I've worked out a system . It's not very complicated but over the course of the last 7 seasons it shows profit. So that's nice. Now I have to choose which finetune/set-up is the best:
1) ROI 5,37% / Probably +- 100 matches this season.
2) ROI 4,67% / Probably +- 300 matches this season.
3) ROI 3,78% / 380 matches this season.
What would you choose and why? Simply System 3 because that one generates the most money?
Most preferable system
No input?
I also want to know if 'simple' sytems can be profitable too. I only have 1 Rule :s based on the odds of a certain type of bet. So it's something like 'Back home team if odds are above >@1.30 in the Premier League'. Nothing more than that.
I also want to know if 'simple' sytems can be profitable too. I only have 1 Rule :s based on the odds of a certain type of bet. So it's something like 'Back home team if odds are above >@1.30 in the Premier League'. Nothing more than that.
Sounds like you have done your homework.
What I would ask you is this? The system has been successful over the last seven years. But what if this is the one year in eight where you suffer consistent losses? Are you psychologically prepared?
Are you prepared to search for value? Are you prepared to stick with your system next year even if this year is a wipeout of several bank balances?
Suggest you take a look at this thread viewtopic.php?f=36&t=8163&p=65233&hilit=Value#p65233
Suggest, because it seems your system does not involve greening up/redding up, that you remember that every time you lose 100 you need to win 105.26 to get back to even.
None of this is critical of your system. Rather I am simply suggesting you prepare yourself mentally.
What I would ask you is this? The system has been successful over the last seven years. But what if this is the one year in eight where you suffer consistent losses? Are you psychologically prepared?
Are you prepared to search for value? Are you prepared to stick with your system next year even if this year is a wipeout of several bank balances?
Suggest you take a look at this thread viewtopic.php?f=36&t=8163&p=65233&hilit=Value#p65233
Suggest, because it seems your system does not involve greening up/redding up, that you remember that every time you lose 100 you need to win 105.26 to get back to even.
None of this is critical of your system. Rather I am simply suggesting you prepare yourself mentally.
Thanks for the reminder but I think I'm prepared for the losing sequences. I'm familiar with itgazuty wrote:What I would ask you is this? The system has been successful over the last seven years. But what if this is the one year in eight where you suffer consistent losses? Are you psychologically prepared?
Are you prepared to search for value? Are you prepared to stick with your system next year even if this year is a wipeout of several bank balances?
Suggest you take a look at this thread viewtopic.php?f=36&t=8163&p=65233&hilit=Value#p65233
(8 years of sportsbetting).Note; 6 out of 7 season were profitable. Only one year it returned a -0.11% loss. If in a worse case scenario with 1% liability-staking I can't imagine a bankroll wipe out. But nothing is impossible ofcourse.
Edit: do you people have systems that only have 1 rule? I think if that's possible everybody can figure out a profitable system
and I know for sure that ain't the truth.I look for patterns. Once "discovered" or "recognised" I apply my methodology.
My rules are simple, they relate to volume, overrounds, availability of external validation data.
I focus on 95 events per week at the moment.
It's more than 1 rule but less than 10.
My rules are simple, they relate to volume, overrounds, availability of external validation data.
I focus on 95 events per week at the moment.
It's more than 1 rule but less than 10.
Hi Charon
My honest answer is 'none of them'.
If a system shows a long-term profit, it is possibly just a matter of time before the market catches up, and the inefficiency is removed. Have a look at this post on Peter's blog, which illustrates the point: http://www.betangel.com/blog_wp/2012/04 ... revisited/.
However, if you do fancy using a system that has been shown historically to make a profit, have a look at this academic paper: http://ihome.ust.hk/~dchoi/Betfair_ChoiHui.pdf. Its interesting finding is that:
'We find that whether bettors over- or underreact to the first goal of a match depends on how “surprising” the goal is. For a goal that is “expected” (i.e., the “favorite” team scores first) or only moderately surprising, bettors tend to underreact. In contrast, bettors tend to overreact when the goal is very surprising.'
Jeff
My honest answer is 'none of them'.
If a system shows a long-term profit, it is possibly just a matter of time before the market catches up, and the inefficiency is removed. Have a look at this post on Peter's blog, which illustrates the point: http://www.betangel.com/blog_wp/2012/04 ... revisited/.
However, if you do fancy using a system that has been shown historically to make a profit, have a look at this academic paper: http://ihome.ust.hk/~dchoi/Betfair_ChoiHui.pdf. Its interesting finding is that:
'We find that whether bettors over- or underreact to the first goal of a match depends on how “surprising” the goal is. For a goal that is “expected” (i.e., the “favorite” team scores first) or only moderately surprising, bettors tend to underreact. In contrast, bettors tend to overreact when the goal is very surprising.'
Jeff
Charon wrote: What would you choose and why? Simply System 3 because that one generates the most money?
Then why do people want to create systems if none of them is profitable over many years? Or do you only have to pin-point the moment the market catches up and quit your system?
How do you use Bet Angel otherwise? I.e. entrypoints and exitpoints are based on 'proven' stats (that's what I think).
How do you use Bet Angel otherwise? I.e. entrypoints and exitpoints are based on 'proven' stats (that's what I think).
Jeff,
Im with Charon on this one. My most reliable system has took well over six figures over the years and although its slowed down, that's fine. You just fine tune them over time and adapt.
Its also worth noting that quite often you will go down one road only to find a dead end, but sometimes it leads to new ideas and thinking.
I personally think it is counter productive if you think that something 'may' fail before you've even set off. Set off anyway and if its not looking like it will work, try something else?
Regards
Peter
Im with Charon on this one. My most reliable system has took well over six figures over the years and although its slowed down, that's fine. You just fine tune them over time and adapt.
Its also worth noting that quite often you will go down one road only to find a dead end, but sometimes it leads to new ideas and thinking.
I personally think it is counter productive if you think that something 'may' fail before you've even set off. Set off anyway and if its not looking like it will work, try something else?
Regards
Peter
Systems that exploit aspects of market behaviour are one thing. What I am talking about is systems that attempt to exploit a market blind spot in terms of weighing up the odds.Charon wrote:Then why do people want to create systems if none of them is profitable over many years?
If you've noticed that the market makes a mistake when a particular event happens on the pitch, chances are other people will have too, and that could lead to the inefficiency disappearing.
There are all sorts of technical approaches one could use (such as one tick scalping), which don't rely on you having a better grasp of the true odds of something happening than an arguably near-perfect market.Charon wrote:How do you use Bet Angel otherwise? I.e. entrypoints and exitpoints are based on 'proven' stats (that's what I think).
Jeff
I see where you're coming from, but unless you're confident that you have a long-term edge, you could lose a lot of money with that approach.PeterLe wrote:
I personally think it is counter productive if you think that something 'may' fail before you've even set off. Set off anyway and if its not looking like it will work, try something else?
I dipped into Nate Silver's The Signal and the Noise yesterday, and he admitted that prediction markets had a better idea of the true odds of anything happening than he did. I think it's dangerous when humans think that they know better than the market about what the true odds of an event happening are...
Jeff
I only noticed that the odds are generally speaking not set right over the full season. The 'event' doesn't occur that many times compared to the odds (i.e. odds >@2.00 but over the years the 'event' only occurs 45% of the time).
Another note: for this particular system it doesn't matter what happens on the pitch. It won't change the entrypoint or the exitpoint (there isn't a true exitpoint because it's when the match is over after 90 minutes).
Another note: for this particular system it doesn't matter what happens on the pitch. It won't change the entrypoint or the exitpoint (there isn't a true exitpoint because it's when the match is over after 90 minutes).
If you haven't done so, it might be worth doing a statistical test (such as Chi squared), to see whether that could realistically be due to randomness.Charon wrote:I only noticed that the odds are generally speaking not set right over the full season. The 'event' doesn't occur that many times compared to the odds (i.e. odds >@2.00 but over the years the 'event' only occurs 45% of the time).
Jeff
Great book! Read Chapter 10, 'The Poker Bubble', a lot of what he says probably applies to Betfair trading as well. It's interesting, he used to play poker online as a pro for a couple of years, but at some point he found that the other players had gotten too good, and he couldn't make money with poker any more. It really shows how tough online poker nowadays...remember Nate is a mathematical genius and even he can't win at poker online any more. A good quote from a top poker player:Ferru123 wrote:
I dipped into Nate Silver's The Signal and the Noise yesterday, and he admitted that prediction markets had a better idea of the true odds of anything happening than he did. I think it's dangerous when humans think that they know better than the market about what the true odds of an event happening are...
Jeff
"Poker is all about people who think they're favourites when they're not", Dwan told me. "People can have some pretty deluded views on poker."
And from Darse Billings: "There is no other game that I know of where humans are so smug, and think that they just play like wizards, and then play so badly,", he told me. "Basically it's because they don't know anything, and think they must be Godlike, and the truth is that they aren't."