use refer and earn code:

6EQMPQWVR   

This is a plan that i am not keen on using, as it is to some extent a loss chasing method, however it can be used to increase profits. The aim is to increase your stake after every loser untill you pick a winner, then revert back to the first number in the sequence. I would only consider using this type of staking plan on a high strike rate system, idealy 50%SR+ though you could risk it with a 40%+ SR system. To use this kind of system you must first look at the worst case scenario of your system, and be cautious with the ammount of steps you take and how high the stakes could reach.

To make a point of worst case scenarios - i have heard of runs of 32 spins on the roulette wheel all comming up the same colour (roughly 50% SR), Watched the horse racing where 50+ favourites have failed to win one after the other (around 35% SR). They may be extreamly rare happenings, but no stepping plan could survive such awfull runs without going bust. as a general rule i use the basis that an even money (50% SR) selection system will at some point hit a losing streak of atleast 8, so you will want to build in safety measures that mean that you can handle these worst cases.

Lets take for example the following stepping plans:

£1 - £1 - £2 - £3 - £5 - £8 - £13 - £21 - £33 - £54.............£89 - £144 - £233 - £377 - £610 - £987 - £1597

This plan uses fibonacci numbers (sequence), i won't bore you by going into irrelivant details, but basically to arrive at the next number in the sequence you add the previous two numbers together. These numbers form a popular stepping plan. So how safe is it? Well after the 9th bet (assuming they all lost) you would have lost £87, so with a £100 bank you would only have £13 remaining, thus unable to place the £54 bet, so would a bigger starting bank help? Well yes, but not by much - as you can see the later numbers get pretty scary if you are thinking of betting with them. So even if you doubled your origional starting bank to £200 - you would only squeeze out one extra bet. So instead of starting with a £1 bet it will probably be much safer starting out with a 10p bet as opposed to having a bigger bank that can withstand a long losing run.

There is however the option of tailing the stakes off after a pre determined peak:

£1 - £1 - £2 - £3 - £5 - £8 - £13 - £21 - £33 - £21 - £13 - £8 - £5 - £3 - £2 - £1 - £1

So in the example above £33 would be the peak step, before tailing off. This will let you squeeze out more bets from your bank. As long losing runs are uncommon (with a high SR system) you will rarely get past step 5 or 6, but safety is an important factor to consider thats why we plan ahead.

The fibonacci numbers are just one example of a stepping plan, you could use any kind of set of numbers (1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4 etc.... for example).

Whilst in theory the stepping plan will recover losses, if you select a long odd's on winner on the bigger stakes you don't see a great return from a big bet, thus not recovering your losses when you revert back to the first bet in the sequence.

The 'kelly criterion' is a staking plan that in theory looks an excelent choice of staking. Basically it is a way of staking dependant on value, the more value your selection is - the more (higher % of your bank) you will bet on your selection. However - there are some major problems with this method of staking:

Probability of winning - If i asked you what were the probability of tossing a coin and it being 'heads' was - 50/50 would be the call (even money - 2 in decimal odds, 50% chance), or the probability of rolling a 6 on a single die - 5/1. Even picking the the 'queen of hearts' from a '52' deck of cards - 51/1. Its not hard is it? Just simple maths - but if i were to ask you 'what would be the probability of - manchester utd vs chelsea - ending up in a manchester utd win? Hmmmmm - not easy is it, In fact it's impossible to predict the 'true probibility of winning'. You can estimate what you think the true probability is, or even do complex working outs on a spreadsheet to help you find the probability of winning, but the bottom line is - that there is no 'true probability of winning' (for any sporting event). So this is one downfall of the 'kelly' plan. However if you can estimate the probabilities of each selection reasnobly enough, then there is still hope for the plan, but this is all about 'personal oppinion'.

Staking % - As you may have gathered i rarely (if ever) stake above 5% of my betting bank, so i have a real problem when this particular staking plan tells me to stake a large (%) ammount on a selection that i see as good value.

For example:

I see a bet that i think has a 50% chance of winning (evens / 2 in decimal), yet the odd's offered are 2/1 (3 in decimal). according to the 'kelly' plan i would stake 25% of my bankroll on this 2/1 shot.

25% on a 2/1 shot - Thats insane in my book. OK it may look fantastic value - but thats only value if my interpertation of it's chance of winning is correct.

.......................................

The kelly does have some aspects that i do like though, The fact that it stakes dependand upon value is one of them. It also stake as a % of your betting bank, which is good as in theory you will never lose your entire bankroll, however the staking % can be rather risky.

The formula for the kelly criterion is:

B = P - (1 - P )/(O - 1)

Where:

B = Proportion of betting fund (betting bank)

P = Probability of winning (your opinion)

O = Decimal odds (including stake return)