Staking Plans for 85-90%SR Laying Systems

[crazybadger]

I have got two potential laying systems (1 for Aus races and 1 for Uk races) and I'd like to get some thoughts on my tested staking plans, and any others I could try out. I've found the odd idea mentioned around the traps but most advice I find is for backing.

UK System
SR ~ 90% (after 100 paper trades)
Average odds ~ 6.70 (rare ones up to around 20 but not often)
No upper limit of odds

Aus System
SR ~ 85% (18 months of data...~600+ selections)
Average odds ~ 7.20 (1.2x each bookie SP I have in my data)
Note: Upper limit of 10.0 for selection (i.e. ignore if over > 10.0)

Systems currently testing:
Stake %...Lay a % of bankroll as the stake (higher return, higher risk)
Stake Flat...Lay flat amount as stakes each race (better to base on bankroll?)
Liability %...Lay a % of bankroll as liability (smaller return, smaller risk)
Liability Flat...Lay flat amount as liability (better to base on bankroll?)
Liability Flat + 1/2 of the Last Profit...idea courtesy of Win2Win website


So two questions:
1) Any suggestions on good % figures to consider in my above staking plans based on the selections details? (Currently testing 1-3%)
2) Any other staking plans for laying that people can tell me so I can simulate and compare the results?

Any thoughts/ideas/opinions will be appreciated. :D

[wb]

For systems with 86-90% SR, I always use 1% of the bank as the backer stake, and if successful - I reduce that % stake as the bank grows.

You can see from this flat turf laying (http://www.letsbet.ie/forum/showthread.php?t=3082) thread that I run, when the bank hit 2K, (starting bank was 1K) I reduced stakes to 0.75% of the bank. If and when the bank hits 3K, the stakes can drop to 0.5%.

It's up to you really, but I'm not very comfortable going above 1% for any lay system.

[mathare]

100 paper trades aren't really enough to give you a great idea of your SR but it's certainly a start.

As for staking I'd try and keep it simple. Like wb I use 1% of the bank as the stake although I do tweak this slightly as I only adjust stakes daily and round down to the nearest 50p. I start with £200 banks and reduce to 0.95% at £500, 0.9% at £1000 and so on. Remember that if you have a lay at 20.0 (as you say you have had on the UK lays system) that's 19% of your bank on the line at 1% staking - very risky.

The Staking Machine (http://www.thestakingmachine.com/affiliate.php?id=22)includes a number of lay staking plans and the web page details what these are if you want to give them a go yourself.

[Mavrick]

Definitely get the staking machine software and have a play. It has a random bet generating function which comes in handy for giving you an idea of the ups and downs.

If I was you and was using a fixed stake and not a fixed liability, then I would almost certainly bring in a max odds limit. Unless the big prices are your bread and butter for the system which by the sound of it they're not, then they're not really contributing much to your profit but, they could ruin your profit. Laying at 20s is a bit mad if you ask me.

[mathare]

I used to use a staking plan that involved fixed stake up to a given odds limit and then fixed liability above that, and also the other way round. That might be worth considering, certainly worth playing with

[wb]

Yep, I should add that my cut-off for laying is 10.0 as prices just get a bit out of my league after that stage.

[crazybadger]

Hey guys thanks for all your responses. Some good stuff in there and has given me some good ideas to continue testing. :thumbs


For systems with 86-90% SR, I always use 1% of the bank as the backer stake, and if successful - I reduce that % stake as the bank grows...
It's up to you really, but I'm not very comfortable going above 1% for any lay system.
1% sounds quite reasonable for laying level stakes. Do you have a reason, other than protecting your bank, for the reduction values/thresholds? Like was it some theory you come up with or just felt like good idea?


As for staking I'd try and keep it simple. Like wb I use 1% of the bank as the stake although I do tweak this slightly as I only adjust stakes daily and round down to the nearest 50p. I start with £200 banks and reduce to 0.95% at £500, 0.9% at £1000 and so on...
Likewise, what was your reasoning for these reduction figures?


The Staking Machine (http://www.thestakingmachine.com/affiliate.php?id=22)includes a number of lay staking plans and the web page details what these are if you want to give them a go yourself.
I did download the demo and got distracted. I've written a similiar thing just to use for my own data but i will have a better look at this too :)



If I was you and was using a fixed stake and not a fixed liability, then I would almost certainly bring in a max odds limit...Laying at 20s is a bit mad if you ask me.

Yep, I should add that my cut-off for laying is 10.0 as prices just get a bit out of my league after that stage.
Totally. The reason I have those figures is that I check the UK races before I go to bed (in Aus) and sometimes the current best Lay price on Betfair ~ 20 but the Best Back ~ 6. So I was using those figures as my worst case scenario while paper trading. Definately would be putting a cap at around 10.


I used to use a staking plan that involved fixed stake up to a given odds limit and then fixed liability above that, and also the other way round. That might be worth considering, certainly worth playing with
Hmmm sounds interesting. I might play with a few numbers with that one.

[wb]

1% sounds quite reasonable for laying level stakes. Do you have a reason, other than protecting your bank, for the reduction values/thresholds? Like was it some theory you come up with or just felt like good idea?

It's mainly to protect the bank. That particular system runs from May to September inclusive, the main bulk of the flat season. It performed very well in May (doubling the bank) and I wanted to be fairly sure I walked away with something at the end, hence the reduction in % stakes. I'm quite risk averse and I'd like to be in a situation where if the bank was say 10K, I'd be using only 0.25% of the bank as the stake. OK, it's not a lot, but the way I look at it is that if my strategy is working, it will build the bank naturally anyway. If it goes t*ts up, it will take a long time for the bank to be depleted (and hopefully I'll have copped on that there is a problem by then!).

Of course, it's always a toss up at the start, as you want to grow the bank as fast as possible, so it depends on your confidence levels.

[crazybadger]

Your thinking sounds alright. Because my systems are newish I don't want to go risking my bank on them willy nilly either. I might look at factoring something like this into mine...or maybe consider withdrawing my initial bankroll. I'm not too fussed on that idea though. I'd rather keep as much money in a system (maybe even add regular amounts) and get it built up until it reaches a limit on the amount you can bet and start withdrawing the extra as 'regular' income.

[mathare]

Likewise, what was your reasoning for these reduction figures?I felt like it, it sort of seemed about right based on experience really.

With a £200 bank I want to get it going (upwards) quite quickly if I can without taking too much risk so I start with 1% and an 11.0 cut-off. The bank still isn't huge when I hit the first reduction trigger (£500) and I am still risking 9.5% at my cut-off but I'm OK with that as I am still trying to build the bank. I am confident I can get decent sums matched on the horses I am interested in without suffering too much on the overlay so I am happy to lay to a reasonable stake and try and get the bank moving. With time I may tweak the reduction triggers but they suit me at present