dubbledee
Editor
Group 1 user 285
Offline
Posts : 23917
|
|
|
Original Post 2009-Sep-14, 03:36 PM
|
I'm always the one to argue against rigid staking systems, but looking at the results of the Fortune 500 Challenge I'm currently running with wenona, I'm putting up this for comment and criticism.
We start with $1000, and will have a series of 10 bets. (They can be win, or place.)
The base stake for each bet is $100.
For the first 5 bets (#1 to #5), any return from the bet is distributed evenly among the remaining bets, and added to the base stake. Say bet #2 yields a return of $240, we add $30 to the stake for each of the remaining 8 bets.
For bets #6 to #9, should they be successful we RETAIN THE STAKE, but distribute the PROFITS evenly among the remaining bets.
Obviously for bet #10 ya keep the lot. 
(The bets could be managed simply by a spreadsheet.)
The "system" would be best applied to the "best bet of the day", IMO, and has the advantage of removing the impulse betting which defeats many of us as we bet race to race.
I have no idea what sort of frequency of returns/odds would be required to turn the $1000 into something more than $1000, but it seems a reasonable approach.
Look forward to comments.
Addendum 17.12.09
I used the staking strategy discussed in this post in the recent Melbourne Cup Match Race Challenge.
Here are the results where $100 was turned into $237:
Bet #1 $10 - 07.11.09 BR6 #4 ANOTHER TAKEOVER 2nd $18.13 BANK = $108.13
Bet #2 $12 - 11.11.09 BR6 #2 OUR MOSCATO ($2.00) u/p BANK = $96.13
Bet #3 $12 - 14.11.09 BR6 #5 OUR LUKAS 1st $25.80 BANK = $109.93
Bet #4 $16 - 18.11.09 BR2 #1 BULLION BAY 3rd $23.20 BANK = $117.13
Bet #5 $20 - 21.11.09 BR2 #7 REFLECTION OF JADE 1st $38.00 BANK = $135.13
Bet #6 $28 - 25.11.09 BR1 #7 FLY WITH ME 3rd $50.20 BANK = $128.00 SAFE = $29.33
Bet #7 $34 - 28.11.09 BR8 #2 SECRETS UNTOLD 1st $66.30 BANK = $126.00 SAFE = $63.63
Bet #8 $44 - 05.12.09 BR6 #4 EMMA'S HEART ($2.70) U/P BANK = $82 SAFE = $63.63
Bet #9 $42 - 09.12.09 BR7 #3 ELUSIVE PORT 1st $75.60 BANK = $73 SAFE = $106.23
Bet #10 $73 - 16.12.09 BR5 #7 SPANISH FLING 1st $131.40 BANK = $0 SAFE = $237.63
Although not part of the Melbourne Cup Challenge, a second series of bets has been placed on the same plan as above. (see Melbourne Cup Challenge thread).
$100 returned $881 from 10 successful place bets.
We've had another run of 10 bets. This time all were again successful, and the $100 was turned into $297.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2010-Apr-12, 02:07 PM by dubbledee »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| |
ted e turner
Group 2 user 311
Offline
Posts : 3961
|
|
|
 2009-Sep-14, 03:40 PM
|
i hold some interest in this thread after the sucessful thangool raid......  dd you seem to semi-retired self funded so if you have time lets do a trial with me and tev on the northern meetings....tev?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Clibbo
Group3 user 537
Offline
Alias: Clibbo
Posts : 984
|
|
|
 2009-Sep-14, 03:41 PM
|
Retirement Staking Plan on the Grandstand Publishing Site. It's a divisor plan with back up safety measures and its free.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Wenona
VIP Club
Group 2 user 175
Offline
Posts : 4355
|
|
|
 2009-Sep-14, 03:46 PM
|
My initial feeling about it is that it would have an unacceptable level of built in volatility and your spread of possible results would have huge variance.
The fact is if your last five lose, you end up with nothing. So you could pick three winners in the first five and show a level stakes profit but end up losing 100% of your bank.
I think ten bets is way too small a series for this type of approach. As we've shown from our quest, (particularly my results) runs of results can vary enormously.
I'd have to think about it if the propostion was say 100 bets broken up into 50/50, however I'm still not sure about it.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2009-Sep-14, 03:49 PM by Wenona »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
InTheKnow
Group 2 user 400
Offline
Posts : 2645
|
|
|
 2009-Sep-14, 03:59 PM
|
dam, thought it said Stalking thread, i had plenty of advise on that one
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Steve M
Steward
Group 1 user 59
Offline
Posts : 5587
|
|
|
 2009-Sep-14, 04:45 PM
|
General comments re staking...
I don't think anything beats a simplistic approach to staking.
Just my opinion...but I think the first point to any staking plan is to ensure that you are employing a selection method that is a winning one. If you're selection method doesn't stand up on it's own then it's hard [impossible?] to turn that around. Knowing it's a good selection method - gives you confidence in your abilities - provides evidence of the type of divs you experience - and evidence of good/bad runs.
Two problems with a lot of staking plans for mine. They're high risk [like this one]. And some are easy in theory to calculate your next bet - but in the hustle and bustle of race day aren't as easy to work out.
Eg some are your raceday bets might be too close together to wait for a result then get the next bet on. Are you really able to be checking each bet and result on a raceday or do you need to put them all on at the start day. What if there are great fixed odds available in the morning for your last bet of the day - but you can't bet until you know the outcome of the bet in the race before.
My approach...X % of your bank on raceday.
Eg this Sat your bank is $500 and your stake is 2% which = $10
If you have 5 bets for the day your outlay will be $50.
If you lose on all bets your bank would be $450 and your next race the stake would be 2% of that being $9
Now I know most punters wouldn't want a bar of that approach but it's my approach.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ILikeBread
Class6 user 527
Offline
Posts : 94
|
|
|
 2009-Sep-14, 08:07 PM
|
Now I know most punters wouldn't want a bar of that approach but it's my approach.
Good on you i reckon. Do what you are comfortable with, at least your money should last for a while using that plan. I have tried a number of different staking plans recently however i always seem to find a reason not to use it (normally because a horse is not representing what i consider "Fair Value"). If i would have just stuck with the plan i would be ahead. FYI - If you are new to staking plans and don't want to throw away a lot of money (so i am talking about me) i find place betting staking plans can achieve fairly decent results with a lot less risk. It helps if you have a number of system returning >70 - 75% place strike rate as i have.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
OldLarsy
Group 1 user 177
Offline
Posts : 18695
|
|
|
 2009-Sep-15, 12:11 AM
|
It all depends what one wants to get out of gambling.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
dubbledee
Editor
Group 1 user 285
Offline
Posts : 23917
|
|
|
 2009-Sep-15, 08:32 AM
|
Thanks for your thoughts, guys. 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
dubbledee
Editor
Group 1 user 285
Offline
Posts : 23917
|
|
|
 2009-Sep-16, 09:24 AM
|
wenona
I applied the strategy described to my selections in the Fortune 500 challenge.
First 10: Lose 400
Second 10: Win 1000
Third 10: Win 1520
Fourth 10: Lose 640
Fifth 10: Lose 320
That's a net result of WIN 1160. On an outlay of 5000 that's a POT of 23% - which is much better than the flat-stake approach we're currently using.
But 5 swallows do not a summer make. 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
dubbledee
Editor
Group 1 user 285
Offline
Posts : 23917
|
|
|
 2009-Sep-16, 09:31 AM
|
I should have added there's absolutely no logic in the strategy I proposed. As I've always said the horse doesn't know how much we've had on it, nor whether we've back 5 losers or winners in a row, etc.
The purpose of the rigid strategy proposed is that most punters are victims of the psychological/emotional aspects of betting. The best punters are those who bet on the same horses, and with the same amount, regardless of whether they're winning or losing on the day. I think it's also fair to say that most punters have too many bets on a given day. They'd do better selecting their couple of best bets, and sticking with those.
A rigid staking approach such as the one I propose sets aside a given amount (say $1000, but it could be $100), and the punter considers that as lost. Any returns will be a bonus.
The one bet per day approach will also remove the risk of damage due to the emotional impact of winning (or losing) on the day.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
el zoro
Group 1 user 367
Offline
Posts : 5080
|
|
|
 2009-Sep-16, 09:53 AM
|
Think it always comes back to Level Stakes & if your betting wins that way then you're going OK overall. By changing stakes is just guesswork as the horses won't know the difference & it is all random with either lucky or unlucky consequences.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
dubbledee
Editor
Group 1 user 285
Offline
Posts : 23917
|
|
|
 2009-Sep-16, 09:56 AM
|
Agree with all that EZ.
But we're doing something silly in the Fortune 500, and my aim was to develop a strategy that taps in to the power of all-up betting when odds are short.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
el zoro
Group 1 user 367
Offline
Posts : 5080
|
|
|
 2009-Sep-16, 10:03 AM
|
What I find it the hardest part is selecting 1 bet as 'the bet' as it puts all eggs into 1 basket for that week. For example I'm selecting 10 horses to place per week & getting around 66% strike rate but am only getting 33% strike rate by going one out. As in the share market, if you want to decrease risk than spread your risk over a number of shares/bets.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
dubbledee
Editor
Group 1 user 285
Offline
Posts : 23917
|
|
|
 2009-Sep-16, 10:23 AM
|
My expectation for most punters would be that as they have more bets, their strike rate will decrease.
However, if the punter is someone who applies a rigid approach to selections - rather than betting on impulse as most punters do on raceday - I'd think the strike rate should be consistent, whether it's one bet or 10.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|