Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Was just looking through this and thought I might try it 
Copied from original post
STAKING: I want to minimise risks and maximise returns, of course (who doesn't?), which are always pretty difficult, not to say conflicting, objectives to combine. Like all forms of betting, the selections are only a part of the story. Betting on horses is notorious for people being able to have good selections and still lose money through poor money management. With laying in particular, IMHO the commonest reasons for failure are under-funding (not having a bank big enough for what you're trying to do) and disillusionment (getting too easily fed up with an inevitable losing run).
This isn't the time or place to get involved in a big discussion about whether the selections or the money management are more important - it suffices to say that without both aspects being good, sensible, reliable and proven, it's not possible to make steady profits ...*
The two common staking methods for laying are:-
(i) Laying to a fixed stake: I don't use this for two main reasons: first, the "accidents" are proportionally too expensive; secondly, it seems to me that it fails adequately to make the profits "deserved" after successfully identifying and laying shorter-priced losers.
(ii) Laying to a fixed liability: I don't use this either, because it's inherently mathematically unsound - it ignores the fact that accidents are far more likely to happen at the lower end of the scale: if I lay a 2/1 favourite (i.e. I lay it at an exchange price of 3.0), the overall risk of that bet losing (the horse winning) is of course higher than one which was a lay at 8.0 (7/1).
Instead I try to combine the best of both worlds by using what looks like a complicated mixture of the two systems mentioned above, but it's actually perfectly straightforward ...*
My staking system: I lay in three distinct exchange-price-bands of fixed backer's stakes.
At one end of the scale, if the exchange price available about the horse is less than 3.5 (less than 5/2), I lay to a stake of 1% of my current laying system bank. At the other end, if the price is between 7.5 and 11 (the latter figure being my cut-off: I don't lay anything higher than 10/1), I lay to a stake of 0.4% of my current bank. If the price is in-between these two bands (i.e. prices of 3.6 to 7.4), then I lay to a stake of 0.6% of my bank. As they say in those TV infommercials, "But wait - there's more!": I also combine this staking plan with a ratchet system (see below).
The are two other advantages with this staking system: first, the practicality of the situation when using the exchanges is that the backer's stake (rather than one's own liability) is the value which has to be typed into the little box on the screen, and this makes it quick and simple to do; secondly, nearly a year's figures have proven to me that this method minimises the variability of the results, and that's very, very important ...*
To summarise, with examples based on a starting bank of £3,000 (if you're reckless enough to try them, you can scale up or down proportionally to your own bank) ...
Prices below 3.5: lay to 1% of bank - backer's stake £30 (my liability under £75)
Prices from 3.6 to 7.4: lay to 0.6% of bank - backer's stake £18 (my liability £46.80 - £115.20)
Prices from 7.5 to 11: lay to 0.4% of bank - backer's stake £12 (my liability £78 - £132)
Copied from original post
STAKING: I want to minimise risks and maximise returns, of course (who doesn't?), which are always pretty difficult, not to say conflicting, objectives to combine. Like all forms of betting, the selections are only a part of the story. Betting on horses is notorious for people being able to have good selections and still lose money through poor money management. With laying in particular, IMHO the commonest reasons for failure are under-funding (not having a bank big enough for what you're trying to do) and disillusionment (getting too easily fed up with an inevitable losing run).
This isn't the time or place to get involved in a big discussion about whether the selections or the money management are more important - it suffices to say that without both aspects being good, sensible, reliable and proven, it's not possible to make steady profits ...*
The two common staking methods for laying are:-
(i) Laying to a fixed stake: I don't use this for two main reasons: first, the "accidents" are proportionally too expensive; secondly, it seems to me that it fails adequately to make the profits "deserved" after successfully identifying and laying shorter-priced losers.
(ii) Laying to a fixed liability: I don't use this either, because it's inherently mathematically unsound - it ignores the fact that accidents are far more likely to happen at the lower end of the scale: if I lay a 2/1 favourite (i.e. I lay it at an exchange price of 3.0), the overall risk of that bet losing (the horse winning) is of course higher than one which was a lay at 8.0 (7/1).
Instead I try to combine the best of both worlds by using what looks like a complicated mixture of the two systems mentioned above, but it's actually perfectly straightforward ...*
My staking system: I lay in three distinct exchange-price-bands of fixed backer's stakes.
At one end of the scale, if the exchange price available about the horse is less than 3.5 (less than 5/2), I lay to a stake of 1% of my current laying system bank. At the other end, if the price is between 7.5 and 11 (the latter figure being my cut-off: I don't lay anything higher than 10/1), I lay to a stake of 0.4% of my current bank. If the price is in-between these two bands (i.e. prices of 3.6 to 7.4), then I lay to a stake of 0.6% of my bank. As they say in those TV infommercials, "But wait - there's more!": I also combine this staking plan with a ratchet system (see below).
The are two other advantages with this staking system: first, the practicality of the situation when using the exchanges is that the backer's stake (rather than one's own liability) is the value which has to be typed into the little box on the screen, and this makes it quick and simple to do; secondly, nearly a year's figures have proven to me that this method minimises the variability of the results, and that's very, very important ...*
To summarise, with examples based on a starting bank of £3,000 (if you're reckless enough to try them, you can scale up or down proportionally to your own bank) ...
Prices below 3.5: lay to 1% of bank - backer's stake £30 (my liability under £75)
Prices from 3.6 to 7.4: lay to 0.6% of bank - backer's stake £18 (my liability £46.80 - £115.20)
Prices from 7.5 to 11: lay to 0.4% of bank - backer's stake £12 (my liability £78 - £132)
Show More
Ratchet System
If making profits, I increase all stakes in proportion to the bank on a daily basis. (I'd love to do it on a bet-by-bet basis, but that would assume that anyone following the system can be glued to their screen all afternoon, which isn't realistic. If you're working for a living - shock horror: please excuse my language! - you need to be able to put the bets on your lunch-hour.)
This means that at the end of each day, the next day's "current bank" figure is known. For example, if there's a good start and the £3,000 bank grows, then the stakes are worked out as proportion of the new higher figure, and increase slightly the next day. This may sound insignificant but it makes a huge difference to the results ...*
In contrast, after a losing day, I don't reduce stakes unless and until 35% of the highest level of the bank is lost, when I essentially re-start using the same percentages, but now of the new "65%-sized bank" ...* :-\
Example: from a £3,000 start, if there's a net loss on the first day, the next day I still stake as if from a bank of £3,000 (i.e. to backer's stakes of £30, £18 and £12 depending on the price about each selection) until reaching £1,950 when those backer's stakes would become £19.50, £11.70 and £7.80 until the bank gets back up to £3,000 again (or - dare I mention it? - down to £1267.50 - a further 35% loss).
The 35% drop is always worked out from the highest point of the bank. If it happens (and so far it hasn't - famous last words?!) I'll explain it again.
It may sound a bit complicated but it's actually very simple. Not easy, but very simple ...* :
Please don't imagine that I'm claiming this to be a perfect laying system. There are one or two anomalies in it, but after lots of analysis and calculation in the early days, over the last year I've found this system practicable, straightforward and robust. And that's what matters.
In the next post, I'll complete the "FAQ" and hope to cover the practicalities ..
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS/PRACTICALITIES ABOUT THIS SYSTEM AND ITS RESULTS
(i) It's essential to keep (at the very least on paper) a separate bank for this system: the money can, if unavoidable, be mixed up in an account with other betting funds, but at the very least the "books" must be kept separately, otherwise you don't know where you are - it's not possible to win in the long run without keeping good records ... oooh, contentious! ...*
(ii) Terminology: there's always understandable confusion about discussing laying. For the record, if there's any apparent ambiguity, I'm always referring to the bet rather than the horse. So if I say that out of the day's selections, three won and one lost, and that the day's strike-rate was 75%, I mean that three of the horses lost and one was a winner on which I paid out. (But if that's the actual strike-rate every day, we won't get far: mixed-price-bracket laying systems generally need a very high strike-rate).
(iii) This is a slow and steady system, not a get-rich-quick scheme, and any attempt to turn it into that, or to escalate the stakes when losing, is destined for disaster. With laying, in particular, the swings and arrows of outrageous fortune can be particularly vicious, and it's all too easy for gradually accumulated profits to be wiped out quickly by an uncharacteristically unlucky run. I hope that my staking system allows for this, to a large degree ...*
(iv) Some of the selections tend to shorten in price and others tend to drift. The reality is that it's not possible, overall, to lay at SP and I would therefore be misleading people about my profits if I quoted the results to SP. So I'm going to keep two separate sets of results ...
1. SP + 10%: These results will quote all prices to SP + 10% (i.e. as if the price, from the layer's point of view, was 10% worse than SP).
2. My own actual results, recording the prices I've found and used.
No method of doing this is going to be perfect, but before deciding on this method of keeping the results, I've talked it over with the Administrator and we've decided, hopefully, that this "double results" system is the least open to criticism ...* :-X
(v) If a selection is priced at more than 11 on the exchanges when I first look at it (and this really isn't going to happen often, because they make me nervous), then with one exception I leave my bet unmatched at 11 and just wait and see what happens. The exception is that if it's priced at more than 14 to lay, I cross it off the list completely and don't even go back to look at it again (this is a half-hearted attempt to avoid becoming the victim of any "major coups"). In the "starting-price + 10% results", I won't be recording as a bet anything that set off at more than 10/1.
(vi) The exchanges charge a variable commission on profits. I'm going to allow for the highest commission at the most expensive of the exchanges, and deduct 5% from all wins. (Note that this is calculated on a "per event" basis, so if you lay two or more horses in a race, the commission is charged only on your net profit on that race.)
(vii) This is (comparatively, at least) a "high turnover" system. The idea is that every bet made represents "value" and has a positive expectation, and therefore the more of them there are, the better the returns. It's not for the faint-hearted! Back these with real money at your own risk and never with money that you can't afford to lose.
(viii) I've found that it's nearly always a mistake to "pick and choose" with this system. Lay all the selections (that can be done within the cut-off of 11) or none of them.
(ix) When I put the bets on, I don't always just take the best current price, depending partly on how much of a hurry I'm in and whether I have shoe-shopping plans for the afternoon. Unless I think the price is particularly likely to lengthen (see "Lay, Back and Think of Winning" by Nigel Paul for the best simple explanation of how you can judge this), I'm likely to leave my lay unmatched at a price in-between what's available to back and what's available to back. Usually my lay will get matched. But I only do this if I can keep an eye on it, and change my mind quickly about what price to lay at if the market moves against me ...* ???
(x) Within my cut-off of 11, the market moving against me when I have an unmatched bet is not a reason for me to abandon a lay: if it's part of the system and it's not above 11, I lay it.
(xi) The overwhelming majority of the lays in this thread will be win lays, but there will be the occasional place lay included too. These are much rarer, but I have a very high strike-rate with them ...* ;D
(xii) Patience and discipline lead to profits ...
If making profits, I increase all stakes in proportion to the bank on a daily basis. (I'd love to do it on a bet-by-bet basis, but that would assume that anyone following the system can be glued to their screen all afternoon, which isn't realistic. If you're working for a living - shock horror: please excuse my language! - you need to be able to put the bets on your lunch-hour.)
This means that at the end of each day, the next day's "current bank" figure is known. For example, if there's a good start and the £3,000 bank grows, then the stakes are worked out as proportion of the new higher figure, and increase slightly the next day. This may sound insignificant but it makes a huge difference to the results ...*
In contrast, after a losing day, I don't reduce stakes unless and until 35% of the highest level of the bank is lost, when I essentially re-start using the same percentages, but now of the new "65%-sized bank" ...* :-\
Example: from a £3,000 start, if there's a net loss on the first day, the next day I still stake as if from a bank of £3,000 (i.e. to backer's stakes of £30, £18 and £12 depending on the price about each selection) until reaching £1,950 when those backer's stakes would become £19.50, £11.70 and £7.80 until the bank gets back up to £3,000 again (or - dare I mention it? - down to £1267.50 - a further 35% loss).
The 35% drop is always worked out from the highest point of the bank. If it happens (and so far it hasn't - famous last words?!) I'll explain it again.
It may sound a bit complicated but it's actually very simple. Not easy, but very simple ...* :
Please don't imagine that I'm claiming this to be a perfect laying system. There are one or two anomalies in it, but after lots of analysis and calculation in the early days, over the last year I've found this system practicable, straightforward and robust. And that's what matters.
In the next post, I'll complete the "FAQ" and hope to cover the practicalities ..
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS/PRACTICALITIES ABOUT THIS SYSTEM AND ITS RESULTS
(i) It's essential to keep (at the very least on paper) a separate bank for this system: the money can, if unavoidable, be mixed up in an account with other betting funds, but at the very least the "books" must be kept separately, otherwise you don't know where you are - it's not possible to win in the long run without keeping good records ... oooh, contentious! ...*
(ii) Terminology: there's always understandable confusion about discussing laying. For the record, if there's any apparent ambiguity, I'm always referring to the bet rather than the horse. So if I say that out of the day's selections, three won and one lost, and that the day's strike-rate was 75%, I mean that three of the horses lost and one was a winner on which I paid out. (But if that's the actual strike-rate every day, we won't get far: mixed-price-bracket laying systems generally need a very high strike-rate).
(iii) This is a slow and steady system, not a get-rich-quick scheme, and any attempt to turn it into that, or to escalate the stakes when losing, is destined for disaster. With laying, in particular, the swings and arrows of outrageous fortune can be particularly vicious, and it's all too easy for gradually accumulated profits to be wiped out quickly by an uncharacteristically unlucky run. I hope that my staking system allows for this, to a large degree ...*
(iv) Some of the selections tend to shorten in price and others tend to drift. The reality is that it's not possible, overall, to lay at SP and I would therefore be misleading people about my profits if I quoted the results to SP. So I'm going to keep two separate sets of results ...
1. SP + 10%: These results will quote all prices to SP + 10% (i.e. as if the price, from the layer's point of view, was 10% worse than SP).
2. My own actual results, recording the prices I've found and used.
No method of doing this is going to be perfect, but before deciding on this method of keeping the results, I've talked it over with the Administrator and we've decided, hopefully, that this "double results" system is the least open to criticism ...* :-X
(v) If a selection is priced at more than 11 on the exchanges when I first look at it (and this really isn't going to happen often, because they make me nervous), then with one exception I leave my bet unmatched at 11 and just wait and see what happens. The exception is that if it's priced at more than 14 to lay, I cross it off the list completely and don't even go back to look at it again (this is a half-hearted attempt to avoid becoming the victim of any "major coups"). In the "starting-price + 10% results", I won't be recording as a bet anything that set off at more than 10/1.
(vi) The exchanges charge a variable commission on profits. I'm going to allow for the highest commission at the most expensive of the exchanges, and deduct 5% from all wins. (Note that this is calculated on a "per event" basis, so if you lay two or more horses in a race, the commission is charged only on your net profit on that race.)
(vii) This is (comparatively, at least) a "high turnover" system. The idea is that every bet made represents "value" and has a positive expectation, and therefore the more of them there are, the better the returns. It's not for the faint-hearted! Back these with real money at your own risk and never with money that you can't afford to lose.
(viii) I've found that it's nearly always a mistake to "pick and choose" with this system. Lay all the selections (that can be done within the cut-off of 11) or none of them.
(ix) When I put the bets on, I don't always just take the best current price, depending partly on how much of a hurry I'm in and whether I have shoe-shopping plans for the afternoon. Unless I think the price is particularly likely to lengthen (see "Lay, Back and Think of Winning" by Nigel Paul for the best simple explanation of how you can judge this), I'm likely to leave my lay unmatched at a price in-between what's available to back and what's available to back. Usually my lay will get matched. But I only do this if I can keep an eye on it, and change my mind quickly about what price to lay at if the market moves against me ...* ???
(x) Within my cut-off of 11, the market moving against me when I have an unmatched bet is not a reason for me to abandon a lay: if it's part of the system and it's not above 11, I lay it.
(xi) The overwhelming majority of the lays in this thread will be win lays, but there will be the occasional place lay included too. These are much rarer, but I have a very high strike-rate with them ...* ;D
(xii) Patience and discipline lead to profits ...
There was a thread on this dating back to 2010, Greg_Gory I think you had the last post on it, did you try it then?
Just giving you all something to moan about and I posted it o General Betting yesterday thought it was for horseracing forum. Go for it Moan yuh fckn arses off
Nothing else o this forum to talk about apart from Clowns Clowns and more Clowns
I thought The Squealer would come up with something original
Who should have been banned for life for letting Bigmart post on his A/C
Are you on something?
You post a thread about a system, I assume that makes you interested in that system, I remember there were threads on it, so I tell you there are so as you can look them up, and to you that's moaning
You post a thread about a system, I assume that makes you interested in that system, I remember there were threads on it, so I tell you there are so as you can look them up, and to you that's moaning
uptheirons • July 20, 2026 8:27 PM BST
Who should have been banned for life for letting Bigmart post on his A/C
--
..and only having joined 01/04/2025 how would you know that?
oh ummm, is it because because this isn't your only forum username?
Who should have been banned for life for letting Bigmart post on his A/C
--
..and only having joined 01/04/2025 how would you know that?
oh ummm, is it because because this isn't your only forum username?
^^^
Straight forward question to answer.
The cat or.... Or Rico got your tongue if you get my drift
Straight forward question to answer.
The cat or.... Or Rico got your tongue if you get my drift
straight questions;
how does one measure a 'hare's breath'?
why does everyone dislike you?
why do you report people you disagree with?
how does one measure a 'hare's breath'?
why does everyone dislike you?
why do you report people you disagree with?
^^^
My stalker, the forum Alki turns up anywhere I post hoping I'll one day reply to the fool. If he's in need of male company perhaps he should try Grindr or findmeaukranianmodel.com worked for politicians
Sad sac
My stalker, the forum Alki turns up anywhere I post hoping I'll one day reply to the fool. If he's in need of male company perhaps he should try Grindr or findmeaukranianmodel.com worked for politicians
Sad sac
Meanwhile.
uptheirons • July 20, 2026 8:27 PM BST
Who should have been banned for life for letting Bigmart post on his A/C
--
..and only having joined 01/04/2025 how would you know that?
oh ummm, is it because because this isn't your only forum username?
uptheirons • July 20, 2026 8:27 PM BST
Who should have been banned for life for letting Bigmart post on his A/C
--
..and only having joined 01/04/2025 how would you know that?
oh ummm, is it because because this isn't your only forum username?
The day that I am answerable to a loon like you,leif will never dawn
answer the q and i might stop storking. genuinely dont understand what a 'hares breath' means
i have others to stork so hop to it
i have others to stork so hop to it
Yet you spend day and night pestering others for answers to your stalky questions.
I think the forum has already worked out who you(in the plural) are YDC.
So very sad IMO.
I think the forum has already worked out who you(in the plural) are YDC.
So very sad IMO.
Perhaps loony leif is suggesting that hares have halitosis,Busy
Answer the question Ironnutz.
You only joined 01/04/025 yet you know enough that Greg Gory allowed Bigmart to use his account.
So who are you really?
Most of us have figured it out already
You only joined 01/04/025 yet you know enough that Greg Gory allowed Bigmart to use his account.
So who are you really?
Most of us have figured it out already
uptheirons • July 21, 2026 5:20 PM BST
The day that I am answerable to a loon like you,leif will never dawn
The day that I am answerable to a loon like you,leif will never dawn
sad says leafy who is on heavy-duty medication to keep him alive
putting on a brave face but breakdown incoming
ad hominem attacks and storking accusations are classic loser reactions and leafy does both
putting on a brave face but breakdown incoming
ad hominem attacks and storking accusations are classic loser reactions and leafy does both
Yet the sun never sets, on a day that has dawned wherein you've not pestered Formy.
WAc
WAc
Aceform is ridiculed because of his losing then starting again many times and bet editing,loony leif
^^^
Hulk didn't come up the river just yesterday floating on a Rich tea.
Hulk didn't come up the river just yesterday floating on a Rich tea.
Pedant warning…I think the phrase is .. a hair's breadth. The width of a hair.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539