If you are going to have any serious success as a horse racing punter you need a proven staking plan to believe in and to stick to at all times. Level staking is not it.
Level stakes does not reward the punter well enough for backing shorter priced winners, instead your results are basically made or broken by what the longer priced horses do. This leads to substantial fluctuations in your betting bank, especially when compared to a proportionate approach where you outlay more on the likely winners and less on the likely losers.
Level stakes punters also become victims of an ongoing market miscalculation that we have written about many times. The favourite/longshot bias has been proven over many years and across many markets and in simple terms it means that outsiders should be at a bigger price than they actually are, and favourites should be shorter. So flat betting all of your selections short-changes you in that way as well.
While level staking is for losers, an even more dangerous approach is progressive staking. This is where you increase the size of your bets after a loss or series of losses. Unless you have a literally unlimited betting bank, this method is guaranteed to end in tears, the only doubt is how long it will take before you’re wiped out. Progressive plans are far too aggressive and are fundamentally flawed because probability has no memory. One independent event (for example the result of your bet at Flemington race 7) is not influenced by another independent event (whether you won or lost Warwick Farm race 6) so why would you arrange your staking as if they were? It’s a road to ruin and a fast one at that.
Many progressive staking promoters will show you the 20 examples of their method magically recouping previous losses. What they won’t show you is on the 21st occasion when it blows up your entire bank and then some.
The flip side to this is a regressive staking plan where (supposedly) in order to protect your bank you reduce your bet size after a loss. The problem of course is that it means you are guaranteed to have your biggest bet on losers and smallest bet on the winners.
If I ever meet a professional punter who bets level stakes, or uses progressive or regressive plans I will let you know. It hasn’t happened yet.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
your advice on level stakes betting has one major flaw you are assuming the market has made a correct assessment of the winning chance if I asses the Even money chance 4/1 or a 20% chance and the 10/1 as 4/1 chance as well level staking is a great bet.
How is that a flaw? Our own approach uses a proportionate (aka target) betting approach so the greater the overlay, the bigger the return.
I stand by everything I said regarding level stakes.
What about % staking for lay betting. Do you recommend laying selected lays to 5% of your bank.i.e. if your punting bank is $10000 would you lay horses that are say $3.00, $5.00 & $7.00 all for a liability of $500.
Hi Allan
Our lays have a very good strike rate so we actually lay to win 1% of our bank per race.
So at odds of $5 our exposure is 4.2% of our bank (4/1 * 1.05).
But we don’t lay at odds of $10+
Cheers
Dave
HI DAVID-
i believe some of the Hong Kong syndicates bet 3/4 kelly to guard against losing runs.i myself have started this approach but also bet maybe 4% of my bank if it is on my price assessment (sometimes great overlay)on what appear to be good things.
I have read ‘the maxims of Pittsburgh Phil’ and believe strongly in his view that you have to learn when to put a good bet down(sure winner).He also says ‘know the value of your horse’.I remember when Ed worked for you he said there was no such thing as a good thing.I think many of the great professionals of the era’s gone by would strongly disagree with Ed.
i also notice there is not much of a difference ‘profability wise regarding your tips and ratings.
It seems you could save a lot of time and just bet the tips!Also,could you tell me your profit on turnover with the ratings…currently averaging $1300 p/month on a $100 unit.
cheers alan