Racing and Sports now moderates the Talkback forum to ensure posting guidelines are adhered to.
The views expressed on Talkback are those of the writer and not necessarily those of Racing and Sports. You must be a registered user to write postings or send messages to other users. Click here to register.
Author: dark horse Timestamp:- 2/5/2003 2:37:18 PM Subject: STAKING METHODS
Message: Im looking at different staking methods to use when one is punting with a bank.
I found this article/opinion.
"CORRECT STAKING METHODS Level Stakes
The easiest staking plan to understand is simply betting level stakes. In other words, each Top Rated selection is backed for the same amount regardless of the rated price and regardless of the price on offer.
Percentage (%) Staking
Slightly more complicated, but very effective is the percentage staking plan. With this plan we bet a set percentage of our Bank and as the bank increases with winnings we can increase our bet size gradually. This is the ideal way to bet if we have only a small Bank to start with. For example.
Bank Size 21/2% 5% 10%
$400 $10 $20 $40 Assuming a win of 2 units in the first week it is then $420 $10.50 (440) $22 (480) $48 You can see how with a few small wins a Bank can build up. At some stage you may wish to pay yourself a dividend. This is always a good thing to do as it proves to yourself and others that you can actually win money at the races and that’s a good feeling.
If you are very good and can achieve an increase in your bank of just 20% each month your bet size will increase to over $70 and your Bank to just under $3,000.
Now that’s not bad for just one year. In practice it won’t be that simple of course. Some months you will win and some months you will lose. You may go for two or three months at a time and find your Bank goes up and down like a Yo-Yo. You must however, once having started, stick to your plan.
Betting To Prices
This is the favoured style of betting of the professional punter. You make your bets according to your rated prices. If your ratings is 2/1 then you bet 33 units to make 100 units return (99 actually but who’s counting?). If your rating is 6/4 the bet would be 40 units to return 100 overall. Of course if the price of your selections is above your rated odds (an overlay selection) you will get more, sometimes much more, than 100 units and if your selections is available only at lesser odds than your rating (an underlay) you will receive less than 100 units.
To operate this style of betting you will need sufficient bank to bet on at least twenty races. If your largest possible bet is 53 units (rating of 9/10) then your Bank will be 1060 units and I would also have on hand a reserve Bank of the same amount.
Level Profit
The disadvantage with Betting to Prices is that you are very much dependent on the prices you achieve for your profit. Whilst I could be accused of stating the obvious, these are the facts that you have to consider. If you have a series of average prices winners your profit will be confined to minimal amounts. any major advances to your Bank will depend on the occasional upset win
When we bet level profit, we are aiming to make the same amount of profit for every winner. To do this we must place our bets according to the price that is available. The reality of the situation is that whilst we are often right in our rated assessments we are sometimes so far out that it’s not funny. Picture the situation when you have rated 5 horses in a race and not one of these horses is even close. In spite of all our best efforts it will happen, fortunately only sometimes.
The benefit of level profit betting is that you will win the same amount of money from every winner but the amount of you bet will vary according to the price. Let’s say you have rated your selection at 2/1 and the price at the track is 100/1. You would imagine that something is wrong. It may not be, but clearly you will have two problems. One is to overcome the fact that 100/1 winners are extremely rare. I personally have backed only a handful in a lifetime. The second problem, and this depends on the size of your bet, is getting someone to take your money.
Most Bookmakers will bet the odds to $2,000. With a 100/1 shot you will therefore be confined to a $20 bet. If you want to bet say $300 or $400 you will find that your horse will drop to 33/1 or less just with the odd bet placed around the ring. If you bet with the tote, you will also be affecting you own price, although perhaps not as much. The effect is less obvious once we get down to the under 10/1 bracket, but betting just $500 on a 9/2 shot proved difficult to place in the interstate ring at Canterbury in late 1991. Hopefully this was an aberration, but it highlights the point. There are some critics of level profit betting, but it opens up a number of options for us including the common method known as dutching.
Firstly. Let’s look at a single horse backed to win $100. We simply divide the 100 by the price available e.g. if the horse is 4/1 100/4 = 25. The bet is 25 units and if it wins we get 125 back i.e. 100 units profit plus our stake. To perform the same exercise with more than one horse is a little more difficult but basically goes like this.
Let’s look at 3 horses A is 3/1 B is 4/1 and C is 5/1. The correct stake to produce an even profit should either of the three win is simply 100 divide by the odds plus 1. So..
A is 100/3 +1 = 100/4 = 25 B is 100/4 + 1 = 100 /5 = 20 C is 100/5 + 1 = 100/6 = 17
Our profit will be 100 less the total stake which is 62 units or a profit of 38 units. To make an even 100 units we simply divide 100/38 = 2.6 and multiply this by the original stake for each horse to get our new outlay. In this case, A is now 25 x 2.6 = 65 B = 20 x 2.6 = 52 and so on.
In this case we have outlaid 62 units to return a profit of 38 units. It doesn’t matter what the actual return. The outlay is always going to be 62% for a return of 38% and we really have to think about the wisdom of doing this. In other words we must be really sure that one of our selections will win. To succeed we will have to be right at least two out of every three times.
As an exercise I have set up two separate reports and compared level profit betting to the better known Betting to Prices. The periods are Sept 89 and Sept 91. Every horse was Top Rated at 9/10 and an overlay price obtained. The first series shows 4 winners out of 13 (31%) and the second 6 our of 12 (50%) or overall 40%.
Toss The Caber 20/1 5 53 Pearl Dragon 7/4 57 157 53 146 Essential Point 10/9 91 191 53 111 Lavanti 3/1 33 53 Tony Flash 15/1 7 53 Poet Laureate 5/1 20 53 Cloud Chief 9/4 45 53 Crown Gift 9/2 22 53 Star Vamp 9/10 111 211 53 101 Tearaway Lad 11/4 36 53 Space Effort 100/1 1 53 Shoo Fly Pie 3/1 33 133 53 212 Cabbies Gold 20/1 5 53
Totals 466 692 689 570
Combined 927 1564 1325 1719 In percentage terms +69% +39%
At first glance a page of figures is pretty boring, but it is interesting to note that even though the two sets of figures are two years apart, the consistency is there. It isn’t stated but the majority of the horses that missed winning, still managed to make the place.
Here are the ratings for 28/3/92, the last racing day before this book went to the printers. HORSE PRICE LP RTN BTP RTN Ali Boy 9/2 22 122 33 181 Atlantic Bve. 11/4 36 136 53 198 Don’t Look N. 13/8 61 53 Dark Chief 2/1 50 150 53 159 Dr Grace 7/1 14 36 Riga Raffle 33/1 3 33
Totals 186 408 261 538 In percentage terms +119% +106%
Three winners from 6 bets is good betting in anyone’s language. You will note that the average level profit bet is less than the average overlay bet. This is because we are only betting our Top Rated selections when we have rated them at 2/1 or less. The minimum bet, if we are betting to prices is $33. The minimum bet with a level profit method is going to be as low as $1 (for a 100/1 shot).
I believe, that in the long run, there will be no difference between the two methods. If you bet overlays and find that there is a period where all the winners are at fairly average prices you will wish that you were betting level profit. When a 20/1 shot wins you will wish that you were betting to prices. What you must do is make a decision as to which method suits your style and bank to start with. If you have a large Bank the Betting To Prices method will be quite O.K. because you can stand a losing or average period until the Big Winner comes along. At the end of the year you will be ahead.
If you are starting small and relying on building a Bank, then the level profit method is more likely to increase steadily, allowing maximum growth. The warning I always make is that you must keep a reserve Bank in case you encounter an unusually long run of outs, so that you can start again.
Progressive Staking Plans
I will only touch briefly on these. My own staking plan Countdown To Profits is a very good plan with a minimal risk factor. The profits will be very slow in coming but you will never be in any sort of trouble. Thr Turf Monthly publication Winways has a number of less conservative plans that would suit the high strike rate you can achieve by rating your selections according to the factors I have given you. These plans are not for the serious punter who attends the track and bets in substantial sums. They are ideal, however, for the TAB punter who is going to be less aware of the prices available until after the race. They also suit the punter who just wishes to work out some standout selections and follow them up on a week by week basis and those who are simply betting level stakes (they don’t wish to differentiate between rated prices).
The last remaining discussion on Staking is Each Way and Place Betting.
Place Betting
It is difficult to see how you can profit by betting for place only. I do know that this method works, as a client of mine used it regularly on the Winform selections. His first bet for the day was $50. This bet was raised by $50 for each losing bet until a placed horse was encountered. Once a placing occurred the next bet was $50 less until the bet size reduced to the original $50. My client rarely had a losing day.
The real problem with place betting is that the TAB’s have introduced the practice of rounding down some years ago, which means that the dividends received now can be up to 7% less than you are entitled to. The other problem, which was really created by this first one, is that place betting pools are declining as one by one, people are waking up to the rip off that has been occurring and swearing off place betting.
Each Way Betting
Now this is my favourite topic so watch out! The profit you end up with by betting each way is going to be less than the profit you receive by betting straight out. If that is true, and it is, then why would I recommend Each Way betting?
The simple fact is that the average person will react badly to backing loser after loser, week after week, and perhaps, month after month. If your strike rate is say 33% you could find yourself confronted with a losing streak of up to 20 or 30 bets in a row! On the other hand with a place strike of 60% you are unlikely to encounter a longer run of outs than 8 or 9.
He who bets and goes each way, lives to bet another day.
When betting each way with bookmakers (for the same reason I don’t advocate place betting an each way bet with the TAB is madness) you are guaranteed a fair price on the place part of your bet. In fields of 5 to 8 runners you are guaranteed 1/3 rd the odds for the place and for fields of 8 or more you are guaranteed 1/4 the odds.
Naturally, the larger the field size, the less value such a bet has. As an exercise you should compare the real place dividend you receive with bookmakers against the actual place dividend paid by the TAB. You will, more often than not receive less than $1.50 for a placed horse at 2/1. You will more often than not receive less than $2.50 for a placed horse at 8/1 yet the guaranteed bookmaker dividend is $3.00
If you are operating at a racecourse or if you have an agreed deal with an on course bookmaker such as Mark Read (it is legal these days to phone your bookmaker and ask him to place your bets for you at the track) then there are great advantages in betting each way.
The biggest advantage is a psychological one. If I attend the races with $1,000 in my pocket (and that is not uncommon for a lot of people these days), and back nothing but losers, the fact that nearly every horse was placed is little consolation.
If, on the other hand, I go home with the major part of my back intact, then I can always come back next week and try again. My confidence in my assessments is not dented. I have not watched a 33/1 chance go down in the last stride and realised that I have come away with absolutely nothing for my efforts. Given a choice I prefer to bet each way."
NOW - i like the set percentage plan, seems to offer a good opportunity for growth of the bank.
What are others thoughts/opinions and what staking methods are there that are not covered here??
Message: toss pot, i haven't told any lies or plagiarised anything - it is u doing the lying buddy. pretty sad for a 60yo bloke to carry on like a 5yo who has had his milk spilt.
Author: Gary Still Timestamp:- 7/5/2003 9:15:40 PM Subject: Re: STAKING METHODS
Message: Speedy - non bettor? - have you gone completely stupid? Not only are you a plagiarist, but a fabricator as well? $ I'm trying to work out what would possess you to insult people, plagiarise them and then blatantly and maliciously tell lies. $ Non-bettor? - what on earth are you on about? Because I don't bet outside Adelaide?
There is a 100% chance of me getting the scotch no matter what the price (at or below $50).
Punters who rate a horse as favourite (say 4/1) then find it to be 50/1 are nearly always wrong with their selection. They've missed something or over-rated a previous race or whatever. I don't pick many 50/1's and neither does anyone else.
I didn't suggest to not bet at all, just go e/w instead of win betting. Hardly controversial to back a 50/1 shot e/w!
Author: Gary Still Timestamp:- 7/5/2003 12:37:18 PM Subject: Re: STAKING METHODS
Message: Darkie, The 100% market is necessary, to simplify the comparision. $ Your place bet is entirely independent of your win bets, quinella bets, trifectas etc. $ The place bet does not have to match the win bet. You may put $100 win and $50 place OR $100 win and $200 place (if the bookie permits - as in Adelaide). $ If a horse has a a raw statistic of 1 win 8 placings from 10 starts. At 4/1 he may be no value for the win, but at EVENS for the place, he would be excellent value. This is of course a simplification of reality.
Message: How often is the market at exactly 100% though Garry? I dont like E/W betting unless the return on the place is greater than about $4.00, then at least i get my money back and some profit.
Message: I dont believe any one staking plan will suit every punters style, alot of research needs to go into what style is right for you, what i mean by this is you need to start an excel spread sheet and record every bet and do a 3 month test to see where most of your wins come from % wise that is, eg; under 4/1, 4/1 to 8/1, 8/1 to 12/1, 12/1 to 20/1 and 20/1 and over.
last 100 winners from 482 bets here is where they came from
under 4/1: 9 4/1 to 8/1: 23 8/1 to 12/1: 42 12/1 to 20/1: 18 20/1 and over: 8
It is quite clear that between 8/1 and 12/1 is my best range so that is where my stake peaks
from the last 3 years of records it is much the same only varying a few % here and there, now i do ratings and i used to adjust my stake depending on the market i framed but after looking into this and going back 3 years of records i have changed my ways. I am not going to go into a staking plan because if you simply do this excercise for 3 months you will work one out that suits your punting patterns, not mine.
One comment for Mr Small You say you definitely wouldnt double up on something it was 50/1 or hugely over the odds you expected, if you went to a shop and wanted to but your favourite scotch and you expected it to be around $50 and you get there and it was $4 would you think bargain and buy 10 bottles or are you happy and content with the one bottle, it doesnt make sense.
if there is one thing I have learnt and that is you have to back your own judgement, do you honestly give a ******* if the majority of punters win?? do you really care what other peoples opinions are when you are punting?? 8 in 10 punters lose consistently so lets follow hte market and lose with them.
Author: Gary Still Timestamp:- 6/5/2003 7:17:42 PM Subject: Re: STAKING METHODS
Message: Staking has been discussed before and there is much that I can contribute, but I am reluctant to enter concept debates because of a theory thief called Speedy Gonzales, who brags he has learned nothing from me, and excels in making an ass of himself. I will briefly discuss optimal each way betting however, but I will not respond to any comments by SG.
There are eight horses in an open race. The bookie has offered a 100% market and has quoted $8 on each runner.
If you bet $2 on each horse, it means you outlay $16 for the race, and no matter which one wins, you will get a return of $16. That?s fair.
If you bet $1 each way on each horse, it again means you outlay $16. But note the return.
The winner pays $8 for the win and the place is $2.75. The place divvy for 2nd and 3rd is also $2.75. The total return is therefore $8 plus (3 @ $2.75) = $16.25.
The return is in fact greater than the outlay! This demonstrates how superior, place betting is in small fields. You don?t apply this concept only to 8 horse fields, you can apply it to say a 10 horse race where 2 (or more) of the outsiders are absolute no-hopers. Each way with a bookie in Australia is super value in small fields. In the UK the divvy is calculated at 1/5th of the odds instead of ¼.
Is it any surprise that very few bookies want to bet each way in an 8 horse race?
haven't u ever seen a sick dog - when they get sick they look woeful.
i would agree with the betting two horses a race argument rather than eachway.
place divs are often poor value and if u bet eachway and it runs 4th u have lost twice as much.
the risk vs reward situation is better if instead of betting each way u bet on two horses - one may be rough, the other a short priced beast.
two examples - in the emirates last year i backed the fav (excellerator) and an outsider scenic peak (it won). in the oaks i backed the fav again (macedon lady) and bollu borgese (won). both times the outsider won which was all the better.
given that favs only win 26-28% of races, that tells u that the masses are wrong over 70% of the time. so if u know the masses are mostly wrong, why would u worry too much about their opinion?
the safe option is to level stake your bets, so if betting up on outsiders worries u - dont, just level stake your bets.
the worst thing to do is reduce your bets on outsiders. how many times have u backed a longhot but only have a small amount on it? frustrating isn't it?.
if u rate it a winning chance respect your ratings and bet the horse with the same confidence as every other selection.
Author: Gary Still Timestamp:- 6/5/2003 4:19:54 PM Subject: Re: STAKING METHODS
Message: Not changing the subject at all, Tonto. $ It's just one of those cliche's that, upon closer examination, is inappropriate for horse racing. It makes more sense to say "weight will stop an elephant", but there is no semi-rhyme and no exaggeration, to give it the same impact as "train". $ Next time, I'll think twice before making such a quip about a cliche. $ But I cant let this opportunity go by, without asking you WTF "I'm as sick as a dog" means.
Message: Tonto, I hear that the animal rights guys have jumped all over "The Cat in the Hat" as well, apparently bordering on promoting animal cruelty to children, not to mention some of the good doctors works with modifying the pigments in the scales of Fish.
Author: Pedro Timestamp:- 6/5/2003 4:02:44 PM Subject: Re: STAKING METHODS
Message: Weight is interesting as I figure that an average racehorse weighs 450kgs and if the jockey weight goes up by say 5KG the theory is that this increase wil stop a train. Looking as a percentage its an increase in weight jockey/horse of 1.1% - does not seem to be a big factor. Place and each way betting is interesting. I expect that if a horse can place then it can also win. Worked well with both Grand Armee and the nag that beat Northerly in Melbourne. Rather than bet each way, bet on two horses in the same race, the dividends will be higher.
The politicaly correct have put a new spin on the Golden Book classic, empahising that he could, rather than he merely tried. What's next ? Will they change the Dr.Seuss classic into "The genetically modified eggs and manafactured meat" ?
PS: Don't spoil it for Basil as he hasn't read the book and is waiting for the movie to come out....
I think a reasonable amount of respect has to be given to the market. The betting public (punters/bookmakers) are generally good judges of horse races. That is to say, 2/1's win more often than 3/1's and 3/1's win more often than 10/1's etc.
If you rate a horse to win and it's price is 50/1, then you have every reason to feel uncertain. Less than 2% of the betting public agree with you.
I suppose it is then up to your judgement about your ratings methods and your own intuition. I certainly wouldn't double up on a 50/1 shot. I'd rather bet my normal stake for a 4/1 e/w shot (for example) and be thankful for the great odds if it gets up.
My point is that pragmatism is easy in hindsight. You've done well to back a 50/1 pop in the first place.
Good thread. Wish I was in better shape to answer it, but staking has always been my archilles heel.
In my punting I keep strict records of all my bets. At present I don?t bet at all, but between the start of the season and March I bet a lot. My bets were not terribly big, but there was a lot of them?.(gulp) about 800 of them in fact. I managed to turn a respectable profit from this excess of betting, of which I am very proud of. I?ll save you the gory details of how much but over the course of 800 bets I was able to bank a 17.5% profit on turnover. Horray for me.
However, alongside the column that records my actual bets and my actual profit/loss result I keep another column that records what the profit/loss result would have been if I flat staked my selections Win Only. That result is in the order of 49%. I often look at this column and weep.
The reason the actual result is so much lower is that I do not flat stake my bets win only. Sometimes I bet win only, sometimes each way, sometimes for the place. It depends on how confident I am about the horses chances, or in other words, how much risk I am prepared to take. Looking at the two columns you think I would have to be mad not to bet betting a flat stake win only, and you are probably right.
But?(and there is always a but) it is a little more complicated than that. The complication is ?.. Would I be inclined to select the same horses as I have if I knew I could only bet them Win Only ?
The example I use is CALL ME SYD who I tipped and backed to win the Hareeba Stakes at Mornington. As usual I made the selection without consulting a market. I figured he was a genuine each way chance, and I intended on backing him for my regular stake, half each way. When I saw the market before the race I nearly fell out of my chair. Call Me Syd was 50/1 ! I got nervous. I halved my normal stake and went each way instead. The horse won, paying $45.90 and $10.00 on the tote.
Had I flat staked the bet win only I would have won $2245. Had I split my stake each way I would have won $1347. But instead I halved my stake and went each way and won $539. My caution cost me $1706.
So am I an idiot or what ?
The Almighty One gave me a good talking to over this in the chat room. TAO?s argument was that if I made the selection without reference to the market, and believed it would win, then the market price should have encouraged me to INCREASE my usual stake rather than reduce it because the market was offering me a greater profit opportunity. In other words, by my rating Call Me Syd was a huge OVER and I should have taken advantage of that to maximize my profit. After all, why should the market effect my judgment ?
Of course TAO is right, but while I agreed with his logic and his punting savvy, I know myself well enough to know that doubling up on 50/1 chances is likely to send my poor old heart into some sort of seizure. Big profits are no good to dead man.
In other words, if I were to have doubled up on Call Me Syd because he was 50/1 I would have been betting well outside my Comfort Zone . (By the way, Call Me Syd had to survive a protest to win the Hareeba?.I doubt I would be here to tell the tale if I had doubled up on him win only). Comfort Zones are very important to the punter. You should never bet more than you can comfortably afford to lose, and a loss should never disturb your demeanor any more than to mutter ?bugger? and turn the page of the racebook. To bet outside your Comfort Zone is to bet into the Stress Zone. Stressed punters end up making desperate decisions, their judgment gets blurred and they inevitably end up losin...big time. Everyone?s Comfort Zone is different. It is determined by the size of your betting bank and the confidence you have in your judgment.
So in the end, I must be content with my $500 profit on Call Me Syd and punt on, without lingering on what might have been. But every now and then I look at the flat staked Win Only column on my spreadsheet and have a little cry.
Message: In our staking plan we user the power of Multiplication, ie (all ups) W'll Start staking a Flexi tri to win 5% if it gets our next bet is to win 10% then 15% and then we collect and start again.As you win more money you commence with a higher % win on you first bet.Very simple and effective
Your claim is that you have never known weight to stop a train, and I am demonstrating that by the laws of physics....or at least the laws of Golden Books.....it can indeed.
We could speculate forever about how many carriages would have to be stacked on top of a locomotive (as opposed to behind it) before the train would stop. By your logic there is no need for the great Clydesdales to pull the brewery cart or the plough for according to Basil, lifting and pulling are two different things. Perhaps we should employ Shetland ponies for the purpose and give them the Little Train that Tried to read.
In the 1970?s there were two fine harness drivers that I used to follow. The pint sized Brian Gath and the imposing figure of Gordon Rothacker. When the two met in a race behind horses of comparable ability I always backed Gath, simply on the basis that Gath was small and light and Gordon was big and heavy. It worked for me.
This site is maintained by Racing and Sports (®) Pty Ltd (ABN 093 360 108) ("R&S").
Copyright in all R&S materials is owned by Racing and Sports Pty Ltd (R&S).
Racing and Sports is a Registered Trademark.
R&S takes all care in the preparation of information appearing on the site, but accepts no responsibility nor warrants the accuracy of the information displayed.
This information is provided for entertainment purposes only. All information including race fields and TAB numbers should be checked with an official source.
(RAS-WWW02)
(ADS1)
Post a reply to this message.
