 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
#11
18th May 2010, 04:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Partypooper,
I'd agree with that. You would have on average 4.29% total wipe outs i.e. 3 losses in a row. If you are betting a series of 1,3 & 7 units (total 11 units) this would be lost 4.29 times in 100 bets. You would need to "win" back this loss (11 x 4.29 = 47.19) over the other 88 or so bets to break even. Anything above this is pure profit! 
|
|
#12
18th May 2010, 07:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Mmmmmm, not looking too bad then as the S/R is 65% so 65 of the 88 are payers. Using the same formula .35x.35 = 0.1225,say 12% for 2 outs in a row, so 12 times out of the 88 we will have 7 units invested @ average div of 1.60 = 134.4 (profit of 3.4 units)
So now as I see it (averaging everywhere) there are 64 conveyances remaining of which 21 will lose so 21 times we will have 3 units invested @ $1.60 = 100.8 =+ 37.8-the 21 single losses = 16.8 in front the remaining 42 are payers @ $1.60 for a profit of 25.2 yes? so total outlay = 261 returns = 302.4 profit =41.4 units = 16.1% on turnover compared to 4% on level stakes, mmmmmmmm!
|
|
#13
18th May 2010, 09:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Mostly reliable, but the toss of a coin also produces a 50% head or tails over time, in between it can be 95% to 5% either way. What I mean is that the 3 outs can repeat itself like this: 0,0,0 1 0,0,0, 1 0,0,0, 1 etc. if you get the drift. The same goes for the win as well just like you are experiencing it at present, so it's not all bad news. Just be good boy scout!!! Good luck
|
|
#14
18th May 2010, 09:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lomaca, oooohhh! YES, been there done that,...... my thoughts are not with 100 bets more like 10,000 bets. The selection method is mechanical ,kinda,.. but based on Top raters, by an absolute PRO.
This can average 300 +place bets a week with no filters at all for 4% POT, or backing overs only, (no other filters) about 130 investments a week for a much greater result????? By the way that winning run came to an end today with the first 3 bets unsucessfull, but then recovered again to finish almost exactly on cue at 65% hits. the 1,3,7, idea TODAY ended up in front,.. but at levels 1 unit behind.
|
|
#15
18th May 2010, 09:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
As long you are aware, all is well. Regarding staking? never used it and prob. never will. Fools comfort as far as I'm concerned Just using the same level stakes. Started out on a % of bank, and found the most profitable top level without destroying odds. good luck
|
|
#16
19th May 2010, 12:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi Partypooper,
Why 1,3,7 units? Why not 1,3,8 units. My reasoning is
|
|
#17
19th May 2010, 02:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Try Try Again, you have a point my only concern really was to recover the 11 units outlayed @ the average divi which is $1.60 (i.e. 11.2 units) but yes I guess its sensible to muck around with the staking to see which one fits better with the head. Using 1,3,8 we lose 48 units 4 times in 100, 12 times we would collect on the 8 unit bet so outlay = 144 collect = 153.6, makes sense!
|
|
#19
24th May 2010, 06:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jack
This incredible run of placings worries me in the sense that if I can get 24 in a row then it must also be possible to get 24 LOSERS in a row isnt it? gripes that would definitly wipe me out"
Iomaca said: Just using the same level stakes. Started out on a % of bank, and found the most profitable top level without destroying odds. Have you considered perhaps having the best of both worlds by using level stakes unit of one (for example) and when a winner is struck put 50% of the winnings on the next selection and if that wins put 25% on the next selection THEN revert to one unit. Advantage could stand 24 consecutive loosers with much less money outlayed rather than the 1-3-7 or 1-3-8 concept. This should be much safer and be conducive to sleeping better in the evening would be interested to learn the POT using this 1-2-3-1 step. Over to you for consideration.
|
|
#20
25th May 2010, 05:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jack, sounds as if that would be good, in fact as the plan is in profit just about any staking plan would probably work.
Like I said, all I'm doing with 1,3,7 (or 8) is increasing stakes really over a long time I would have so many bets @ 1 unit, so many @3 units and so many @ 7 (or 8) units, all on selections with a 65% S/R. But the whole idea was mind games really.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
