- This topic has 88 replies, 35 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
- Total Posts 17716
<br> Maurice<br> There is a great deal of difference between turning over 10k, and risking 10k, or any other amount for that matter!
Maurice –
I agree with Reet Hard – you need a much smaller ‘wad’ than 10k to turn over 10k.
For example – 100 bets risking 100 pounds per bet = 10k risk. Running a bank whereby a maximum of 5% of the total bank is risked on each bet (a reasonable bank for most betting/laying on shorter priced outcomes) meansthat you could turn over 10k comfortably on a bank of only 2k. Now you could do that every day of the year and, as you suggest, turn over in excess of 3 million.
Try doing that in real estate off a 2k start.
Totally agree Corm .. my own bank of about £300 gets turned over twice a week at least, last Friday I turned over the the whole lot, for some reason. That will probably work out at about £30K a year.
Thats why I think getting your stakes right in relation to your betting is very important. There’s no point setting up a betting bank and then not using it, IMO !
Quote: from dave jay on 4:03 pm on Aug. 20, 2006[br]Totally agree Corm .. my own bank of about £300 gets turned over twice a week at least, last Friday I turned over the the whole lot, for some reason. That will probably work out at about £30K a year.
Thats why I think getting your stakes right in relation to your betting is very important. There’s no point setting up a betting bank and then not using it, IMO !
THis idea of a betting stake is confusing me …..perhaps cause i aint good at maths. Obviously i understand that people should bet in amounts that wont cause them to go dry at the first losing streak but surely varying the amount of money you put on at different odds is deafeating the objective.
SHL
Sir Harry,<br>Betting to a percentage of a bank does 3 things.<br>(1) It removes the basic error of having more money on shorter priced selections and smaller sums on bigger priced selections.<br>(2) It reduces the stakes (and losses) during losing spells.<br>(3) It increases profits during winning spells.
So If one had a betting bank of £300 and bet to 5% the first stake would be £15.00 if that horse won say at 2/1 the next bet would be just £16.50 which is hardly much difference if the selection lost the next bet would be £14.25 again hardly much difference.
Agreed Stav –
Quick question – which is best value –
a true 2/1 shot trading at 5/2
or a true 10/1 shot trading at 16/1
Quote: from cormack15 on 7:44 pm on Aug. 20, 2006[br]Agreed Stav –
Quick question – which is best value –
a true 2/1 shot trading at 5/2
or a true 10/1 shot trading at 16/1
<br>
<br>Depends which one wins ;) . No point getting value either way if they don’t pass the post before the rest.
(Edited by The Market Man at 8:21 pm on Aug. 20, 2006)
Yep, the 5/2 shot trading at 2/1 is the better value.
TMM – If they are true 2/1 and 10/1 shots then they will win 33% and 9.09% of the time so you don’t need to worry about each individual one winning.
Another question – should you focus on finding winners or on finding value?
Quote: from Seagull on 5:48 pm on Aug. 20, 2006[br]<br>Betting to a percentage of a bank does 3 things.<br>(1) It removes the basic error of having more money on shorter priced selections and smaller sums on bigger priced selections.<br>(2) It reduces the stakes (and losses) during losing spells.<br>(3) It increases profits during winning spells.
(4) It causes a hypertensive crisis when that 20/1 winner is bet for peanuts after a lengthy losing spell or a sustained period of bank depletion.
Dynamic percentage of bank betting is a safe strategy and one all long-term losers should use as the bank will never be ruined, ensuring infinite action and no dipping into the gas meter money but IMO it’s essentially a negative strategy for anyone with pretensions to being a winner, or is a winner.
A fixed percentage with the actual stake adjusted annually/start of betting year depending on available bank makes more sense. Then either bet the percentage as a level stake or in a narrow range either side of the percentage.
‘True’ odds-to-available odds Kelly-type staking mentioned by Stav would seem a sound strategy in that it maximises returns based on perceived value but in my experience it actually just exposes one’s limitations at defining a true price. We can all assess something to be over-priced or under-priced and assign what we consider true odds but it is a salutary reminder (to me at least) that when staking is wholly determined by those assigned true odds, Kelly brutally exposes the fact that what those ‘true’ odds actually are is no more than a rough estimate of what is actually true. The horse available at 5/2 you assess to be 2/1 is indeed a value bet but the actual ‘true’ odds may be somewhere in a grey undefinable area anywhere from say 1/100 to 9/4 or 100/1 if it loses. So Kelly has never proven to be any better (and infact slightly worse) than boring old level stakes for me. Which proves nothing at all about the superiority of level stakes but only that I’m poor at assigning ‘true’ odds though competent at defining ‘value’.
I offer a firm handshake to those shrewd souls who can make Kelly staking outperform vanilla level stakes – the staking plan that all others should be judged by.
For those who keep detailed betting records I would thoroughly recommend running various staking plans in tandem with your actual staking. Easy enough with a spreadsheet and quite an eye-opener. And particularly valuable in showing up strengths weaknesses in your own staking strategy.
In my case nowt has bettered level stakes set to 2.5% of start-up bank. A lot of blood, sweat and tears expended in the circumnavigation of staking plans back to where I set sail and, in hindsight, should have stayed.
(Edited by Drone at 10:32 pm on Aug. 20, 2006)
Quote: from cormack15 on 10:00 pm on Aug. 20, 2006[br]Yep, the 5/2 shot trading at 2/1 is the better value.
TMM – If they are true 2/1 and 10/1 shots then they will win 33% and 9.09% of the time so you don’t need to worry about each individual one winning.
Another question – should you focus on finding winners or on finding value?<br>
<br>It depends what you define as a "true" 2/1 or 10/1 shot.
You need to find winners it’s no good at all getting great prices if none if them ever win. To take Stav’s point I’d rather have an even money shot win by a short head than a 20/1 shot lose by a short head.
Of course if you want to make a profit you have to find a balance between win and price. It’s impossible to win every bet so you do need reasonable prices in relation to your stakes.
We discussed this issue briefly after Ouija Board’s latest win.  I still have to ask "What defines a 2/1 shot"?<br>Do you run a computer sim of the race ten times and count the amount of wins for each animal?  No, you simply use your own opinion as to what the odds should be.  I don’t think any armchair punter can define the odds a horse should be as accurately as to say a 5/2 shot should be a 2/1 shot, but a bookie can by measuring the levels of money for and against each runner in his book.<br>I am usually fairly accurate at deciding whether a horse is obviously over priced (ie. I would be prepared to back a horse at 4/1, and the horse turns out to be on offer at 7/1 – a great bet IMO).  My ultimate opinion, however, is that weight of money is the only true deciding factor on the odds a horse should be.  Any personal opinion is just that, personal opinion.  Sometimes it works out to be right, other times it will be wrong.  But it IS just an opinion. Another person may look at my 7/1 shot and decide that he wouldn’t buy it with someone elses money at those odds.
Drone,<br>Of course you are correct in pointing out the downside that there is less money on a big priced winner during a losing spell. The other downside is that one needs to be close to the betting results and access to a p.c. or a telephone for betting purposes all afternoon and I know many just can’t manage that.
Overall its still better than a random approach.
With the Kelly method is does work well if one can judge accurately what the true s.p. should be and thats just as hard as finding the winner in the first instance.
What I failed to mention was that I have one betting bank for nat hunt and one for the flat as a good nat hunt season can be made to look average if its dragged down by a bad flat season and vice versa.
With horses that are forecast to start odds on I look at them with a view in the first instance of taking them on (laying) rather than reading why they should win.
With the Jonjo O’Neill runner last Saturday Loungeville Manor for example this horse has been finishing 2nd in a lot of its races and had not found much in closing stages of previous races. I looked at the days results and noted no favourite had won and thought many on course punters would use the race as the ‘getting out stakes’ on course bookies would have been up on the day and could afford to offer no value on this runner. <br>I think if 2-3 favourites had already won bookies on course would have chalked up evens at least.<br>To me this horse should have been no more than 2.25 and when it opened at 1.80 and was traded in to 1.65 if it had won I would not have lost much and I thought that the Tom George horse and the Noel Chance runners are always interesting.<br>As the results show the Noel Chance runner was never going well and was pulled up and the Tom George horse<br>ran keenly but as the Racing post noted the favourite ‘found nil’ and again came a poor second.<br>To me this is much easier than trying to find a winner.
Quote: from Seagull on 8:51 am on Aug. 21, 2006[br]Drone,<br>Of course you are correct in pointing out the downside that there is less money on a big priced winner during a losing spell. The other downside is that one needs to be close to the betting results and access to a p.c. or a telephone for betting purposes all afternoon and I know many just can’t manage that.
Overall its still better than a random approach.
With the Kelly method is does work well if one can judge accurately what the true s.p. should be and thats just as hard as finding the winner in the first instance.
What I failed to mention was that I have one betting bank for nat hunt and one for the flat as a good nat hunt season can be made to look average if its dragged down by a bad flat season and vice versa.
With horses that are forecast to start odds on I look at them with a view in the first instance of taking them on (laying) rather than reading why they should win.
With the Jonjo O’Neill runner last Saturday Loungeville Manor for example this horse has been finishing 2nd in a lot of its races and had not found much in closing stages of previous races. I looked at the days results and noted no favourite had won and thought many on course punters would use the race as the ‘getting out stakes’ on course bookies would have been up on the day and could afford to offer no value on this runner. <br>I think if 2-3 favourites had already won bookies on course would have chalked up evens at least.<br>To me this horse should have been no more than 2.25 and when it opened at 1.80 and was traded in to 1.65 if it had won I would not have lost much and I thought that the Tom George horse and the Noel Chance runners are always interesting.<br>As the results show the Noel Chance runner was never going well and was pulled up and the Tom George horse<br>ran keenly but as the Racing post noted the favourite ‘found nil’ and again came a poor second.<br>To me this is much easier than trying to find a winner.
<br>I think Drone pretty much expanded on my opinions but at the same time, your strategy seems a proper way of managing a betting fund perhaps in the same way that an investment fund should be managed.
SHL
In terms of staking, my own preference is to bet a fixed percentage of my starting bank (usually 5%) and then adjust up if my bank increases above the original level. I don’t ever adjust down so this means that 20 losers will bankrupt me but the nature of horse that I back (close to the top of the betting with the odd rare exceptional long-shot) means that if I had 10 losers in a row I would need to take stock and see what I’m doing wrong before committing any further.
It’s not for everyone but it suits me.
I’ve learnt something this week from York.
Put enough on a long-shot I really strongly fancy to get a return, not of £100, but £200.
My net profit from a £100 return, after other liabilities, some maybe hedging in the same race, some frittered away on more speculative bets (invariably at shorter prices), makes it an unnecessarily onerous way to obtain even by my standards a relatively small amount.
In another connection, re the first race today, I think Prime Defenders’ backers were robbed. I’m talking through my pocket, but justificably imo. I’m baffled why Hills didn’t object.
I’m pretty sure I recall a race in which the fourth horse was moved up to first place – in fact I think most of the placings were changed. So, I presume they must have changed the rules in the interim. <br>
This has developed into one of the best threads I have come across on this or any other forum. Unfortunately, the only person on this forum who we can be sure wins regularly is a chap called Barry Dennis?????<br>I live in hope that he will soon return to the fold because if we can’t learn something from him we may as well pack in.
ps Sorry AP, two certain regular winners!!!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.