Staking Question

Wait till you think a horse is a value bet--then bet accordingly

You should be winning fortunes with figures like that,if you think it's not luck then you just keep betting level stakes staking doesn't come into betting if you win consistently.You say those figures are for 3 years don't know why you'd be asking the ? with those returns,you'd be asking the wrong people anyway as your figures are better than 99.999% of punters.

Get the wheelbarrow on!

Too small a sample to draw any conclusions from. So you've had 3 16/1 winners from 20 bets and want to draw conclusions on your advantage from that. Bizarre way to think about it IMO.

If you are not able to accurately forecast what you think tomorrow's 16/1 shot realistically is (Kelly) then i'd stick to the 1pt system you have. The fact you've had success on 16/1's previously means nothing when it comes to tomorrows bet. eg: you hit #36 on a roulette table 5 times in last 100 spins - does that means its suddenly good value and is really a 20/1 shot?? I know random events and horses are different but you really need a couple of years of data minimum and at least 2000 bets total before you can draw conclusions as to your  perceived at advantage let alone trying to interpolate that to advantage at specific prices.

I'd firstly try and figure out what your profit to stake over a long period (2 years) and then go from there. GL.

20 bets in 1 year

I'd be bored sh1tless

And shaking

But good luck

Original Poster  (Thread Starter) - has a most appropriate Forum NAME ....

pinsticker 

Keep jabbing, pal .... You might find another 16/1 winner - in another 3 years time.

He's not saying he's only had 20 bets but nevertheless to try and interpolate your advantage at specific prices is very suspect at the best of times as each scenario is different but he just doesn't have enough data to even try and make a guess at it. He should compile all his data over a few years and maybe group prices even and below, 11/10 - 2/1, 9/4 - 4/1 etc and maybe he'll be able to draw some conclusions on where he makes his money. Thats not exact by any means either but to think you are "good" at 16/1 shots on the basis of 3 wins is crazy. So the notion being I'm great at 16/1 shots but cr@p at 14/1's and 20/1's - lol. A lot to learn in your betting education is all I'll say.

Strike rate at 16/1 15%
No of 16/1 bets in last year 20
No of 16/1 wins in last year 1


s/r is actually 5% in last year which is more relevant, imho

Certainly not 1 or 2.

If you're selections are arrived at without thought, then 4.

If it's you that's doing the picking (rather than an automated system), I'd say (3) walk away for a while (AFTER you've had a 1 point bet on today's).

*your* selections. ffs

ROI over the last 3 years to level stakes 150%

That ROI is impressive if you've had few bets. Not so much if you've had thousands of bets.
Also if you've had few bets, as racingguru suggests, that is too small a sample to assess performance / strategy and whether profit can be maintained in the long term.

How many bets have you had in last 3 years pinsticker?

Return on Investment 150% over 3 years is very very ordinary. Equates to a 15% increase of bank each year. Excellent for the stock market but unless you have a vast bank you never gonna get anywhere with those type of returns. You got to look to 1.5 - 2X your bank every year.

That ROI is impressive if you've had few bets. Not so much if you've had thousands of bets.
If by 'ROI of 150%' the OP means a 50% profit on turnover (i.e. 50p profit for every £1 he stakes) then the above is quite the reverse. In effect he is doing vastly better that any professional punter that has ever lived.

If he is performing like that over many thousands of bets he is basically some sort of genius. Over a small number of bets, he may just have got lucky.

if starting bank was £1m, bank now £2.5m. Isn't that average 50% a year at simple interest rates?

If by 'ROI of 150%' the OP means a 50% profit on turnover

betlarge, as I understand it, ROI is not based on % of turnover..... but on % of original investment or bank. Two very different things

ROI = return on investment should mean rate of growth of bank as per investment circles.

POT = profit on turnover is profit to stake.

50% profit to stake is IMPOSSIBLE so very much doubt thats what he means. If he can manage 50% profit to stake he'd own half of Monaco by now.

if starting bank was £1m, bank now £2.5m. Isn't that average 50% a year at simple interest rates?

It is yes. But ROI in my mind has always meant profit on turnover rather than profit on original starting bank.

I.e. if you start with a bank of £1000, have £10,000 of bets and make a profit of £500, your ROI would be 5% (£500 from £10k turnover) whereas your profit on original starting bank would be 50% (£500 from £1k bank).

OP isn't clear what he means.

Pedro, RG, you both beat me to it!

My mistake then, I've always regarded ROI and POT as the same. Just call overall profit 'winnings' to be honest.

Either way, it's impossible to advise the OP without no of bets/turnover anyway...

1/100 of your bank from now on. Never stop if you can help it.

Guess which line is going to Bank-crash?

Pinsticker  ( by the way like the name.) heres my advice and its free
Forget 16/1 25/1 50/1  shots  ok they win  ever blue moon
but us pros  only bet or lay  the first 4 in the betting
Why well 75% of the time  the winner is in the  first 4 in the betting
laying   you got the other 3   and they cannot all win  ..thats were the lays are.. any thing outside the first 4  is running for you
Get that and you can lump on you dont need a job..

jollie seems to get the big prices

So much for according to the law of averages...