Advice on another staking plan please

[mathare]

Another system from the same book. The author seemed very keen on this one. It is similar to the Stepping Plan 2 that Keith mentions on his staking plans page.

Reverse Labouchere.

Basic idea is you write a line of numbers 1-7. Don't ask me why it's 1-7 but the author claims this is a good number for horseracing. Your bets are placed at a stake equal the sum of the two ends of the line. So your first bet is 8pts. If it wins, you add the winning stake to the end of the line. If it loses you strike of the numbers you used.

Example:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8pts Lost -8pts overall
2 3 4 5 6 8pts Lost -16pts
3 4 5 8pts Win @ 5/2 +4
3 4 5 8 11 pts Win @ 4/6 +11.37
3 4 5 8 11 14pts Lost -2.63
4 5 8

And so on. If you completely use up a line start again.

I am very interested in this one. Personally I can't use it for the horses because I very rarely get on the internet to place bets just before the racing, I do most of my betting during a break in the morning. And of course the system relies on knowing the result of one race before placing a bet on another. However, I am going to trial it on Larsson7's excellent baseball tips.

The author (David Duncan) of the book from which this is taken does suggest a check-out point of 10-15 times your original stake, which seems like a good idea.

Again I plea to the more experienced among us to pull this one to pieces or point out the other name it is going under so I can use that for a keyword search on the forum :D

[TheOldhamWhisper]

I use a similar staking plan for Keiths system bets. I calculated the longest losing run multiply by 2 and add 3 to give me the starting number.

eg if the longest losing run is 7, I use the numbers 1-17

This is a far riskier strategy and not one to consider if your bank cannot support it. In the example above, you should have a bank of 153 for each 'set'. Providing you don't go over 9 losers, you should see decent returns BUT beware - this system will NOT cover losses when used with short prices.

[mathare]

How short is too short in your eyes?

[TheOldhamWhisper]

I'll have to work it out, but I would try to avoid 1/2 or less just off hand.

I'll do some calculations and see if I can get it a bit more accurate.

[wb]

Funny, I'm actually reading the above book that Mat mentioned (although it must be the updated version as it's published in 2005), and saw how keen the author is on this staking plan.

Thought I'd do a search here and here it is!

Anyone still use it?

I'm considering using it on a system that I run, but am a bit edgy as the stakes can add up. I'd guess it could get aggressive during a losing run, but the up-shoot is that the winning runs build the bank greatly.

I've never been a fan of 'stop when you are winning' systems, but the author advocates a 'check out' point so things don't get too heavy. So for example, if your check out point is £100, once you hit that point you bank the money - and start again. Inevitably, some sequences will go t*ts up, but if you've banked enough in the past, hopefully you can afford to lose a bank or two now and then. That's the whole reason for the 'check out' scheme - when you inevitably lose the bank, it won't be huge as such.

Any thoughts are welcome.

For the record, the results of the system that I may try it on are as follows (last year lost to SP, but showed a small profit on the machine:

[mathare]

I've never used it for horses and after a brief trial on other sports I ditched that system and with it the staking plan

[wealthyteddy]

The Reverse Labouchere was the subject of a book called Thirteen Against The Bank (by Norman Leigh?) about a supposedly true story of how the author and a team of players he trained took a casino in Monte Carlo for a large sum of money.

Whether it was true or not, I'm not sure, but it is an interesting read, and it may be effective in horse racing.