MugPunter wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:49 am
Hi, the proof supporting Fibonacci is all around us in nature, however, as a staking strategy you'll be doomed, as with Martingale. Fibonacci was only suggested to stir a few trolls in this forum. Any staking strategy is only as good as your ability to...
Thanks MP, I guess I was trying to make the Troll Bait more tempting.
I have never seen what the number of petals on a flower has to do with a horse winning a race! I appreciate the F sequence is all around us in nature but where is the mathematical proof that it works as a staking plan and more so why it should work. It's simply a form of loss recovery system by increasing the stake after each loss ... I could do that by having a bag of numbers and picking one at random as my next stake after a loss then if that bet loses I could make up another bag of numbers where each number is larger than the one picked for my previous stake and so on until I recovered my losses or went bankrupt!
I'm coming from the same camp as you. It's comments (taken from a 'let us help you with your betting' website) such as ...
"The Fibonacci staking plan is the most well known and uses a sequence devised by a 13th century mathematician. ... The idea is to use stakes following the sequence irrespective of strike rate or odds. You might try applying the method to past results to see if this method suits your usual betting strategy."
The first sentence gives the naive reader the impression the sequence was designed for the purpose of betting and has stood the test of time for 8 centuries and the second sentence is a clear invitation to use the sequence (albeit on past results but we all know how impatient new punters can be!).