OZmium Sports Betting and Horse Racing Forums - View Single Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michal

Totally correct. Your example is very valid. I would say that from experience a true long-shot systems can have 80 outs without raising a sweat. That's just mathematics, based on the given strike rate and sufficient sample size, although maths is not a very popular topic.

Another option would be to bet proportional to the odds on offer to take out say 4% of the bank. So a bet on a $20 selection might be just a few $ whereas a fave would attract a much bigger bet.

Regardless, using a percentage of the bank (what ever that method/percentage is) ensures that bets grow / shrink with the status of the bank in a very-easy-to-adjust-to increments.

Hi All,

To echo the comments of what both Michal, Neil and others have said I have posted part of a recent email that I wrote in response to a staking question. I have deleted the names and some other detail in order to protect the privacy of the individual.

If your bank is say $5,000 and you are betting to collect 5% of your bank then the collect objective is $250. Therefore the correct bet size assuming that your rating is correct @ $1.80 is $250 / $1.80 = $139. If the rating/market price was $4 then your bet would be $63. If your betting $313 on these types of bets then you will go broke.

There is nothing wrong with reducing your bet targets as your bank falls. The first priority is to stay in the game and to do that you must maintain your funds and secondly and most importantly your confidence. The races will continue indefinitely so there is plenty of time to make profit, but going broke generally permanent.

I do not advocate betting level stakes even if it means so called more profit at the end of sample testing. Betting proportionally will invariably deliver similar profits (and usually more long term) with far less bankroll risk as the drawdowns are far less severe.