | 0.14 |
| 27/06/11 | WON | 0.40 |
Bet in groups of 10. First 10 one point win
If a profit, the next 10 at same stake.
If a loss on the first 10, increase the stake to two points.
From that point increase level stake by one after a loss,
decrease by one point after a profit.
The winning groups will always carry a higher average stake
than the losing sequence.
Drawback ? A bad losing sequence.
This is suitable for the weekend Premier League weekend matches.
If a profit, the next 10 at same stake.
If a loss on the first 10, increase the stake to two points.
From that point increase level stake by one after a loss,
decrease by one point after a profit.
The winning groups will always carry a higher average stake
than the losing sequence.
Drawback ? A bad losing sequence.
This is suitable for the weekend Premier League weekend matches.
To increase growth and stake size increase strike rate by also betting the most likely other outcome apart form draw as although you will not be winning at as high a profit margin you will be winning more often and may even have a new edge if choosing the most likely other outcome productively
other than that 1-2% stakes is the order of the day!
other than that 1-2% stakes is the order of the day!
ken
Any staking plan based on sequences or groups of bets is not a sound proposition imo. Sequences of consec. loser/winners is random( even though you are following the same set of rules.) To introduce another factor to 'juggle' the stakes depending on a 'run' of winners or losers is a pure gamble.
Any staking plan based on sequences or groups of bets is not a sound proposition imo. Sequences of consec. loser/winners is random( even though you are following the same set of rules.) To introduce another factor to 'juggle' the stakes depending on a 'run' of winners or losers is a pure gamble.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539