Eyebrow Raising

As promised, here is a more detailed update on the last few days of FTL action going back to last Tuesday (March 11th). First, the profitable entries:

The Cassini Value Selections had a poor weekend, with just one winner (Stoke City) and three losses, for an overall loss of 1.71 points, but still a healthy ROI%. Hoffenheim managed to lose a 2:0 lead as well, which hurt. Augsburg lost 1:2 (after leading) and Elche drew 0:0.

Skeeve made small profits (less than a point) on both entries while the recent run of good results for the XX Bundeslayga system added another 4.44 points with three winners out of three. Fedslam  made 6.62 points to remain in 5th place (3rd money spot) but a large lead over 6th place and the XX Draws (Under) selections which were up 2.25 points.

The zero to -10 points group is:

Once again, a reminder that my results for Football Elite treat the DNB bets as lays of the opposed team, and use Pinnacle Sports prices and so will be different from their official results. As mentioned yesterday, The Football Analyst was the big loser here, and I shall spare Graeme the agony of repeating myself. The XX Draws had a roller coaster weekend which started with four winners from five (including a fluked 3:3) and everything going swimmingly before they went the remainder of Saturday and Sunday without a single draw from 12 matches. Monday was almost two for two, but a 90th minute goal by Napoli took away one winner and they ended with an overall loss of 1.07 points from 18 matches.

 Forza Fizzer emailed me to announce that he is retiring gracefully from the FTL. He led the table in early November, up by 13.72 points at that time, but only two (both less than one point) profits since then have seen a slow slide down the table. The fizz has fizzled out.

Funnily enough, Forza Fizzer has had almost exactly the same number of selections as Premier Betting and Rubicon, and is in the same ball-park on results too, with a few more wins to his name.

And then there are the Jonny G draw selections which after 34 selections, are improving, but down by 14.48 points after the latest round.

As most readers will know, I do like my draws, and it's strange that the draw-hunter entries (XX Draws, Drawmaster and now Jonny G) are all finding them hard to come by, yet Football Analyst Graeme is tripping over them. He has 11 Draws Systems, and all 11 are in profit.

And speaking of multiple systems, Anonymous commented that:

Considering you have about 4 separate entries in your own league table it's a bit rich to criticise Pete. I'm sure many people running systems will have 'overlaps' or multiple selections just because of the way the data is interpreted. Maybe Peter's brief from Matchbook sometimes means the result will be at odds with his own view and much like you cherry picking and highlighting whichever of your 'entries' is doing best Pete will do much the same.

Not for the first time, Anonymous misses the key point, which is that this issue is not about cherry-picking, overlapping selections or data interpretation - it is about giving contradictory tips. Diametrically opposed selections. Heads and Tails. Both cannot be value. 

Not that it is relevant to the debate, but yes, I have four separate entries in the FTL table, of which two (the XX Draws and Under) are closely related (more cousins than siblings perhaps) and of the other two, one is specifically targeting Home lays in the Bundesliga, while the other is looking for Home winners. There is no conflict of interest. There could well be an overlap, for example if the Away price is so far off that both the Draw and the Home prices could be value, but you won't see a contradiction such as my tipping Heads on here and Tails to my subscribers. 

The issue is that if you have a profitable model, as Peter claims (although some eyebrows might be raised* at that claim given the losses so far this season) it makes no sense to over-ride the (profitable) model by tipping the opposing (and thus losing) selections. Why would an experienced professional allow subjectivity to question the output of a long-term winning model?   

As a reminder of the issue, the match in question was Saturday's Aston Villa v Chelsea match. Premier Betting Account subscribers were advised:

Fair enough - Pete's selections are from a model so the Unders and the Draw, overlapping selections, were both identified as value. If Under 1.5 goals was value at 3.75, the Under 2.5 would have been value at around 1.93. Allowing for an edge of 10%, this means that Pete's model would have generated a price of 1.75. Even if Pete works off a narrower 5% edge, then we have a price of 1.83 for the Under 2.5 and the Over would therefore be at about 2.20.  

Pete's Matchbook preview concludes:

So my recommended trade for this game is Over 2.5 goals at around 2.00.

How does this make any sense? The 'profitable' model says the true Overs price is 2.2 - so value (assuming a 5% edge) would be at 2.31, and that is a LONG way from the recommended 2.0.

Either Peter is recognising that his model is not, after all, profitable, and has no confidence in its selections, (bad news for Premier Betting Account subscribers) or Pete is advising bets he knows are not value on Matchbook (bad news for Matchbook's readers). True, the Matchbook reviews are just noise, with no real substance to the 'analysis', and are there just to attract clicks and bets, but to suggest what you know is poor value as a recommended bet seems very poor form.

Although confirmation of Peter's model's price on the Under would be nice to know, we don't need it. Which ever way you slice it, one of Peter's audiences is getting poor advice. The issue is not that the advice overlaps; it is that the advice contradicts, and to maintain credibility, you need to be consistent. It would be nice to get a clear explanation from Peter, but I'm not sure there is one.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* I once told a friend that she drew her eyebrows on too high. She looked surprised.