I had a good question by email and on Reddit about one of the betting systems I follow.
MDDE16 Betaminic strategy set
byu/AwardCorrect2922 inAutomatedBettingBots
This user is following the set with a 120 unit bank but is about -50-60 units down at the moment with 60 units left in the bank.
The sensible question I got was what to do from this point.
I post my reply below:
MDDE had another negative weekend.
When the results go bad, I always go back to my original long term data, especially the data when I first researched the strategies and see how they compare the estimates there to current results.
I try to look at each strategy separately, and not as a group.
So I look at
A) the Betaminic results for each strategy.
Q1 What was the AL (All Leagues) version of the MDDE strategy Max Drawdown at the time of creation? Has it exceeded that or not?
If it has exceeded the AL version’s MDD by 150%, then I will stop it. (Average MDD is 50% of the AL MDD. The range is from 8% to 135% Anything above 135% is breaking all historical records. But the longer we use a strategy, it will eventually increase its MDD, so I set 150% as my cut off point.)
If a strategy has gone 1,000 bets and is not in profit, or its yield is significantly below expectations, then I will stop it.
You can see the AL MDD at creation in the table below.
Source: https://bettingsystemsguide.
Altogether, if we use level stakes and work on the premise that we will achieve an average of 20% the MDDE strategy monthly profit levels, then these 16 strategies aim for +8.22 points profit per month.
This profit target includes the expectation that 75% of strategies will make profit and 25% will make a loss.
Q2 How many of the strategies are in profit? Is it the 75%W/25%L split as I had expected?
Q3 What are the profit levels as a % of the MDDE strategy data? Are they near 20%?
The expected MDD is based on an extremely conservative the worst case scenario of the MDD being 150% of the AL MDD. (Note that the average MDD was 50% of the AL MDD with a range of 8% to 135%.)
The expected MDD is based on an extremely conservative the worst case scenario of the MDD being 150% of the AL MDD. (Note that the average MDD was 50% of the AL MDD with a range of 8% to 135%.)
Q4 How many bets has a strategy actually had? Is it fair to judge them on that amount of data?
This is a key point.
I have been in this position many times before. The bank has a big drop and I panic stop everything and start new strategies without giving the current strategies a chance to place a fair amount of bets to express their trend. The old strategies then go on to make profit. I have made that mistake several times, and in 2025 I am trying really hard to stick to my plan.
If a strategy worked for 2,000 historical bets, and then the first 50 live bets you place end in big losses. Does that prove the strategy does not work? It depends on how much faith you have in your research method. In my opinion the MDDE research method is a good one that I have faith in.
If a strategy worked for 500-1,000 live bets (since shared/created period on Betaminic), and then the first 50 live bets you place end in big losses. Does that prove the strategy does not work? Here I would definitely say it does not prove anything. Also, the original strategies the MDDE set is based on also continue to do well. The only doubt I have in my mind is which version to follow, the original or the MDDE. I prefer the MDDE versions because they are based on a uniform research method applied to all of them, but I do not really know how the original strategies were researched. But here I am not 100% sure if I am right, or if I am breaking things that already work be re-researching them with updated data.
Let me share the various tracker sets I have that make me believe in this kind of betting based on historical trends:
These Contend UD bots started just 2 months apart on Oct 1st and Dec 1st 2024, but one of them is +27 units profit ahead of the other.
One person starting on Dec 2nd might have given up, but if they stick with it, they can make profit.
Also, both these bots only have 300-400 bets. Still not enough to judge them properly.
These are the same bots started on the same date but with Whitaker LC staking. LC means Linked to Cumulative, so the stakes get bigger after wins, and smaller after losses. I have now switched to only NLC bots (Not Linked to Cumulative), but this is an example again of unlucky timing for the Dec 2nd bot, and how changing stake sizes mid-plan can reduce long term profit. It is better to make a plan with fixed staking and stick to it.
This is the low drawdown set from Jan 2024.
It is now +61 units in profit after 2 years.
It has had many ups and downs.
This shows how sticking to an original plan can lead to good results.
But I switched to the MDDE set as my main set in May 2025 since I felt that was based on better logic.
We can see here the bots with more bets are green and the ones with fewer bets are in the red.
And even after 2 years, not enough data to judge them as not working.
That is one problem we get, it takes a long time to get that level of live bet data. So we really must have faith in our research method.
In theory, if we are unsure about which is the correct research method. We can follow both the strategies (original and MDDE versions) and split the stake levels 50-50 between them.
This is the 2025 low drawdown set.
Just 8 units profit after 8 months.
None of the strategies have more than 200 bets each. So we cannot judge them easily.
The above 100 GBP stakes are based on a 50 unit bank, so a 5k bank.
I applied a 2k WNLC (Whitaker Not Linked to Cumulative) bank to them and they are +15% in profit. (+15 points on the starting bank)
A lot of these strategies are familiar names to us. Most of them appearing in an MDDE version in the MDDE16 set.
Recently, I picked the top 10 performing strategies by Since created profit levels and made a new set for tracking.
This is a 5k WNLC bank, and is currently -56% down after very few bets.
It is my hypothesis that none of these individual bots will go to -5k. But if too many have a bad run at the same time, the shared 5k bank could be bankrupted.
This is one reason I made the MDDE set, because it is supposed to have less volatility than just picking the top profitable strategies.
And then coming to my MDDE16 trackers
This bets 100 GBP level stakes with a theoretical 10k bank.
It is -9 units since June 20th.
Only 3 strategies have more than 100 bets and they are all in the green.
This makes me think that the current negative run is just short term negative variance and we have to give them longer to perform.
These are the same bots with WNLC staking and a 2k bank since June 20th.
+9% (+9 points) since it started.
This suggests it is the higher odds strategies causing the level stakes bad run.
But they have not had enough bets to prove that those higher odds strategies do not work.
My 5k main bank started on August 17th and is now -20%. (It was +20 points, so that is a -40 point drop from its peak.)
Again, there are not many bets from each strategy to judge them on these live bets.
We have to still judge them on our initial research.
So what about the questions I asked?
A) the Betaminic results for each strategy.
Q1 What was the AL (All Leagues) version of the MDDE strategy Max Drawdown at the time of creation? Has it exceeded that or not?
Q2 How many of the strategies are in profit? Is it the 75%W/25%L split as I had expected?
Q3 What are the profit levels as a % of the MDDE strategy data? Are they near 20%?
Q4 How many bets has a strategy actually had? Is it fair to judge them on that amount of data?
Ultimately, I know the Q4 answer means that I need to trust my initial research data and not judge them too quickly and repeat my mistakes of the past.
The next step should be for me to go through my data to check Q1-Q3. That will take time. I will try to do it, but it goes on my to-do list after a few other things. If you can do it, that would be great, but the ultimate result may well be to “continue as we are.”
We calculated max DD for our combined strategies set (MDDE 16 according to your blog article). That was 60 units -> x2 = expected DD 120 units.
A 120 unit bank seems like a very fair size to start with.
A 120 unit bank seems like a very fair size to start with.
I often give my level stakes banks a 100 unit bank as a rule of thumb starting point.
I wrote in my MDDE research article: “For unit bank planning, calculate the estimated MDD as maximum 150% of the All Leagues MDD. (Average MDD is 50% of the AL MDD. The range is from 8% to 135% ) ” https://bettingsystemsguide.
The combined MDD of the AL versions is -1,340 units. That would be a very unusual worst case scenario if all the strategies went beyond their AL MDDS. We cannot base our banks on that number. It would be a completely inefficient use of the bank and would not cover costs.
“For unit bank planning, calculate the estimated MDD as maximum 150% of the All Leagues MDD. (Average MDD is 50% of the AL MDD. The range is from 8% to 135% ) “
If average MDD is 50% of the AL MDD, then is -670 units the average MDD for this set? But again that is if all 16 strategies have their statistically average worst losing run at the same time. Again this would be an inefficient number to base the starting bank on.
If we calculate another way, the average AL MDD of these strategies would be 1340/16 = 83.
If we then take +150% of that average MDD as our starting bank size we get 125 units, which is very close to your starting 120 unit bank.
So again, I do think a 120 unit bank seems like a very fair size to start with. It does not cover the worst case scenarios, but if we did that, then we would be inefficient with our betting bank in my opinion.
So where to go from here.
Now, what is the best course of action?
1) Continue as we are and hope the trend will finally revert
1) Continue as we are and hope the trend will finally revert
This is what I am going to do. I am going to let the bots keep running as they are, but with Whitaker staking in my case.
2) Change the strategy set and build up more stable system – something like less draw strategies, more lower odd strategies like user enthususername suggested
This MDDE set is meant to be a stable set but we have indeed hit a big combined losing run of the strategies together.
For me, I am using Whitaker staking, so the draw bets just stake about 1% of the bank each time.
I feel (gut feeling) that the draw bet tends to naturally have more value since it is an unpopular bet. Casual bettors prefer picking winners, and I think that it is easier to find value in draw strategies.
So I am not sure that removing them makes it a more stable system. (But I could be wrong.)
By stable, with level stakes, do we mean trying to reduce natural volatility of higher odds ranges and longer losing runs? Then looking at dropping the lower win rate / higher odds strategies would be the way to do that. But I would worry we miss out on value there.
I would recommend switching to odds-adjusted Whitaker Staking instead of giving up those higher odds strategies.
3) leave the things as they are and on weekend place bets with lower DD strategies priority (as you suggested)
This is a very valid option for level stakes.
You could cut out a few of the higher AL MDD strategies 13-16 in the set.
Note that OVER 2. is a 50% win rate evens strategy, but has a higher AL MDD than 3 of the other draw strategies in the set.
(If you were to change to Whitaker staking, then higher odds strategies don’t matter so much since the staking plan normalizes stakes for odds levels.)
If you stick with level stakes, then dropping the higher AL MDD strategies might be one option.
I don’t think this path is a failure. You are doing everything right in using statistics in gambling.
We have backtested the strategies.
We have backtested the research methods used to make the current updated versions of the already working and proven original strategies.
You have started with a healthy sized bank of 120 units.
If the plan is to let the bank run until it hits -120 units or reaches the profit target (+8 units average per month, so about +96 units after 12 months.), then let the plan continue to its pre-planned exit & review points.
We will hit these losing runs, and this is where many people give up. And that is completely understandable.
The live bets show that sticking with plans long term is the right method.
I would really recommend switching to Whitaker Staking, and using your nominal bank on that. This would allow you to keep all 16 strategies going, and it would naturally bet less on the higher odds picks, whatever the strategy.
Bf Bot Manager would allow you to automate this, so I also really recommend that.
But if you stay with level stakes,
I would really recommend hanging on longer, and letting it run until it hits the end or recovers.
Or if you have lost confidence and want to reduce risk and leave it with the current remaining bank, then cut out a few of the higher AL MDD strategies 13-16 in the set.
I think the strategies do work long term, but it is the bank management side that needs judgment.
And is it that balance between how much we allot to the system and for what profit target.
For example, for a target +8 units profit per month on average over 12 months: (+96 units in 12 months)
Do we prepare for the worst possible drawdown of all strategies reaching their historical lows again at the same time? 1,340 unit bank for +96 units?
Do we prepare for the worst drawdown of one of the strategies in the group? -142 unit bank for +96 units?
Do we prepare for the average worst drawdown of the strategies? -83 unit bank for +96 units?
Do we prepare for the average worst drawdown x150%? -125 unit bank for +96 units?
This is the current unsure area where our judgment comes into play.
For +96 units target profit, I would be willing to risk a 100 unit bank over 12 months.
So this is probably the most long winded and statistically backed way to say “keep going as you are” and follow your plan to its pre-planned exit & review points.
Best regards,
Tom Whitaker