It is much easier to come up with stats that were profitable in Double Chance Dave Review the past if you have a small sample size and use level stakes as the proof of profit. Therefore I expect the reason the media use it, is firstly to make their job easier, and secondly 'the sheep effect'. Everyone else does it so why shouldn't I? I will always be very sceptical of any trends based on level staking unless the sample size is very big or the prices of the selections were within a tight band. I'm not saying that trends are to be ignored; just they need to be analysed properly in order to find the valuable ones.
Some in the media like Hugh Taylor of ATR and James Pyman of the Racing Post have used Actual/Expected winners a good bit lately to evaluate statistic's and this is much better than Level Stakes as a barometer of whether the statistic has value.Okay, enough level stakes bashing. Percentage of bank staking is still fixed stakes but you're staking a certain % of your betting bank on each selection. Same flaws as level staking while being marginally better for punting purposes as at least now you're including the size of your betting bank in your decisions.
Progressive staking is basically increasing stakes after a loser in order to have more money on the winners you back than the losers. Sounds very good in theory but in practice the bad losing run will wipe you out every time. You will win most of the time as a few winners will normally wipe out your loses and produce a profit. The problem comes when you get the really bad run that only happens rarely. You'll have two problems. One your betting bank won't have the ridiculous amount needed for the ever increasing stakes, and two even if it had, you won't be able to get the bet amount needed on. Some plans like doubling your stake after a loser would soon need astronomical stakes after a relatively short losing run even if you started at just €5 bets.