Staking

Odds compilers can have a fair work load of pricing up a lot more races than i would have looked at in huge detail.

If you stick to a smaller sample, ie 2yo’s and 3yo,s or 5F / 6F sprints…  you can study harder, and smarter than the bookmakers, which can give you a significant edge.

I think I have proven that I have a significant edge, so the thing I wouldn’t have controll over is whether members stick to the advised stakes.

There are many standard staking plans, that you may or may not use in your own betting.

Level Stakes Plan

This is a common form of staking and it states that you bet the same stake, on all selevtions, at all times. The size of the stake can be determined however you wish. But we will use points. For example, if your start bank was £2000 you could split the bank into 100 points. So your stake would be 1,2 or more points. In this case £20 would represent 1 point.

The positive is that a level staking plan is a pretty safe, low risk staking plan, and with a genuine edge it will be profitable long term. Where there is risk attached such as in Ante-post betting, then it is very viable. The negative is that it is somewhat void of opinion, to potentially maximise and profits from more confident selections. For me, i do not use the level stakes plan I’m my betting day to day, as you can see in the daily bets. However I do use it in analysis of my own performance in terms of staking, and it is a very useful and solid reference point, to analyse your staking performance.

Fibonacci Staking Plan

This staking plan is based on the Fibonacci sequence of numbers first devised by an Italian mathematician in the 12th century  The  Fibonacci sequence can form the basis of a very efficient staking plan, especially when it comes to horse racing.

The Fibonacci Sequence works by adding the two previous numbers in the Fibonacci Sequence to get the next stake, ie 1-2-3-5-8-13-21-34. With the Fibonacci Sequence your bets go up one step with each loss.

With each win you reduce your bets by 2 steps down. Note that every win with the Fibonacci sequence pays for the two losses before it.

Example for the Fibonacci sequence:

• bet £10 until you lose, then bet £20

• if you win at £20, then return to step 1. If you lose, then bet £30

• if you win at £30, then return to step 1. If you lose, then bet £50

• if you win at £50, then return to step 2. If you lose, then bet £80

• if you win at £80, then return to step 3. If you lose, then bet £130

• if you win at £130, then return to step 4. If you lose, then bet £210

• if you win at £210, then return to step 5. If you lose, then bet £340

• if you win at £340, then return to step 6. If you lose, return to step 1.

I personally would highly advise against this. It is mathematically sound as long as you have a genuine edge, however My feelings are that this money management theory tends to forget the psychological factor of  losing runs and higher risk, so although of course this differs from person to person, it would not be for me. You Also you have to factor in your starting bank and you’re ability to get on as you’re stake increases during a losing run. Which could be difficult in its own right. Again, I would advise against this plan.

  D’alembert Staking Plan

The D’alembert staking plan, which is sometimes known as the pyramid system, was devised by the French mathematician Jean Le Rond D’alembert (born 1717) and subsequently took his name D’alembert for obvious reasons. The D’alembert theory on the ‘Law of Equilibrium’, supposes a balance of successes and failures over a long series of specific events, for example horse racing.

The D’alembert plan requires you to increase your stake by one unit after a loss and decrease your stake by one unit after a win. The intention of the D’alembert staking plan is to end up at the beginning of the sequence but each time making at least one unit profit. In an attempt to simplify the D’alembert process the following example once again assumes level stakes and level odds:

• On the first bet you play £10 win, bet £10 – if you lose, bet £20

• if you win at £20, next bet £10 – if you lose, bet £30

• if you win at £30, next bet £20 – if you lose, bet £40

• if you win at £40, next bet £30 – if you lose, bet £50

• if you win at £50, next bet £40 – if you lose, bet £60

• if you win at £60, next bet £50 – if you lose, bet £70 and so on.

A typical D’alembert sequence could be expressed as so:

• bet 1 unit and you lose -1 unit

• bet 2 units and you lose -2 units

• bet 3 units and you win +3 units

• bet 2 units and you win +2 units

• sum total of units + 2 units.

I personally would advise against this as a complete method. It is mathematically sound as long as you have a genuine edge, however again My feelings are that this money management theory tends to forget the psychological factor of losing runs. so although of course this differs from person to person, it would not be for me.

Again, I would advise against this plan, however there is something to take from it in terms of… that its easy to get carried away on a winning run to try and maximise a hot streak. There can always  be a quick come down from this, So within the D’alembert Staking Plan there is a responsible method to it in the aspect of not being afraid to  bank some of what you have won, and to drop down a shade in stakes to re assess.

Fixed Staking Plan.

In some quarters it is widely accepted that fixed profit betting is better value than level stakes betting. Again this is a matter of personal opinion.

With level stakes betting, you are keeping your accounting on the ‘spend’ side of your book ‘fixed’ by sticking to one bet size to suit all.

The upside here is that you can control your expenditure and can easily analyse your bank. The down side on the other hand, is that you are limiting the ‘income’ side of your book in direct proportion to the odds available on the bet ie, a 2/1  shot will return far less than say a 7/2 shot using the same stake amount.

With fixed profit betting, you basically work in the opposite way, in that the ‘spend’ side of your book becomes ‘flexible’ whilst the ‘income’ side of your book will be ‘fixed’. In other words, your bet size will change in direct proportion to the odds on offer, with the aim of achieving a pre-determined profit. A consequence of this type of betting is that the longer the odds become, the smaller the stake becomes conversely, the shorter the odds become the larger the stake becomes.

Using this system therefore, it is advisable not to bet odds on.   With fixed profit betting, you are aiming to achieve a pre-determined profit target with each bet. It means that long odds require small stakes however; very short odds can require very large stakes. It is therefore advised especially in this system not to bet when odds are less than 6/4  

For example,

• say you set your profit target per race at £40

• odds given for the horse are 4/1 (5.00) • your stake would be £40 divided by 4 = £10

• therefore, £10 x 5 = £50 • Minus your stake = £40. However if you had odds say 1.7

• 40 divided by 0.7 = £57

• your stake would have to be £57 to return £40.

There is a fair bit to take from this staking plan and its very loosely what I use. I wouldn’t put anybody off staking in this manner, what I would say is that I very much avoid the particularly  short prices so that I do not have anyone betting to uncomfortable or irresponsible stakes. The one aspect where I do not use this, and my staking is adaptable with no concrete staking plan, is that it can fail to maximise profits on larger priced selections where you hold confidence. I would absolutely not be afraid to go with decent sized stakes on a selection where I hold confidence in the strong value of the available price, compared to my own perception of chance. (Your edge).

Kelly Criterion Staking Plan.

The Kelly criterion or Kelly bet is a mathematical formula that helps place a bet to bring optimum returns. The strategy allows gamblers that have a genuine edge, to maximize profits.

The Kelly criterion formula is as follows:

f=Bp-qB= edge odds or K = p x B (1 – p) / B

Where:         

• f = fraction of wealth wagered or % of making the highest profit on investment or gambling.

• B = fractional odds (reward to risk) or the ratio of the win to loss

• p= probability of winning against the odds

• q= probability of losing or (1-p)

The Kelly criterion formula is a fairly straightforward equation often explained as the edge over the odds.

The odds are the bookmakers perceived chance of a horse winning. A “good bet” would typically involve something in which you have an edge, meaning that the genuine chance of the horse winning is greater then the available price,  and therefore the odds are in your favor.

Remember that it is only as effective as the probabilities you input into it while using the formula. If the input values are inaccurate, and you do not have a genuine edge. Then it will throw off the formula, making the method worthless.

Again, I would advise against this plan, however there is something to take from it, as per the evaluation of the fixed staking plan, in that there are opportunities to increase profits on particular selections when you believe that you have a greater edge. Rather than having to keep any profits entirely fixed to the same level.

So in summary there are set mathematical plans to staking, and there is no entirely right or wrong plan, when you have a genuine edge.

I personally take a small ammount from most of the above staking plans, and i always highly advise members to follow my pts staking plan, but it’s very much each to there own.

My personal money management theory would absolutely take in the psychological factor of potential losing runs, and is as responsible as absolutely possible. The profits i am looking for are very much set to a fixed level of attempting to reach 50Pts + for the flat season, with the monetary ammount which in a points system for me, being the right level for what the 50 point target ammounts to. 

My stakes aren’t entirely fixed to a monetary target, as I leave room to go with larger stakes when I think I have a more considerable edge on a particular bet. However in a case that I was wrong on the occasion that it was a higher bet, I would drop back down in stakes, and look for the right opportunity to go again.

Ofcourse by dropping stakes, as in the case of the D’alembert Staking Plan, then there are times that you may miss an opportunity, where you can have a small sequence of wins where you’re perceived edge should have seen the stakes higher, and therefore you haven’t optimised results. However in contrast, on a losing run you will have stayed well within a responsible level, and there will always be more opportunities in the near future to capatilise with a genuine edge.

For me the psychological factor is very important, I enjoy the buzz of a winner as much as anyone, and dislike a losing run as much as anyone too. So although the monetary ammount of a pt that i stake would be meaningful to most, my adaptable and responsible staking, would never make me chase losses, or get too high on a winning run.

That would absolutely be the most important thing to me, and allows me to be able to stay consistent and bet with responsibility rather than emotion.

I can get a shade frustrated when I advise a selection where i feel I have under staked, however that is quickly forgotten, as with a genuine edge, there is always another opportunity around the corner.

Leave a Reply

error: Content is protected !!