The BTC Football Trading Thread
-
@martin-walker said in The BTC Football Trading Thread:
@darri Theres 3 on now gais, varbergs, radnicki.
Im going to look at posting them up properly. Also these are guaranteed losers now ive posted.And thanks, i pretty much just followed all your advice and a few others
Varbergs was in mine but not at 0-0.
-
SHG norrkoping vs kalmar 0-1: GOAL! Probably too quick for everyone, only like to post once im matched, means people are getting on at better prices generally, freaks like this happen tho
-
@darri Theres 3 on now gais, varbergs, radnicki.
Im going to look at posting them up properly. Also these are guaranteed losers now ive posted.And thanks, i pretty much just followed all your advice and a few others
-
Would be interesting to see.
-
@martin-walker said in The BTC Football Trading Thread:
@richard-latimer i dont use match odds at all in this filter, if thats what you mean.
The tighter version really improves 0-0 more than any other scoreline thoughI wonder if without realising, you have got rid of many more evenly matched teams.
-
@richard-latimer i dont use match odds at all in this filter, if thats what you mean.
The tighter version really improves 0-0 more than any other scoreline though -
@martin-walker said in The BTC Football Trading Thread:
@darri i was thinking about starting to post the selections.
The base filter is 653 games 86%
Tighter 413 games 89%
Tighter again 258 games 91%Just one thing, because nobody else seems to do it, have you noticed a difference in s/r for 0-0's for example for some match odds? #also, I find 1-0's to be like this.
-
@martin-walker fantastic now stop debating and start posting them
teasing us with good strike rates 
time to see it in action and make us all some bankAs a side note i think its fantastic to see the progress you have made if this filter comes good for you, remember speaking to you ages ago about trading and this indeed is well deserved if it translates into p/l seamlessly
-
@darri i was thinking about starting to post the selections.
The base filter is 653 games 86%
Tighter 413 games 89%
Tighter again 258 games 91% -
@martin-walker in that case dont change anything and just continue, really this decision is not about trading improvement and more about your own life and efficiency things we dont really know about, ie how much time can you put into trading these, 2 good filters i hope you share them
-
@darri the tightening up was to accommodate summer leagues performing slightly worse.
Will continue to track both whichever option i go with. -
@martin-walker still stand by what i said earlier, if your mind is already in gear for option 2 which by sounds of each of your posts it is then trade them. But track the option 1. If that continues to increase the gap between option 1 and 2 by end of this year then perhaps re adjust your idea. We can all offer opinions but really it down to you. Option 1 is more time at the screen but also more profit, we can all sit here and say do x and y but really its down to you. Its more about profit and effort, rather than profit per trade in your situation with 2 good filters.
-
I would have to check tonight. Its exactly the same filter but one stat is tighter that gives the better results
-
Still though, 91% on odds under 5.0 is very good.
-
@martin-walker said in The BTC Football Trading Thread:
Filter with lower stats
133 wins 155 trades 85% +12.58 points
0.08 points per trade average profitFilter with higher stats
235 wins 258 trades 91% +38.1 points
0.14 points per trade average profitBacking 1 point to win 0.26 points
I don't know how closely related each filter is in terms of stats but are you able to tighten up without removing all of filter 1?
-
Filter with lower stats
133 wins 155 trades 85% +12.58 points
0.08 points per trade average profitFilter with higher stats
235 wins 258 trades 91% +38.1 points
0.14 points per trade average profitBacking 1 point to win 0.26 points
-
@lee-woodman said in The BTC Football Trading Thread:
@martin-walker Ok well take all the games and look at only those which are on filter 1 but NOT filter 2. Check out the results and ask ‘if this was a strategy in its own right would I do it’. If they don’t make the cut on their own merit then get rid and go with the second option
This makes perfect sense. How many selections are you omitting and what's the s/r of these on their own.
If half the selections for example are only giving you 13 PTS you have to ask are they actually worth it. This is where yield/ROI comes in I think.
-
@martin-walker Ok well take all the games and look at only those which are on filter 1 but NOT filter 2. Check out the results and ask ‘if this was a strategy in its own right would I do it’. If they don’t make the cut on their own merit then get rid and go with the second option
-
@lee-woodman yes
-
Is it exactly the same filter, just with a tighter criteria for the second?
