Staking Plans

Gamla Stan

Gamla Stan

At the Start
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Messages
4,337
I've been betting on horse racing for about 7 years now, admitedly at different levels and my knowledge has vastly improved in that time and it's only in the last 18 months that I am starting to make the game pay and get some reward for the time I spend on it. That said, whilst I'm making money I think I'm not making enough and losing profit by staking badly.

Take the other week, I had three times as much on Distinctly Game in a 5 runner Lingfield handicap as I had on Kirklees in a Nad Al Sheba 16 runner handicap. Now with the benefit of hindsight, Kirklees was twice the bet of Distinctly Game. Does anyone know of a decent staking plan I can try and implement?

I have looked at the Kelly model and whilst it interests me, I think it becomes complicated if you're backing each-way and fancy more than one horse in a race (maybe I'm not selective/disciplined enough). The other issue I have with it is that you need to dedicate a betting bank to it and my problem with this is that if say I start with £100 at the month and Kelly tells me I should have £20 on a 5/1 shot then it wins and I then have £220 which makes my bank bigger so horses I back at the beginning of the month will yield less returns than ones later in the month (presuming I'm winnning).
 
I wouldn't follow Kelly that literally, but the important thing to grasp is the concept of betting according to your appreciation of a horses chances of winning and not the market price. It sounds simple, but you'd be amazed how many people increase their stake (and hence risk) at a shorter price, when they should be increasing it at the bigger price (provided they share a similar degree of confidence in the horses percentage chance of course). It's totally illogical of course (but then so many decisions we make with money are, especially given that we have a human condition to seek group conformity). If horse A is 4/1 and horse B is 8/1 why do so many people load up 66% and 33%. They should either be doing it the other way round, or simply saying 100% on at 8/1. What happens of course is that we allow ourselves to be persuaded that a horses chances of winning have increased because its shorter and more people are backing it. Well if that was the case, then bookies would be out of business!!!

Remember markets are formed by punters taking a position against other punters etc It hasn't got anyhting like as much to do with this media driven gladitorial thing that McCririck would have us believe, of punters versus bookies etc (and in fairness he knows that, it's just that it doesn't make such good television). An understanding of how punters behave and how they drive down the price of certain horses, and for what reason can also be helpful. It's probably a truism that in order to make money you need to find a way of betting against the crowd, or knowing when punters create value in other horses etc through their own behavioural patterns.

Since the advent of exchanges though it has got more difficult as their are cuter minds out there now armed with an ever greater technical resource who are alighting on the stronger horses in a race and backing them early doors etc This has had the effect of giving on course bookies a ready market to open with. The proof lies in the RP's tipping table. For years the ubiquitos 'favourite' used to langusih in the bottom half alongside the top jockey and top trainer. In the last few seasons however, the favourite has been a top 3 fixture.

The other thing that's worth considering, (once you've satisfied yourself you kow the identity of the winner) is taking 10% or 20% of your intended stake and seeing f you can find the runner up in a forecast. God I've lost a fortune over the years through my failure not to do just this.

Think about it logically, a horse punter and a dog punter share the same objective and many of the same disciplines, however, they both bet totally differently. Can they both be right? Why should a horse race with a field of six be significantly different (from a maths point of view of risk and reward etc) than a dog race.

I'm of the opinion that one approach is better than the other, it's just that I've never really worked out which one it is, but if pushed I think the dogs approach might have more merit.

I think it's an area of our activity that is widely under-estimated as we tend to concentrate too much on horse knowledge, rather than betting strategy (there's more than one way to skin a cat). I've always suspected that a professional gambler of a decent reputation, but with an inferior knowledge of racing, would make more money through knowing how to place a bet to minimise risk and maximise return, than a punter with the superior knowledge of the horses form etc

One of the old truisms of course is knowing when not to bet too. You can make money by not losing it!!! (which in my case means avoid Newmarket in mid July)
 
Flat bet, lose, flat bet, lose, flat bet, lose, lump on, win, breathe, flat bet...

Seriously, I know of a good staking plan that would counteract your bank growth concerns (well I wouldn't be too concerned) called the Rising Floor but it's better suited to individual sports bets than racing.
 
regardless of your staking plan if you pick 10 horses a week that are not trying you will lose so Kelly system is flawed.
 
ItalianStallion said:
regardless of your staking plan if you pick 10 horses a week that are not trying you will lose so Kelly system is flawed.
Click to expand...

Well that's just nonesense.

Anyone can see that the flaw wouldn't be with the system but rather the selections, in which case you'd be making the typical whinging punters mistake of blaming everything else but yourself. In any case, Kelly is quite clear about the need to draw up your own tissue in order to establish what you think a horses chances of winning are, and then stake accordingly. Any staking plan is only as good as the judgement behind the selections, and as such the two things are completely separate entities and you shouldn't confuse them. Kelly doesn't tell you what horses to select so I don't see how you can so glibly dismiss it as 'flawed' by invoking something outside of the systems remit (the individual selection)

It's similar in principle to this thing that inhabits the workplace called 'best practice'. In truth, there's barely such a thing as best practice as the secret doesn't lie in the model adopted, but rather the individuals ability to apply it.

Kelly isn't based on helping you find winners (that would be more akin to systems betting aka Nick Mordin etc). Kelly is based on helping you increase your returns provided the selection is sound in the first place. Again, a staking plan and abetting system are two very different things.
 
Does Denman look at the odds on the big screen in the parade ring and see he's drifting so he thinks i'll run a shocker?

If you have a race you've tissued and find a horse to be value at 10-1 when you've got him at 8-1, if the horse knows that you've backed him at 10-1 will he run better knowing this information?
 
Back
Top