VDW + Staking for Billion

[billion]

Well done "AGAIN"

Formath

Billy's Outback Shack

[Formath]

Bill,
I am wrapping this up today as I said at the outset it was not intended to be a VDW approach thread but just to illustrate the mechanics of a staking plan he provided.

These are the results using the VDW staking plan for Daily Mail Formcast top-rated down the card at the principal meeting for the past 4 days. The plan was never in credit so the progression just kept on increasing and it shows the inherent risk in chasing losses. Overall lost 191- 144= Lost 47.

Stke/Reslt/Wn/Ls/Deb/Cred
Plumpton
1 L 0 1 2
2 L 0 2 5
3 L 0 3 9
4 L 0 4 14
5 L 0 5 20
6 L 0 6 27
7 L 0 7 35
Ffos Las
8 1/1 8 0 28
9 11/8 12 0 17
10 L 10 28
11 L 11 40
12 L 12 53
13 L 13 67
Bangor
14 L 14 82
15 L 15 98
16 L 16 115
17 L 17 133
18 L 18 152
19 L 19 172
Ludlow
20 L 20 193
21 9/4 0 47 147
22 7/2 0 77 71

[billion]

I am sorry you are not going to continue with this

Formath

but understand you make your own decisions but would like to thank you very much for the time you have put in.

I am just about getting there with regard to the staking but then again I do have a problem with numbers.

Regarding the VDW race selection I trust I have not made a fundamental error today, the best race value at Newbury (all 3 of them) fall below the highest value races at Doncaster and so thought it better to remain at Doncaster.

Is this wrong?

Billy's Outback Shack

[Formath]

Bill,

It is immaterial which race is selected as long as it is one of the better class available, preferably with plenty of winning form amongst the runners.

I was with you at Doncaster today because of the good going I swerved the 3.20 novice chase owing to unexposed form and looked at the 5.05. It didn’t work out really because there is conflict between the £ Class and Consistency not being supported by the two experts. In the end the ‘best’ was Prince de Marais 3*, but I wouldn’t have any confidence in it.

[billion]

Thanks again

Formath

, I also selected Prince Des Marias but made it 4*

The 3.20 Had 2 4* selections Benny Be Good who FELL and Film Festival who won 8/1 but because Benny was at the shorter price put my pennies on him

4.30 Dream Esteem is my 3* pick and will carry my 5 shillings

Billy's Outback Shack

[billion]

Bill,

The aim is to win 1 point on every bet (1 point has to be added each bet to the debit column for this). The staking progression starts at 1 point and is increased by another point for every losing bet. When a win bet 1 point less than the return is deducted from the debit. If the debit column is then 0 the next stake is 1 point to start another progression. If there is still a debit then the next stake is 1 point more than the debit figure.

Bet/result/stake/return/debit/credit

1. L -1 0 2
2. L -2 0 5
3. L -3 0 9
4. 2/1 4 +8 2 (7pts deducted from the 9 debit)credit = 2 pts
5. ? 3

Hatter

This is the staking plan I was wanting to bring to your attention.

Although I again think, like the Staircase, it is above the average dross of the mediocre staking plans I suffered with the implementaion as

Formath

is well aware and despite his efforts to mentor me I was unable to come to terms with it.

However, if it could become dovetailed with the staircase we would have the best staking plan ever IMO

Billy's Outback Shack

[Hatter]

Hi Billion

Sorry for the delay in getting back
But these steaks are meaty issues & not too be snacked on

Your post may have lost something in translation / chinese whispers etc

Before i hazard a comment i would like to see your "table" set out a bit differently – i.e. make it duffer proof for me
Clearly defined & the outcome results made clear so i can work through it with fictitious examples

That VW golf geezer never did it for me
Got a reputation for delving here – Ooooer stand back Matron
But prepared to go thru it again in the hope of creating the Stannah plus effect

No mis interpretations on the alphabet guy stakes btw
Will stick the questions here rather than clog up the E’s
Think it lends itself to a certain price criteria selection
If backing even monies then a never ending battle thru the sequences
A 5/1 + selection system would give you some relief & pull back your potential losses quicker
Altho there is a reason why they 5/1 etc

Still pottering abt with the Mirror stuf
Spot format had some updates recently altho replies state same outcomes
Lots of coq ups & they looking into
Got an answer over the Sf’s etc – team decision no formula
Find that hard to believe as often bear no relation to the 2 headline tippers

Phew – going for a lie down or a stiff one

[billion]

Hatter!

Have you been sipping the falling over water again?

Formath

will have to explain it all to you as said I found it hard to implement but the object being to win one point for each bet struck.

Not unlike the staircase raised stakes are involved, also when the winner comes along the sequence is continued should the target not be achieved.

If it was possible to marry them into a hybrid version of both I guess it would be something like this.

1111 2222 3333 but with a target every time the bet is struck and so become 1 1(plus recovery of lost stake), then 1 (plus recovery of 2 lost stakes) and so on. The recovery would be the debit and won back by additional staking in accord to the odds of the selection.

If this makes little or no sense whatsoever all I can suggest is we find an "Albert Einstein" on the forum to apply the math in a way we can all understand.

Perhaps, well should be left alone and on reflection why try to improve what has worked well for both gentleman for years.

Billy's Outback Shack

[GeorgeJ]

VDW wrote extremely helpfully about how to analyse a race, but his progressive staking plan, as described in "Systematic Betting", is dangerous.

Stuart Holland tested umpteen staking plans and wrote them up in "Successful Staking Strategies". The VDW system is described and evaluated on pages 21/2 and Stuart’s "verdict" was:

"Very poor! Your bank will be lucky to survive this system unless your strike rate is very high.

VDW allegedly had a strike rate of 80%-90% and pretty good prices too. He also suggested betting 10% of the losing bank as well as the [progressive] system.

He would have been much better staking a strightforward 10% of his betting bank."

[billion]

GeorgeJ

, never met you before but am pleased to do so now.

I Think as with all proponents of methods and ideas etc. one must glean and experiment with suggestions that may suit or fit in with your own individual principles.

The plan as suggested by

Formath

is far removed from 10% staking of ones bank, in fact is a very sensible and I believe to be a cautious one but you are correct by implication that any said plan must work in accord with a known strike rate.

Billy's Outback Shack

[GeorgeJ]

Billion

Cheers.

I think my previous post was insufficiently clear.

Subject to correction, the staking plan to which Formath referred was the one VDW set out first in a letter to the Sporting Chronicle Handicap Book (in April 1978) and then in less ephemeral form in his booklet "Systematic Betting" (Raceform, 1990), chapter 2. He also discussed in chapter 2 another strategy, which Stuart Holland referred to as betting 10% of the losing bank.

It was the first of these two, in which the aim is to make one point profit per bet over a series of bets, that Stuart described as "very poor", though of course is works well enough if one can emulate VDW’s claimed 80+% strike rate.

It is worth noting that when he first mentioned the staking plan, in April 1978, VDW wrote: "… I view the question of staking not from the point of enhancing profits, but to SHOW a profit" (his capitalisation). This phrase is regarded by some as calling into question his subsequent claim of achieving an 80+% strike rate, something that would in any case probably seem fantastical to the average punter. (It is also worth noting that, as far as is known, VDW never proofed any of the selections he claimed, still less his ability to achieve an 80%+ strike rate.)

[billion]

The VDW debate abounds even after all these years, which if given any consideration is quite amazing.

For such debate and speculation to continue there must be substance to his offerings and once again suggest any punter, should extract from all the prophets who claim to have seen the light, the elements they find of value to use and adapt in their own style.

Billy's Outback Shack

[Hatter]

Sort of what i heard before as George says.
At those strike rates i wouldn’t be worried about using any staking system

Ok
Let me have a go at seeing if i got the Billion thingy.
We are aiming for a target per race or point maybe – example £10
We use a staircase 4×1, then 4×2, then 4×3 if all else fails

Assumption is start with a few losers to get ball unrolling
Use 5/1 & 2/1 as test prices alternatively
Bet 1 – £2 at 5/1 – lost
Bet 2 – now we need to win a tenner plus lost £2 (Bet 1 stake)
So £6 at 2/1 to win the £12 – lost
Bet 3 – need to win £10 plus £8 (2 losing stakes)
So £3.50 at 5/1 – lost
Or
Are we looking to win an additional £10 every race ? It has to be or we don’t have a staircase Thinking out loud here
Bet 4 – need a £10 plus 3 losing stakes (£11.50)
So £11 at 2/1 – lost

So start again
Bet 1 – to win £10 – £2 at 5/1 – lost
Bet 2 – to win £22 – £11 at 2/1 – lost
Bet 3 – to win £43 – £9 at 5/1 – lost
Bet 4 – to win £62 – £31 at 2/1 – lost

Bet 5 – 2nd rung on staircase – how to use it ?
To win £103 + a second tenner = £113
Or use £20 to back the next 4 selections until in profit

So unless i know where we are trying to go will leave it hanging there

[billion]

Sort of what i heard before as George says.
At those strike rates i wouldn’t be worried about using any staking system

Ok
Let me have a go at seeing if i got the Billion thingy.
We are aiming for a target per race or point maybe – example £10
We use a staircase 4×1, then 4×2, then 4×3 if all else fails

Assumption is start with a few losers to get ball unrolling
Use 5/1 & 2/1 as test prices alternatively
Bet 1 – £2 at 5/1 – lost
Bet 2 – now we need to win a tenner

Just to complicate matters Hatter – Bet 2 the target is £20 + lost stake

plus lost £2 (Bet 1 stake)
So £6 at 2/1 to win the £12 – lost
Bet 3 – need to win £10 plus £8 (2 losing stakes)
So £3.50 at 5/1 – lost
Or
Are we looking to win an additional £10 every race ? It has to be or we don’t have a staircase Thinking out loud here
Bet 4 – need a £10 plus 3 losing stakes (£11.50)
So £11 at 2/1 – lost

So start again
Bet 1 – to win £10 – £2 at 5/1 – lost
Bet 2 – to win £22 – £11 at 2/1 – lost
Bet 3 – to win £43 – £9 at 5/1 – lost
Bet 4 – to win £62 – £31 at 2/1 – lost

Bet 5 – 2nd rung on staircase – how to use it ?
To win £103 + a second tenner = £113
Or use £20 to back the next 4 selections until in profit

So unless i know where we are trying to go will leave it hanging there

Billy's Outback Shack

[billion]

Hatter

.

This will do my brain in, I tried the thing out with

Formath

and lost the plot in a very big way.

Formath’s

(VDW) plan is to win a set amount for each bet struck, so in the case of £10 bet 1) target = 10

If bet loses 10 goes into the debit column

Bet 2 the taget becomes 20 but what you are now tryning to do is recover the previous lost stake as well. If it loses 20 plus 2 x lost stakes go into the debit column.

Formath

somewhere adds 10 extra to the debit and this is where my brain frazzles.

Bet 3 and so on is increased by 10 every time there is a loser and with your system/plan the lost stakes are also added.

If a losing run such as

MrE

is experiencing I will be in front of you over a very large cliff.

Billy's Outback Shack

[GeorgeJ]

It is actually quite straightforward.

The aim is to win one point per bet. Assume a losing run of four followed by a winner.

The first bet lost 1 point.

The second bet is 2 points, again lost.

The third bet is 3 points, again lost.

The fourth bet is 4 points, again lost.

By this stage one has actually lost 10 points (the stakes of 1, 2, 3 and 4 on the first four bets) AND one has failed to make a point profit on each race, ie one is 4 points behind in one’s objective. So one goes into the fifth bet looking for a win of 15 points to close the series (recovering the 10 points actually lost to date and securing the 1 point win for each of the five races).

The fifth bet is 5 points. If the price is 3/1 or better, the 15 points (or more) is secured and a profit of 5 points (or more, depending on the price of the winner) is secured over the five race series, as per the aim of the strategy.

But let’s suppose the fifth bet winner is at less than 3/1, say 2/1 for ease of calculation. The profit on the fifth bet is 10 points, which recovers the 10 points actually lost so far but not the 5 points profit required for the series. So the series continues and on the sixth bet the aim is a profit of 6 points: the 15 aimed for with the fifth bet, plus the 1 point aim for the sixth bet, less the 10 points actually achieved with the fifth bet.

If the sixth bet loses, the stake being 6 points, in the seventh bet one is seeking to secure 13 points – recovery of the 6 point stake lost on the sixth bet plus the 1 point per bet (ie 7 in all) profit aim for the staking plan. A winner at a shade over 2/1 clears the aim for the series as it achieves the 13 point aim. A loser means of course that on the eight bet one is placing a stake of 8 points with the aim of securing 21 points profit (13 points to recover the stakes of 6 points and 7 points lost on the sixth and seventh bets plus 8 points to secure the objective of making 1 point per bet in the series.

The important thing to bear in mind is that the stake only increases by 1 each time until a series is successful, when one begins another series with a first bet stake of 1 point. The target win each time is whatever stakes have been lost in the series, plus 1 point per bet in the series, less the points won on bets which didn’t fully meet the target of the approach, such as bet 5 in the notional series set out above.

So after nine consecutive losers the stake would be 10, aiming to secure 55 points, comprising the 45 points lost on the first nine bets (1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9) and the 10 points representing the one-point-a-bet profit aim of the staking plan.

What is obvious is that if one encounters a significant losing run, a single win is less and less likely to generate the profit to clear the aim. VDW did have a partial solution to this: after a win which doesn’t fully achieve the target, reduce the stake to match the next target. (Let’s say the fifth bet won at 11/4, returning 13.75 points profit to the 5 point stake. But at that point we were looking for a return of at least 15 points to close the series, so we are still 1.25 points short of that target. Instead of increasing the stake on the sixth bet in these circumstances to 6 points, as we would if the fifth bet had lost, we reduce it to 2, because the aim is now just a shade over 2 points – ie securing the 1.25 points we are adrift after the fifth bet, plus the profit aim of 1 point for the sixth bet. If the sixth bet loses the stake on the seventh becomes 3 points, the eighth if the seventh loses 4 points etc).

But although this stake reduction after a win that does not fully clear the bank helps keep stakes from mounting as fast as they would if bets keep losing, it only staves off the day when one can’t clear the series account without a wholly improbable series of winners.

Stuart Holland wasn’t joking.

[billion]

Beachy Head – here I come

Billy's Outback Shack

[Author]

Posts