Loss chasing - Does it always end in tears?

[wb]

Loss chasing - the dreaded words of every sensible gambler, me included.

I'm usually the first to reply to anyone who posts on this forum and elsewhere who is thinking of trying it out - because I know from some early mistakes in my gambling career that one can quickly get out of depth (and into debt!)

However, is it always as bad as it seems?

When I talk of loss chasing, I mean trying to recover your losses (plus the initial target) on your next horse.

(hear me out!)

Most people use the favourite as the basis as their loss chaser. Anyone with a bit of sense will tell you that this approach does not work, and one will soon find themselves staking thousands to win a measly amount, should a good few favourites go under.

The next approach is to only back odds-on favourites, but I've researched this, and I've found that blindly backing every odds on favourite over the past seven years produced 9 losers in a row at one stage - enough to destroy even a decent sized bank.

BUT......
how about taking things a couple of steps further, and only back horses that are priced 1/4 or under?
My stats show that by using this approach, since the year 2000, there would have been 246 bets on all codes (roughly 30 bets per year). The number of winners is 200 (an 81.3% strike rate). Backing every horse blindly to level stakes, the basic return to SP is 99.9% which is pretty much break even. Here comes the interesting part though....

The longest sequence of losers at this price from 2000-2007 has been 3 in a row, which happened only once. Two losers in a row happened 8 times.
(by the way, the longest sequence of winners was 23 in a row).

Now, if one was trying to win a set amount on each race, in seven years, they would only have had a losing run of 3 in a row. If you tried to win £20 per race for example, and recover any losses on a losing race, the worst you would have faced was 3 losing races. I'm aware that this trend may not continue, but is it really all that riskier to our banks than what we are doing now?

Perhaps some of the maths guys might like to tackle this, but any criticism, thoughts and comments whatsoever are welcome

[Merlin]

Interesting thread Wayne.

Although, I don’t see the connection between the start of the thread about loss chasing and the end, regarding the sequence of 1/4 shots…..unless your suggesting to chase on the 1 / 4 to shots is the safer option

I once knew a guy (he’s dead now) who made a living betting odds-on….but only on flat racing…….his main 2 criteria was price and trainer….I didn’t know much about the mechanics or intricacies of his betting – coz in them days I wasn’t interested in betting odds-on……..and still aint….save laying….which is the same thing…..I suppose….

I am always wary of systems and methods using prices…coz of course the SP is not known before the race…sure…most shorties wont move much….but a move from 1 / 4 to 2/7 and vice-versa would happen quite a few times…..some people may say that it would even out…but its in the lap of the Gods…like everything else…

Are you currently monitoring this?.......The reason I ask , is what would be more interesting from my perspective is in laying odds-on shots.....

[bigcumba]

You'd need a huge bank, and balls to match to chase on those sort of odds on Wayne... a few years back I saw two odds on jollies lose the same day - both were 2/9. So, taking those as a starting point and worst case scenario... to win £20 the first bet would have been £90, so after that you're down £90, second bet trying to win £110, so the stakes would be £495 - it loses, so you're now down £585. Let's say the next horse is at your 1/4 cut off.. still trying to get that £20 profit overall meaning you now need to make £605 on this one - your bet is £2420. If that loses and equals your worst run of 3 in a row, you're now down £3005, with a next bet of over £12000 to make your £20, assuming odds of 1/4 - even higher if it's shorter.

[John]

So, in theory it would actually work, provided you had a big enough bank. But how would you get yourself on to this system in the first place? Would you just sit tight and hope for a loser to come along so that you had your first selection in your 'loss chasing' system, or would you simply use your stats/criteria to form an entirely new system altogether?

How do you arrive at your first selection, is basically what I'm asking?

I guess you could start off really small, and gradually build the bank up. However, as Campbell has said, a losing run of 2-3 in a row would mean your stakes would be massive, potentially wiping you out.

[Win2Win]

You can wait weeks for a 1/4 shot to appear, not many around thos odds or less per year.

Kust back all 1/5 or less shots at levels, and you'll profit over the years. You need a starting bank of at least £10,000 to make any even slighly reasonable though.

[Street cry]

I did some live loss chasing last year and have looked in to it intensively over the years but came to the simple conclusion that if you have the requesite capital to do it then you are far better off with a large bank and compounding the profits .
Even with 1/4 shots having a good record if you have 3 go down you need about 5k on the 4th bet to make a total of 40 quid £10 for each selection

[huckabuck]

about 2 and half years ago i got software for doing this.were you put
in the odds,and it would work out the stakes for you.the way it work
out for every 1k of bank you set the program to make £5 or £10 at
the most profit.but using odds on was a big no no.to much of a stake
after a losing run for the amount of return.i did not use it because it was
based on newspaper tips.i do use it but i have a cut of at 6 loses.i only
use it when we have bad weather,last time i did it for 5 weeks with the
bad weather saved a lot of points,i also mixed 4 systerms togethor.i
took 3 loses of 6.the longest losing run was 10.if i did not stop at 6.at 6
your stakes are not going to high.
example.first bet profit of £5 odds 3.2 stake £2.27 (lost)
2nd bet now profit of £10 + £2.27 lost odds 2.7 =£7.22
huck

[Vic]

Wayne - dont even think about it, the mental anguish would destroy you.

As you said, 20 odd winners on the bounce, try looking at accumulator type betting - may not be profitable but it wont kill you either:)

You know SC is right, if you think about the kind of bank you'd be needing and put it to use elsewhere the rewards would be far better and you'd live longer

[wb]

Thanks for the replies. It actually gets scary when you add up what 4 losers in a row would do, even though there has only been 3 historically. Vic, you've actually given me an idea that I may start - thanks.

[Win2Win]

No it doesn't always end in tears, but unless you do extensive research over years so you understand everything, then in 99.9% of cases it will, as most folk haven't a clue how the stats & maths relate to each other in the real world.

How many folk use £5 level stakes, by a 'loss chasing' plan off Ebay, and then start with a £5 base stake and no betting bank? :splapme (Answer: The vast majority)

All plans have a risk, a losing run of 20 would probably wipe out a losses plan, but it would also wipe out a £100 using £5 levels. However, if you only had 19 losers, and the 20th won at 1/1, the losses bank should be back to over £100, and the levels bank to £15, 90% down. All depends on how to manage the staking, and risk.

[mrs brightside]

hi im looking for a bit of advice i've been trying this system for a wee while now and it seems to be paying off. it looks like what u guys are talking about here and im sure u've heard it all before - its just backing favorites untill one comes in and makes u a profit plus what u've already lost please dont laugh at me!!! i think the key to this is having a really big bank to make a relitivley small profit this allows u to place more bets i dont bet on odds on ones as when they loose it means im chasing a big loss. i also dont touch joint favorites for obvious reasons. it is quite nerve racking at times but i love the drama of it all:wink what do u guys think? am i being a complete idiot or do u think it'll work?

[TheOldhamWhisper]

Here's what can happen (and this actually did happen in 1962! - in those days there was usually only one meeting a day):

The last race before the Cheltenham Festival was won by the favourite. But that was not a sign of things to come. All 18 favourites at the Festival were turned over, and to make matters even worse, the next 4 at the following meeting (Hurst Park) also bit the dust.

Staking to win just £10, at the end of day 1 the bank stood at £-117.50
By Day 2, the deficit had risen to £1693.91
At the end of the Festival, the bookies were up to the tune of £17636.07

After the first 4 races at Hurst Park, the deficit was £93567.66 with another £23394.41 to be staked on the next race - making an actual risk of £116962.07 to win £10!!

Clearly this is the 'exception', but it has happened and could easily happen again.

[Win2Win]

Couple of years ago we had 26 losing Favs in a row, final bet was probably a few about a £Billion from a 10p start

If you want to use that plan with safety, use my System Banker (Odds On Banker is Free)

[wb]

I wouldn't reccommend loss chasing on favs - it can only work for so long until you hit a bad patch.

I researched data covering a number of years - concerning how many odds-on shots lost in a row, and the results were quite sobering:

http://www.letsbet.ie/forum/showthread.php?t=1394

(Keith/Mods, feel free to delete link if inappropriate)

It's probably the oldest trick in the book, and if you've made some money from it, now is the time to get out.

[wb]

Actually from that post, here are how many favs lost in a row since 2000. It only goes up to 30, but from memory, there was once nearly fifty in a row some years back:

1 Loser 4292
2 Losers 2847
3 Losers 1953
4 Losers 1257
5 Losers 774
6 Losers 554
7 Losers 348
8 Losers 244
9 Losers 174
10 Losers 108
11 Losers 78
12 Losers 54
13 Losers 25
14 Losers 24
15 Losers 13
16 Losers 19
17 Losers 10
18 Losers 4
19 Losers 4
20 Losers 0
21 Losers 0
22 Losers 0
23 Losers 0
24 Losers 0
25 Losers 1
26 Losers 2
27 Losers 0
28 Losers 0
29 Losers 2
30+ Losers 1

[mrs brightside]

thanks for the advice, i do expect it to fail at some point cheers for pointing out the stats to me!! to be honest its just a bit of fun to keep me occupied on days when im not working, i might take the profit ive made to start a bank and use the software from win2win thanks pal

[Draxie]

There's one guy making a fortune out of 'staking to recover' on short-price favourites, but I doubt he does it by betting. Foolishly, I bought his system. I read it over and realised what could happen. This guy is still selling it; still blogging and 'assessing' other systems and Forex trading.

With regard to staking to recover again, a few weeks back I checked out the performance of 'most-tipped' horses.

Over 30 days flat racing and covering three main meetings, every day at least one of these horses won. I was paper-trading and used an imaginary target of winning £30.00, then stopping fr the day. Only on two days would I have needed to play to the end of the day's racing. The problem was, the short priced 'most-tipped' runners.

So I wondered if I would make my £30 by laying those that were odds-on. Yes of course I could. But if one of these won, it would be my luck for it to to be the one winner for the day and I would finish in the red, trying to recover that stake when I started the next day.

A lot would depend on how short the price and how low the liability would be on a lay-bet. Anyhow, I binned the idea, but the fact was, for 30 days at least one 'most-tipped' horse won. Sometimes more than one, and not all at ridiculous short prices either.

The fact is I do know the stats for most-tipped are better than for the naps or the 'most-napped'. You just need to choose your races and weed out by looking into the form a bit I suppose.

Regards
Draxie
___________________________________________________________________

I started with nothing; I still have most of it left.