How much to stake while boxing?

[Anon523]

When I had 150M I was doing stakes such as 10m then double up if I lost so 10m - 20m - 40m - 80m etc, made around 350m profit in a few hours but had a bad run the day after and got cleaned.

 

Is that what I was supposed to be doing? Had a friend tell me to just keep staking 5m if I had 100m, but I don't see how that would get me anywhere since maxed staking is 50/50.

[Anon523]

Judging by that I had the right idea but just unlucky, i lost something like 2.5m 5m 10m 20m 40m 80m all in a row that day.

 

Its a good method but when you lose 6-7 in a row you're in deep [cabbage].

[Kaida23]

The best advice I can give is never bet more than you can afford to lose.

[Cheat]

It's interesting the probabilities involved in staking - many suggest the martingale system -> look it up! Or something fairly similar which involves doubling your bet so that you will eventually profit if you have enough capital to cover any losing streaks, others however will argue that staking is purely 50/50 and that no matter you will end up with no gain in the end and it is purely luck. I think I read somewhere that the probability of being cleaned with a 1000m cash pile using martingales system was equivalent to that of finding a visage. Of course some people say this is BS - there is quite a good topic about it on that unmentionable forum where I believe Ring World got his quote from.

[Autist]

1. Only stake with people you have an advantage over. Don't do stakes with people who have identical stats with you.

2. Only stake 2-5% of your total cashpile when you do have that advantage.

3. You can stake up to 10% if the advantage you are getting is HUGE.

4. Never stake above 10% of your bankroll, that way you will avoid getting cleaned by bug abusers.

[Cheat]

1. Only stake with people you have an advantage over. Don't do stakes with people who have identical stats with you.

2. Only stake 2-5% of your total cashpile when you do have that advantage.

3. You can stake up to 10% if the advantage you are getting is HUGE.

4. Never stake above 10% of your bankroll, that way you will avoid getting cleaned by bug abusers.

 

Where do you find people dumb enough to stake you without even stats?

[xpx]

1. Only stake with people you have an advantage over. Don't do stakes with people who have identical stats with you.

2. Only stake 2-5% of your total cashpile when you do have that advantage.

3. You can stake up to 10% if the advantage you are getting is HUGE.

4. Never stake above 10% of your bankroll, that way you will avoid getting cleaned by bug abusers.

 

Where do you find people dumb enough to stake you without even stats?

non-maxed staking, perhaps?

 

And yeah, i basically agree with autist in that a martingale(or whatever the system is called) scale staking isn't anywhere near the best for of staking, particularly with a limited cashpile. It would be more sensible to stake based on performance, rather than exclude performance altogether, as that way you can limit losses when you aren't doing well and maximize profits if you are. The basic premise is that staking is a 0-profit business(actually everyone loses money as they lose time doing it), so the only way to win is if you have the upper hand, either that of luck or taking advantage of a set of rules you've allowed yourself(basically being disciplined when your opponents are not).

[n64jive]

How about this method:

 

baseBet base;
Bet bet;
incrBet x;

If winStake(){
bet += x;
}
else if loseStake(){
bet = base;
}

 

example output:

base = 5m
incrBet = 5m

bet = 5m
win
bet = 10m
win
bet = 15m
win
bet = 20m
lose
bet = 5m

 

The only way you lose is from losing streaks.

 

A coinflip is and always will be a coinflip. Honestly, you could do any method. There is no way to beat a coinflip, as you have no advantage. However, if you avoid exponential growth, you will be much better off (the example I gave is linear).

 

Another method is to set a base bet and a max bet, and always increase, regardless of the outcome of the previous stake. Winning in the later stakes will result in a profit, while winning in the early stakes really is pretty insignificant.

 

It all comes down to luck anyway. People who claim they make billions boxing really mean they got luck boxing, and now they use another money making method (such as merching)

[LatinII]

Wicked's method has gotten me cleaned three times already, so meh.

[Alphanos]

It's really important to point out that if you're staking at equal stats, staking is always 50/50. Staking using Wicked's method is 50/50. Staking using martingale is 50/50. Staking using any method is 50/50.

 

The difference is in how this gets revealed to you. With "regular" staking, you'll notice that sometimes you're up, and sometimes you're down. You can easily tell that it's all 50/50.

 

With these various special "techniques", what they're actually doing is taking all of your losses and accumulating them into one giant cleaning, so that you don't notice it sneaking up on you until it's too late.

 

The only way you "win" is by stopping after you're up, but this is the same as regular staking, and you can just as easily get cleaned before this even happens.

[Hakaan]

Staking is more like 60/40 if you're switching between accurate for attacking and defensive for when the other person attacks. They give +3 attack and +3 def which slightly increase your chances of winning. I don't know if I'm just lucky, but I've made about 300M at the DA in the past week just boxing using that method and I'm coming out to be about 85/15 for winning/losing. So this would prove almost always profit for me, depending on how I bet. I try to bet small unless I've lost a lot in a row.

[Proud_Aussie]

I have been staking for a long time, and have a fair bit of experience, although I have never made it pass the 100m mark because I usually get cleaned befor I get close.

 

I have been staking on my level 51 range boxer and the stakes range from 500k-20m. I usually start with 500k, if I win I will double it then double it again. Making around 4m depending on the cash staked.

 

I tend to use the non target method as quoted above. I think the best way is to bank your profits after you win them and start with the cash you begun with, I have turned 500k into 27m using this method. I found that after winning this much my luck ran out and I went on a massive losing streak to a person with much lower stats I kept doubling but was eventually cleaned. Then again it is all luck. :thumbsup:

[rangers5000]

My advice is dont bother staking

[Laura]

I went from 200M to 800M in about a week (patience is important in staking). I cannot disagree enough with Wicked's method of staking or any other 'double your bet' scheme. It may work for him, but as we have seen in General Discussion, he has, to my understanding, several billion to counteract any losing streaks. Never double your bet if you lose; increase by a marginal amount, but never twice your original offer. If you win, keep a consistent amount. For instance:

 

Stake one: 10M

Outcome: Win

 

Stake two: 10M

Outcome: Win

 

Stake three: 10M

Outcome: Win

 

Stake four: 10M

Outcome: Lose

 

Stake five: 12M

Outcome: Lose

 

Stake six: 15M

Outcome: Win

 

Stake seven: 10M

Outcome: lose

 

Stake eight: 12M

Outcome: Win

 

And lastly, I know it may seem silly, especially given actual rational thought, but do what your intuition says. I won eleven stakes in a row (10M each, given the system above) and told my self that I should stop. A friend came along and influenced me to make high stakes (30M, 50M, etc) and I ended up losing all of the profit I had gained before; I was greedy. I then felt compelled to box my santa and lost that. I eventually returned to where I am, but not after boxing several H'ween masks and several hundred million.

[My_Eggs]

I don't really have a method of staking. I just go there and saying that I'm staking anywhere for 5-50m and see what my opponent wants to fight for. If I lose, I don't double usually, I just keep saying 5-50m and go with what my opponent is comfortable staking. Doing this got me from 24.6M to around 550M in about three or four days.

[AAvsKK]

Had a friend tell me to just keep staking 5m if I had 100m, but I don't see how that would get me anywhere since maxed staking is 50/50.

You answered your own question. You can't make a profit when the outcome is 50/50. Anyone who says you can is subscribing to what's known as gambler's fallacy. The majority of these people are losing gamblers, the rest are lucky. They don't understand probablity and favour superstition, emotion and incorrectly applied math over real statistics and common sense... see below:

 

And lastly, I know it may seem silly, especially given actual rational thought, but do what your intuition says. I won eleven stakes in a row...

 

This is an example of gambler's fallacy.

Now what if we take the eleven game winning streak but change it to a losing streak? Then, what if we apply the infamous Martingale System? Suddenly we find ourselves facing a whopping 10240M bet for the original 10m return.

[Johndevl]

There are two explanations for why the method of doubling your bet when losing is effective, one being mathematical and another being basic logic:

 

1. say you plan to box five times. Each match, your chances are 50/50. The chances of losing (or winning) the first two duels is 25% (1/2^n, where n is the number of duels in a row with the same outcome). So, losing all five duels has a 3.125% chance of occuring. Every subsequent loss implies a lower chance of losing again, therefore making this method profitable. However, for those of you that continue to refuse that the 50/50 chance is inescapable, see 2.

 

2. If you lose a few boxing matches and then win one by this method, the win will make up for all of the losses and yield profit equal to the quantity staked in the first duel. If you can afford to continue doubling your bets, you will eventually win, and you will always profit. Hence, it is extremely important to avoid getting to greedy when deciding how much to stake on the first duel. Say you have 500m. Can you start with a 50m stake? Well, probably. But if you lose three in a row, you're cleaned. So DON'T DO IT. Decide the number of losses in a row you would like to be able to cover, and then calculate what your first bet should be based on your current wealth. Use the formula, where W = your total wealth, and n equals the number of duels you want to be able to afford to lose, doubling the bet on each.

 

W(1/2^n). This will tell you how much to stake on the first duel. Round it down. So, with 500m, if you want to be able to lose 10 times, you would start at 500k. Not much profit. 8 losses? 2m. 6 losses? 8m. Etc. I've watched this method work for a routine 500m+ profit per night on an ~8b net wealth. Also, remember to always switch combat stances, as Hakkan explained. If you know you're going to probably lose during a stake, kick instead of using the +3 att stance while alternating.

[Quyneax]

When you have lost 5 duels in a row, and double your bet each time, does that increase your chances of winning? Nope. Good luck.

[Laura]

Had a friend tell me to just keep staking 5m if I had 100m, but I don't see how that would get me anywhere since maxed staking is 50/50.

You answered your own question. You can't make a profit when the outcome is 50/50. Anyone who says you can is subscribing to what's known as “gambler's fallacy”. The majority of these people are losing gamblers, the rest are lucky. They don't understand probablity and favour superstition, emotion and incorrectly applied math over real statistics and common sense... see below:

 

And lastly, I know it may seem silly, especially given actual rational thought, but do what your intuition says. I won eleven stakes in a row...

 

This is an example of gambler's fallacy.

Now what if we take the eleven game winning streak but change it to a losing streak? Then, what if we apply the infamous Martingale System? Suddenly we find ourselves facing a whopping 10240M bet for the original 10m return.

Not sure how you can even come up with that number. You assume that the staker has 10240M to even stake. That system cannot and will not work for the average player. And of course it's fallacious, I even said "...it may seem silly, especially given actual rational though." Not sure what your point is.

 

 

When you have lost 5 duels in a row, and double your bet each time, does that increase your chances of winning? Nope. Good luck.

Exactly. The thought is that eventually, your odds at winning overcome the losses you've incurred and receive a massive profit. However, as the OP said, he had a bad streak and lost it all - which is exactly what can happen.

[dogfever]

In any match you stake X gp. You have a 50% chance of losing it and a 50% chance of doubling it. Therefore the amount you expect to win back is (0.5*0) + (0.5*2X) = X. Minus your original stake gives you an expected profit per match of zero. If you double X the next time or even increase it by a small amount you still expect to win nothing overall.

 

The people who are saying, 'yes but eventually you are up by some amount' this is true and if you stop there you have won. The problem is twofold. Firstly, you have to stop, even going back to low stakes just makes it more likely you will break your bank in the end. Secondly, you have to have sufficient funds to find your run of luck, considering you are doubling each time the price of staying in the game rises exponentially. Starting with a stake of 10M five consecutive losses will require a stake of 320M to stay in the game. Lose another 5 and it goes up to 10240M. Granted the probability of losing 10 in a row is small but you expose yourself to that risk every time you start, even if you restart at 10M every time you win big.

 

If you are going to stake. Stop worrying about how to bet and start worrying about how to be better at staking. Also, take a probability class to rest your mind assured that the only strategy guaranteed not to end in disappointment is the much repeated 'don't bet more than you can afford to lose'