2NdRPlaceLAY's (4 Max Odds) - automate to test ?

[rencoetz]

Hi All

I recently found this system online but would like to test it myself on BA - not so sure this can be automated ?

Any thoughts on this will be appreciated

========================================================

https://theprofessionalsyndicate.com/pr ... trategies/



Overall strategy



Employing the TPS 2nd Rated Selections Lay all under 4 BSP.

This Strategy is designed to play a sequence of bets until an overall profit is achieved, each time we encounter a losing bet the next stake in the staking plan is placed on the next Lay bet, continue increasing the stakes for each bet until the overall win in the sequence is achieved.



Staking Plan is shown on the results page for this strategy.

In the proofing shown we began with £500 working bank and £1500 reserve bank, but we do not envisage using the reserve bank unless we encounter a run that we have not observed nor anything near to date.

The gearing for this staking began at 0-001% of the staring bank of £500 which mean't the first stake was just £0.50p the next staking increments in a loosing sequence would be as per 2nd stake below:-



1st Stake = 0.001% of £500 = £0.50

2nd Stake = Stake 1 * 2.20

3rd Stake = Stake 2 * 2.25

4th Stake = Stake 3 * 1.33

5th Stake = Stake 4 * 1.33

6th Stake = stake 5 * 1.33

7th Stake = Stake 6 * 1.33

8th Stake = Stake 7 * 1.32

9th Stake = Stake 8 * 1.28

10th Stake = Stake 9 * 1.25

11th Stake = Stake 10 * 1.24

12th Stake = Stake 11 * 1.24

13th Stake = Stake 12 * 1.23

14th Stake = Stake 13 * 1.22

15th Stake = Stake 14 * 1.22

16th Stake = Stake 15 * 1.21

17th Stake = Stake 16 * 1.21

18th Stake = Stake 17 * 1.19

19th Stake = Stake 18 * 1.18

20th Stake = Stake 19 * 1.17

21st Stake = Stake 20 * 1.16

22nd Stake = Stake 21 * 1.15

23rd Stake = Stake 22 * 1.14

24th Stake = Stake 23 * 1.13

25th Stake = Stake 24 * 1.12

26th Stake = Stake 19 * 1.11

27st Stake = Stake 20 * 1.10

28nd Stake = Stake 21 * 1.09

29rd Stake = Stake 22 * 1.08

30th Stake = Stake 24 * 1.07



You will very rarely ever need all these stakes but even if you need to go half way the actual loses in the sequence will be reduced by some winning (in our case losing Lay Bets) So far I have never been uncomfortable during even the worst runs I have experienced.



Once the overall gain is achieved the sequence stops and Ideally another begins at the starting stake and so on. (you could if you choose to simply stop for the day if a profitable sequence is achieved.



In the case of the daily roster, finishing without concluding a winning sequence, continue the bets the next day (or when ever you are able) following on from where we finished on the staking plan.



The real benefit with this strategy is the longer the conclusion takes, the higher the stakes become, but because this is based on Lay betting the strike rate is reasonably high, which means the overall sequence deficit in an in-concluded run is considerably reduced by the frequent Lay's (or loosing Bets) along the way. Therefore normally by the time the 'OVERALL' winning bet occurs the raised stakes yield an 'enhanced profit'.



I recommend a working bank (for our proofing we use £500) but you should use whatever you are comfortable with) and a reserve bank of three times the start bank (£1500)to begin with. My first stake began at £0.50 (or 0.001% of the working bank of £500), each stake then rise as shown in the staking plan until an overall profit is achieved in the sequence.



Although the first stake is very small the compounding factor still allows very good long term growth, in fact the first month produced well over 60% growth on the start bank, so 60% growth month on month would be VERY rewarding as we continually add the profits and grow the stakes slowly and surely.



In fact the early proofed records show over £830 profit in just six weeks, and that's from a starting working bank of £500.



Each time I achieve a concluded winning sequence, I share the profits between the working bank, which compounds the staking plan, and the reserve bank which builds up to provide us with additional 'INSURANCE' should we encounter any difficult runs.



This is the way I manage the strategy and is exactly reflected in the proofed results.https://theprofessionalsyndicate.com/pr ... trategies/

[Derek27]

What's the point of having a reserve bank?

Why not just have a bank of £2000 - it's exactly the same thing?

Is it really worth risking £2000 just to guarantee your winnings from a 50 pence stake?

[Jukebox]

Unless I've misunderstood its not even the winnings of a 50p stake - as these are lays I think its to get 50p

[Derek27]

I'm stuck on a train with no power points and nothing to do, so I've run through that sequence with a calculator an found the 30th bet stake is £328. Increasing stakes by 1.07 is hardly going to recover any losses so it's effectively level stakes until you've recovered losses. A small losing run will put the sequence beyond recovery.

Don't know why you feel £500 will be anywhere near enough?

[Derek27]

If you're laying horses at 3.0, four losers loses £14.72 You're next stake is £4.38 so even three winners won't turn the sequence into profit and you'll quickly reach the end of the sequence with ever increasing stakes. Give up the idea - it's bonkers!

[jimibt]

If you're laying horses at 3.0, four losers loses £14.72 You're next stake is £4.38 so even three winners won't turn the sequence into profit and you'll quickly reach the end of the sequence with ever increasing stakes. Give up the idea - it's bonkers!

+1; agreed - i was just too lazy to produce any calculations...

[Kai]

If you're laying horses at 3.0, four losers loses £14.72 You're next stake is £4.38 so even three winners won't turn the sequence into profit and you'll quickly reach the end of the sequence with ever increasing stakes. Give up the idea - it's bonkers!

+1; agreed - i was just too lazy to produce any calculations...

+1

I was too lazy to even think about it

[jamesg46]

If you're laying horses at 3.0, four losers loses £14.72 You're next stake is £4.38 so even three winners won't turn the sequence into profit and you'll quickly reach the end of the sequence with ever increasing stakes. Give up the idea - it's bonkers!

+1; agreed - i was just too lazy to produce any calculations...

+1

I was too lazy to even think about it

+1 I read it this morning and thought "here we go again"

[Derek27]

In fact the early proofed records show over £830 profit in just six weeks, and that's from a starting working bank of £500.

Isn't he the guy that fed 5000 people with two loaves of bread and five fish?

[Derek27]

I was too lazy to even think about it

The really clever people on this forum were too lazy to even read it.

[firlandsfarm]

What's the point of having a reserve bank?

Why not just have a bank of £2000 - it's exactly the same thing?

I had the same initial thought but on reflection it's not the same thing, the staking formula is based on the value of the £500 bank and the Reserve Fund is saying "but you could lose this as well as your fund!"

[Kai]

What's the point of having a reserve bank?

Why not just have a bank of £2000 - it's exactly the same thing?

I had the same initial thought but on reflection it's not the same thing, the staking formula is based on the value of the £500 bank and the Reserve Fund is saying "but you could lose this as well as your fund!"

At that point he might as well create a Federal Reserve Fund as well, to bail him out just in case.

[firlandsfarm]

At that point he might as well create a Federal Reserve Fund as well, to bail him out just in case.