Thanks, and apologies to Maurice, for it was he who came up with the idea of looking at the Half-Time 0-0. He wrote:
Let's hope it will be another good year with the XX draws. The 0-0 Half-time was my idea. It's not a big leap from unders to 0-0, to 0-0 HT, so maybe others have thought about that too. I also want to test that coming season with low stakes. I will use the classic XX draws and not the extended.Matt very kindly came back with some numbers for previous seasons, after my last post which showed that the draw had performed very strongly. As I suspected, based on the fact that the edge on the unders wasn't huge, it does appear that this season is a statistical blip for him, although when selections are subjective, it's hard to tell whether the selection criteria from season to season remains the same, or is subject to subconscious biases - "I picked Norwich four times, and they didn't win once" for example, is likely to influence your opinion of Norwich next time they show up on the radar. I'll be watching these selections next season for signs that the draw bias might be continuing, but a strike rate of 34.3% on draws is historically high.
Here's what Matt wrote:
This was something I looked into when I was doing the review, primarily because as you say I noticed there was a fair bit of crossover with the FE bets and your XX bets and they are typically the same "type" of games.
Unfortunately I think it was just a random case of the recommended bets happening to hit a lot of draws this season (34.3%). I wouldn't expect that long term.
The shortlist bets this season only had 28 draws from 117 bets (23.9%)
2010/11 season there were 22 draws from 97 bets (22.6%) for the recommended bets and 39 draws from 152 bets (25.6%) for the shortlist bets.
2009/10 season before that it was 31 draws from 121 bets (25.6%) for the recommended bets and 50 draws from 129 bets for the shortlist (38.7%).
2008/09 season the rec bets and shortlist bets were all together as one and the draw rate was around the 25% mark from memory.
So I dont think there's much mileage in backing the draw blindly although there certainly could be an improvement with manual intervention.Well, it's before the start of the season now, and I did just that, giving up several hours of my life that I will never get back, a sacrifice for readers and subscribers everywhere. I took a look back over the season just gone to see what those 'crossover' matches were, and how they fared, and the findings are that:
I think it is interesting that we both pretty much target the same kind of games but bet on different outcomes, yet both make a long term profit. Before the start of the season we will have to compare results and have a look at what happens when there is a crossover of FE bets and XX bets. Could be an interesting angle there.
There were 13 matches, 6 were draws and 5 were home wins. We both lost on two of the matches.
An excellent set of results.
Just wondering, while your draws coming in may be more satisfying, and was the initial push behind your selections, the under 2.5 goals clearly made a lot more money (LSP) last season.
With the higher strike rate and much lower LLS and overall season profit surely unless the correlation between the 2 changes then the ROBG will be much higher on the Unders than on the draw.
Does this not make backing the Draw pretty redundant?
It makes me chuckle that someone who has spent a not insignificant amount of time picking holes in the systems / tipping services of others, is marketing his own subscription service using........
ESTIMATED ROI AND ASSUMED PRICES!!