nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Maths problem

Headspace

So i wanna use a 20% staking method on a fifty fifty bet i like.
If the first bet loses the next one is reduce by 20% i.e. £200, £160, £128 etc.
if the bookie doubles your bet every time what percent do you need to be right to break even.
And if he pays 5/6 1.83 using the same staking method what percent do i need tto be right to break even.
Please help.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

4068ac1elhodqr

To put it simply, if you don't win on the 1st attempt, you will have to win multiple times just to break even even at x2.0.
Interesting idea at first, but holds very little water as the hole would only get bigger on each loss, negative 671 on 5th attempt,
with very little chance of any recovery if getting a slightly bad start. One for the wastebasket. (rounded up decimals)...

moneymad

Nicely done.

I always found this interesting.

The Rice And Chessboard Story
Learning How Doubling Makes Numbers Grow

By Michael Hartley

There's a famous legend about the origin of chess that goes like this. When the inventor of the game showed it to the emperor of India, the emperor was so impressed by the new game, that he said to the man

"Name your reward!"

The man responded,

"Oh emperor, my wishes are simple. I only wish for this. Give me one grain of rice for the first square of the chessboard, two grains for the next square, four for the next, eight for the next and so on for all 64 squares, with each square having double the number of grains as the square before."

The emperor agreed, amazed that the man had asked for such a small reward - or so he thought. After a week, his treasurer came back and informed him that the reward would add up to an astronomical sum, far greater than all the rice that could conceivably be produced in many many centuries!

Charity10k

You should keep a record of your bets and see what strike rate you have with these bets.

It's hard enough to make a long term profit before you do something like reduce your stake when you lose and I assume increase your stake as soon as you end a losing sequence.

Stick to level stakes or 5% of your betting bank if you bet odds on singles as a very basic general rule of thumb.

Headspace

Looks like a looser to me anyway.

ten times each a number of different ways its always a looser.

Almost always the same results E335 or something close.

You are always minusing from the peak, as the number gets smaller you nedd to increase you bet size not reduce, which is the problem.

If you increase though it adds major pressure which makes it more difficult to think straight.

And if you add in the bookies edge where PP pays .83 on 1 in a fifty fifty bet the you would need to be right 65% of the time to break even thats an estimate.

At 1.83 you need to be right 60% to break even. I hear the absolute best in the world can be right this much no one dose better.

Bateman

Nobody can win if your average price is 1.83. You should be aiming to get 1.91 on everything, that’s what the best in the business allow for (assuming you are mainly talking about US sports).

Even then, just as important as the juice is getting the best line.

Mellor

Headspace wrote: »

So i wanna use a 20% staking method on a fifty fifty bet i like.
If the first bet loses the next one is reduce by 20% i.e. £200, £160, £128 etc.
if the bookie doubles your bet every time what percent do you need to be right to break even.

What happens to your stake when you win a bet?

If the bookie doubles your bet, you need to be right >50% of the time to break even, on average.

Or are you just saying that you reduce all bets?

Wesson Plain Cherry wrote: »

To put it simply, if you don't win on the 1st attempt, you will have to win multiple times just to break even even at x2.0.
Interesting idea at first, but holds very little water as the hole would only get bigger on each loss, negative 671 on 5th attempt,
with very little chance of any recovery if getting a slightly bad start. One for the wastebasket. (rounded up decimals)...

I'm not sure what that analysis is suppose to suggest tbh. He he lose money when he loses 5 bets in a row

If he wasn't reducing his stake by 20%, he'd be $1,000 in the hole. So the "system" has him better off.

He is also just as likely to win 5 in a row, as lose 5 in a row (50/50 bet).
In which case he'd be up $1,000. Looking at the consistent wins or losses in isolation, the system makes money. But those options only make up 6% of 5 bet permutations. The other 94% will cancel you to breakeven.

The reality is, changing your stake doesn't effect you EV. If you've no edge in the 50/50 bet, you don't make money.

Mellor

Headspace wrote: »

ten times each a number of different ways its always a looser.

I can't understand what you are trying to say there.

Almost always the same results E335 or something close.

You are always minusing from the peak, as the number gets smaller you need to increase you bet size not reduce, which is the problem.

What do you mean minusing from the peak?