Smartgambler
Pro-Punter

Go Back   OZmium Sports Betting and Horse Racing Forums > Public Forums > Horse Race Betting Systems
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark all topics as read

To advertise on these
forums, e-mail us.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 23rd March 2005, 10:03 PM
Alex H. Alex H. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 16
Default What are the implications of running concurrent systems?

Hi guys.

Suppose you were running three different systems to increase your overall turnover.

What effect would this have on the betting bank and would it affect your longest run of losses? Are there any other considerations to be made?

I'd also like to know how people arrive at their conclusions.

Alex.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 24th March 2005, 06:55 AM
darkydog2002 darkydog2002 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 4,332
Default A REAL TRAP.

Running 3 DIFFERENT systems with only 1 bank is a real trap that many of us have fallen into.
Every individual system will have its own win /loss ratio.One can never be sure if 1 or even 2 will go through a long run of outs wiping out the bank.
I tried the same idea some years ago with disasterous results.
Best to stick with an individual bank for EACH system.
In my opinion each bank should cater for 100 losing bets between you and a wipeout for safety reasons.
This nonsense sprouted by the system sellers and other nong nongs of betting 5 % of bank without reducing has lead many punters to the poorhouse.
If anything can be relied upon in racing its that a long run of outs is inevieatable at some point in your racing career and you never know where it will begin or end.
Always be on the cautious side.
Cheers.
darky.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 24th March 2005, 12:12 PM
KennyVictor KennyVictor is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Location: Mt Tamborine
Posts: 574
Default

I totally agree with darky, except I'm a bit more cautious and bet 1 / 200th of my bank.
Separate bank for each system is a must. If each system is able to stand on it's own - with it's own bank - then the three must work in parallel.
The argument against one bank is simple and logical. If your systems are picking accurately they should pick the same horses a lot of the time (taking it to the extreme if they are perfect systems picking the ideal horse, albeit by different methods, then they will pick the same horse all the time).
Ergo a run of outs (presumably caused by bad luck since you have such good systems) will be three times as bad because you will be on the same losing horse three times over.

KV
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 24th March 2005, 12:17 PM
davez davez is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 301
Default

another option is to run each bank at say 1/50th with 2 or more backup banks for each system once the inevitable occurs
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 24th March 2005, 12:42 PM
KennyVictor KennyVictor is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Location: Mt Tamborine
Posts: 574
Default

and perhaps a backup reserve for each backup bank. I want a system where you have to have an overflow bank for the surplus profits and a backup money jar for excess overflow reserve profits.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 24th March 2005, 04:39 PM
DR RON DR RON is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Location: victoria
Posts: 562
Talking

K V have you filled the money jar yet?
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump



All times are GMT +10. The time now is 09:00 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2008 OZmium Pty. Ltd. All rights reserved . ACN 091184655