Loss Recovery Systems

[wearthefoxhat]

What I forgot to mention in the OP and in regards to something that was troubling me was in the difference between a martingale on roulette which because of table limits must lose 100% of the time over time and something that is structurally similar in horseracing where there are factors that make it different.

My problem and what I couldn't figure out was if a loss avoidance system or whatever you want to call it wouldn't lose 100% of the time in the long run like a conventional martingale but would in fact be profitable over time but this time period and the stochastic process left it difficult to see the end of the road when large losses are warping our perception. So bottom line, I was wondering if long sequences of winning races were overcoming the large losses but it took maybe a much longer sample size to prove profitability than many people were allowing for.

Sorry if I am waffling again lol

You've covered most of the key points.

A martingale staking plan/system will win..a lot of the time, enough times for someone to think it's the holy grail and good times ahead. Many university students have started on this journey of discovery, and found this to be the case...but...

intMG.jpg

It is only with unbounded wealth, bets and time that it could be argued that the martingale becomes a winning strategy.

Assuming the odds of were Evens at all times...(not accounting for the 2.7% house edge)

losingseq.jpg

I was a croupier for a time and there were many occassions the results board on roulette red or black, would show an uninterrupted sequence of reds or blacks, up to 20 in a row! So variance does exist, it has to, within the maths.

Okay, so what if you were finding value, an edge, on a selection process. ie: 6/4 about an Evs money chance. Obviously the chances are better overall, but your comfort zone for loss recovery would still be tested to the max.

[Xeres]

I created a loss recovery stystem once, it was based on something very simple, although mine was based on win bets rather than trading.

Each bet would essentially be stake + (cumulative loss / (odds - 1)). In back testing it worked really well and made a ton of money, but in reality it needed a very high bank roll and a lot of effort to make it work.

I sacked it off when I was stuck in a meeting and forgot to top up my account (the stake needed was £500) so the bet didn't go through, of course the horse won so I didn't recover any of my losses.

I would avoid them unless you really understand the system and have a lot of money to support it. I would advise doing lots of simulations on anything to get an idea of what could happen.

[rik]

you think in general it must be more likely that an odds move will turn around than keep going?
in some situations it will be, others not
easiest way to figure out if you can predict the turnaround more often than not is using level stakes
any wild differences in stakes will add variance and its harder to figure out if you were right more often than not or just lucky that more of the bigger stakes won
if you had a consistent edge any sort of increasing stakes to recover system is rubbish both in terms of profit optimization as you have to start with a very small amount compared to your capital / what the market can take as well as still mathematically having a bigger risk of losing your max stake than if you were staking level or staking based on edge rather than net

[Derek27]

What I forgot to mention in the OP and in regards to something that was troubling me was in the difference between a martingale on roulette which because of table limits must lose 100% of the time over time and something that is structurally similar in horseracing where there are factors that make it different.

My problem and what I couldn't figure out was if a loss avoidance system or whatever you want to call it wouldn't lose 100% of the time in the long run like a conventional martingale but would in fact be profitable over time but this time period and the stochastic process left it difficult to see the end of the road when large losses are warping our perception. So bottom line, I was wondering if long sequences of winning races were overcoming the large losses but it took maybe a much longer sample size to prove profitability than many people were allowing for.

Sorry if I am waffling again lol

By 100% of the time, I think you mean 100% certain of losing eventually. All loss recovery systems that involve increasing stakes will lose eventually, unless you have a system that will win for eternity! We all have limits whether it's a house limit or your bank limit.

I've explained the maths behind the Martingale in the post below and it really applies to anything where the true probability is worse then the odds you're taking - it applies equally to horse racing or trading.

viewtopic.php?p=225047#p225047

[Derek27]

I would avoid them unless you really understand the system and have a lot of money to support it. I would advise doing lots of simulations on anything to get an idea of what could happen.

If you've got enough money to support it, forget betting, move to your dream location, buy your dream home and retire.

[Morbius]

Just like to say a big thankyou for everyone who has taken the time to reply. I will read and digest your posts in detail later today and get back....I guess what Peter said in his article about "taking losses like a man" must mean that I perhaps have a lot of growing up to do

[Morbius]

What I forgot to mention in the OP and in regards to something that was troubling me was in the difference between a martingale on roulette which because of table limits must lose 100% of the time over time and something that is structurally similar in horseracing where there are factors that make it different.

My problem and what I couldn't figure out was if a loss avoidance system or whatever you want to call it wouldn't lose 100% of the time in the long run like a conventional martingale but would in fact be profitable over time but this time period and the stochastic process left it difficult to see the end of the road when large losses are warping our perception. So bottom line, I was wondering if long sequences of winning races were overcoming the large losses but it took maybe a much longer sample size to prove profitability than many people were allowing for.

Sorry if I am waffling again lol

By 100% of the time, I think you mean 100% certain of losing eventually. All loss recovery systems that involve increasing stakes will lose eventually, unless you have a system that will win for eternity! We all have limits whether it's a house limit or your bank limit.

I've explained the maths behind the Martingale in the post below and it really applies to anything where the true probability is worse then the odds you're taking - it applies equally to horse racing or trading.

viewtopic.php?p=225047#p225047

Actually Derek as one of the previous posters alluded to as did Peter, the title of this thread may have been worded badly and I apologise for that but as someone pointed out, the method I have been using while escalating has also been trying to use "dollar cost averaging" principles to erase a current red screen but I have run into problems when prices never retraced enough to go green and just like with options, theta (time decay) is a serious issue in these markets I am finding but is old news to all on here

[rik]

By 100% of the time, I think you mean 100% certain of losing eventually. All loss recovery systems that involve increasing stakes will lose eventually, unless you have a system that will win for eternity! We all have limits whether it's a house limit or your bank limit.

viewtopic.php?p=225047#p225047

mathematically you will lose eventually, that said not everyone using loss recovery is completely degenerate increasing stakes forever
its plausible someone didnt reach their limit for a while, paid out some money over time and on their max losing run what their willing to risk lost less than what they made overall
still anyone using higher stakes due to previous losses either doesnt understand math or likes to gamble

[Derek27]

By 100% of the time, I think you mean 100% certain of losing eventually. All loss recovery systems that involve increasing stakes will lose eventually, unless you have a system that will win for eternity! We all have limits whether it's a house limit or your bank limit.

viewtopic.php?p=225047#p225047

mathematically you will lose eventually, that said not everyone using loss recovery is completely degenerate increasing stakes forever
its plausible someone didnt reach their limit for a while, paid out some money over time and on their max losing run what their willing to risk lost less than what they made overall
still anyone using higher stakes due to previous losses either doesnt understand math or likes to gamble

That's unlikely to happen in a loss recovery system that recovers your entire losses, because you're winning peanuts and in a losing run you must have lost a massive amount to decide not to carry on increasing stakes.

[The Silk Run]

Welcome Morbious

From my personal perspective I do use Loss Recovery with great success, and long-term. I formulated my own system that is rather aggressive and used in my automation strategies. I think it works for some, and not others. And I think some members will listen to the responsible advice given by the Gambling Commission.

Good luck
Minnie LAI

[Derek27]

Welcome Morbious

From my personal perspective I do use Loss Recovery with great success, and long-term. I formulated my own system that is rather aggressive and used in my automation strategies. I think it works for some, and not others. And I think some members will listen to the responsible advice given by the Gambling Commission.

Good luck
Minnie LAI

'Loss recovery' is quite a broad term, but any strategy that involves increasing stakes or placing bets purely and solely because a previous bet lost is mathematically flawed. If such a system makes a profit it's not necessarily the staking plan that works but the strategy itself.

[rik]

By 100% of the time, I think you mean 100% certain of losing eventually. All loss recovery systems that involve increasing stakes will lose eventually, unless you have a system that will win for eternity! We all have limits whether it's a house limit or your bank limit.

viewtopic.php?p=225047#p225047

mathematically you will lose eventually, that said not everyone using loss recovery is completely degenerate increasing stakes forever
its plausible someone didnt reach their limit for a while, paid out some money over time and on their max losing run what their willing to risk lost less than what they made overall
still anyone using higher stakes due to previous losses either doesnt understand math or likes to gamble

That's unlikely to happen in a loss recovery system that recovers your entire losses, because you're winning peanuts and in a losing run you must have lost a massive amount to decide not to carry on increasing stakes.

thats incorrect, if your bets/trades were +expected value your more likely to double up than go bust
you had your example on roulette that covering a max losing run of 10 will result in 27% of doubling the bank
so if they paid out the 0 so you had a 52% instead of 48% chance to recover a loss that would therefore make 73% of doubling the bank

probably some guys will try to use the double bank to cover the 11th double up but others might still stick to their limit of 10

first problem is that 99% of people using martingale wont be able to find +expected value as they lack math in the first place

second problem doubling up 10times means your regular stake is 1/1023 so will take 1023 winning bets to double up, not efficient

third problem you still have 27% chance of losing your initial bank despite betting +expected value

on contrary if you bet a 1000 times with level stakes and 52% win rate your at 99% profitable. longer you bet the only realistic reason for being down is not getting value

[Derek27]

mathematically you will lose eventually, that said not everyone using loss recovery is completely degenerate increasing stakes forever
its plausible someone didnt reach their limit for a while, paid out some money over time and on their max losing run what their willing to risk lost less than what they made overall
still anyone using higher stakes due to previous losses either doesnt understand math or likes to gamble

That's unlikely to happen in a loss recovery system that recovers your entire losses, because you're winning peanuts and in a losing run you must have lost a massive amount to decide not to carry on increasing stakes.

thats incorrect, if your bets/trades were +expected value your more likely to double up than go bust
you had your example on roulette that covering a max losing run of 10 will result in 27% of doubling the bank
so if they paid out the 0 so you had a 52% instead of 48% chance to recover a loss that would therefore make 73% of doubling the bank

probably some guys will try to use the double bank to cover the 11th double up but others might still stick to their limit of 10

first problem is that 99% of people using martingale wont be able to find +expected value as they lack math in the first place

second problem doubling up 10times means your regular stake is 1/1023 so will take 1023 winning bets to double up, not efficient

third problem you still have 27% chance of losing your initial bank despite betting +expected value

on contrary if you bet a 1000 times with level stakes and 52% win rate your at 99% profitable. longer you bet the only realistic reason for being down is not getting value

Sorry rik, that's wrong. Here's the maths:

(1 - (18 / 37) ^ 10) ^ 1023 = 0.4677

That's a good example of how you could be given an opportunity to make a fortune and blow it by incorrect staking. Basically, even if you're backing value selections, overstaking, as Kelly shows will result in losses.

[wearthefoxhat]

What I forgot to mention in the OP and in regards to something that was troubling me was in the difference between a martingale on roulette which because of table limits must lose 100% of the time over time and something that is structurally similar in horseracing where there are factors that make it different.

My problem and what I couldn't figure out was if a loss avoidance system or whatever you want to call it wouldn't lose 100% of the time in the long run like a conventional martingale but would in fact be profitable over time but this time period and the stochastic process left it difficult to see the end of the road when large losses are warping our perception. So bottom line, I was wondering if long sequences of winning races were overcoming the large losses but it took maybe a much longer sample size to prove profitability than many people were allowing for.

Sorry if I am waffling again lol

By 100% of the time, I think you mean 100% certain of losing eventually. All loss recovery systems that involve increasing stakes will lose eventually, unless you have a system that will win for eternity! We all have limits whether it's a house limit or your bank limit.

I've explained the maths behind the Martingale in the post below and it really applies to anything where the true probability is worse then the odds you're taking - it applies equally to horse racing or trading.

viewtopic.php?p=225047#p225047

Actually Derek as one of the previous posters alluded to as did Peter, the title of this thread may have been worded badly and I apologise for that but as someone pointed out, the method I have been using while escalating has also been trying to use "dollar cost averaging" principles to erase a current red screen but I have run into problems when prices never retraced enough to go green and just like with options, theta (time decay) is a serious issue in these markets I am finding but is old news to all on here

Dollar cost averaging with leveraging (borrowing money to gamble with) was what broke Barings Bank (Nick Leeson)

Essentially, he got away with it the first time, covering their position and creating a chunk of commission along the way....the rest is history...

https://www.thestreet.com/opinion/5-inv ... r-13538186

[rik]

That's unlikely to happen in a loss recovery system that recovers your entire losses, because you're winning peanuts and in a losing run you must have lost a massive amount to decide not to carry on increasing stakes.

thats incorrect, if your bets/trades were +expected value your more likely to double up than go bust
you had your example on roulette that covering a max losing run of 10 will result in 27% of doubling the bank
so if they paid out the 0 so you had a 52% instead of 48% chance to recover a loss that would therefore make 73% of doubling the bank

probably some guys will try to use the double bank to cover the 11th double up but others might still stick to their limit of 10

first problem is that 99% of people using martingale wont be able to find +expected value as they lack math in the first place

second problem doubling up 10times means your regular stake is 1/1023 so will take 1023 winning bets to double up, not efficient

third problem you still have 27% chance of losing your initial bank despite betting +expected value

on contrary if you bet a 1000 times with level stakes and 52% win rate your at 99% profitable. longer you bet the only realistic reason for being down is not getting value

Sorry rik, that's wrong. Here's the maths:

(1 - (18 / 37) ^ 10) ^ 1023 = 0.4677

That's a good example of how you could be given an opportunity to make a fortune and blow it by incorrect staking. Basically, even if you're backing value selections, overstaking, as Kelly shows will result in losses.

your right i was too quick to assume could just reverse the probabilities
it must be skewed in that way because your winning more if you dont hit the 10 losing sequence in the 1023 bets
if you dont hit it you double up, but if you hit the losing sequence you still have the bets you won before you hit it, say you hit it after 500 wins your only down about half of your initial bank