I hope to end up in profit this year, maybe by going over the 3 year results will help me increase the value bets and decrease the non-valuers.

Firstly I'm thinking of reducing stakes on maiden races and Grp 1s

These results are to a £10 lay stake.

2009 Profit	3295
2010 Profit	639
2011 Profit	6722
3 yr Profit	10656
2012 Loss	-1172
Total Profit	9484

kenilworth it has come to my attention after reading a good amount of your posts, you are indeed, a mug.

CrowsEye, my BF account suggests otherwise, but
nevertheless I noticed from your only other post on this
thread, you failed to even make a choice from two picks
in the the opening post, although you did acknowledge
'good' staking is helpful, if only to keep your bank
going longer. Thanks for that.

That's not correct Zealot, your maths and your theory is wrong. Haven't got much time at the mo but basically 10% value is the same at any odds range, will explain later if necessary. Chatlame's point is correct in that it's easier to match value at higher prices, IMO.

no value e/w

anyone disagree?

''a bad staking plan''indeed.

I've seen staking plans described as 'clever', 'good', 'sensible'
and now plain 'bad'. I've asked for details of these plans but
those who describe them as such, ignore my simple requests. Can
someone help with examples please, ?

please explain then Trev .

I was really questioning the use of the adjectives clever, good, sensible etc
to describe certain staking, without explaining why. I have studied staking plans and am of
the opinion that all staking plans, especially progressive plans where the stake increases
after losers, decreasing after winners, in reality guaranteeing the stake on winners is higher
than those on losers, sometimes called 'chasing', the  problem of course, being the losing run,
as is the case with most staking plan.
colonel, you mention an example for clever staking as one which considers the risk and value of
a bet,...with respect, could you explain how it can do that ?

long term profit of ur betting.

colonel, in your examples the 30% and 20% represent (in BF prices) 3.33
and 5.0 respectively, and in the 2nd example 50% and 60%, again (in BF prices)
represent 2.0 and 1.66 respectively. Clearly the 5.0 and the 2.0 represent the
value and in those cases my stakes would 50 pts at 2.0, and 20 pts at 5.0,
either bet, if successful, returning 100 pts. I don't see anything clever about
doing that, common sense IMO. Regards risk, the bigger the price(s) the bigger
the risk, but in the ideal world both approaches, and returns are the same.

Regards risk, the bigger the price(s) the bigger
the risk, but in the ideal world both approaches, and returns are the same.

kenilworth, we dont live in an ideal world, do we? we live in a "real" world where resources are finite. and that is why we need a staking plan, to balance the risk and reward in a resource constrained world.  in an ideal world it may be conceivable to assume one to survive  .

colonel, in your examples the 30% and 20% represent (in BF prices) 3.33
and 5.0 respectively, and in the 2nd example 50% and 60%, again (in BF prices)
represent 2.0 and 1.66 respectively. Clearly the 5.0 and the 2.0 represent the
value and in those cases my stakes would 50 pts at 2.0, and 20 pts at 5.0,
either bet, if successful, returning 100 pts. I don't see anything clever about
doing that, common sense IMO.


well, this is not the end of the story.many of the most complex things in the world at the basic level are simple issues, they only become complex when they are in a real life scenario.  first of all finding the true probality of a sport outcome  which is used to quantify risk and value is difficult to say the least, hence why the market makes mistake and why value arises. second getting the optimal combination of risk factor and value factor in ur staking plan is not as easy as it seems. a person called kelly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion)  for instance has came up with one such plan which is claimed(i didn't understand the proof) to be the optimal provided that u have the true probality quantified.

CrowsEye, You remind me of someone who, when
he enters an empty room, the room remains
empty. You make no contribution, so go away
you silly boy, you offer nothing.

Tomorrow FC Nordsjaelland v Juventus...I have taken Juve -1 @ 1.53 with Paddi power.  This is the highest price on offer with any bookie so that must be value no?

No it'd be the same size bank

The bank would be the same size, but the bets would be £10 @ 200 rather than £1000 @ 2.0

I love hcap bets

Not out of the woods yet...

[   This image is no longer available.   ]

If one can find 20 good
bets per month

Yes, if only.

Zealot:  many a time a 'value ' pick will contract from 10s to 8s .  ( 2 full points )

If your bag is 11-10 shots and they move to evs  ( bigger % move than 10s to 8s ) that is only 1/10 of a point.

So you need to get 20 of them correct just to gain your overall 2 points

Ok, will explain, still on a dodgy mobile connection at the mo so might get booted though...

2.1 to evens is not a bigger move than 10's to 8's, your maths is wrong, that's the easy part out of the way :)

The theory is wrong because if for example you're looking for 10% value, then backing 8.0 shots at 8.8 or 2.0 shots at 2.2 will give you the same result in terms of gross profit on turnover, but your net profit will be more the lower the odds range, so in the above example net POT is more when betting at 2.2 (30% comm paid @ 5% @ 10% value) than 8.8 (36.25% comm paid @ 5% @ 10% value). Clear as mud? :) (comm charged @ 5% when betting 100.0 shots at 10% value is 54.5%).