tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4528393111359731672.post5400447183445999772..comments2024-03-24T00:19:53.054+00:00Comments on Green All Over: Quality v QuantityCassinihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05879449876804295094noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4528393111359731672.post-42652891860542955522010-11-15T18:02:13.604+00:002010-11-15T18:02:13.604+00:00Joep. 10% is too high, which is the point I am try...Joep. 10% is too high, which is the point I am trying to make. The very reason I am discussing this is because the ROI of FE is too high. They're clearly not maximising their edge and should be increasing turnover with lower value bets, to increase their P/L further.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4528393111359731672.post-4940413129601996282010-11-15T06:32:34.565+00:002010-11-15T06:32:34.565+00:00Considering the ROI of FE is over 10%, that number...Considering the ROI of FE is over 10%, that number is not too high. Also, I think a fraction of Kelly using an average edge you think you have is a decent way of shaping your betsizing system. Considering it is very hard to pinpoint the exact value of each bet, different staking sizes would make things unnecessarily complicated.<br /><br />The point of that long point was to point out that including weaker tips would increase volatility which in turn would lead to lower betsizes, which in turn would most likely lead to lower profits (unless you can find a large number of bets that are also having a decent edge).Joepnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4528393111359731672.post-80031942869849708162010-11-14T22:13:09.528+00:002010-11-14T22:13:09.528+00:00I'm not quite following your explanation fully...I'm not quite following your explanation fully.<br /><br />One point. If the staking plan is based on Kelly, then why is each bet the same size (in % terms).<br /><br />Even if you aim for, say, 10% value for each bet (too high, just an example), your perceived edge on each bet won't be precisely 10 % so therefore stakes should vary if using Kelly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4528393111359731672.post-32053488562257949482010-11-14T21:28:20.510+00:002010-11-14T21:28:20.510+00:00Oh, I did err on the safe side by using 5% edge on...Oh, I did err on the safe side by using 5% edge on all bets in the 2nd example, could get rather complicated due to 2 unknown variables otherwise and I'm not exactly a math expert.Joepnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4528393111359731672.post-12061621577658658772010-11-14T21:12:06.109+00:002010-11-14T21:12:06.109+00:00As a subscriber to FE I'll give it a shot. For...As a subscriber to FE I'll give it a shot. For starters, Matt does offer more bets than the recommended bets listed on the website, he also offers so called "short list" bets, on average about 5 a weekend, that are on average so far profitable, yet not as profitable as the main picks. I personally see them as value picks, yet second rate compared to the recommended picks.<br /><br />Secondly, FE recommends 4% stakes (or a 25 point roll) for every recommended bet. A tipster that uses such an agressive betting strategy needs to have a rather large edge in his bets. <br /><br />Say for instance the average odds of FE picks 2.5, according to Kelly the picks need to win at least 42.4% of the time, which equates to a little less than 2.36 average odds. This means that the payout needs to be over 10% of the true odds (in this example) to be able to use such an aggressive betting strategy. If one would incorporate weaker tips, say those where the payout is only 5% over the true odds, according to Kelly, no more than 2% of the total bankroll in the same scenario. In order to maintain the same absolute profits in this system, the number of picks should be more than doubled with all long term profitable picks, which is a hard thing to accomplish in my opinion.<br /><br />So by increasing the number of bets provided, even when they are slightly profitable, due to the increased volatility, you're forced to reduce betsize and thereby losing ev instead of gaining it.<br /><br />I know that FE historically offers more value than needed in order to use optimal Kelly using a 25 point system, but I'm sure that's a choice Matt made to build in some security into his system, which would also be incorporated if he would choose to include weaker tips. Also, I think most, if not all, long term successful tipsters only use a fraction of Kelly instead of full Kelly, so his choice here is also very reasonable.<br /><br />I hope that story made some sense to you and that my math isn't off :).Joepnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4528393111359731672.post-5726084630267871202010-11-14T17:35:41.814+00:002010-11-14T17:35:41.814+00:00Time after time you show you don't understand ...Time after time you show you don't understand some fairly basic points of gambling.<br /><br />If you truly don't understand why someone who apparently is constantly reaping a double digit ROI is not having enough bets then there's little hope. Maybe another reader would care to explain.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com