staking

[mick56]

I am happy enough with my 1pt win level stakes,but am always willing to keep an open mind.

What are members views on this subject,i would like to read not so much about the theory of a complex staking plan or back fitting to fit results,but rather your practical experiences when putting your own cash at risk.

[Street cry]

% staking at various levels of aggression by % i mean if you take 3% as a stake you change up or down after each bet/day.

Dependant upon strike rate as always i would say that anything under 25% long term strike rate does not warrant % staking and anything above 35% is more suitable.

I would take 90% of my capital and stake reasonably aggressively ie 2-3% risk i would then take 10% of my capital and risk 5-10% of that per bet as a way of leveraging your bank.

[Win2Win]

You can go on for years talking about staking, but for beginners if you can't make a profit at Level Stakes then you're not going to make a profit with anything more complicated.

[Street cry]

Yes my post was beasd on the assumption that there is profitability in the process.

[mick56]

I would like to try and kick start this thread,as it is an important aspect of profitable betting.Win2win gives sound advice concerning the use of level stakes,my own staking is always 1pt win level stake only increasing once a year if profits accrued justify.

Over the years as i have been able to do this i have found that for peace of mind i also want to increase the numerical pts of the bank,and now work from capital equal to 100pts,most of which hopefully will not have to be brought into play but is there if needed.

IMO the biggest mistake made by backers with regards to staking is to be under capitalised at the start,and also to have unrealistic profit expectations.If you produce an annual ROI of 10% with limited risk to your starting capital,well you need to talk to an investment expert out side of racing to be made to realise just how good this is,if you also inform him that this is legal tax free capital gains he probably will not belive you.

In my experiance the vast majority of punters bet for fun,and there is nothing wrong with this providing you are prepared to pay for your fun.But if you are serious about turning a profit from horse racing then you must be disciplined with your staking.

Would welcome your views and experiences concerning the above.

[TheOldhamWhisper]

I just spent about 20 mins typing a reply for IE8 to inform me that it had managed to 'recover my tab' after a serious error...pity it didn't recover all the text that I had just typed :(

In a nutshell, I prefer 2% recalculated daily with a max 10% staked (should there be multiple qualifiers to a system). This allows the bank to grow quicker in the 'good times' whilst automatically reducing the stakes to protect the bank during the losing runs. 2% is quite conservative and many members prefer 3%; some recalculate after every race others daily/weekly/monthly.

The key is to be consistent otherwise you might as well just stake random amounts and hope to get lucky!

[mick56]

Hi TOW you mention an important point losing runs,would anyone care to comment about thier personal experiences with this.

What lessons where learnt,any changes made,what effect on confidence.

[mathare]

Mick - if you want to read stuff about staking you should go through my gamblog thread. Throughout the time I have been running that I have made several changes to my staking and usually give reasonable explanations why.

I don't know if any of my full staking review threads are knocking about the archives but they are worth a read too

[mick56]

cheers mat will do,but i am also hoping to get some interesting discussion going here on this important subject.I like reading the views of people who are actually putting thier own money at risk,and the more members who contribute with thier experiences then the greater the chance for all of us to learn.

[mathare]

I've just taken all my backs off percentage staking and moved them to various degrees of level stakes as I found the former wasn't working for me. I was making money in most cases but not as much as I should have been. I was losing the bigger bets and winning the smaller ones. This was only obvious to me when I was comparing points profit with pounds profit.

I was using 3% staking as my default staking plan without really thinking about whether it would suit the system or not. Now I will default to level stakes when I introduce a new system and review it after 100-200 bets

[mick56]

Hi matt that sounds like a wise decision,when dealing with an unknown risk level stakes maintains interest and helps negate the chance of initial profits being eradicated by a losing run which then may cause loss of interest or confidence in what long term could be a profitable system.

I always find it interesting to observe the way diffrent aspects of racing become almost fashionable and then gradually fade away,this is often induced by the racing press,and staking fits this category.

The only problem i have with this is that invariably the authors of these trend setting articles are often not putting thier own cash at risk.Level stake betting appears at present to be enjoying a bit of a puff.I am always open to reasoned persuasion that another way is better and over the years have investigated many from simple % increases to more complex like kelly staking.but for myself i always so far conclude that level stakes are best.

[mick56]

Hi matt just been reading your most recent post on your gamblog,when tipping services recommend different size stakes i find it puzzling.It may be considered a simplistic view but i would ask if your normal recc stake is 1pt when you recc a 2pt bet are you saying the horse/team has twice the chance of winning as the 1pt ones in terms of risk i think this is unlikely,but even if it is proven to be true should you not then swerve the 1pt bets and concentrate your capital on the 2pt ones ?.

[mathare]

if your normal recc stake is 1pt when you recc a 2pt bet are you saying the horse/team has twice the chance of winning as the 1pt ones in terms of risk

I think that's a little simplistic actually Mick. The chance of the two tips winning may be identical but the price on the 2pt tip may be that much better that you want to take a much greater advantage of the (perceived) pricing error. If you had a horse that you knew had a 25% chance of winning and I offered you 5/1 you'd take it right? What about if I offered 10/1? You'd definitely take that, but to the same stake as the 5/1?

i think this is unlikely,but even if it is proven to be true should you not then swerve the 1pt bets and concentrate your capital on the 2pt ones ?.

Why swerve the 1pt bets if they are profitable? Maybe the 1pt bets are the bread and butter of the service and the 2pt bets are the occasional big punts when the prices are way out of line. With fewer bets you have a spikier return whereas backing all selections you are more likely to have a smoother profit chart.

Variable points staking is supposed to reflect confidence in the tip or reflect the perceived pricing advantage. I only really trust staking such as this though when I know where it comes from. For example, I am trialling a horse racing service that uses variable stakes. The selections themselves are from a system but the tipster sets the stakes. That doesn't sit comfortably with me as the tipster's mood may affect the staking whereas that couldn't be the case with a system. I use a 1pt/2pt staking plan on one of my football systems on this forum but the stakes are part of the system rules. If condition A is met then the stake is 1pt. If condition B is met then use 2pts. How I feel about the bet doesn't enter into it and I much prefer it that way.

[mick56]

HI matt some interesting debate this morning,yes it is a simplistic view but does carry some logic,the example you give of wanting to deploy a larger stake,because of a perceived higher value price is a good one,but from what i have seen most tipping firms recommend higher stakes on thier lower priced selections.

It could be argued that there is value at the front end of the market,and that theoretically the shorter the price then the greater the chance,but as we all no to our cost theory and practise in horse racing can be miles apart.

I guess my original argument is based on my mind set concerning the importance of ROI.

[plater]

when tipping services recommend different size stakes i find it puzzling.

IT could be that the services have systems / methods which throw up the said bet in more than one Method / System, if it is in three then it would be a three point bet, you will see this on the W2W Forum regularly.

[mick56]

Hi plater your above introduces another interesting angle,for myself if one system indicated a horse and the same horse was indicated via two other systems i would be inclined to view the second two as just supporting the view from the first.but not as a reason to triple my stake.

Although i do understand the reasoning if people are following different systems with individual staking.But even under those circumstances i would still be concerned,unless i had long term records which proved the profitability of the above situation.

[mathare]

Hi plater your above introduces another interesting angle,for myself if one system indicated a horse and the same horse was indicated via two other systems i would be inclined to view the second two as just supporting the view from the first.but not as a reason to triple my stake.

If Pegasus appeared on System A, System B and System C I would back it to a three point stake. Or rather I would back it to the sum of 1pt stakes from those three systems as individual system stakes may differ. The view I take is that if I didn't do Systems B and C then I would still back Pegasus on System A. The same argument applies to the other individual systems. Each system is wholly independent, they just happened to have picked the same horse.

Although i do understand the reasoning if people are following different systems with individual staking.But even under those circumstances i would still be concerned,unless i had long term records which proved the profitability of the above situation.

If each of the individual systems are profitable long-term then they should all profit from this selection (long-term, rather than this particular instance). If System A makes a long-term profit then you should back the selection to the required stake. Ditto System B and System C. So if all systems that pick the same horse are profitable you should back it in every system and thus effectively have one multi-point bet.

[gobro]

I am happy enough with my 1pt win level stakes,but am always willing to keep an open mind.

What are members views on this subject,i would like to read not so much about the theory of a complex staking plan or back fitting to fit results,but rather your practical experiences when putting your own cash at risk.

Daily £10 stake is the best for me .. ..
ONE SELECTION
£10 Win

TWO SELECTIONS
£4 Win each and £2 Win doble....TOTAL £10

THREE SELECTIONS
£3 Win each and 50p. EW TREBLE...TOTAL £10

etc., etc.