Hi
I am interesed in reading comments on this staking plan which I have not seen discussed before.

1.Select a level stake and a bank you are comfortable with e.g. $1 stake and $10 bank.
2.Devise a selection method e.g. 2nd horse in tipsters' poll. (Hopefully you can do better than this.)
3.Now the actual staking plan: Bet only if you can get a return equal to or greater than the number of the current bet in the sequence. i.e. the number of the bet since your last winner.

Other than with bet one, when you strike a winner at the minimum odds you recoup your losses and if the price is over the minimum you make a profit on the sequence. You might not get too much action during a run of outs but that is probably a good thing, and of course you a not increasing your stake - just your patience.

I have tried this with my limited data and the results are encouraging.

John

Hi gunny,

The staking plan is pretty good but there is a downside.

If you experience a long run of outs, you may not find any bets which qualify to recoup losses.

Also the higher the dividend, the lower your strike rate usually: therefore you could turn a losing sequence into a much longer one waiting for longer priced winners, which may strike only 10% of the time as opposed to say 30% strike rate on the shorter priced horses.

Just a sugggestion.

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 400,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 30/04/2024
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

Hi, like your idea could you please give an example as i cant get my head around it, i think i know what your doing but then....

Cheers
Good 4th

Try this.
based on what you are sayin , I feel this will work stronger for yoy.
The objective here is to only back a selection in your 8 race program that equats to the odds needed to break even or to make profit.
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4

Unlike your original scenerio, the outlay is half, with a greater potential to profit with half thr outlay.

__________________
Cheers.

Gunny,

the only sane general rule that springs to mind about staking plans, is don't increase your stakes during a losing run.


Although your stakes don't increase in absolute terms they do the next worst thing. Remember Kelly's Edge/Odds. Your Odds are increasing so your bets should be decreasing. But holding them level is overstaking.

Also your probability of losing again ~INCREASES with every losing bet. The road to ruin.

Some with effective selection methods are philosophical when they have a long losing run. They know that a lot of competitors with shallower banks will get shaken out, and once that happens the value will return.

But using your staking, you'd fizzle out as soon as you hit a bad run. Exactly what the aforementioned stoics want you to do.

Finally we agree on something JFC!

Passing up good bets because a win will not put you instantly into profit is simply not logical. If your selection system is sound then you will end up in front in the long run - if it is not then you shouldn't be betting (unless you are happy to lose money). If you are down $100 and have a $10 bet on a $3.00 winner then now you are only down $80. If you passed it up because it wasn't paying 10-1 then you would still be down $100 - which is the more sensible approach?

__________________
"Computers can do that????" - Homer Simpson

Gunny,

The staking plan makes no sense at all. The principle of trying to recoup previous losses in a couple of bets, no matter what the staking or selection method is flawed.

As Becareful summed up, if you had a good thing at $3, why would you pass the bet up becaue your losing sequence says it should be $5? It's illogical. Relating your current selection or bets to previous outcomes is the most fundamentally ineffective way of trying to make money at the races.

Another and reason why it's a terrible betting plans is that as your losing run increasing you have to target progressively higher priced horses, which will naturally lead you into a longer run of outs, which means you have to find higher priced horses again and so on....It's like a viscious cycle.

Even betting favourites and horses at $3 you can have a losing run of 10 or more...all of a sudden you are looking for $10+ winners, which you can easily encounter a losing seqence of 25 or more, which means you are now looking for $30+ winners, where you can easily encounter losing sequences of 50 or more...get the picture?

A good betting plan is one that fits within your level of comfort and is based on the unqiue circumstances that present themselves in that race.

Thanks for the replies and I have taken a lot of your ideas on board but feel that there are weaknesses in those arguments too. My overall conclusion is that level staking is really the only way to go. Actually, I feel that any non-level staking plan is really just a series of level stakes running concurrently. e.g. stake $1 $2 $3 $4 etc and over time all the $1 bets form one series of level stakes and all the $2 bets another and so on. Then again don't dismiss my plan too quickly - try it on a simple selection method like the longest price horse (3 to go) out of the top three ranked place percentage horses. Remember I do say it is probably a good idea to start again once the target price is say $21.
John

You can lead a horse to water but ...