Tuesday, 15 March 2011

Vera Late


Getafe v Atletico Bibao tonight is a weak draw pick. If the game is tied at 80' though, with the way my luck is running, a lay of the current correct score might be a smart play!
1-1 at 84' and imagine my surprise when Getafe broke the tie when Moral scored his third goal of the match. Yes, really. "Gosh darn it", I said to myself. Had I heeded my own advice? Is the Pope Italian? But 10 minutes later, all was good in the world. Vera scored in the 94' and for once the (very) late goal went in my favour. There's a Moral to this story.

1 comment:

mouldhouse said...

Mr C,

It's a bit pernickity (if that's even how you spell it) but I was always taught that the level of accuracy should fit the context, as far as mathematics is concerned.

For example, if you had 10,000 matches in a sample, and 3,667 of them had ended in a draw, the statistic "I have a 36.67% strike rate" would be more than acceptable.

If you've got a sample size of 30, let us say, and 11 of them have ended in draws (or indeed now a sample of 31, and 12 have ended in draws, congrats, btw) then that level of accuracy really isn't justified; simply because the statistical significance - indeed, if that is the case, the probability that the results have been obtained by pure fluke and the system overall is a losing one is still 13.71% (assuming that all draws have hit at a price of 3.45, a big assumption I grant you!). Or indeed, more suited to this context, about one in 7.

Point being that strike rates to 2 d.p. over samples only just large enough to apply large-number estimates to is a bit of a misnomer - if my stabs above were correct, last night's result would make a difference of some 3%ish on the "advertised" strike rate, which is very volatile for one iteration.

The main purpose is not to be a total a$%ehole by pointing this out but hopefully to point out to some who may well risk their hard-earned following any of the posted picks that there might be a lot more luck involved than they would hope. I suppose its a downside of having a blog that posts picks without a concrete record, although I note gold-all-over has been updated after you nearly set a world record for getting bored of a blog :)

Incidentally, the strong draw picks posted on Gold-A-O have a nearly 1 in 3 chance of having been generated by pure fluke so far - but it says more about small sample sizes than anything else. I look forward to your witty riposte. I should also echo those who've praised it as the best betting blog on the internet - how you keep finding new subject matter that is actually interesting is beyond my comprehension, and isn't something I could do!