*****New Football Thread*****

Akiva Anderson

SHG in the Jeju United v Gangwon match. 0-1 at HT

Akiva Anderson

SHG in the Suwon Bluewings v Suwon match. 0-1 at HT

Akiva Anderson

I’ve went for a SHG in the Jeonbuk v Ulsan match. 0-0 at HT

Richard Latimer

For the weekend. Lay Under 1.5 in blue/Lay over 1.5 in purple:

Akiva Anderson

I’ll be looking a SHG in these two matches tonight:

19:45 - Shamrock Rovers v Dundalk

19:45 - Derry City v Shelbourne

Richard Kedie

Utrecht 0 2 down to Rotterdam, Utrecht have won the last 5 matches between these teams. Have layed Sparta Rotterdam and a small back of Utrecht.

Martin

@Daniel-Heim-Råum can be difficult as some cup games are dull affairs (think Roma game last night!). Defo need to watch in play and see that both teams are going for it.

? Offline

Anyone done LTD on cup games, is it a no go or work well?

Akiva Anderson

SHG in the Landskrona v Trelleborg match. 0-1 at HT

? Offline

So after 8 months of testing, Winning, Learning, failing, losing and starting again, like with Racing tomorrow is D-day.

I have decided to follow Tomacz ONLY......2k Bank and see how it goes.

My reasons are every strategy I have made up and followed has dips and troughs but the Tomacz 1.5 has been relentless in Profit making over this period, so if you cant beat it......Join it and don't look a gift horse in the mouth!

Greg Mitchell

@Martin It seems to work for me, when I start a new strategy, I paper trade the first 80 selections, then calculate the Strike Rate and min/max odds required, then go live with small stakes, revising the odds every 50 selections if necessary, until I have hit the 385 mark and then if the strategy is still working I go fully live with a bank and % of bank staking dependent on the ROI and Drawdown..

As I say, I'm no statistician and it may not be technically correct but it hasn't done me any harm (yet!)

Richard Latimer

I'm already guaranteed another red month after the events of Sunday but hopefully this will stop the rot and begin a decent if quiet June. Lay Under 1.5:

Martin

@Greg-Mitchell interesting that! I like a number of 2000 for certainty on total strategy effectiveness (or as close to as can get) but 385 makes sense for odds filter!

Stuart Capstick

@Richard-Latimer

Basically, to be 95% confident that your margin of error is 5% or less, you need a sample of 385.

If you want greater confidence and a lower margin of error, you need larger samples.

The above is largely used for survey data.

A better way to test betting/trading results is to test the p value (probability that your results are due to chance alone).

Richard Latimer

@Greg-Mitchell said in *****New Football Thread*****:

@Joseph-Henderson said in *****New Football Thread*****:

How many selections would you suggest collating before applying a min odds filter? Thanks

Statistically, if you have a strategy whose number of selections will be unlimited, then 385 is the most you should have to track to be 95% confident that they are representative of an unlimited number of selections.

Obviously this is quite a lot and could take some time (strategy dependent). When starting a new strategy, I tend to use 80 as the first stop, as this represents an 95% confidence for a sample number of 100 selections. Then I review every further 50 selections until I have a total of 385 and then stop changing things.

Whether this is right or wrong, I dunno, I'm sure some statistics whizz will disagree, but it works for me.

Why 385? what's the significance of this number? Curious

Greg Mitchell

@Joseph-Henderson said in *****New Football Thread*****:

How many selections would you suggest collating before applying a min odds filter? Thanks

Statistically, if you have a strategy whose number of selections will be unlimited, then 385 is the most you should have to track to be 95% confident that they are representative of an unlimited number of selections.

Obviously this is quite a lot and could take some time (strategy dependent). When starting a new strategy, I tend to use 80 as the first stop, as this represents an 95% confidence for a sample number of 100 selections. Then I review every further 50 selections until I have a total of 385 and then stop changing things.

Whether this is right or wrong, I dunno, I'm sure some statistics whizz will disagree, but it works for me.

Joseph Henderson

How many selections would you suggest collating before applying a min odds filter? Thanks

Martin

@Karl-Pick big odds on the Chelsea one!

Richard Latimer

@Richard-Latimer said in *****New Football Thread*****:

@Richard-Latimer said in *****New Football Thread*****:

Lay Under 1.5:

I should stick to laying the overs at the moment haha! Still a green month provided Keflavik don't screw it up.

They've screwed it up. What a crappy day to follow yesterday!

Richard Latimer

@Richard-Latimer said in *****New Football Thread*****:

Lay Under 1.5:

I should stick to laying the overs at the moment haha! Still a green month provided Keflavik don't screw it up.