Federer, Handicaps And The 2-3% A Day 'Rule'

Wimbledon draws to a close, and my interest is limited to a couple of smallish bets on Serena Williams and Roger Federer in the singles finals. Serena Williams was a little tight at 1.17, and she traded at 1.64 to make the bet interesting. To my layman's eye, Federer at 1.56 looks to be a gift, but there are others who know far more about tennis than I do, so this is not an investment that I claim to have an edge on. A fun bet to add some interest to the Gentlemen's Singles final. 

One of my XX Draws subscribers asked me how my baseball was going this summer, and the answer is 'a little strangely'. I have a simple system that I back selections on three markets - the Match Odds, the +1.5 handicap, and the -1.5 handicap. Overall, the three show a small loss, but the curious thing is that the +1.5 and -1.5 handicap bets are in profit, while the Match Odds bets are losing. The sample size is still fairly small, and these three may yet come together. It will be interesting to see how the XX Draw selections compare, with the draw, some Unders and the HT 0-0 among the markets ones that I will be monitoring and comparing. I will publish the data when the number of matches reaches 50.

Finally, I was reading Ian Erskine's FTS Newsletter today, and there was a good quote that I hadn't seen before from Bill Gates - 

"Most people overestimate what they can do in one year, and underestimate what they can do in ten years". 

I think this is very true when applied to sports investing. Too many people think that they can start making big money on day one and fail to grasp that, like many other pursuits in life, slow and steady wins the race.

I do take issue with the comment in the newsletter that "Ian has mentioned on more than one occasion that as a rule it should be achievable to make around 2-3% a day increase on your bank size..." 

Really? If it were that readily achievable we would all soon be millionaires with the wonder that is compound interest, but in my opinion 2-3% a day is not realistic, and there is no rule to suggest otherwise, at least not that I am aware of. 

I take issue with breaking betting down into daily units for a start. All days are not created equal. Some throw up no value opportunities, and others may have several. Most sports do not have events every day anyway, and even year-round events are subject to the vagaries of weather. Look at the number of cricket matches that have been impacted by the summer weather this season for example, or the number of race meetings lost in a bad winter. 

Short term targets  are not helpful. They lead to chasing and betting at borderline (or negative) value, and I am actually surprised that Ian would suggest such a thing. (I believe the newsletter is not actually written by Ian, and it is possible that something was lost in translation). I may not always agree with Ian on his strategy, but in general I like his approach to betting and treating it as a long-term process, but the idea that a 2-3% a day growth is sustainable is diametrically opposed to the slow and steady approach, and frankly nonsense.