Saturday, 30 April 2016

Nugget

The Los in Los Angeles Clippers turned to Loss last night, as the Portland Trail Blazers won four in a row to take the series 4-2. It's hard not to feel some sympathy for the Clippers, but basketball is very much an individual sport in that prices and fortunes are hugely influenced by one or two star players and to continue in the play-offs, teams need those players to stay healthy. Although I'm happy with the lay at 1.37, I am somewhat kicking myself for not taking a few hundred more that was looking to back the Clippers at 1.5. Opportunities like this don't come along too often these days.

While the BLUnders Sytem is probably done for the season, I saw a post on the Betfair Forum from 'nugget' saying:

92% of the playoff games have gone under the total
With the total varying slightly from book to book, the numbers may be correct for nugget, but my numbers show that of the 84 games played so far, 56 have gone Under. Exclude the 4 pushes and we have 70%, which is still impressive but not quite 92%.

Is this a one season wonder? Here are the numbers for the last five full season, plus the one in progress:
Not convincing evidence that blindly backing playoff unders is a long term profitable strategy, but as I mentioned in this post, BLUnders selections continue to be profitable in the play-offs.

Over the same period as above, i.e. 2010-11 to this season, their record in play-offs is 10 Unders from 16 games, with one Push.

A modified form of BLUnders for play-off use (16 selections in six seasons isn't going to do anyone much good) would have generated 45 selections, with 27 Unders (and 2 Pushes) +9.70 / ROI +21.6% 

Thursday, 28 April 2016

Fortunes Clipped

It’s not exactly an example of ‘thinking outside the box’, but in a sport such as basketball where one individual makes such a difference to a team sport, the impact of injury can dramatically change the odds.

A couple of recent examples can be found in the ongoing NBA Play-Offs, where the Golden State Warriors and the Los Angeles Clippers have both lost their star players to injury this week.

The Warriors’ Steph Curry came back from an ankle injury, slipped on a wet spot, and sprained his knee ruling him out for maybe two weeks.

The Clippers’ star Chris Paul broke his hand this week, and Blake Griffin is now out of the play-offs with a left quadriceps injury.

Anyone watching game four of the Clippers Series (v Portland Trail Blazers) would have seen Paul’s reaction, and recognized that the injury was serious.

Add to that the sight of Griffin sitting on the bench clearly in discomfort and you have an opportunity.


There was money waiting to back the Clippers to win the series at 1.37 – but at just 2:1 ahead in games, (three home games won) and about (in my opinion) to lose game four and with major injury concerns, the Clippers were to my mind a value lay at this price. 

I may well have been late to the party as the Clippers had traded all the way down to 1.02 to win the series, presumably after big wins of 20+ points in the first two home games.
Even if you don’t trust a player’s reaction (superstars can be a little dramatic at times), the side-line reporters updates and post-game interviews can be useful sources of information.

With the series down to a best of three, the Trail Blazers were 1.45 favourites to win the series. Now that they are 3:2 ahead, with game six at home, they'll be down to around 1.15.

I was asked by text at the start of the play-offs “Will anybody beat the Warriors?” – my reply was, unfortunately for the Warriors, rather perceptive “Warriors are vulnerable if Curry gets injured”.

I didn’t mean to jinx Mr. Curry, (not that jinxes are real), and the Warriors have more depth than the Clippers, but my comment was to make the point that any team's fortunes can change in an instant with a key injury and that even in a ‘team‘ sport, it can be rewarding to look beyond the immediate event.

Friday, 22 April 2016

Blunderful Play-Offs

Given the selection criteria for the BLUnders System, it is hardly surprising that qualifiers during the play-offs are few and far between. The few selections are, however, profitable.

In the 20 completed seasons since 1994, there have been just 25 selections, most during the first round (of sixteen), but a few mismatches were from the Conference Semi-Finals (quarter-finals).

So far this post-season there have been five selections and all have gone unded very comfortably. The closest game was under by 9.5 points, while the others were under by at least 25.5 points. The overall five season record currently reads:

There's also an interesting trend in play-off BLUnders games when it comes to the handicap, a strategy that would be +9.04 from the 30 games of record, an ROI of 30.1%. I'll update this number at the end of the season.

Moving to football and last weekend was kind to the Bundeslayga System with a nice winner in the second division as the widely loathed RasenBallsport Leipzig lost and slipped to second in the table behind Freiburg. I suspect I wasn't the only one cheering that result. 
Finally, thanks to Baz for his comment that:
Having a new granddaughter is far better than winning any bet. Congratulations.
Yes, there are certainly more important things in life than money, something that becomes easier to say as you get older and accumulate more money.

Wednesday, 13 April 2016

Priorities

With an interval between posts of almost four weeks, readers might well be wondering if the author's enthusiasm for this blog is finally waning after 8 full years. Although there is some truth to that suggestion, I'm not quite ready to hang up the keyboard despite advancing another year in age, the arrival of a second granddaughter, and the imminent retirement at the end of this week of one of my oldest (in years known and in years lived) friends which has made me a little restless.

My new granddaughter missed sharing her granddad's birth date by a mere two hours, but at least she's an Aries and I should be able to remember her birthday anniversaries for a few years, at least until dementia / Alzheimer's sets in.

So I can't say that sports or sports investing has been top of my priority list of late. My interest in the Grand National was limited to winning £25 from my local pub's sweepstake as The Last Samuri placed second, but as I was celebrating Crystal Palace's Premier League survival in a crowded and noisy South Norwood pub at race time, I had no idea what I was watching! However, my in-depth knowledge of rowing meant that I was able to predict, not only the finalists, but also the Boat Race winner this year. The Cassini family also managed to leave the Whyteleafe v Herne Bay game with a profit - £9 each for two admissions, £1 for two Golden Goal tickets, and with 6:55 on the clock, my son's 7th minute ticket won him £20! I think I enjoyed that more than bigger wins on Betfair.  Who knew that I had an edge on pulling horse names and goal times out of a hat?

As for the more serious investments, the Bundeslayga System is clinging on to the slenderest of profits this season, with just a few weeks of the season to go:

Also clinging on to a small profit is the BLUnders System, with two more selections tonight as the regular season comes to a close.
Interestingly the 134 selections so far means the season total will be the highest since 1997's 162, in large part due to the dominance of the Golden State Warriors and the San Antonio Spurs who make up 62 of the selections between them.

I mentioned in my last post that there's a secondary bet which tends to win when the BLUnders selection loses, and this strategy had a great March and April and has improved the combined numbers as shown below:
Early days on the baseball SG3 system, but selections are coming thick and fast with another four today:
Finally, although I'm behind with my blog reading, I did see that Thoughts of a Football Trader wrote the following:
When we take our first steps into this minefield, each of us, without exception, blows a trading bank or ten. When we do so, we are crushed, and for a brief period chastise ourselves for making whatever error created the loss. But something inherent within us accepts that this loss, the others before and those that may come are the very lessons we need. So, we heed them, we reload the bank and begin again.
It's simply not true that "each of us, without exception, blows a trading bank or ten". My trading bank deposited in 2004 was £98.50 (after fees were deducted) and that remains the only deposit I have ever made. I believe the low was around £21.40 but blowing the bank was never an option for me and had it happened, I don't think I would have accepted the loss and re-loaded. Sometimes you need to accept that you simply don't have an edge and stop throwing good money after bad.

Wednesday, 16 March 2016

Revenge And Road Warriors

Fizzer emailed some thoughts on baseball, and on Barrie's 'revenge' system mentioned in this Revealing post. He writes:

Always enjoy seeing a new post appear on your blog, especially when it's about baseball.

Just a comment though about Baseball teams seeking revenge as suggested by Barrie. I don't really believe in that for Baseball. I can see that happens in some sports, and particularly in sports with a high level of energy and a heavy schedule such as NBA and NHL when teams have to pick and choose a bit where they put their effort in.

In baseball, however, it's a team game built around individual performance. Each at bat and each pitch are more subject to random variability than they are about motivation and revenge. I'd say every baseball player is trying to maximise their 'value' whether that's perceived as Home Runs, OBP, Steals, Strikeouts, WHIP etc every time they are at the plate or on the mound.

The value we are getting is not in spotting a revenge motive but in identifying when the market is over reacting to recent results - like the SG3 method - giving us value in the price versus the team's underlying ability.
Fizzer knows his baseball, and his comments make a lot of sense as usual.

At the risk of upsetting Fizzer, I turn now to the NBA where the BLUnders four year run of success is very much on the line with less than a month of the regular season remaining. Exactly 100 selections are currently split 49-49 with two pushes. There's a second system that I play alongside the Unders, which although overall is a losing system on its own, tends to win more often when the BLUnder selection loses. Not exactly Parrondo's Paradox, but something of a hedge with some additional churn value. The two bets combined are right now:
There's another selection tonight, but confidence is low since the game involves the Golden State Warriors whose Stephen Curry is hitting three-pointers like no one has ever done before. The previous season record was the one he set last season of 285, but this season he is on 325 with 16 games remaining. Apparently he has hit 77 consecutive three pointers in practice this season! 

Overall this season, Unders on Warriors BLUnders games have gone 11-15, but they are currently on a run of five consecutive Overs following their 17 point loss at the Lakers after starting as 17 point favourites on March 6th. Some of you may have noticed that the Away selections are an improvement on the basic BLUnders system, but it's an even better bet when it's the Warriors who are away this season. 

Monday, 14 March 2016

Revealing

Barrie sent me an email with details of another baseball system. He wrote:

...Also here is another one which again I can't support with stats, perhaps you can?
Again it concerns losing home teams but this time teams that have been embarrassed by a defeat by three or more runs and are playing the same team still at home in the next game, the theory is they will seek revenge and so should be backed but avoid weak teams by only betting if they are favourites. This is claimed to have shown a profit on both the money line and the run line for the last two seasons, your view would be appreciated and whether you put this on your blog for your other reader is up to you, I'm not sure systems being published makes much difference, maybe punters don't have the resolve to stick with it!.
I did take a look at the numbers on this, and whoever is claiming "to have shown a profit on both the money line and the run line for the last two seasons" is indeed absolutely correct. The 2014 and 2015 seasons would have made a total profit (Straight Up and Run Line) of exactly 110 points from 1,150 bets, an ROI% of 9.57%, which is very impressive.

No one should get too carried away over a couple of seasons though, and if we go back three seasons the profits and ROI% drop to 44.19 points and 2.65% respectively.

Last four seasons, and we're down to 4.56 points and an ROI% of 0.002%. Last five and we're in the red, so the likelihood is that this system has just been lucky of late.

I went back 10 years (actually 9 on the Run Line, as those stats for 2006 aren't available), and here are the numbers in full:
Playing the Run Line was more profitable than the Money Line in 7 of the 9 seasons, and that ROI% of 2.45% is quite respectable from 2,632 bets.

Anyway, thanks Barrie for the input, and the logical constraint to improve the SG3 system has been sent as requested.

A couple of spin-off thoughts from this post, the first being Barrie's suggestion that "I'm not sure systems being published makes much difference, maybe punters don't have the resolve to stick with it!". I tend to agree with this thinking. There are certainly some disciplined individuals around who do their research and eke out slow but steady profits in a rather boring manner, but most people are looking to get rich quick from gambling, and it doesn't usually work that way.

The Secret Betting Club's Peter Ling sent out an email the other day which contained this paragraph:
It’s fair to say the record is OK with only a 5.2% ROI and 156% ROC (AKA betting bank growth) over 2,400 bets. Certainly it isn’t the flashiest of services, yet does appeal to some due to the steady profits made, consistency and professionalism.
OK?  "Does appeal to some"? Good god people, is it just me who thinks that an ROI% of 5.2% over 2,400 bets is a little bit more than OK? If those returns are actually attainable, that is quite astonishing.

That the sport in question is horse racing just makes such numbers even more incredible, but it's that the service is described in such negative terms that I find so revealing.

This idea that betting is about being 'flashy' is surely one big reason why sports betting is still very much the bastard child of financial betting - I mean investing.

Daily25's Steve is in his sixth year of investing and sports, and his numbers (taken from his blog) are currently:
1.58% is fairly close to the current 1.71% I have for my Systematic bets, but I'd be happy with 1.58% after five years with them!

My old friend James had an interesting observation somewhat related to the topic of publishing systems on his blog last week. In his "Do Something Weird To Win A Bet" post, he wrote:
If you share ideas then those ideas will lose their value through being arbitraged away. By that I mean any strategy that has a positive edge will see that edge lost as money, from other traders with the same idea, moves the price to where there is no edge.
After many years of profitability, that may finally have happened to the Bundeslayga selections, which with just eight rounds remaining, this weekend dipped into the red after all four lay selections won.

Friday, 4 March 2016

Home Improvement

Congratulations to Fizzer555 for being the first to take the "Home Improvement" project one step further - the 'Shorties' clue in the post just made it too easy:  

When the team is at Home...
Even though the wins now exceed the losses, the system is still not quite profitable (-6.76 points, ROI -0.8%), but was a winner in both 2014 and 2015. Worth a closer look in my opinion. Thanks Baz.

If you select only Home Favourites that helps further. I guess if a team is being made fav after two losses at home to the same opponent then you are picking up on teams with more ability and filtering out the weaker teams.
Yes, the Home and Favourite qualifiers make a huge difference to Baz's basic idea. Here's the ten year record:
Just two losing seasons in the past ten years, and only one (2013) that would have hurt, this is worthy of inclusion in the Cassini Portfolio. It's another very manageable, quick and simple strategy that will generate around 100 bets on the season, approximately one every couple of days (it's a long season).

Now I just need a catchy name, to thank Baz and Fizzer555, and hope that anyone reading this forgets all about it and doesn't cause the prices to crash! It's again worth noting that the numbers above are all beatable on the exchanges or Pinnacle Sports but an ROI of 4.8% over ten years is very impressive.

There's one more logical constraint that historically would have increased the profits to 64.89 points from 537 bets, an ROI% of 8.3%. Baz / Fizzer: email me if you can't figure it out.

With many baseball series actually comprised of four games, I did look at the same strategy for teams losing the first three games. It's a rarer occurrence of course, and 93 bets over 10 seasons isn't much to get excited about, and neither is the loss of 15.48 points.

Wednesday, 2 March 2016

Major League Brooms

Someone other than James left a comment! Baz writes:

Thanks for the Blunders and Bundeslayga Systems, I follow both although I don't back every qualifier as I can't bet without my own input and, lucky that I am, I have improved the profits a little and it is entirely due to luck .
The baseball season starts soon and I wonder if you have any thoughts or systems on baseball, the only thing I do is oppose the clean sweep when a team win the first two games, I have no statistics to support this system that I read on a website.
As I've mentioned before, the BLUnders and Bundeslayga Systems aren't going to make you rich quick, but they are relatively low maintenance additions which can at best add some profits, and at worse, generate turnover and mitigate Premium Charges.

Baseball does indeed start soon, and this blog has featured some profitable strategies in the past. One strong strategy in the early days of the season is to back the shorties. Here's the five year record for April:
Bas mentions the strategy of opposing the sweep when a series starts with the same team winning both games, and while the numbers don't show this to be profitable, at least not over the last five years, it may have some potential:
It's a modest loss overall and if we include 2010 in this, the system would be in profit overall, albeit by a mere 0.18 points.

Going back as far as we can, the full record is 2177 - 2348, -50.37, giving an ROI of -1.1% but by adding one simple qualifier we can improve this to 426 - 388.

When the team is at Home...

Even though the wins now exceed the losses, the system is still not quite profitable (-6.76 points, ROI -0.8%), but was a winner in both 2014 and 2015. Worth a closer look in my opinion. Thanks Baz.

Under Pressure

The BLUnders results for February are in and for the third consecutive month, and fourth of five, they (officially) finished in the red.

A solid November means that the Under - Over totals are level at 41 with six weeks of the regular season to go, so the run of four profitable seasons isn't ended just yet, although March started with a loser.

It's been a streaky season for this system, with runs on the Unders of 6 (twice) in November and December, followed by a run of 6 Overs, 7 Unders and 7 Overs. Some heart-stopping bets for anyone stupid enough to Martingale this system.

James put me in my place, writing (partly in bold) that:
Of course, Star Wars is not science fiction, which is why I called it a space western.
I like sci-fi, where the plot centres on future technology, but flitting around in space craft whilst shooting off lasers is just a movie about good against evil, as much as any western ever was.
Some good recent sci-fi movies would be Ex Machina, Robot and Frank, and the Spanish film, Time Crimes.
Now back to some quant programming whilst being constantly held up watching the live camera feed from the construction site at the new White Hart Lane stadium. And I don't even support Spurs!
Well of course it is not, Mr. Shouty James, but as I've never seen any Star Wars movie, all I had to base my genre classification on was glimpses of spaceships zipping from galaxy to galaxy firing lasers at each other, something I had always thought of as science fiction, but upon discussing the subject with an old friend, he informed that it is science-fantasy because of something called 'the force' - whatever that is.

Wikipedia classifies Star Wars as an "epic space opera" which is in turn described as a "sub-genre of science fiction" but as Queen said - Is this the real fi ? Is this just fantasy ?

James and I are back on the same page in that neither of us support title favourites Spurs. Five clubs have been title favourites at one time or another this season. Chelsea, Manchester City, Arsenal, Leicester City and currently Tottenham Hotspur. I'm not sure if that's a record, but it can't have happened for many years, if ever.

Tuesday, 1 March 2016

Star Wars And Watersheds

It seems to have taken longer to reach March than usual this year, but it’s finally here and a good excuse to look at the current 2016 results for the Bundeslayga Systems.

Overall, the Bundeslayga System is currently +3.31 points on the season, and +0.96 points in 2016, while the Bundeslayawayga System is +1.74 points and +0.49 respectively.

James and myself really do seem to more and more like twins separated at birth, albeit by a few years and with different mothers. (One can’t be so sure when it comes to paternity). His comments on Star Wars below echo my own thoughts, although unlike James, I never saw even one of the films as Sci-Fi has never been one of my favourite genres. James comments:

“I forced myself to watch the original Star Wars movie a few weeks ago. It took three sittings on consecutive days. The verdict? A space western and a very tedious one too. Certainly not worth a seven movie franchise.
I have now seen Oscar nominated The Big Short and can recommend it. Of course, the book has the fine detail. The movie doesn't make it clear enough how fraudulent the financial markets are. Something that the lone day trader needs to learn before they "beat the markets".
"Oscar Math"? Are we an American, after all? Was my "confidant" correct with his wild assumptions?"
The Big Short was indeed very entertaining, but as James says, obviously not able to go into the detail that the book does. It did win the Best Adapted Screenplay award on Sunday having previously won the Writers Guild Award in the adapted category, but forget I said that please...
As for the “Oscar Math” post title, this was actually a nod to (linked to) Nate Silver’s 538 site which featured the interesting podcast and articles on the subject of predicting Academy Awards winners. 

Unfortunately the event ended with a small personal loss overall, taking a hit on the Best Picture of course, and also losing on the Original Song category. Just two losing markets from the thirteen played, but I was rather too confident in the successes of Best Leading Actor and Best Director carrying over to Best Picture. At least the Premium Charge Mitigation department will be happy with the churn, if not the final total loss of £48.70.

The shortest priced favourite to lose was Best Supporting Actor Sylvester Stallone at around 1.30. Given Stallone's previous record (0 from 2) with the Academy (of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences) I left this category alone. As readers of this blog will know, I have found the 1.3 (77%) number to be something of a watershed.

Stallone has a far more impressive record in the anti-Oscars, the Golden Raspberry Awards - nominated 25 times, and winning no less than eight awards - although perhaps this year's win of the Razzie Redeemer Award shouldn't be counted. His 14 nominations for Worst Actor is a record, as is his 4 wins in this category. 

Sunday, 28 February 2016

Oscar Math

It appears to have been seven years since I last wrote about betting on the Academy Awards, which at the time of writing are just a few hours away.

The 10 years of betting on this event has resulted in a profit of £630.50, with a high of £1,381.68 in 2008 and a low of -£1,780.40 in 2007. 

As I mentioned in 2007, other awards leading up to the Academy Awards usually give a big hint as to where the statues might be headed. Unfortunately over the years, this 'edge' has vanished with many others letting the cat out of the bag!
You can predict the Oscars with math. We’ve got all of this data from previous years — Guild Awards, other award shows, critic scores, which categories you’re nominated in — and we can use all of these things to figure out how important each of them are to predict each Oscar category. Then plug in this year’s data, and we’ve got ourselves a formula. It’s not perfect. Math is probably never going to go perfect, but, frankly, neither are qualitative predictors. I think at least math can definitely add something to the conversation each year. - Ben Zauzmer
So it'll be a more cautious approach this year, as it has been for the last few. 

Of the 24 markets available on Betfair, all but three have an odds-on favourite, with eight (including Leading Actor and Leading Actress) at ~1.12 or less. 

What jumps out at me is that the Best Director favourite (at ~1.22) is Alejandro González Iñárritu whereas you can back his film (The Revenant) for Best Picture at ~1.44 and if this wins, it will be another profitable year whatever happens elsewhere.

I'll be staying away from Sound Mixing once again this year, and I have still never seen a Star Wars movie.  

Sunday, 21 February 2016

Full Bloom

Tony Bloom
My old friend Scott sent me a link to an article in Business Insider about Tony Bloom and Starlizard. It's a good read, as are most of Scott's recommendations, although with rather too many references to Brighton and Hove Albion for my liking, and the "vying for promotion to the Premier League next season" line was particularly disturbing.

As I have previously mentioned, a relative works in the football betting industry, so much of the business model and the scale of the operation is not new to me.

However, I suspect that there are still many people who think that making a consistent profit from the top football leagues is realistic, despite their having far more limited resources than the enterprises detailed in the article, which does have some good quotes worth digesting:
  • "I wanted to gamble because I enjoyed it and, therefore, I needed to do it properly in order to win."
  • "Early on I was a hopeless gambler really, I liked to think that I understood the form and had a strategy but I was just guessing really."
  • "At university I made myself a promise that I would become fiercely disciplined. I wanted to gamble because I enjoyed it and therefore I needed to do it properly in order to win. I didn't want to lose my money."
  • "They don't beat the market all the time, just enough times."
  • "We're not trying to say this is going to happen, we're trying to say this will happen with a certain probability. If our probabilities are better than those of the bookmakers, then, in the long run, our clients will win money."
  • "...as the years have worn on it has got harder and harder to beat the bookies, with razor-thin margins squeezed even more"
I was also a little surprised to see Keith Sobey referenced in the article, albeit with a quote from back in 2010. As readers of this blog will know, Mr Sobey was the man behind, the not so magnifico, Galileo, "a previous sports-gambling fund managed by Centaur Global Ltd., which folded in 2012 owing creditors more than 2 million pounds ($3 million)".

"Centaur overstretched itself while still working on such algorithms when it opened its sports fund in 2010, according to Poots. Former Centaur CEO Keith Sobey couldn’t immediately be reached for comment". 

Perhaps not a surprise. What was a bit of a surprise was that while researching this post, I discovered that Peter Webb appears to have changed his name:
Priomha employs three statisticians to work with traders, and bases as little as 20 percent of decision-making on “qualitative” judgment, such as the effect on a team of the injury of a key player, Poots said. It hedges betting to offset potential losses.
Even if the fund’s model is effective, its expansion will be restricted by the volume of regulated betting in sports, according to Peter Blake, founder of Hook, England-based Bet Angel Ltd., which sells software to help individuals to wager on sports trading exchanges such as Betfair Plc.
What a tangled Blake we weave...

Interesting to note that while Priomha bases "as little as 20% of decision-making on 'qualitative' judgment", Starlizard makes "cold, calculated decisions about where to stake cash, separating the decision-making from the money and making it as mathematical as possible — no gut feelings". 

My gut feeling is to be very wary of investing with Priomha. 20% is a lot! Goodness knows how high this subjective percentage can go.  

Here is the "full Bloom" post:

Inside Starlizard: The story of Britain's most successful gambler and the secretive company that helps him win

Camden, North London. It's 12:45 p.m. on a Saturday, and the punks, tattoo artists, and tourists are gearing up for another day of drinking and shopping in the area's famous tunnels, warehouses, and bridges.

But the offices at the Iceworks building, overlooking the canal, are filled with smart young professionals. It might be the weekend for the rest of us, but for these workers it is the equivalent of Monday morning, the busiest day of the week, and the opening bell on their market is about to ring.

They have a huge sum of money on the line because they are in charge of the biggest gambling syndicate in Britain, believed to make up to £100 million, or $145 million, in a good year.

A mixture of men and women — mainly men — ages 25 to 45 gather around the TV screens dotted around the Camden office, some displays mounted on walls and others at desks. All are tuned to the weekend's football.

The first Premier League match of the weekend is about to begin. And with it, a weekly multimillion-pound gambling bonanza kicks off too. Their company can have £1 million riding on the outcome of a single match and more on the nine others that will follow in the next 24 hours.

But this isn't a bookmaker. It is Starlizard, a company that treats gambling the way hedge funds treat stocks. Officially, it describes itself as a betting consultancy that uses complex statistical models to generate football odds that are sharper than those offered by professional bookmakers. These are then sold to clients to help them beat the market. The company thus acts more like a betting adviser than a bookmaker — it doesn't actually take bets.

But the highly secretive company also masterminds one of the most successful professional gambling syndicates in the world, placing hundreds of millions of pounds worth of bets each year on behalf of high-roller clients.

Football is its biggest business, and if the goals don't go the way Starlizard's models predict, then people will lose a lot of money.

The bulk of the money Starlizard bets comes from Tony "The Lizard" Bloom, a maths whiz who earned his nickname for his cold-blooded decision-making at the poker table.

Bloom, a veteran gambler who owns Brighton and Hove Albion Football Club, made millions setting up an online bookmaker and poker websites in the 2000s, and his net worth — which is a mystery — is estimated by some to run into the billions.

Bloom set up Starlizard to run his sports activities, and the business allows him to bring the cool heads and statistical rigour of Mayfair's boutique quant investment world into the murky arena of Asian bookmakers. He told one interviewer, "I wanted to gamble because I enjoyed it and, therefore, I needed to do it properly in order to win."

Starlizard workers are invited to share in Bloom's winnings. They are offered a free stake in Bloom's syndicate, putting them in line for payouts of up to £500,000 every six months — assuming the match results go Bloom's way, of course. If they don't, employees and other syndicate members must top up Bloom's gambling pot from their own pockets.

But the syndicate is more successful than not, and Starlizard's record in steering Bloom to victory has won the softly spoken Brighton-born 45-year-old a reputation as one of the most successful professional gamblers in the world.

Despite the huge sums involved and the wild success enjoyed, both Starlizard and Bloom’s syndicate have gone largely unnoticed outside the world of professional gambling.

All Starlizard employees are made to sign strict nondisclosure agreements when joining the company, and Starlizard does not engage with the press. Bloom will give interviews only about Brighton, and even then he generally speaks only to local media.

Bloom and Starlizard each declined to speak with Business Insider for this article. Both also declined to give any comment.

But Business Insider has spent the past few months investigating the company to understand just how it works. We persuaded several former employees to speak on the condition of anonymity, talked to industry insiders, and combed through old press cuttings to piece together a definitive history of the company and its founder.


Tony Bloom, the most successful sports bettor of his generation, first tasted the thrill of gambling young.

"From the age of 8 or 9, I used to go down to the arcades in West Street with some friends and play with our pocket money on the fruit machines," Starlizard's architect told Brighton's local paper The Argus. He gave the rare interview shortly after taking over his boyhood football club, Brighton and Hove Albion FC, in 2009.

Bloom, then 39, was at that point rich enough to pump £80 million worth of unsecured and interest-free loans into the club. His net worth is unknown, but there is speculation it could run into the billions. The Daily Mail reported that Bloom has to date sunk about £200 million into Brighton since taking control.

The money Bloom has pumped into the club has helped Brighton win promotion to the Championship, where they now sit in fourth place, vying for promotion to the Premier League next season. His devotion to the club has made him beloved among fans, who can occasionally spot him on the train to away matches.

When Bloom took over the club, The Telegraph dubbed him a multimillionaire property developer, and The Argus attributes much of the wealth to a portfolio of private equity and property investments. Neither mentioned Starlizard.

The word that comes up most when you ask former Starlizard employees about Bloom is "nice." The 45-year-old is well liked in the office but is seen as something of an unknown, suggesting that, as at the poker table, he keeps his cards close to his chest.

Despite being a millionaire many times over, Bloom, as well as the associates who are believed to profit from his gambling, is not flashy with his wealth, according to former Starlizard employees. "They don't all drive around in Ferraris," one says.

He is described in the press as an intensely private family man, and he has a 7-year-old son with his Australian-born wife, Linda, a psychologist. The family divide their time between a home in North London and Australia.

Bloom and his wife are trustees of the Bloom Foundation, and his wife runs the charity Overcoming Multiple Sclerosis. Linda was found to have MS 15 years ago.

Born in 1970, Bloom grew up in Brighton, the seaside town an hour south of London. He was educated at Lancing College, a £23,000-a-year private school founded in 1848 whose alumni include novelist Evelyn Waugh, playwright Sir David Hare, and Sinclair Beecham, the cofounder of Pret a Manger.

The boarding and day school is focused around its 50-meter-high chapel, which dominates the leafy grounds. Chapel attendance is compulsory for all pupils.

Lancing itself is rural, surrounded by fields. But the school is a half-hour drive from Brighton and,according to former England cricket captain Mike Atherton's 2006 book "Gambling," Bloom used a fake ID during visits to town to get into betting shops at just 15 — three years below the UK’s legal age for sports betting.

Bloom went on to study mathematics at Manchester University, where he continued his sports betting. "Early on I was a hopeless gambler really," Bloom told Atherton. "I liked to think that I understood the form and had a strategy but I was just guessing really."

Bloom worked at the accountancy firm Ernst & Young after graduating. He was still betting on sports, earning a bankroll of £20,000 from bets by the time he left Ernst & Young in 1993 to enter the City as a trader.

After just six months as an options trader, Bloom decided to become a professional gambler. He bet on football and cricket, at one time losing £5,000 on a single game of cricket: the England v West Indies test match of 1994.

"I believe in betting aggressively," he told Atherton. "And, occasionally, to win big, you have to risk losing."

Despite the test-match setback, Bloom won more often than not. His success caught the eye of the bookmaker Victor Chandler, which approached Bloom in the late 1990s to set up its international betting operation.

This job introduced Bloom to the market where he would make millions, Asia.

Sports betting and gambling are huge in Asia, but gambling on football operates very differently there, using a system called the Asian handicap.

Originating in Indonesia, the Asian handicap system is meant to even the playing field for both teams by giving the underdog a theoretical goal advantage.

To give an example: Manchester United are playing Norwich. Manchester United, the favourites, have a 2+ handicap, meaning they must win by at least two goals for a bet on them to succeed. Odds are given in decimal format rather than fractions. A two-goal handicap would be Manchester United at 2.0, for example.

In most cases the handicap will be much more fine-tuned than the above example, reflecting more precisely things like form and injuries — Manchester United 2.8, say. Payouts become more complicated for handicaps such as these, but the essential thing to grasp is that the handicap system rests on the number of goals scored by each team.

If a team you've backed can't overcome the theoretical goal deficit — if Manchester United win by only 1-0 or 2-1 — you lose.

Bloom enjoyed much success setting up Victor Chandler's Asian betting operation, using his maths background to crunch stats on teams and come up with handicaps.

Bloom told The Argus in 2009: "I was one of the first people outside of Asia to take a keen interest and an understanding of it. I worked in Thailand for seven months, then Gibraltar for three years."

The 1998 World Cup in France was a pivotal moment in Bloom's life at Victor Chandler. Convinced the market was underestimating the odds of a French victory, Bloom persuaded Victor Chandler's management to bet everything it had won so far from the tournament on France to beat Brazil in the final. The host's 3-0 victory over Brazil netted a huge prize.

A former Starlizard employee described the story as the founding myth of Bloom's career. But no one Business Insider talked to knew the exact amount staked or how much Victor Chandler won. The company later became BetVictor, one of the UK's better-known online gambling brands.

Emboldened by his success at Victor Chandler, Bloom went on to set up Premier Bet in 2002. The company was an early online bookmaker that took bets under the Asian handicap system.

A BBC article from the time describes how Bloom operated the company:

It is heartening to find that in this age of robot dogs, online everything and space stations, Mr Bloom works [the odds] out himself.

He has all the statistics to hand to help him work out what the handicap should be, but it basically boils down to him watching a huge amount of football and making a judgment based on what he sees.

In 2005, the business was sold to Interactive Gaming for £1.2 million. More success came riding the online poker wave of the 2000s. Two online poker sites he helped set up, Tribeca Tables and St Minver, sold in the mid-2000s. The deals were performance-linked and worth up to $204 million combined. It is not clear how much Bloom made from the sales.

As well as gambling at work, Bloom did it for pleasure. Bloom made a name for himself as a formidable, high-stakes poker player in the early 2000s. Bloom is listed by PokerNews.com as the 15th most successful live — as opposed to online — poker player, having won $3.3 million at tournaments to date. His form earned him the nickname "The Lizard" at the poker table — he must be cold-blooded to make such ice-cool decisions, people said.

Poker player and TV presenter Victoria Coren dubbed Bloom a "poker phenomenon," writing in The Guardian in 2010: "If tournament winnings (the flawed yet standard measure of poker success) were divided by number of tournaments played, the low-key Lizard would probably turn out to be the biggest winner in the world."

Bloom told The Times in 2011: "Poker gives you a good grounding in lots of things, including reading situations and reading people and making tough decisions. Those skills can be used in business and certainly in running a football club."

Bloom is incredibly unusual in that he plays at the highest level merely for fun, rather than professionally. He told Atherton that he inherited his love of gambling from his grandfather Harry Bloom, who owned greyhounds. He told Atherton: "He was a small-time gambler and probably a loser, as 99% of people are, but he loved it, and the losing never became out of control."

Bloom, who also runs marathons in his spare time, challenged US professional player Daniel Negreanu to a head-to-head game with a pot of $500,000 in 2005. After five hours, Bloom lost and "with his characteristic calm walked away," according to VegasInsider.com. He could afford to lose $500,000.

Bloom clearly took a shine to his poker nickname, as he used it for his next venture, Starlizard, set up in 2006.

Starlizard represented a shift away from taking bets into advising on them. The company is a consultancy that offers proprietary odds analysis to rich clients looking to make smart, high-stakes bets. These high-rollers then use Starlizard's internally generated odds to identify "value" bets — instances in which the retail bookmaking market has underestimated or overestimated a team. In these cases, the risk-reward ratio is swayed in the bettor's favour.

An employee of Starlizard's rival Smartodds told The Guardian in 2011: "We're not trying to say this is going to happen, we're trying to say this will happen with a certain probability. If our probabilities are better than those of the bookmakers, then, in the long run, our clients will win money."

Starlizard specialises in estimates tailored for the Asian handicap market — Bloom's favourite — by calculating what it sees as the most likely scoreline for any given football match. This is crucial, as the handicap rests on the favourite scoring a certain number of goals. This advice generates revenue of about £13.8 million annually for Starlizard in fees from clients.

Bloom is not listed as a director of Starlizard, but several of his key lieutenants are: Steven Edery, described by former employees as Bloom's right-hand man; Marc Sugarman, a former Citigroup equity analyst who is also on Brighton's board; and Adam Franks, a chartered accountant who knows Bloom from his Manchester University days and who is finance director for all of Bloom's businesses. Franks is also on the Brighton board.

Everyone Business Insider talked to within the industry and who had worked at the company said that despite not appearing on the paperwork, Bloom was in charge. It's unclear why Bloom is not a director. He even keeps an apartment in the same building as Starlizard's Camden offices, according to one former employee.

As well as being Starlizard's architect, Bloom is also the company's biggest client.

About the same time that Starlizard was created, Bloom established a gambling syndicate, a group of close associates who would pool their money together to make high-stakes sports bets.

By increasing the available pot of betting money, the group maximises potential winnings. Bloom runs the syndicate and is believed to provide the vast majority of the bankroll.

A 2014 article on the sports website Bleacher Report suggested that Starlizard accepted outside money if an investor could stump up at least £2 million. But former employees and industry insiders spoke of Starlizard and Bloom's syndicate as one and the same, and they say Starlizard spends most of its time dealing with Bloom's syndicate.

Starlizard's latest accounts, made up to June 2014, say the business is "diversifying revenue streams in order to reduce the risk of over-reliance on a particular client." In essence, the company is Bloom's gambling money manager. Starlizard and Bloom declined to comment on these specific claims.

While it's unclear why Bloom is not a director of Starlizard, it is clear why he set up the company.

Bloom acknowledged in Michael Atherton's 2006 book that he had "an addictive personality," saying: "At university I made myself a promise that I would become fiercely disciplined. I wanted to gamble because I enjoyed it and therefore I needed to do it properly in order to win. I didn't want to lose my money."

Starlizard allowed Bloom's syndicate to make cold, calculated decisions about where to stake cash, separating the decision-making from the money and making it as mathematical as possible — no gut feelings.

Starlizard helped pioneer a new, corporate approach to professional gambling, more closely resembling an investment bank or hedge fund than a bookmaker.

About 160 workers spend their days crunching statistics, building computer models, and doing huge deals on the other side of the world.

Some are fresh out of university, but ages range right up to the mid-40s. The mix of genders and races is diverse — all that matters is a razor-sharp understanding of the betting market and a head for statistics.

"It was a lot more professional and less laddish than working at a William Hill or a Bet365," a former employee says.

The company is split into four teams, each performing a specific role in the generation of odds. One generates data, another crunches that data into odds, a third decides which bets to take based on those odds, and a fourth places those bets on behalf of clients with bookmakers in Asia.

In the Camden office there are about 30 football researchers who generate internal data. They do this by watching matches and recording things like goal-scoring opportunities or shots on target.

A former employee says: "If a game was 0-0 but the home team had missed a penalty, the best scoreline to go back into a predictive model would be something like 0.8. If a team missed a penalty and had, say, two shots where they hit the woodwork, they probably deserved to win."

These researchers also make it their business to get as close as possible to the action, speaking to a network of contacts that includes journalists and league experts. Their aim is to get as much information on things like morale, form, team sheets, and training as possible.

A former employee told Business Insider: "Every aspect of football that you could think of was taken into consideration. I guess that's why they're so good at what they do. The weather, morale, anyone related to the club, [they] would be analysed under the microscope. It was pretty impressive."

The data generated by Starlizard's researchers is plugged into a highly complex statistical computer model, built by another team, the "quants." These are the computer whizzes you would usually find in investment banks.

These quants are based in a separate office, out in Exeter, and spend their days building and maintaining an algorithm that not only pulls together all of the data points, but also decides the right weighting for each.

Speaking about his gambling philosophy in general, Bloom told The Times in 2011: "A lot of otherwise good gamblers may read too much into injuries. Sometimes the odds can get too skewed because one or two players are out. When I analyse situations, I don't want to go overboard on one side."

The odds generated in Exeter are passed back to the Camden office, where a team of "selectors" reviews them. This smaller team — about 20 people — operates like the traders in a bank. It tries to identify mispriced bets in the retail market, based on the team's internal odds, and decide just how much to stake on behalf of Bloom and other clients. The computer model is tweaked nearly constantly, according to former employees, and it uses statistical models to predict the likelihood of every possible scoreline. It then churns out what it sees as the most accurate handicap for the match — Leicester at 1.18 against Aston Villa, for example.

These decisions are relayed to bet placers, the fourth team. As well as paying for access to Starlizard's proprietary odds, clients are paying for access to its black book of contacts in markets like China, Thailand, and Indonesia. Starlizard's odds are tailored to these markets, but it can be difficult to access Asian bookmakers unless you know the right people.

Bet placers operate like brokers, placing bets on behalf of clients. But the bet placers themselves work through a series of brokers in Asia, contacting them over the phone or using online messaging tools.

Working this way helps Starlizard obscure its presence in the market — the company is now well known in Asian betting, and knowledge of its ordering a bet would move the odds.

Jesper Søgaard, CEO of BettingExpert.com, a tip-sharing platform for amateur gamblers, says: "If they take a position, they will definitely move the entire market. They do as much as possible to not let others know about their position."

"I can't tell you any 'last weekend they had this position' — I don't know that. But what I can see is the market moved and that signals one of the big syndicates made a move. Especially on match day, you know it's the big boys playing."

Industry experts estimate there are up to 12 sizeable professional gambling syndicates worldwide, though exact figures are unclear. Some are even more clandestine than Starlizard, as they are involved in match-fixing.

This is an anathema to Starlizard's approach, which depends on as clean a game as possible to let the statistics come good. There is no suggestion of any legal wrongdoing in Starlizard's operations.

Starlizard will typically place bets as close to match day as possible to guard against any new information that could move against them — an injury to a key player in training, for example.

A Premier League match will create the most liquid pool of bets. Starlizard will try to bet at least £1 million on behalf of Bloom and any other clients. Placing bets of this size without skewing the odds would be near impossible in Europe, but in Asia — one of the most liquid gambling markets in the world — it can go undetected.

Starlizard must stake bets this big because its margins are razor thin — it's a volume game.
Starlizard doesn’t just follow major leagues like the Premier League. A former employee says, "Wherever there's football, they're betting on it."

(Bloom's syndicate and Starlizard don't place any bets on Brighton, given Bloom and other directors' roles at the club.)

Leagues as esoteric as Japan, Turkey, and Australia are closely studied to find value bets. Stringers in these markets will feed back information on things like form and likely team sheets.

When placing bets on smaller leagues, smaller sums must be wagered so as not to spook the market — £10,000 here, £20,000 there. Cricket is also bet on, though to a lesser extent.

The upshot of betting in less popular leagues is that the relative information void means it can often be easier to find an edge — bookies spend less time on the Romanian form tables than they would for La Liga.

The downside to this extensive approach, a former employee says, is that "someone has to be in the office betting on it." Starlizard's Camden headquarters are open 24/7, and it's not unusual for people to come in at 3 a.m. or 4 a.m. to watch a match going on halfway around the world.

That's because if things appear to be going the syndicate's way, Starlizard will make additional bets during the match on behalf of its client, doubling down to increase the potential winnings.

Weekends are a write-off for staff too, as that's when most football is played. It is frowned upon to be out of the office on Saturday and Sunday.

But there are significant upsides that make Starlizard's unusual hours worth it.

Bloom and other directors are not afraid to spend money to keep their staff happy and the offices are kitted out with the type of luxuries you'd find at Goldman Sachs or Google. Behind the Icework's smoked-glass windows there's a free gym with changing rooms, a steam room, and showers; a full kitchen offering free food; and a games room with pool tables and darts.

The company maintains a box at Chelsea's Stamford Bridge stadium, according to former employees, as well as boxes at other top Premier League clubs. Employees get to visit.

One former employee remembers the whole company being packed up on coaches and taken down to the Amex Stadium, the 30,000-capacity home ground of Bloom's Brighton.

After a stadium tour, Starlizard's first nine went up against a team of ex-pros drafted in for the day. Commentators were on hand, and Sky Sports' cameras, usually stationed for league games, were drafted into use. Everyone went home with a DVD of the day's action.

On quieter days in the office, the atmosphere is relaxed, with one former employee saying workers could leave to play sports in the middle of the day with no bother.

And management ensures there are regular treats to keep everyone sweet. One former employee described spending on staff parties as "obscene." 

Starlizard hires out exclusive bars and clubs in London in full — "They don't want any old riff raff turning up," one former employee joked. On these occasions, free drinks flow all night.

Camden, the birthplace of punk and home of Amy Winehouse, feels as if it has a pub on every corner, and former Starlizard workers say they would often socialise in the area after-hours.

One former Starlizard worker says: "There was a lot of drinking, socialising, and parties."

But these sorts of benefits pale in comparison to the biggest sweetener of all — the money.

Former Starlizard workers say the base pay was unspectacular, with those on the betting side earning something similar to what they would at a High Street bookmaker — £25,000 to £40,000, depending on the role. The quants who maintained the odds algorithm also made what they would in a similar role at a bank.

But after new arrivals pass their probation, former employees told Business Insider, they are called into finance director Adam Franks' office and offered what amounts to a golden ticket: a stake in Bloom's syndicate.

This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get a share of the winnings of one of the most, if not the most, successful sports bettor in the world.

Gambling winnings from Bloom's multimillion-pound pot are paid out to stakeholders generally twice a year, with payouts ranging from below £100 to upward of £500,000 every six months, according to former employees. The payouts depend on how big an employee's stake — dubbed "stars" — in the syndicate is.

Best of all, when Starlizard workers are invited to join the syndicate, they don't even have to put any money in; they just get a stake of the winnings as if it were a bonus. (And because it's gambling winnings, the money is tax-exempt under UK law.)

Most of the staff is in on the syndicate. A former employee says: "You could quite easily be getting £10,000 every six months — who would turn that down?"

If the free payouts sound too good to be true, however, it is because they are. As well as being in line for any winnings, those who opt in to the syndicate are also on the hook for any losses. If there is a losing run, the staff has to help top up the gambling pot.

But losses are rare. A former employee who was with the company for most of its 10-year existence recalled just one significant period of losses.

Yes, the syndicate may have a run of losing bets. But across the year, Starlizard almost always came out on top, and the irregularity of repayments meant people were shielded.

An employee at one of the High Street bookmakers who declined to be named told Business Insider, "They don't beat the market all the time, just enough times."

It's worth dwelling on that for a second — just one period of losses across almost 10 years. That's a stunning record. Gambling is a losing game in which the bookmaker always comes out on top. For ordinary bettors who put a few quid on a match, it's essentially a tax on people who don't understand the laws of probability.

But Bloom and his team have managed to build a statistical model that has allowed them to consistently beat the market for the best part of a decade.

As a result of these regular payouts, many employees stay at Starlizard for a long time. Stints of five years or more are not unusual.

A former employee adds: "Once you're in there, it's very hard to work anywhere else. The skill set for some of the jobs there is so specific to that industry. You have to start again almost if you want to work somewhere else."

Recruitment is relatively rare, and when new workers are brought in, they know little about what the company actually does. Interviewees are pulled through a network of recruiters who know little about the business — one ex-staffer remembers being quizzed about what Starlizard did by the recruiter who had referred him.

Vetting is extensive too, with interviewees forced to explain any résumé gaps and in-depth background checks.

Once in, employees are bound by a strict code of secrecy about what it is they do. They can't have Twitter profiles and are made to sign strict nondisclosure agreements. They can tell people whom they work for, though some are even reluctant to do that.

Starlizard enforces this level of secrecy because its advantage comes from keeping its value bets a secret — if word got out that it were recommending clients back, say, Swansea this weekend, it would move odds and the edge would be lost. The potential returns would diminish, making the risk not as attractive.

A former employee adds: "If Tony Bloom is making something a value bet this weekend, the likelihood is it'll be a value bet next weekend too." Leaks have the potential to scupper not just this week's work, but next week's too.

Bloom has good reason to fear leaks. In the early days of the syndicate, insiders were filling their pockets at the expense of the company.

Several former employees confirmed to Business Insider that early employees would front-run the syndicate, placing personal bets on teams when they knew Starlizard was making a value bet that week. That eroded the company's advantage by skewing the odds.

The problem was rife, with one former employee saying, "People treated it like MPs treated expenses." Starlizard declined to comment on this specific allegation.

To combat this problem, Starlizard barred employees from placing personal bets and broke up the business' operations to limit information sharing.

In the Camden offices, security is tight. Building passes will allow you to get into only certain floors, similar to an investment bank. That keeps different departments from sharing too much information.

And having the quants who maintain the algorithm based in a separate office in Exeter also silos knowledge. A former employee suggested only a handful of people knew how the whole thing worked.

As a result of the secrecy, it's hard to know exactly how much Starlizard bets on behalf of Bloom's syndicate across a year or how much is won. Starlizard employees in the syndicate know how much they get paid out personally and have an idea of bet sizes each week, but across the year it is harder to tell.

Former employees and industry figures I spoke with estimate that Bloom's syndicate makes profits of £20 million to £100 million depending on how the year went. Bloom and Starlizard declined to comment on these figures.

To win the amount of money that former workers say it does, the syndicate must wager huge sums each year. Former employees say the syndicate is looking for a return on money invested of just 1% to 3%. A bookmaker, by comparison, typically has a margin of 10% to 15%. BettingExpert.com's Søgaard says: "We'r
e talking turnover of more than several hundred million pounds a year."

It seems more likely that the syndicate's profits are closer to £20 million than £100 million. To make £100 million on a 3% margin the syndicate would have to be wagering £3.3 billion.

Still, the rumoured profitability has earned Bloom a reputation as the godfather of football gambling. Keith Sobey, who runs a London sports-betting academy, told The Wall Street Journal in 2010, "He's probably the most successful soccer bettor in the world." Everyone Business Insider talked to within the industry echoed this sentiment.

Bloom's net worth is unknown, but there is speculation he could be a billionaire. The Jewish Chronicle estimated his wealth at £50 million in 2009, but in the same year he loaned Brighton £80 million and was quoted by the same paper as saying: "This is all my money. It is not loans from banks, and it is not somebody else's money."

Whatever the exact figure, his wealth almost certainly runs into the hundreds of millions — at least.

Bloom is not the only professional sports bettor in Britain. And Starlizard is not the only gambling consultancy in the UK — not even the only one in North London.

Bloom's great rival is Matthew Benham, the owner of Brentford FC who founded Smartodds, another stats-based gambling consultancy.

Similarities between Bloom and Benham abound. Like Bloom, Benham is a former City trader. Like Bloom, Benham has adopted a hedge-fund-like model, paying computer whizzes to build algorithms that help him beat the market. And like Bloom, Benham owns his boyhood football club.

Despite the similarities between the two, Benham and Bloom are archrivals. The pair first crossed paths at Premier Bet, the online bookmaker Bloom founded. Benham worked for Bloom, but the pair had a falling out that left them bitter rivals.

Former Starlizard employees say the feud is discussed often in the office but little understood beyond rumour and gossip.

SmartOdds was founded in 2004, two years before Starlizard, and it is based in Highgate, North London — just down the road from Bloom's offices.

Benham took over Brentford in 2012 and is noted for following a "Moneyball-style" statistical approach to running the club, an approach that helped him win the Danish super league with his other football club, Midtjylland.

Brighton took on Brentford in the Championship last Friday. Bloom's team triumphed 3-0.

As Benham has risen alongside Bloom, the Asian market has opened up. New bookmakers like Pinnacle and SBO Bet, a former shirt sponsor of West Ham, have made it easier to access the market, while online literature has promoted a greater understanding of both how the market works and how to play in it.

"There's a lot more people who are professional sports bettors in European sports than there used to be," Bloom told Bloomberg last year.

The edge Bloom had from being the first to really understand the Asian handicap market has slowly been eroded.

So too has the advantage he gained from bringing statistics and computer modelling to the market. Others have cottoned on, and many more sports analytics consultancies have sprung up. As punters have got smarter, so too have bookmakers.

Former employees say as the years have worn on it has got harder and harder to beat the bookies, with razor-thin margins squeezed even more.

But the syndicate continues undeterred. Starlizard continues to sharpen its high-tech computer model daily and find its edge. Tony "The Lizard" Bloom, a gambler at heart, is unlikely to give up just because the odds are against him.

Friday, 12 February 2016

Sinking Putts And Stocks

Very occasionally, hidden among a pile of detritus, there's an interesting article on the Yahoo! Finance page. I'm sure I have written on this topic before, but apparently it wasn't on this blog, (or at least I can't find it), so it was probably published elsewhere, but it starts with the known phenomenon of pro golfers being more likely to save par than to make a birdie, when putting from the same spot. Being, at least nominally, a Finance related page, the author Cass R Sunstein extends the example to the stock market:
Can professional golf help explain what is now happening with the stock market? I think that it can, because it offers a clue about an important source of this month’s market volatility: human psychology.
The best golfers make par on most holes. They also have plenty of chances to make a welcome birdie (one under par) or to avoid a dreaded bogey (one over par). To do either, they have to sink a putt.
A stroke is a stroke, so you might think that whether a pro makes a putt can’t possibly depend on whether the result would be making a birdie or avoiding a bogey. But you’d be wrong.

A study of over 1.6 million putts shows that professional golfers are significantly more likely to succeed in sinking a par putt than a birdie putt of equal distance and difficulty. Remarkable but true: If the average top golfer putted as well for birdie as he puts for par, he would make an additional $1.2 million a year.
Why do golfers do so much better when they are putting for par? The best explanation, coming from behavioural science, is that most people are “loss averse,” meaning that they dislike losses a lot more than they like equivalent gains.
A loss from the status quo is very painful, and so people will do a lot to avoid it. A gain is good, but it isn’t nearly as good as a loss is bad. Like the rest of us, professional golfers are affected by what John Maynard Keynes called “animal spirits”: the feelings of the primitive creatures who lie within us. Hating the prospect of losses, golfers focus intensely on avoiding those bogeys, and often succeed.
Which brings us to the stock market. Of course it’s true that the recent volatility, and the sharp declines, have a lot to do with real-world events, including slower growth in China and rapidly falling oil prices. But the fundamentals remain pretty solid, and the ultimate effects of such factors are at least partly a product of psychology.
Investors know that stocks go up and down, but losses loom much larger than gains, and when the market gets especially volatile it’s tempting to sell. Even if your portfolio ends up the same on March 15 as it was on February 15, the interim losses tempt many people to get out. And if it’s a terrible month, a lot of people will want to avoid more bogeys -- and scale back their holdings.
A closely related phenomenon is called “probability neglect.” When an outcome stirs strong emotions, people tend to neglect the likelihood that it will occur. If the prospect of a bad result gets the heart racing -- a plane crash, a terrible disease, a loss of 30 percent of your portfolio -- most people will take strong steps to avoid it. They will pay too little attention to a comforting thought, which is that worst-case scenarios usually don’t come to fruition.
Loss aversion and probability neglect operate at the individual level, but much of our behaviour is a product of social interactions, which multiply their effects. Even when the fundamentals are strong, making significant market declines unlikely, investors are affected by the actions of other investors. Like a bank run, a decline in stock prices creates its own momentum.
In the most extreme cases, what happens, and what we are now witnessing, is an “informational cascade,” in which investors attend to the signals given by the behaviour of other investors, even if their own information suggests that the other investors are wrong.
Informational cascades help fuel sell-offs. If many investors are perceived to be selling, there is a snowball effect, as the “should sell” signal gets louder, not because people have reliable information that selling really makes sense but simply because of the behaviour of others.
The good news is that in ordinary circumstances, investor cascades are halted. The smart money is aware of everything I have said here, and if the fundamentals really are strong, savvy investors start buying. They aren’t loss averse, they don’t neglect probability, and they spot opportunities when they see them. If there are enough of them, they can stop and eventually reverse dramatic movements driven by animal spirits.
History tells us that in the long-run, equity markets will do just fine. In the short-run, however, the prospect of bogeys can create a lot of havoc, especially if a lot of people decide that they want to get out of the game.