Spot on Shaun.

Punters championing staking plans only see the up side, as in hitting winners with the higher bets, not losers. Party was dead right in his first and second post. Any maths site destroys progressive staking arguments. Progressives can win but only by chance outcome. However, they will always eventually lose and lose badly. Races are not connected, but many punters think they are [it's an emotional thing] so we invent the progression based on pseudo-maths.
There is no more reason that a 7th bet after 6 losers will be a winner anymore than another loser. If a loser is hit on the highest stake in a progression, bad luck if your next winner is at the lowest bet, the beginning of the progression!

Progressives are no more than a game of chance, not a road to turning level stakes loses into profits, if they could the 98% of losing punters would all be rich and that would be the end of punting!

Progressive staking plans can work but they need to be used only when their is a very high strike rate (at least 75%+ probably higher) as they can not handle long runs of outs.

It is the run of outs tht kill the progression plan. If you can limit the run of outs to 5 to 10 then they can be useful. It also won't add much more then 5% to the level stakes total so it won't bring a losing system into profit unless itis showing 95% + on level stakes.

Good Luck.

imho while i agree that staking plans will not turn a losing method into a winner, i have been using the retirement plan for my win betting for a few years now & find it works well & gave me what i had previously been lacking with my punting - DISCIPLINE

so if one is to go down the staking plans route then my only suggestion would be to find something not too aggressive, boring almost, the retirement plan or variation of same fit that bill

party's suggestion of 1% of bank non reducing also works as well, in fact 0.5% is even better & what i use for my place betting

"Wilsons proof" Allan Wilson provided a mathematical proof of the fallacy that a progression can overcome a negative expectation.

What is common to all progressive believers is they first draw the conclusion that progressive sytems can win and then look for 'evidence' that their conclusion is right. Meanwhile ignoring all other evidence to the contary.

For a deaperlook at progressions [and 'Wilson's proof'] try here:

:http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/progress/progress.htm

"All of the systems described have many variations, but they all purport to give a person the edge in a negative expectation game. The fact is, they don't. No amount of tweaks, twists or twiddling is going to make them winning systems.
Any system that relies on a betting progression to beat a negative expectation game just means, in reality, that you are putting more money on the table than you would flat-betting and, thus, losing more. If, as in many blackjack games [or horse racing], a basic strategy player can expect the house to have a half a percent advantage, the fact is, he is losing one half percent of each bet he makes. The more he bets, the more he loses. I know. I have bet each one of these systems at one time or another, and I've never won a dime in the long run. Sort of led me into card counting. I got tired of losing."

Just for a bit of fun I ran my WIZ PUNT through the bets at $20 Level stakes .

6 point divisor plan .Av bet size $20 /Bank now $1942.


Level stakes $20.

Outlay $1520 /NETT $1534 /Bank now $3054 /Profit over 76 bets .
$1000 starting bank.

Cheers.
darky.

point taken there darky on that particular example, but to anylize further, more than 100% profit on turnover at level stakes is fantastic why would you want to bet any other way?

Another thing, is: with the divisor method, what was the total amount bet over those selections? divided by the total number of bets ? i.e. average bet size? greater than $10 or less?

Sorry Darky our posts crossed there.

Which proves?

Which proves ?

1/ A great shock to the system for me.

2/ I might have to reasess my staking plan with this system.

Cheers.
darky.

Darky,

I think it proves mate you have a profitable selection ability or system, not a profitable progression system [your not turning loss into profit]!

Hi folks...just googling staking plans and came across the thread

I wonder if PelicanPete, when he talks of a staking plan is really talking of a betting plan to build the bank?

That's certainly my current query.

I have a method I've followed closely since late last year and put money down since Feb this year. Over 100 bets later I'm showing a profit and POT which I'm happy with. Therefore I'm not interested in trying to increase the % but trying to work out the best way to go about building my bank.

darkydog can I ask...when you talk of the 6 Point Divisor Plan are you referring to something similar to the Retirement Staking Plan and are you able to expand on the plan and how to use your formula mentioned?

cheers

'I prefer target betting myself favoring the 6 Point Divisor plan.
The correct formula ( made after each 100 bets)
is.
Expected win % x expected win odds x .08'