General discussion : A staking strategy thats worked for me for months in the wild, I cant replicate in excel

A place to discuss anything.
marketraisen
Posts: 54
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 3:41 am

Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:10 pm

eightbo wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:04 pm
Adjusting stake sizes won't change the expectancy of your coin flip.
Assuming a fair coin flip, the more you flip - the closer your heads/tails % will head towards 0.5000000000.

When simulating a coin flip you need to simulate randomness. It's worth noting that:
    - Excel 2007/2003 is terrible at this
    - Excel 2010 saw huge improvements to the RAND() function by switching out the algorithm but it's still not truly random
    - VBA's rnd() uses a different algorithm and is known to use the same seed number each time meaning you'll produce the same numbers

With that said, I made a weighted coin flip simulator using VBA's rnd() which is fun to mess around with (attached).
Image
thanks, lets have a look.

marketraisen
Posts: 54
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 3:41 am

Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:14 pm

firlandsfarm wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:50 am
But if the selections make a profit at level stakes then if you know your losses will be recovered at level stakes why not increase the stakes when the bank is below expectation and reduce the stakes when the bank is above expectation! Yes, it's the opposite to conventional thinking but if the 'expectation' is accurate it may have legs.
Missed this part!
This actually makes sense to me, I guess you could calculate expectation besed on price/strike rate, ie its unusual to have 5 winners in a row, so the expect some draw back?

User avatar
johnsheppard
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:00 am
Location: Cairns Australia

Thu Mar 14, 2019 1:57 am

Seems to me any progressive staking plan will make you more profit faster if you have a positive edge and make you more loss faster if you have a negative edge.

So if you got a positive edge, martingale it up? Right?

Derek27
Posts: 4527
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2017 11:44 am
Location: UK

Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:42 am

johnsheppard wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 1:57 am
Seems to me any progressive staking plan will make you more profit faster if you have a positive edge and make you more loss faster if you have a negative edge.

So if you got a positive edge, martingale it up? Right?
The Kelly criterium proves that even if you have a positive edge you will lose by over-staking. For example, 6-5 on the toss of a coin and stake 90% of your bank.

LinusP
Posts: 1552
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:45 pm

Thu Mar 14, 2019 6:31 am

marketraisen wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:07 pm
LinusP wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:55 am
There is no edge in staking strategies
There is but it requires good selections in the first place, I also said "(with an obvious protection in place to stop it going out of control with an long series of losing bets, thats happened once so far in multiple 1000s of bets). " . So I'm not martingaling myself to death. Plus the increases are minimal on their own but make a huge increase in profits over time, if I was chasing 50/1 shots then you could say its crazy but in the theoretical example in my OP, I wouldnt even be doubling my stakes until the balance got as low as 500, from almost 4,000 bets the longest losing sequence has been 27, with the next two losing runs reaching 15.
No there isn’t, you are contradicting yourself even in that sentence. Don’t get me wrong, staking is extremely important as it’s about optimising your profit however anything that involves martingale is complete madness.

marketraisen
Posts: 54
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 3:41 am

Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:18 am

LinusP wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 6:31 am
anything that involves martingale is complete madness.
I know this is something drummed into gamblers day 1, so I understand the instinctive reaction and I'd echo it to somebody relying on a staking plan to make a profit on otherwise unreliable selections but I've been doing this for a while and have detailed records on this sheets picks to June last year, 4,000 bets.

If I repeated my longest losing run ever of 27 bets, the stake increase in the OP example would lead to the next bet being £14.68. Not £500, £5000 etc. I have stops in place to never let the stake go out of control (have to with full automation, I never touch it) and theyre pretty conservative.

As others have said, a good staking plan can seriously enhance a strategy just like a terrible one can kill it dead, its too often something Ive seen people dismiss over the years in favour of blindly sticking to level stakes regardless of balance, run of results or individual bets value.

It just comes down to confidence and running the numbers to give you that confidence, yesterday morning I had a run of 9 losing Aus dog+horse races, I recovered it with 3 winning races, making a few 0.0x% than I would have otherwise with increased stakes. Do that 150 times and it starts to add up.

Each to their own though, if I lose everything on the back of a run of 50 losing bets v 200 losing bets then the strategy is obviously bs anyway given its mostly the top end of the market I play in, would never recommend progressive staking to somebody blindly without knowing their results. That would be madness on their part.

User avatar
Euler
Posts: 17324
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 1:39 pm
Location: Bet Angel HQ
Contact:

Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:15 am

If you think you have an edge on a straight bet then stake by liability as that fixes your max loss by your bank grows by your profit margin. I had a strategy that started at £10 stakes and grew to £1k stakes where it ran into problems getting matched. So it stayed there since.

LinusP
Posts: 1552
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:45 pm

Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:18 pm

marketraisen wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:18 am
I know this is something drummed into gamblers day 1, so I understand the instinctive reaction and I'd echo it to somebody relying on a staking plan to make a profit on otherwise unreliable selections but I've been doing this for a while and have detailed records on this sheets picks to June last year, 4,000 bets.

If I repeated my longest losing run ever of 27 bets, the stake increase in the OP example would lead to the next bet being £14.68. Not £500, £5000 etc. I have stops in place to never let the stake go out of control (have to with full automation, I never touch it) and theyre pretty conservative.

As others have said, a good staking plan can seriously enhance a strategy just like a terrible one can kill it dead, its too often something Ive seen people dismiss over the years in favour of blindly sticking to level stakes regardless of balance, run of results or individual bets value.

It just comes down to confidence and running the numbers to give you that confidence, yesterday morning I had a run of 9 losing Aus dog+horse races, I recovered it with 3 winning races, making a few 0.0x% than I would have otherwise with increased stakes. Do that 150 times and it starts to add up.

Each to their own though, if I lose everything on the back of a run of 50 losing bets v 200 losing bets then the strategy is obviously bs anyway given its mostly the top end of the market I play in, would never recommend progressive staking to somebody blindly without knowing their results. That would be madness on their part.
There is nothing instinctive about my response I outright bet myself staking on average around 50k per day.
marketraisen wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:18 am
I recovered it with 3 winning races, making a few 0.0x% than I would have otherwise with increased stakes. Do that 150 times and it starts to add up.
You seem to have it in your head that you think your edge is impacted by previous win/loses which ironically is called gamblers fallacy.

I assume you have backtested these 4000 bets and comparing staking strategies? Although depending on the odds I doubt 4000 is enough.

marketraisen
Posts: 54
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 3:41 am

Fri Mar 15, 2019 12:13 am

LinusP wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:18 pm
You seem to have it in your head that you think your edge is impacted by previous win/loses which ironically is called gamblers fallacy.

I assume you have backtested these 4000 bets and comparing staking strategies? Although depending on the odds I doubt 4000 is enough.
It wont work for every strategy, having a high number of bets and a high strike rate makes it possible for me. I have no fear of losing money on this, I'd have to lose thousands over a few months to give back what I've taken out, I have confidence in what I am doing and dont mind being aggressive at all.

Initially I was betting level stakes, with no progression in the stakes, just varying them per selection (as I still do) based on market conditions, it wasnt until the end of the first month running the script and being +110 unit stakes did I look into ways of squeezing more out. Paper traded different staking schemes as I went, by the end of month 2 the level stakes were up to +188 overall, third month +300. It then took a similar path until Christmas time when it drew back to a near break even December, January went straight back on to another +100 month. I didnt start increasing stakes on a run of losers until the beginning of February, had I been doing it from the start I'd have about 50% more overall and since the beginning of Feb its just carried on. Had I been running them in December when returns stagnated, I'd still have made a profit, as even though the holes I was already digging wouldve been a little bit deeper, the clawing out of them wouldve been more profitable.

Besides I find all of this more exciting, I'm a hobbyist with no delusions of being anything else, even though I'm turning over thousands every day its all the exchanges money after a successful summer last year and if it takes back any of it I will survive. I've withdrawn a few grand since I stopped betting on football last year, I get my kicks out of scrolling through my list of days bets every evening. Nobody gets kicks out of losing money, if I thought it was going to cost me anything I wouldnt be progressing stakes up at all and if I was outright gambling for the hell of gambling I wouldnt be increasing stakes by tiny %'s as the balance fluctuates, I'd be doubling up or even adding 10-20-30% increases for more of a thrill.

marketraisen
Posts: 54
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 3:41 am

Fri Mar 15, 2019 12:18 am

Euler wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:15 am
If you think you have an edge on a straight bet then stake by liability as that fixes your max loss by your bank grows by your profit margin. I had a strategy that started at £10 stakes and grew to £1k stakes where it ran into problems getting matched. So it stayed there since.
Congrats, I've hit the wall myself in the past regarding getting matched at the right price.

For what I'm doing now its all backing, so liabilities are usually within a pretty tight range but for laying, doing it your way is not a bad idea at all for somebody who can see pretty big movements on the bigger prices, again its a good thing for people to look at regarding their staking.

Post Reply

Return to “General discussion”

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests