Staking
plan percentages in horse racing and gambling
Of
all the e-mails we get every week, about a half of them
concern staking plans and questions about levels of
staking in relation to someone's starting bank. I don't
mind this at all because staking is probably the second
most important aspect of trying to come out in front
long term in this crazy pastime of gambling. Selection
is a narrow number two and staking would be number three
but only by a short chalk.
Number
1? Discipline of course but we're not going there! In
fact when I think about it, all three facets are very
close together in level of importance - rather like
a three legged stool. Very stable in most cases but
absolutely hopeless with one of the three legs broken.
Now
before the anti gambling Senator Nick Xenathons of this
world start trying to ram their puritanical rubbish
down my throat, listen up. I am not here to demand that
people gamble. Unlike the boring Xenathons of this world,
I actually enjoy a few things and I am not here to expect
other people to live up (or down!) to my standards.
I didn't agree with most things Paul Keating said but
I thought his description of the Senate as "unrepresentative
swill" was pretty close to the mark. Anyway I digress.
So what's new?
I
enjoy getting questions and thought starters about staking
because it means the writer isn't sitting there like
a "TAB Zombie Contributor", or TZC for short,
mindlessly handing over dollar after dollar hoping for
a return non-commensurate with any mental effort involved.
Don't be a TZC! If maths isn't your long suit, make
it so. What we try to do isn't that hard. Understand
the long term percentages of what you're trying to conquer.
TZCs
sit there day after day throwing varying amounts with
no mathematical rationale on a variety of horses of
differing abilities and prices and wonder why they always
lose in the long term.
If
you're going to use a staking plan - and you're mad
if you don't - what's the correct level in relation
to your starting bank? For mine, you have to know what
your average strike rate is in a decent size sample
BEFORE you start. A decent size sample isn't 15 races
by the way. If you're not sampling at least 100 gambling
"events", you're nowhere in the mathematical
stakes and your naturally occurring plus or minus percentage
of error can be staggeringly large.
My
belief, and this is only my thoughts on it - not the
thoughts of the greatest expert on earth - is that the
ideal starting point is 20% of your strike rate. In
other words, IF your average strike rate per 400 bets
is 25%, divide that by five (20%) and your starting
point should be 5% of your starting bank. $5 per $100
starting bank.
So
let's think about this. If your strike rate is only
10% (you would need to be dabbling with very long priced
winners to break square at level stakes) you starting
stake should be 2% of your bank (which will of course
allow for extraordinarily long runs of outs) or $2 per
$100 starting bank.
Similarly,
if you have a red hot system you're using with a winning
strike rate per 400 bets of 50%, you'd confidently start
with a bet of 10% of your starting bank or $10 per $100.
Now
what you do with this staking level once you start rolling
brings up another interesting point to consider.
Do
you stick at that starting level forever or do you vary
it in accordance with an increasing or decreasing bank.
If, for example, you have a method that returns 25%
strike rate over 400 bets, you start at 5% - or $5 if
your bank is $100. What happens when your bank rises
to $300. If you are still betting in $5 amounts, your
bet percentage of bank has reduced to one sixtieth or
1.6% of your bank which for boring repetitive people
like me is great as the risk mentality is significantly
reduced.
At
this level I'd probably be tempted to double the bet
once the bank has tripled. In that way I'd confidently
only be betting 3.3% of my bank knowing I could be betting
5% and believing that the win strike rate will remain
at 25%. Getting it? You may need more excitement in
your gambling to make the time investment more worthwhile.
That's for you to decide. Remember freedom of choice?
Oh no - don't go there again......
What
happens if you start out with your researched idea and
hit a first up losing streak? Do you immediately reduce
your staking level to match your decreasing bank? In
my (never humble) opinion - no. I don't think you should
ever drop down under your starting bet on any method
you've decided to go for.
So
you've started bad. So you could lose your bank? Yep.
It's why it's called gambling. There is no return without
risk in any venture - gambling or otherwise. To think
otherwise is just being dumb. And you're obviously not
that or why would you have bothered reading down to
here?
All
of the above, of course, assumes your average win dividend
return is greater than $4.00 (25 wins per 100 bets =
100 units return).
Enjoy.......
©
RaceRate.com 2011
