Gday Crash..

dont wanna have a blue with you... but if what you say is true, why then can staking improve on fs when fs is in profit... but not if it sin the red? seems logical to me that if you can improve on 101%, with staking, otherwise why would you bother, why cant you improve on 99%? I need convincing that it cant be done when you are close to break even at fs.

__________________
Good luck and good punting

xptdriver@hotmail.com

Gday wes

it's an old chestnut... there are clearly defined opinions on the matter and ya cant persuade pple to shift their opinion.. Maths are a strange thing.. you can get pretty well whatever you want from em.... ask an accountant..

I dont mind betting favs, provided they are fair dinkum favs and what i consider a good risk... some favs as ya know shouldnt be, now if we can avaoid them we are halfway home

__________________
Good luck and good punting

xptdriver@hotmail.com

Hi! xptdriver
"MATHS" I think you meant "statistics" one cannot manipulate mathematics.
2 + 2 = 4 no matter how much we would like to prove otherwise.

As to wesmips' comment, not to read posts we disagree with, Sorry, this forum supposed to put up ideas for discussion and evaluation, not religious doctrines, that one either belives in or not.
And why a losing system cannot be turned around by progression is simple, at least to me.
Progression accentuates the win part as well as the LOSS part, therefore if you are losing on level stakes you are back to square one, all you achieve is win bigger on a roll and lose even bigger when not.
But if you win on level stakes, it stands to reason that, your losses will always be less then your wins, ergo, you WIN.
If you are saying that, "BUT I will only select certain races or horses and I am betting more on the winners" then that's an other matter altogether, you may no longer be talking about a level stakes losing system.
That's my two cents worths anyway.
Good luck.

I'm in your corner lomaca.

Like you, I was just expressed my opinion based on the maths evidence I have seen over the years and 2+2=4 will always be correct to me too. If someone wants to believe otherwise, that's fine by me as long as I have the right to disagree, especially when basic maths is being replaced by 'belief'.

The only progression that can work mathematically is when you are winning at level stakes. Then you are financing the progression from the bookies capital not your own. I'm not going to argue that a progression can turn a level stakes loss into profit though by re-inventing the wheel [there is still a Flat Earth Society with a very large membership].

Results for today :

35% Course Favs
Ascot - WIN $2.30 first race = $13 ( Largest bet $10 total = $10)
Bathurst - LOST $180 ( No favs won all day Largest Bet $70 total $180)
Kembla Grange - WIN $3.30 fifth race = $9 ( Largest bet $30 total = $90)
Randwick - WIN $2.80 first race = $18 ( Largest bet $10 total = $10)
Toowoomba - WIN $1.80 Second Race = $6 ( Largest bet $20 total = $30)

40%+ Course Favs
Ascot - WIN $2.30 first race = $13 ( Largest bet $10 total = $10)

Overall Results:

35% Course favs or higher
Meetings : 18
Loss : $22
Highest Bet : $220

40% Course Favs or Higher
Meetings : 6
Profit : $52
Highest Bet : $10

Good Luck.

One might like to try the 50 point plan .
Its safer than most progressive staking plans & can handle a lot of outs in a row.

Set Target at $100 using a divisor of 50. Using a bank of $200
Keep divisor at 50 until a winner is struck.

After each win , deduct profit off target & then reduce the divisor by the price of the previous winner e.g. $3.00 deduct this off the divisor of 50 , new divisor is now 47 until another winner is struck..

Keep doing this until one gets to divisor of 3 , one should be in profit at this stage so rule off & start again.

__________________
Cheers.

The individual Crash was referring to was Edward o Thorp. This former hardly-well-off maths professor is now obscenely rich, not from his blackjack pioneering exploits but from the stockmarket. Others using his techniques have made individual fortunes > $100 million.

Life is just too short to again try and convince anyone that is is mathematically impossible for a staking plan to turn a negative expectation game profitable.

Courses to use today :

35% Course favs or Higher

- Canberra
- Cranbourne
- Devonport
- Port Lincoln

40% Course Favs or Higher

- Canberra

Good Luck

That's the guy JFC. 'Dr Maths' and many other web based maths sites do the maths. proof too for anyone who wants to look. No need to argue it here.

Results today :

35% Course favs or Higher

Canberra - WIN $1.40 first race = $4 ( Largest bet $10 total = $10)
Cranbourne - WIN $2.90 first race = $19 ( Largest bet $10 total = $10)
Devonport - WIN $1.70 first race = $7 ( Largest bet $10 total = $10)
Port Lincoln - WIN $3.30 first race = $23 ( Largest bet $10 total = $10)

40% Course Favs or Higher

Canberra - WIN $1.40 first race = $4 ( Largest bet $10 total = $10)

Results Overall :

35% Course favs or higher
Meetings : 22
Profit : $31
Highest Bet : $220

40% Course Favs or Higher
Meetings : 7
Profit : $56
Highest Bet : $10