The road to full time
-
@bottlabroon i keep it stupidly simple. My strike rate 75.9%. My average odds 1.698. My profit this month 23.9 points
-
@bottlabroon said in The road to full time:
@lee-woodman said in The road to full time:
@darri Ok mate, ill leave you to it. I thought it was an open forum to discuss and learn from each other but i guess thats not always the case. Good luck
In fairness mate, Darri has clarified that he is referring to your actual trading SR not your historical selections SR and on that basis he's right.
I just stuck my oar in because it's something I often see repeated 'look for odds above your strategy SR' and it's flawed logic but I'm happy to concede that's not what Darri was implying
cheers lad, sometimes because i speak too much and ramble on a certain point the message im trying to convey isnt as to the point or clear as it should be. But glad you managed to see the same thing and my actual point
-
@lee-woodman dont be silly lad its just a minor disagreement, just didnt want you to be taking what i said out of context or misreading my actual point, stubbornness from myself probably but i like to make sure especially when it comes to trading that things dont remain unclear if you get me. Its hard enough as it is. I enjoy our chats so please dont take the humpf
-
@martin-walker said in The road to full time:
Im so confused by this conversation. But why would finding a strike rate and then taking better odds be wrong. Thats essentially all i do
It depends how you are doing it Martin.
Lower odds means a higher SR in efficient markets, when you throw out the lower odds you are throwing out a high percentage of winners and (potentially) throwing out selections that actually make up part of your profits.If you elimate a lot of your winners then you alter your SR and therefore change your break even point (percentage) if that makes sense.
-
@lee-woodman said in The road to full time:
@darri Ok mate, ill leave you to it. I thought it was an open forum to discuss and learn from each other but i guess thats not always the case. Good luck
In fairness mate, Darri has clarified that he is referring to your actual trading SR not your historical selections SR and on that basis he's right.
I just stuck my oar in because it's something I often see repeated 'look for odds above your strategy SR' and it's flawed logic but I'm happy to concede that's not what Darri was implying
-
Im so confused by this conversation. But why would finding a strike rate and then taking better odds be wrong. Thats essentially all i do
-
@darri Ok mate, ill leave you to it. I thought it was an open forum to discuss and learn from each other but i guess thats not always the case. Good luck
-
@lee-woodman lol bud re read the post man i have said the same thing!!!! getting tedious trying to get you to understand that. If you trade every game with odds of 2.1 and have a min strike rate of 50% you will win long term If however your judging only from historic strike rates from before without knowing the odds then you cannot simply trade that min price. I have highlighted below the fact i went on to explain this point so really dont understand why the need to be nip picking and cutting one line from a whole post.
-
@darri said in The road to full time:
@lee-woodman bud re read the post, i explained that strike rates are false promises so please guys would you actually re read it i explain it with 2 examples
Yes i get your overall point and i agree, i was making the point that the statement you yourself made 'However if your min price taken on every game is over the min price needed on your strike rate then its profitable' was incorrect. That suggests taking 2.1 on every trade if the SR is 50% would be profitable, i just didnt want someone to read it and take it as a fact when its not
-
@darri said in The road to full time:
Sometimes people when they record lets say after testing within that data when price isnt included will have certain games that dont hit the desired price which actually bumps up the actual strike rate. Game such as barca and ajax in their games are likely lower odds to average and therefore would make the strike rate only stat a false promise. Once you move into also recording odds stage of building a strategy that is truly when you know if its a working hypothesis, actually ideally your looking at strike rate of the games when you take better than min price, nothing else matters. See far too many people rely solely on strike rates which are just false, use them as bases and make sure odds compliment and not falsify your results.
dont nip pick certain lines read the whole post, iv clearly explained it and actually you guys disagreeing on this is silly because the whole post is saying exactly the same as what you guys are trying to say im wrong about which im not
-
@lee-woodman bud re read the post, i explained that strike rates are false promises so please guys would you actually re read it i explain it with 2 examples
-
@lee-woodman said in The road to full time:
@richard-latimer For the last month the results have been a bit skewed across the board so hopefully things start to revert back to normal. I think you need to be careful about interpreting data too early on as small anomalies arent given chance to iron themselves out. If looking at scores for example and there are only 20 results, just 2 results makes up 10% of that whole data set which can skew things. I like to make sure i have a hypothesis as to why something would work AND the data to back it up, if im using data alone then there has to be an awful lot of it
I know what you mean entirely which is why differently from the past I will continue collecting everything whether it seems initially pointless or not.
-
@darri
I wasn't cutting your post to try and distort things mate, it was purely to highlight the element I disagreed with. I felt that you saying that I said it wouldn't work was misrepresenting was all. My point at the time was that you was potentially eliminating good potential without testing rather than it wouldn't work in your format.
-
@darri said in The road to full time:
@bottlabroon re read mate thats not the full story of what i explained, i explained its the strike rate of your value trades, strike rates mean nowt without odds, so please re read before assuming
I think @bottlabroon is referring to the same line that he highlighted which is what i was referring to aswell. I was just stating that point of taking a minimum price above the SR was technically incorrect
-
@bottlabroon re read mate thats not the full story of what i explained, i explained its the strike rate of your value trades, strike rates mean nowt without odds, so please re read before assuming
-
@darri said in The road to full time:
@lee-woodman yep correct about the strike rate being a false promise. However if your min price taken on every game is over the min price needed on your strike rate then its profitable.
Sorry Darri but I disagree here and it something I often think throws people off track. Is it a good indicator? Most certainly but it doesn't mean it's profitable. The flaw is that every game is unique from a value point of view and doesn't follow the average.
Consider the following sequence of results:
Won 1.90
Won 1.90
Lost 2.10
Lost 2.10
Lost 2.10
Lost 2.10
Won 1.90
Lost 2.10
Won 1.90
Won 1.90So we have a strike rate of 50% winners therefore need over 2.00 to become profitable, so lets eliminate anything under 2.00. We take out all 5 winners and just leave ourselves the 5 losers! We can't apply overall market efficiency to unique individual events with 100% accuracy. The lower the odds the higher the SR in an efficient market, when you're eliminating lower odds then you're eliminating more winners than losers and the SR you have left would have to be recalculated ad infinitum if that makes semse.
-
@bottlabroon bud you have done a typical journalist approach there an cut a line from a bigger sentence. I actually went on to say i agreed with your comments and felt the results overperformed in the initial stages. Please dont think i was having a crack at you when if you read the whole thing i actually agreed. However i do think im right in this case for removing high scoring games and home teams winning as it wasnt working. Im backing 1.5 goals so if there has already been over 2.5 goals then in my mind its an overperforming game to average, so for me to then trade that game to be even more overperforming is silly. Home teams winning is also a thing iv cut from my SHGs as they also dont do well so in all my strategies my decisions are consistent because consistent data is showing the same issues. I made those changes to do as you just said below give it a better chance to beat the historic trends. Football changes, look at stuarts ltd example low returns for 2 years then boom 3 years of straight profits.
-
@darri said in The road to full time:
@matt-wood Remember bottlabroon posted saying this wouldnt work based off historic data given the criteria i was working with
In fairness Darri, I didn't say it wouldn't work, I questioned your decision to eliminate all but 0-0 matches (or favourite losing 1-0) for your testing. That 0-0 HT matches under perform against the mean for SH goals is beyond dispute, all the historical evidence is there. I felt you were eliminating a lot of potential by restricting your test to these games, that was all.
You know as well as I do that anything will work if you can refine it to the point where the % chance of something happening is greater than the odds being offered.
-
@richard-latimer For the last month the results have been a bit skewed across the board so hopefully things start to revert back to normal. I think you need to be careful about interpreting data too early on as small anomalies arent given chance to iron themselves out. If looking at scores for example and there are only 20 results, just 2 results makes up 10% of that whole data set which can skew things. I like to make sure i have a hypothesis as to why something would work AND the data to back it up, if im using data alone then there has to be an awful lot of it
-
@darri said in The road to full time:
@lee-woodman yep correct about the strike rate being a false promise. However if your min price taken on every game is over the min price needed on your strike rate then its profitable. Sometimes people when they record lets say after testing within that data when price isnt included will have certain games that dont hit the desired price which actually bumps up the actual strike rate. Game such as barca and ajax in their games are likely lower odds to average and therefore would make the strike rate only stat a false promise. Once you move into also recording odds stage of building a strategy that is truly when you know if its a working hypothesis, actually ideally your looking at strike rate of the games when you take better than min price, nothing else matters. See far too many people rely solely on strike rates which are just false, use them as bases and make sure odds compliment and not falsify your results.
My way of thinking and this is how lee is also doing his is to first build a filter that is working. From there you can tweak all you want get it to a solid base. But its when odds are added that we get a fair reflection. Trading really has one simple goal it will never change, take prices better than your min break even price and have those trades that do have a better strike rate than average. All the extra stuff is just a way to get to that stage nothing else. So summarise its actually your strike rate of value trades rather than base results that matters long term. And for me thats great that @Daniel-Mills your doing that by comparing your own trades to the base because thats what matters.
Its not strictly true that taking odds above the filters SR will be profitable, the odds of the winners and losers has to be factored in. Its ok to use as an initial benchmark but shouldnt be presumed to be accurate.
Like you said above SR is just one thing, its when odds are added in that makes or breaks it
