Frankly whilst the statistical probabilities say one thing, perhaps more important is an individual’s own stance on risk. From a purely statistical perspective the current strike rate of 17.55% would imply that the Longest losing run over 5000 bets is likely to be 44. This figure together with our known historical worse bank fall of c.90 points to date still reflects that a 150 point bank should still be sufficient. One must also bear in mind that with the average number of daily selections being 32 that you need to be able to back the next day’s selections in the event of a potential bad patch. That said the potential psychological impact of the historic 90 point drop has also to be factored in. So the options I believe is anything between an aggressive 150 point bank to a more conservative 250 point bank. From an historical perspective we have seen a level stake gain of 188 points. The points profit remains constant regardless of your bank and the size of bank only really affects the rate of bank growth especially if you are compounding. With the benefit of compounding and bearing in mind the story of the hare and the tortoise a 150 point bank to date has generated an average of a 3.50% daily bank growth at level stakes. A 200 point bank would see this reduced to 2.63% average daily bank growth and a 250 point bank would have seen your average daily bank growth reduced to 2.10%. Even a 250 point conservative bank would have seen a bank growth at level stakes of 63% (much more if compounding) so far. I started off with a 150 point bank using BF’s low minimum stakes (£300). So if it failed the loss was negligible and I could afford to lose the £300. In conclusion therefore the higher the initial starting bank the more conservative I would be. With even a £500 starting bank and just a 1% average bank growth if compounding, after a year that £500 turns into £11,000+.