*****New Football Thread*****
-
@Richard-Latimer Thanks for this
-
-
@andrew-page said in *****New Football Thread*****:
@Andy-Donnelly said in *****New Football Thread*****:
Also another question. Does anyone use a specific formula or model for calculating projected average winning and losing streaks?
I’m sure there was discussion about a particular model that would work this out a while back but can’t remember what it was called
why try predict? Ride the wave until it crashes
@andrew-page because if you know what you're longest expected losing streak is you can tailor your staking plan to this for oiptimal gains. Also in the knowledge you won't blow your bank.
-
@Andy-Donnelly said in *****New Football Thread*****:
Also another question. Does anyone use a specific formula or model for calculating projected average winning and losing streaks?
I’m sure there was discussion about a particular model that would work this out a while back but can’t remember what it was called
@Andy-Donnelly this is what you need:
=LN(1000)/-LN((1-(80/100)))
Paste it into excel. 1000 is number of bets, 80 is the the number of wins as a percentage.
This particualr is losing streak of 4.3 to be expected from 80% over 1000 bets
-
@andrew-page Haha, basically I’m trialing something that won’t be for everyone.
Basically an over 0.5 goal strategy. Looking at a staking plan where it’s basically a rolling accumulator for 10 trades. Then cash out and start again. Clearly you’d need to get 10 in a row right, more often than not for this to be profitable
-
@Andy-Donnelly said in *****New Football Thread*****:
Also another question. Does anyone use a specific formula or model for calculating projected average winning and losing streaks?
I’m sure there was discussion about a particular model that would work this out a while back but can’t remember what it was called
why try predict? Ride the wave until it crashes
-
Also another question. Does anyone use a specific formula or model for calculating projected average winning and losing streaks?
I’m sure there was discussion about a particular model that would work this out a while back but can’t remember what it was called
-
@Alex-Rule @Greg-Mitchell Cheers both
-
@Andy-Donnelly I use this and it's a life saver - https://betcalcul.com/calculator/converting-lay-odds-to-back-odds/
-
@Arran-Shackell and me... Welbeck should have scored... was a terrible game of football.
-
@Andy-Donnelly said in *****New Football Thread*****:
Does anyone know of a good calculator that translates back odds to lay odds?
Got an O1.5 strat that has tested horribly and was going to take Martins advice and test flipping it but wanted to rerun the back data first.
=(1/(Back Odds-1)+1
-
Does anyone know of a good calculator that translates back odds to lay odds?
Got an O1.5 strat that has tested horribly and was going to take Martins advice and test flipping it but wanted to rerun the back data first.
-
Yes Indeed. I was also waiting for the Brighton goal which never came!
-
Another crappy night on the Premier League last night:
-
Bad do on the Premier League Yesterday...
-
Probably a vote for actually watching the game in that case. TBF, when it goes over one they usually score pretty soon after. but plenty of goals under 1 as well. Maybe with AI going into the future it will get extremely accurate and there will be no value for anyone haha.
-
@Greg-Mitchell @Arran-Shackell this is how I understand it too, read “The xG philosophy” to try and get a better grasp of it.
-
I am no xG aficionado, but my understanding is that it is a measure not only of the shots/possession/goal attempts, but also the perceived quality of those.
So if you were not watching the game, then you may think having 20 shots means there must surely be a goal coming up. But if all of those shots have come from 30 yards out and there have been numerous defenders between the shot taker and the goal, then the chance of there being a goal is less.
-
I’m never sure what to think of the in play xg. Seems to be plenty of first goals scored when it’s <0.4 for a team. Happy to be enlightened though.
-
@Ben-Dobie said in *****New Football Thread*****:
@Martin I agree there should have been a goal eventually but the stats for the first half made it look even more likely than the actual chances for me. It was very frustrating in the end as some good chances wasted second half too
Interesting conversation this. I wasn't watching the game, but keeping my eye on the in-play stats, and yes from the first half the shots tally was high, however the in-play xG for both teams was very low (less than 0.6).
