Form factor special.

[robert99]

[quote="Drone

Big sense of deja vu Robert. Didn’t we and others do this to death what now seems a lifetime ago on Smartsig?

I asked then, and am still waiting for a reply: who has actually bet Kelly rigourously on horse racing and found it outperforms level stakes?

I bet level stakes and monitor my bets to Kelly, amongst other staking plans. Nothing has bettered levels, long term; which of course doesn’t necessarily mean levels is the bees-knees, just that I’m incapable of identifying true-edge in the somewhat chaotic event that is the horse race rather than the coin toss: no, just a woolly, uncertain, undefinable edge that can’t be represented by integers or real numbers that can be plugged into Kelly’s equation, but is nonetheless there…if you make a profit, long term

Drone,

That was the old days of SmartSig – pale shadow now.
I do remember when Stef trialled soccer bets with a range of staking plans, and level stakes came out best over a season much to the annoyance of the theorists.

From your records, if your level stakes is a proportion of bank that approaches coinciding with the Kelly values, then perhaps you are betting practical Kelly in a sense. It is not too sensitive around the peak optimum with the fairly small edges (+/-)available on most races. Only one or two races a day, at best, have stand out edges.

If you think in terms of what value/price you need for your method to work profitably then there is no need to consider the more woolly "true price" concepts at all.
I apply Kelly where I can and always calculate it but the problem is not the staking plans it is getting the Kelly amount actually bet at the value prices. So much of the bet is on at sub optimum Kelly by default down to a lower limit. So you are correct in that Kelly cannot be fully applied for UK betting – it only indicates the best overall or constant bank percentage to use.

[Drone]

For those of you wondering what the Kelly Formula actually is, this is taken from the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

For simple bets with two outcomes, one involving losing the entire amount bet, and the other involving winning the bet amount multiplied by the payoff odds, the Kelly bet is:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/5/6/9563314847f2d9ccaf6e4dff6cf6672a.png

where:

f*

is the fraction of the current bankroll to wager;

b

is the net odds received on the wager ("b to 1"); that is, you could win $b (plus the $1 wagered) for a $1 bet

p

is the probability of winning;

q

is the probability of losing, which is 1 − p.

As an example, if a gamble has a 60% chance of winning (p = 0.60, q = 0.40), but the gambler receives 1-to-1 odds on a winning bet (b = 1), then the gambler should bet 20% of the bankroll at each opportunity (f* = 0.20), in order to maximize the long-run growth rate of the bankroll.

If the gambler has zero edge, i.e. if b = q / p, then the criterion recommends the gambler bets nothing. If the edge is negative (b < q / p) the formula gives a negative result, indicating that the gambler should take the other side of the bet. For example, in standard American roulette, the bettor is offered an even money payoff (b = 1) on red, when there are 18 red numbers and 20 non-red numbers on the wheel (p = 18/38). The Kelly bet is -1/19, meaning the gambler should bet one-nineteenth of the bankroll that red will not come up. Unfortunately, the casino doesn’t allow betting against red, so a Kelly gambler could not bet.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Gingertipster,

I’ve long been of the belief that your staking plan is essentially Kelly-like, and would suggest you take up tbracing’s suggestion and monitor – if not actually bet – the rigourous Kelly Criterion. You’ve proved yourself (if it can actually ever be proven) to be among the few capable of grinding out a long term profit from horse betting, and therefore maximising that hard-won profit by using the best possible staking plan is of considerable importance. I won’t suggest monitoring to level stakes as well as that idea has fallen on deaf ginger ears several times in the past

[Drone]

That was the old days of SmartSig – pale shadow now.
I do remember when Stef trialled soccer bets with a range of staking plans, and level stakes came out best over a season much to the annoyance of the theorists.

I stopped subscribing shortly after Stef sold it and following a rather regrettable spat with old JJE

I see ‘Smatersig’ is still going with Mark Littlewood at the helm. Think he’s also involved in the gambling research at Nottingham (Trent?) University, mentioned by Cormack

Do you recall the BBSR – Base Bet + Square Root of available bank – staking plan discussed on Smartsig?

As an alternative to simple % of available bank it had some merits in that by using the square root it prevented wild fluctuations in stake, particularly after losing runs and the solitary big win. Not heard much about it since, so is presumably little utilised

[MoleHorse]

It’s basically the multiplier effect that’s used in monetary policy.

[seabird]

Certainly a good watch.

I remember Hugh when he was just an ordinary forumite and now his selections help to shape the market.

Well done, Hugh.

Colin

[Gingertipster]

Gingertipster,

I’ve long been of the belief that your staking plan is essentially Kelly-like, and would suggest you take up tbracing’s suggestion and monitor – if not actually bet – the rigourous Kelly Criterion. You’ve proved yourself (if it can actually ever be proven) to be among the few capable of grinding out a long term profit from horse betting, and therefore maximising that hard-won profit by using the best possible staking plan is of considerable importance. I won’t suggest monitoring to level stakes as well as that idea has fallen on deaf ginger ears several times in the past

Thanks for your kind words Drone. When I looked up Kelly it did go through my mind how Ginger-like it is. Don’t think I’ll bother monitoring it, prefer my own plan. Although may be I’ve been premature writing off using a "bank". Not by keeping my betting bank seperate, but using the whole of my bank account/savings for "the bank". As you know Drone, my stakes are done in points. By dividing the total amount in my bank account/savings by a certain number and using the resultant figure as the value of each "point".

Value Is Everything

[robert99]

That was the old days of SmartSig – pale shadow now.
I do remember when Stef trialled soccer bets with a range of staking plans, and level stakes came out best over a season much to the annoyance of the theorists.

I stopped subscribing shortly after Stef sold it and following a rather regrettable spat with old JJE

I see ‘Smatersig’ is still going with Mark Littlewood at the helm. Think he’s also involved in the gambling research at Nottingham (Trent?) University, mentioned by Cormack

Do you recall the BBSR – Base Bet + Square Root of available bank – staking plan discussed on Smartsig?

As an alternative to simple % of available bank it had some merits in that by using the square root it prevented wild fluctuations in stake, particularly after losing runs and the solitary big win. Not heard much about it since, so is presumably little utilised

Drone,

All the knowledgeable racing contributors rapidly evaporate in disgust as soon as the know-it-all-but-know-nothing Betfair Forum types drift in. With Twitter, you can unfollow the trolls with a single click – which is nice.

I do remember the BBSR and think it came third in the SmartSig staking plans live test. Would suit many whose psychological make up is more loss adverse. Jim Selvidge’s BBSR seems to be going strong in Australia and NZ where I do most of my betting these days.

Robert

[Author]

Posts