Smithlondon had a comment on my findings regarding backing the Draw in the EPL, and has gone further by conducting further research looking back further than four seasons.
To clarify, the reason I chose the past four seasons is that these are the only seasons for which Pinnacle’s data is available, and now with the added bonus of the closing prices.
The reasons Pinnacle are the sportsbook of choice are that they have the most favourable over-round at ~102%, and they do not restrict or close winning accounts.
Here is Smithlondon’s comment:
"Backing the draw in the (conveniently exactly) 1,000 matches where the implied probability of the Draw was 0.25 or greater at kick-off would have boosted your account by 49.22 points, and you can all work out the ROI% on that. (+50.33 from 1,017 selections if you bet early)."
As always your blog is an interesting read. The above caught my attention. I don't currently bet on football but I'm always looking for new systems to add to my portfolio. I believe diversity is important, so naturally those numbers piqued my interest, and with the season starting I decided it was worth a few hours of my time to have a look at. Even if it was more in hope than expectation. So I data dumped the sheets from football-data (excellent website) and went to work. I took the odds of five of the bookies listed (B365, BWIN, Lads, Hills, VC) for the last 10 seasons. I used those as they seemed to be the only ones listed for the complete 10 years. Averaging the odds and then applying your criteria (Back the Draw when implied prob > 0.25) gave me a return of 7.73 points from 1134 for the last four seasons, but a loss over the 10 seasons of -96.16 from 2937. I got closer to your four year results when I adjusted the average odds to represent a 100% book (my proxy for exchange odds). In that case I got a 39.81 point profit off 1005 (while applying a 5% commission) but I still registered a loss of -26.35 over the 10 seasons(2689). While I'm not suggesting your approach or numbers are wrong, a longer term view dampens the enthusiasm somewhat although I'm still searching for your filter.The over-rounds on B365, BWIN, Lads, Hills and VC are all higher - VC (selected at random) is 103.22% - so you are always up against it with these books, and if you look like you have anything resembling a clue as to what you are doing, your account will be closed or restricted to peanuts anyway. Bottom line is that these books don't bring a lot to the party for the serious bettor so I try to ignore them.
So I’m not sure that AVERAGING the (already poor) odds on these five books makes any sense. Pinnacle may not always be the best price, but they are rarely too far off, so to get anything like a meaningful comparison going back an additional six seasons, a better approach would be to use the best (MAXIMUM) available price.
2012-16 Best of Five 1,069 bets, +47.65, ROI 4.46%
2012-16 Pinnacle Closing 1,000 bets, +49.22, ROI 4.92%
Unfortunately I don't have the time to go back six more seasons and run the numbers, but the Best of Five are comparable to Pinnacle's profits, and the Draw hit rate between 2012-16 was 25.4%, while for the six seasons 2006-12 it was 26.1%. Perhaps Smithlondon can re-run the numbers using the best prices?
|Someone is certainly certain...|
Mixing metaphors I know, but no one should be a one-trick pony, nor have all their eggs in one basket. Smithlondon mentions he has a portfolio, and this is the best approach. Track the performance of each system appropriately, constantly develop new systems, and add / remove them from your portfolio as the results dictate. The benefit of a portfolio with diverse systems is that the variance of any one individual system is moderated. It’s an approach that works well with financial investments too. Putting all your money in one stock is a recipe for disaster – use mutual funds, preferably passive Index Funds!