Retirement staking plan

[ALA]

En köpsite testade Retirement mot en tipstjänst samtliga spel under 5år (1223).
Resultatet blev att ROI ökade samtidigt som de totala insatserna hölls på samma nivå. Metoden var den enda bland olika betsystem som totalt sett gav bättre resultatet än flatbetting och kelly.

Överbevisa mig gärna om att detta inte fungerar. Jag har inte tillräckliga matematiska kunskaper för att hitta specifika situationer där detta inte fungerar på sikt.

Någon på Sharps som kan tänka sig att analysera?



Using the right staking plan can increase profits safely. Going forward one can never say for certain that the Retirement Staking Plan will produce the same results. However, we have looked at the all the available data. We have analysed it best we can. We have managed our risk to keep any chance of bankruptcy low. We can make an educated guess that results going forward will be similar to what has happened historically.

The important thing to remember and ask yourself with any staking plan is this - Can my staking plan handle the ELS - Expected Losing Run (which is 17 in this data) ? And then another losing run of 17 ? Just make sure that at no point do you let your emotions choose your stake. By doing your research and managing your risk at an early stage you can cut out emotion and make long term profits.

Moving on to ELS - Expected Losing Sequence. The maths behind the formula to calculate this is beyond the scope of this article. It is also beyond me to explain it. However, for those with Microsoft Excel you can use this formula.

=LN(n)/-LN((1-(sr/100)))

where n = number of bets and sr = strike rate as a percentage.

The next thing to note is the Required Strike Rate. This is based on the average winning odds. For odds of 3.00 your strike rate must be at least 33.3% to break even. The selection systems strike rate of 39.02% passes this test.

Edge = ((Average Winning Odds*1-1)*(Strikerate/100))-(1*(1-(Strikerate/100)))

Simplified Edge =( Average Winning Odds - 1 * Strike rate) - (1 - Strike rate)

Historik bakom Retirement staking plan

The Retirement Staking Plan was devised by Grandstand's racing analyst Barry Hughes, and is rated by some professional punters and people who know racing, to be one of, if not the best staking plan they have seen.
Barry did not invent this plan by accident, it took know how and hundreds of hours of calculations to get it right.
His aim was to formulate a staking plan that could recoup all losses, and to show profits, even when a plan only breaks even. In other words, over a period of time you might have had 80 bets for 25 winners, you didn't lose, but you didn't win either. He also wanted a staking plan that could withstand long runs of outs and still achieve profits.
He did over a period of time, come up with a staking plan that did these things, but when he applied it to past results on several systems, it worked fine on some, but others, not so good.
He finally came to the conclusion that most staking plans never took into account the average price of the winners. They may work on one that has an average price winner of 5-2, and completely fail on a system with the average price winner of 5-1. The reason being, a system that does average 5-1 winners, will at some stage be more likely to go through a longer run of outs than the one that averages 5-2 winners.
The only thing he had to do now was, to work out a staking plan, with a formula that would suit all plans with different average price winners.
He finally came up with a staking plan that has a divisor, and a target, where your first bet is only 1% of your bank And as you will see he has set this staking plan up in such a way it will suit any system that shows only small profits, and can also show more than 15% at break even. It wouldn't matter if your plan averages 5-2 or 8-1 winners, or anywhere in between. You will know once you have worked out the average price winner of whatever plan you are using, how to set up and use The Retirement Staking Plan.
First. To work out the average price of the winners, ( and you should only do this after you have had more than 20 winners), you total the return of the winners, E.g. 20 winners and the total return was $100 on the TAB. Then you divide 20 into 100 = 5, so your average price winner is 4-1 as the tote return includes your dollar invested. This first step is the most important in setting up the Retirement Staking Plan, it determines your divisor, and when to bring in your safety device.
The best way to show you how to set the plan up is in the following table. First we have a divisor, which is double the average price winner of the plan you are using, say your average price winner is 3-1, your divisor would be six. We also have a tar get. Set up like this:-

First up we know the divisor will be six, double the average price winner of 3-1, your first bet is 1% of your bank, doesn't sound much, but just to show how this plan can produce over a period of time, we have started with a large bank. Now to arrive at your target, multiply your divisor by your first bet, 6 x 100 = 600. So your divisor is six, target 600, first bet 100, which is 1% of your bank, all losses are added to your target, and if you go six without a winner, then start to increase your divis or by one after each losing bet. Following is what to do when you have a run of outs.

As you can see, losses were added to the target, and when we went six without a winner, we increased the divisor, if you do not, bets get out of hand and jeopardize the most important thing, the bank.
Look at the bank after six losers 9092, it could still withstand another 42 without a winner, and that is not because we started with a 10,000 bank, if you started with a 1,000 bank it would be the same, as your first bet would have been 1% = $10. By doing this, the staking plan can withstand 48 without a winner.
Now, after the 4-1, you reduced the target from 2583 to 1723, you then look back to where your target was close to this amount and you go back to where your divisor was on 8, so your next bet is 8 target 1723.
After the 6-1 winner you reduced the target from 2153 to 863, go back to the third bet when your divisor was six, you know then if this and the next three lose, you start to increase your divisor again.
Now each time the bank increases by 200, increase the target by 10, this is another safety device Barry built in to The Retirement Staking Plan. If you add 10 to your target, you only increase a bet by $1, which is only .05% of the bank increase, doesn 't sound much, but over a long period of time, and as the bets increase, you are safeguarding the bank.
When looking at the results, you will see we outlayed 2988 for a profit of 172 or 6% on turnover. What happened to the 15% or more at break even?. The reason for this is ten out of the sixteen bet's were at level stakes of 215. We will show how this ca n change when your divisor remains on six.
Now look what happens if the winners fall in a different order.

With the winner at 6-1, we increased the target to 630, and after the 3-1 winner the profit was 819 with the outlay of 2331 which represents 35% profit on turnover, outstanding results, as the plan showed no profit at level stakes,16 bets 3 winners ret urn 16.
Now the thing to remember is, work out the average price winner then double it, that becomes your divisor. E.g. 5-2 = 5, 3-1 = 6,7-2 = 7, 4-1 = 8, 9-2 = 9, 5-1 = 10. Also the divisor tells you how many losing bets to go before you increase your divisor . Start with 1% of a bank you can afford, and you have a staking plan that will show 15% at break even, and sometimes more. It will also, over a period of time as the bets increase, withstand more than 48 without a winner.
You should now be able to understand why Barry put so much work into The Retirement Staking Plan. We have quite a few clients that have not looked back since putting this Staking Plan to good use. Others have sold so called infallible staking plans for hundreds of dollars, most fail, as they will not withstand the losing runs. Barry thinks everyone should be using The Retirement Staking Plan which is offered free of charge.

[sox]

Utan att gå in på om detta eller nåt annat system funkar i längden så tycker jag det svåra med diverse staking plans är att få dem gå ihop med antalet matcher man bettar på. Ofta är det en serie med olika stora bets på varje match beroende på tidigare utfall, ser ut att vara likadant här. Bettar man flera samtidiga matcher så blir man tvungen att dribbla med flera samtidiga serier och jag är fundersam över hur bra det funkar i praktiken. Urvalet av matcher kan lätt bli färgad av betsize. Här verkar det dock inte vara så brant skillnad i storlek om jag förstått rätt.

Har själv kikat på en del olika system, bland annat Stoffo's 2-6 som i backtesting gick 10-20% bättre än flat staking, trots att en serie gick 0-6 för en förlust på 33u. Det är ändå mentalt lite jobbigt när det är dags för det sista 12u bettet i en serie för att gå nån unit plus totalt på serien, Man vill gärna hitta ett lite "säkrare" bet än ett 1u/2u bet i början av en serie, trots att man normalt tycker att man har hittat värde och har tänkt spela, i 2-6 är unitsizen 1,2,4,6,8,12 så man går typ 2.5u plus om om vinner två raka, då är 12 u rätt mycket, även om det inte är i varje serie som det ska gå så långt.

[ALA]

Jag håller med dig i stort.

Det är svårt att hitta någon mirakelmedicin som fungerar jämt utan man får helt enkelt jämka och försöka hitta den balans som fungerar bäst för stunden. Det jag är ute efter är att det finns insatsplaner som man kan ha som alternativ till flat betting. Sen gäller det ju också att ta hänsyn den tid man vill lägga ner och hur djärv man kan vara utan att det känns obehagligt.

Som jag skrev tidigare så vore det jäkligt intressant om någon gjorde sitt bästa för att matematiskt försöka hitta brister i insatsplanen förutom de skäl som du skriver om ovan