Mixed Messages

On Friday, Peter Nordsted emailed a link to his Premier Betting Account Subscribers, the first two selections being:

Less than 24 hours later, and we read on Twitter:

The preview concludes with "So my recommended trade for this game is Over 2.5 goals at around 2.00."

So what changed from Friday to Saturday? The Unders (whether 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 or whatever) is either value or it isn't. The Under 1.5 can't be value yet the Over 2.5 also be value, so I just don't see the rationale of recommending one bet to subscribers and the exact opposite to another audience.

Peter has also been Tweeting a link to a post titled Using a Patient Approach to Profit in the Betting & Trading Markets. Rather ironically, the post includes these words:

In the betting world there are literally hundreds of tipsters and tipping sites on the internet offering tips and systems that it is no real surprise that the average punter simply does not know which way to turn and consequently they end up making poor decisions and losing focus.

It's hardly surprising that the average punter doesn't know which way to turn when the same source says diametrically opposite things! He continues:

The bookmakers obviously know this and there is nothing more they love than a confused and ill-disciplined punter who is flitting from one system to another in search of the so called Holy Grail.

And there is probably nothing a subscriber loves less than paying for advice that says "Back Heads" and then reading a preview recommending backing Tails because in the last ten spins dating back to 1909, Tails came up seven times.

Using historical data such as this is, as I have pointed out before, useless. It's a curiosity, but all it tells you is that in the past, 7 of 10 spins were tails. The mistake some people make is to believe that somehow past head to head results are a clue to the future, which it isn't.

Football matches are not completely random in the same way that a coin toss is of course, but what sense does this type of paragraph make:

As far as goals are concerned and with the line set at 2.5, then we have some fairly mixed stats here. When looking at both sides last 10 respective home and away matches, 14 of the 20 matches contained 3 or more goals. However when we look at Spurs recent home form, 10 of their last 15 home games have seen 2 or less goals. When looking at Arsenal’s recent general away form then in 14 matches this season only 5 have seen 2 or less goals scored. Over 2.5 goals can be backed at around 1.97 and looks to offer value.

All matches are not the same. Who were those 20 or 15 or 14 matches against, and how / why were those sequences selected? Rather important to know, you might think, and was the result or the goals scored a fair reflection of the game?

"Looks to offer value"?  What does that mean exactly? To make such a statement and be taken seriously, Peter must have his own price on the Over 2.5 goals market. What is it?

Personally, I have the Unders priced at 1.82 (the market is currently at U/O 1.945/2.05 so the value is on this side in my opinion, although not by much). Over 2.5 has drifted, so presumably represents even bigger value now.

There's a good chance I will be wrong of course, one result proves nothing, but drawing conclusions from irrelevant data over a random period of time doesn't seem to be like a long-term profitable strategy, and that is the key to making a profit. Patience should be a given, but the danger is that it takes too long to realise that your edge is a negative one.

The best part of the post was actually the comment from Richard:

Wise words as usual Pete!

I’m all in favour of a patient approach and I’m a firm believer that short term results are basically completely random. That said, I’m not a big fan of developing “systems” and “sticking with them through good and bad”.

The reason I don’t like “systems” is because I think they imply a one dimensional approach. Some people seem to think that bookies are unaware of these systems and that some generalised tactic will work across the board.

To use an example, I know of a misguided tipster that thinks that betting very short priced over 1.5 goal bets in leagues with loads of goals (ie. Dutch Jupiler) will somehow make a long term profit even though he knows nothing of the league other than the goal averages, his approach is purely statistical.

His problem is that he believes profit is about winning bets (and avoiding losing bets) but he has absolutely no concept of value. He plods away betting 1.20 shots (that probably should be 1.25 shots) and he justifies to himself the system by bragging about his “hit rate” but never mentions his actual profit or ROI. His attachment to his system has trapped him and it actually prevents him from seeing the bigger picture.

The only “system” any punter/trader/tipster will ever need is a system of odds compiling that generates true odds that are genuinely accurate, if you know the true odds, you bet when the price available is of the desired margin of value. The only other thing you need to worry about is a staking plan. That’s it, its pretty simple. systems are over-rated!

My other concern is that if you are recommending sticking with a system for an extended time, the danger is that if the system is actually no good, it will take quite a hit to your time and bank before you realize its a loser. Better to check the prices of your betting selections at Kick-Off and compare to the prices you took. If your selections are regularly getting smashed then you are doing something right. If everything is drifting like a barge you probably need to go back to the drawing board.

One dimensional and simplistic systems do not work long-term, and as Richard says, you need to know the 'true' odds and bet only when you have "the desired margin of value". If your prices prove to be correct, then you use Kelly to determine the stake size, and if your level of confidence in your prices isn't there, 2% is a reasonable figure.  

State The Average

Because of the continuous threat of police action, I am hesitant to say where I read the following statement:

I've spent time putting together some ideas on the futility of some peoples interpretation of game state for use as a betting strategy. I've nearly finished the first spreadsheet which calculates the % of results distributions from HT scores for any league and will be demonstrating why it's useless in some peoples hands along with some suggestions on how it could be made useful.

However, I do agree with the sentiments. All that a statistic such as "18% of away teams losing 0-1 at Half-Time come back to draw" (taken from this season's La Liga) tells you is what has previously happened, on average, over a certain period (in this case the current season). It's a fun fact, and no one in their right mind should consider putting money on fun facts. The idea that backing the draw is a value bet if it is priced better than 5.6 in the above scenario, is very dangerous.

Averages don't work very well in betting, and whether the draw is value at 2.0, 5.0, 10.0 or whatever is all down to what the goal expectancies are at that time, and these values can't be calculated based on irrelevant averages. Adjusted for time, they will most likely be close to the pre-game values, with adjustments made for events such as injuries,tactics, bookings and of course red-cards and goals.

Another question for adherents to the idea that 'game-state' gives some kind of secret edge is that the data is not secret, so why would you consider that you have an edge?  Anyone who cares to look, can see that "18% of away teams losing 0-1 at Half-Time come back to draw in La Liga" and they could go back further, or drill down on specific teams at a certain game-state, but the further you go back, the less relevant the team itself becomes since teams change their personnel and with a coaching / managerial change, also their playing style.

Spiders, Diamonds, Cubes - Miaow

No joy for the Monday night Cassini Value Selection of Osasuna to beat Malaga, but three winners from the total of five selections was enough for them to maintain their lead at the top of the FTL (sponsored by TFA) table adding 1.25 points although the ROI dropped from 35.02% to 34.31%.

Skeeve stays second despite a blank weekend, (down two points), and I should mention that although Skeeve has selections from the Conference South, these are excluded for his FTL entry as the prices are not available in the Football Data web site. It could one reason why I am finding his selections fairly solid this season, while others may not. The other variable is that I record his bets at one unit per bet rather than using the two, three, four even five points sometimes recommended.

The top six, and the contenders in profit this season, are unchanged from last week:

The XX Bundeslayga picked up 1.33 points, Fedslam was up 2.18 points and Webbo was up 0.54 points.

Seven more entries remain within one good week of being in profit, led by the XX Unders who moved up three places on the week making 3.5 points.

The XX Draws also moved up with a small gain, with the losers being Hofs Hackers, Jamie A and The Football Analyst who went 0 for 4. He has five midweek selections to try and reduce his bounty liability which increased to £175. Football Elite had a small loss.

As for the rest, here are the lower reaches of the table:

As with the top, not much movement at the bottom either. Rubicon lost 5.92 points and dropped three places. Punters' Friend Neil remains some way adrift, but to his credit is hanging in there and keeping the selections coming.

And while not part of the official table, whoever Jimmy G or Paul Finn or Jonny Benchmark is, he had a much better weekend this time out finding one winner from the six eligible SOT Draw selections and a loss of just 2.65 points. The ROI% improves to -79.06%.

He/they did select one draw from two additional selections in Russia, but with these prices not available on Football Data, they are of course ineligible.

Analytical Spider had some input on the SOT Draws:

SOT Draws are indeed the picks of a another twitter user who posts selections on his site.

He does offer some of his own in-play selections via the bet-on-target forum but they're not performing well, he's currently about 1.1% down after about 250 bets. Is still relatively early days and could be bad variance biting but being only 1.1% down is probably pretty surprising to those who've read his garbled 'essays', lack of attention to price and team strength, and his bizarre, cherry picked, interpretation of game state. Incidentally, though not aimed specifically at gambling, the work on gamestate and shot data by @jameswgrayson and statsbomb is significantly more useful and definitely worth checking out.

Anyway, potentially his losses should be bigger as not entirely convinced the prices he posts were actually always available. A couple of months back I checked 2 picks on SBO, who places his bets with, 30 seconds after his post and they were several ticks shorter. Could've been the price moved following his bets but given how much he likes a conspiracy I'm sure he'd be accusing you of faking prices if he'd experienced something similar. He'd certainly be ranting and abusing relentlessly anyone with a losing record after over 200 bets.

While it is early days yet, and the price on the fifteen losers haven't needed to be verified, the one winner was priced at 3.35 but was officially 3.26 with Pinnacle. Pretty close to be fair, with the draw price generally available at a good .10 or .15 higher elsewhere.

There was then this rather amusing 'Anonymous' comment from, well - we have no idea (or do we     ?)

I must be in a minority as I have found Jonny's work on game state very informative . He is the only one that I am aware of that keys shot creation to show the expected goals in games . I have followed Jonny with interst on the pre off and yes a small sample - 63 games but the ROI was a healthy 23% . In terms of integrity I have not heard anyone contest that before but I suppose you cannot please everyone . Jonny has posted all his pre off bets and in running bets and obviously in running prices move very quickly so you will not always get the in running price quoted but sometimes I have seen better prices available then quoted . I think it Is a shame to keep attacking Jonny as he obviously has many years of experience and I think we should encourage people to write about their thoughts and not keep trying to put people down . I would think there is room for more people to write about subjects like gamestate and we should not conclude one chap is better then another in an instant as that is slightly irrational .

I don't know Jonny personally but his site is interesting and I am sure that integrity is not an issue because he writes just as many articles highlighting his losing bets .

Hold that "I don't know Jonny personally' comment in your minds for a moment, while you take a look at Analytical Spider's follow up:

Well, this is amusing if a little awkward. The last post from anonymous defending Jonny is quite clearly from Mr Grossmark himself. His writing style and stock phrases are pretty easy to spot anyway but his quirky take on punctuation, namely leaving a space before full stops and question marks is what makes it even more obvious. He does it on all his tweets and comments on here, can't recall seeing any other bloggers/tweeters do that.

It's what he also does on his previous anonymous comment above where he assumes that because Cassini previously had a profile pic with an Asian woman that he's probably got an internet bride. Nice. He made the same comment during one of his twitter meltdowns a few days back. Well done Jonny, a racist ad hom. Stay classy, fella.

Indeed, the space before the full-stop is quite distinctive, and thanks to Mr Spider for pointing this out. He [Jonny] left a comment on my carefully named post "Its Not Right", writing "should the title to this post not be "It's not right" ?"

My witty reply, complete with space before the full-stops was this:

Well the title was a joke - a play on the word 'its' being 'not right' but I guess a sense of humour is not your strong suit .

By the way , I know you said you wouldn't be reading my blog any more , but someone from your IP address continues to:

Returning Visits: 525

I thought you should know so that you can report this to the police . There may be a burglar living under your bed .

And for the record, Cassini has never had a profile picture of himself with an Asian woman. My wife is now demanding to know who this 'woman' is! Mrs C is all-American, with a dollop of Cherokee, and it's this dollop that could be seen as Asian. Well, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

I am not yet familiar with the Football Investor, but operator Stewboss is interested in the FTL for next season:

I think it's time Football Investor came to the party next season. I'd be happy to put up a prize maybe shared with TFA?

Excellent news. The more the merrier and the more sponsors willing to line the pot, even better.

One final comment which I have been slow to respond to was this excellent and amusing one from Matthew, which also rather neatly indirectly references Spiders (the S&P500 index's trading symbol is SPDR).  Diamonds and Cubes refers to the Dow Jones (DIA) and the NASDAQ (QQQ) indexes in case you were wondering:

Dear Signor Cassini,

I must say I feel I have reached a near euphoric state over the delicious levels of cattiness on display in the betting blog world. It seems that the steady decline in etiquette in the modern world is being accelerated at an alarming rate by the depravity of social media. At this rate it will not be long before you are known as the Perez Hilton of betting blogs as you highlight grudges and stir the pot of others.

On a separate note I notice that Berkshire Hathaway has posted their results beating the previous year to much fanfare. Unfortunately some cowardly wags have dared to suggest that Mr Buffett still has yet to outperform the S&P 500 for the past five years, oh the temerity of some people. I am a big fan of simplistic drip feeding investing in large index trackers with there most agreeably low management feeds as I believe are you. Surely you can concoct a blog post about the dangers of stock picking for long term returns and hopefully relate it to the betting world.

The example that sprung to my mind was the lovely Graeme over at TFA. I am constantly haranguing him about providing a breakdown of simply backing each team he highlights once and to level stakes (a broad based index approach?). This would be in contrast to the leveraged backing of teams the more they appear on the various systems (individual stock picking?).

I look forward to hearing more of your excellent well formed thoughts.

Comparing selections, backed once, risking one unit on each is exactly what the FTL does, and in my opinion it offers a simple way to compare like with like and remove the vagaries of multiples and varying the stakes. I do this with my own Value Selections, but I don't see others give their selections along with the price they have for it. It's all very well tipping me Sheffield United, accompanied perhaps by a price, but often that price is unattainable. Should I forget it, or is it still value a few ticks lower?

 

If you give the 'true' price, then it's up to the subscriber to make their own decision on how much to stake or whether to bet at all. Incidentally, with the edge averaging around 17%, the ROI percentage mentioned earlier is clearly surpassing expectations.

As for the blog post idea, I shall give that some thought. I am indeed a big fan of drip feeding into index tracking funds, and of Warren Buffett for that matter, so thanks Matthew for the idea, and please continue to appreciate the 'delicious levels of cattiness' at the World's Number One Sports Trading Blog (that should get a few comments coming...). 

Cod Help Us

A few comments on my 'fast-data' post, with some people still missing the point, and having explained the issue as well as I can, one can only assume that this is intentional. Either that, or I am not being clear, and that is hardly a credible explanation given my 'A' grade English Language 'O' Level from a few years back. OK, quite a few years back...

Danny Murphy gets it, writing;

I think it's high time we got some answers from Betfair about the activities of Sporting Data.

There is a clear conflict of interest here because as Sporting Data must be paying 60% PC Betfair have an economic interest in this company flourishing. Why have a bunch of smallish traders paying 20% PC when you can have a factory trawler ship harvesting everything and returning 60%?

No doubt Betfair are giving Sporting Data every assistance so they can make more and more money.

I liked the fishing analogy. I like cod and chips too, but as most readers will know, years of commercial overfishing and poor management resulted in near extinction and the closure of the North Sea cod fisheries.

The single best example of the ecological and economical dangers of overfishing is found in Newfoundland, Canada. In 1992 the once thriving cod fishing industry came to a sudden and full stop when at the start of the fishing season no cod appeared. Overfishing allowed by decades of fisheries mismanagement was the main cause for this disaster that resulted in almost 40,000 people losing their livelihood and an ecosystem in complete state of decay.

Slowly the stocks recovered, but the parallels with trading on Betfair are easy to see. If poor management continues to allow an inadequate delay, the purpose of which is, as Betfair themselves say, is to protect customers and liquidity...

Bet placement on in-play markets carries a time delay to allow customers to cancel unmatched orders on the system when there is a change in market conditions. This delay protects both backers and layers and leads to greater liquidity.

...then at some point, liquidity will fall. Betfair recognise this fact. Slow traders will tire of losing bets to fast traders, with slow and fast their relative feed times, not a reference to intellect, and they may scale back their activities, or they may pull out altogether, but the net result is more illiquid markets, with large gaps, and it's downhill from there. Gappy markets, not worth bothering with, even less liquidity until there's money on both sides at 1.01 and 1.02 and that's it.

Some comments question the legality of communication the score, and as has been stated clearly here and elsewhere, this is not illegal. In this day and age of instant communication, it's unrealistic to think that an 'event' will not become common knowledge until someone authorises its release.

This is not the issue. The issue is that for those of us who love in-play trading, it's in our best interests that the markets are as liquid as possible. This means that the delay needs to be sufficient to ensure that the majority of 'normal' traders can be confident in their ability to cancel bets before the 'minority' fast-data traders are able to use their (perfectly legal) advantage.

A second concern is that the Gambling Commission might well rule in-play betting inherently unfair, and it will be banned and become the domain of less regulated companies. The GL is already not exactly in full support of in-play, and examples like this are hardly going to help the cause.

On a separate note, Anonymous wrote:

The main problem I have with all this is not while the match is taking pace, but that Betfair effectively facilitate the matching of bets after an event has been decided. i.e. customers are betting on an impossible outcome.

Incidentally this is the same during, for example, a game of football when all correct score outcomes are left open for betting whether they are still possible or not.

Having placed a bet while distracted on a team that had already lost several years ago, I am aware that the failure to Suspend matches as soon as they are over, or remove impossible outcomes, can cause problems, but in some sports, it's not over when it appears to be. Game winning shots can be reviewed and the outcome changed, or time can be added back on the clock, allowing the defeated team to win.

Another Anonymous misses the point, writing:

Someone will always have an edge with data and as they should. Court siding is open to everyone.

I read that Sporting Data turned over 150k in a match and actually finished up losing 2k. The big bad company provided all that liquidity and lost money.

Sweeping 1.01 aside I will put my models up against courtsiders. Fast data doesn't always mean smart prices, wait on the edges and punish their greed.

Build a bridge and get over it.

Please re-read what the issue is, and just so you know, one example of a loss means absolutely nothing, even if the story is true. Having an edge doesn't mean winning on every market. Your models may be the best in the world, but the point is that the presence of fast-data traders is reducing your profits, even if you are still able to make profits, but you won't be able to make anything if the markets dry up as traders give up or if in-play betting is banned.

To be clear, the issues are that Betfair is allowing an insufficient delay on certain in-play markets which protect the interests of at least one company (Sporting Data) which was set up by former Betfair employees at the expense of the majority of 'normal' traders, a management decision which will ultimately reduce liquidity and consequently corporate profits (not in shareholders best interests) and may lead to the Gambling Commission recommending a ban on in-play betting as it becomes impossible to argue that in-play betting is fair (and a ban would not be in most of our interests).

Moral Obligation

As expected, the court-sider case against Sporting Data’s Daniel Dobson has been dropped. In the civilised world, it is always hard to gain a conviction when no crime has been committed, and currently there is no law against transmitting data from a sports event, (nor is there a law prohibiting a blogger from linking to third-party posts while we are on a legal topic).

The bigger issue of whether a betting exchange should allow certain accounts to consistently benefit from access to fast data (yes, legal and bought at some expense) remains however.

It is hard, actually impossible given the speed at which they close accounts when someone shows they have half a clue, to imagine a traditional bookmaker offering in-play prices and allowing account holders to consistently pick those prices off as they become favourable.

That Betfair allows the practice is thus a concern. It could be argued that it is not ‘their’ money that they are losing, and technically this is correct – they pocket their commission and possibly don’t care which accounts flourish and which accounts wither, but they probably should, and their implementation of the Premium Charge suggests they are well aware that a small number of highly profitable accounts at the cost of a large number of losing accounts is not viable long-term.

As mentioned previously, and stated by Betfair themselves, the n-seconds delay is to protect customers. Clearly, the n is often insufficient, and Betfair are failing in their duty as a public company to look after the best interests of their share-holders and customers.

From a financial perspective, the inevitable long-term consequence is that markets will become more illiquid, and as we have seen in other markets, once liquidity starts to dry up, it’s a rapid downward spiral, resulting in reduced profits.

From a moral perspective, shouldn’t Betfair look after their customers’ money in the same way as they would their own?

Now that the legal proceedings have been resolved, it would be appropriate for the Gambling Commission to perform their own investigation into the fairness (or unfairness) of some in-play events. It would be hard to argue that the betting is fair, when the same accounts are consistently winning.

As we now know, Sporting Data is a company set up by three former Betfair employees, a fact that may or may not be relevant to Betfair’s decision to allow this practice to continue, but it is a relationship that should be part of the Gambling Commission's investigation if only to clear the air. Traders on a publicly owned exchange should be informed about just how uneven their playing field is.

Somehow, I can’t imagine that this state of affairs is what the Founding Fathers of Betfair had in mind when they set the exchange ball rolling, but then again there have been several changes over the years that would have them turning in their graves, except for the fact that they are very much alive of course.

Its Not Right

Queens Park Rangers published their accounts yesterday, with West Ham United fan, co-owner and Chairman Tony Fernandes writing:

'A critical driver of any club’s value is its presence in the Premier League, and the club is focused on regaining its Premier League status as quickly as possible.'

It was the second 'its' that got on my tits, just an itsy witsy bit. Why is it there? Does no one proof read these statements?

"Regaining its Premier League status"!

I'm sure lots of clubs would like to regain their Premier League status, but having played in that league for all of six seasons, QPR are a long way down the list of clubs who should be thinking they have a right to be in the Premier League. As Johnny Mustang on the Betfair Forum put it:

The way he expressed it suggests QPR belong there. And they don't.

That's the beauty of football in most of the world - the USA with its franchise system is a notable exception.

No club has a status associated with a particular league or level. Status depends on results, and QPR should be focused on "regaining Premier League status". That's it - no its.

They have their work cut out too. After 10 matches so far against top 8 teams, they have won just one, and their schedule sees them away from home in four of the next five games, make-or-break in my opinion.

Possibly Fernandes had more important things on his mind. The accounts were not pleasant reading for anyone associated with the club.

Lakers Clipped

One of the easier wins of my NBA season just over, as the Clippers dominated the battle of Los Angeles, away at rivals Lakers winning by a whopping 48 points.

Except that this season, it's not much of a rivalry. The Clippers now lead the Pacific division with a record of 43-20 while the Lakers are last with a record of 21-41. Going into the game, Clippers had won five games in a row by an impressive 69 points, while the struggling Lakers fluked a win in Portland and beat the almost as bad Sacramento Kings (22-39) for their two wins in their last five. 

At half-time the Clippers led by 33 (73-40) and by the end of the third were up by 49 (109-60).  With 4:11 left in the third, it was possibly the earliest Lawler's Law in Clippers history. 142 was the most points scored in the NBA this season, and the 48 point loss was the Lakers worst ever in franchise history (beating the previous 46 on the road and 37 at home). 

The record of the Clippers never having made the play-offs without the Lakers also being there is in serious jeopardy. Technically this did happen in 1975-76, but the Clippers franchise at that time was based in Buffalo and called the Braves, so it hardly counts. It's like comparing Tottenham Hotspur with Arsenal while the latter were based in Woolwich! They (Clippers, not Arsenal) also had six seasons playing as the Clippers in San Diego before heading to Los Angeles. 

Controlling The Process

On the topic of draws and my assertion that the value is in matches where the true goal expectancy is less than the market's goal expectancy, Danny Murphy comments:

I won't dispute a low goal expectation is a rich source for finding potential draws but it needn't be the only method.

Another method is finding a team near the bottom playing at home against a stronger team. You do get these teams that are decent coming forward but can't keep a clean sheet. Quite a few fall in to the 'too good to go down' category but at the end of the season you see they have drawn a stack of home games.

Could that be the case here?

Most seasons, there are more draws on the grounds of bottom-half teams than top-half, although not always. In the EPL 2007-08, the top ten sides drew 52 matches at home, the bottom ten drew 48, but what Danny says is usually the case, although until the end of the season, you may not be sure whether a team is top half or bottom half, which is why I prefer to use a more nimble Elo based rating system than use rigid and often misleading league tables when evaluating matches.

The thing is though that we are not just looking for draws. We are looking for draws that are value, and I suspect that the "lower / weaker side plus home advantage = away side" formula is well known and factored into the draw prices already. The 3:3 draw at Crystal Palace (v Southampton) or Norwich City (v Stoke City) this Saturday is available at 100-1 for a reason. Speaking of the 3:3 draw, something I remember from my Racing Post reading days was an article about the price on this outcome being 'wrong', and an individual, or individuals, were backing the outcome in multiples forcing the high-street bookmakers to reduce the odds from 100-1 to 80-1. Perhaps someone reading this can add some details.

The match that stated this discussion was Skeeve's draw selection in the AFC Chester v Nuneaton Town match.

Skeeve commented:

I've just replied to Steve over there, but you were right about the "that's more like it" part of the recap e-mail. 

I definitely didn't expect a goalless draw (I've now published the whole preview at Steve's blog) and of course it was lucky, but Chester have now shared points in five of their six home games against top-eight Skrill Premier teams. I guess this bet had it all - it was a good bet, a winning bet and a lucky bet. :)

We all need luck, but luck evens out over time. Skill (or talent) doesn't:

The key to identifying talent versus luck comes down to understanding the difference between process and outcome. As Barry Ritholtz put it last week: 

Outcome is simply the final score: Who won the game; what numbers came up in a roll of the dice; how high did a stock go. Outcome is the result, regardless of the method used to achieve it. It is not controllable. You can blow on the dice all you want, but whether they come up "seven" is still a function of random luck.

Process, on the other hand, is a specific methodology. It is a repeatable approach to any challenge or endeavour, be it construction or medicine or investing. And you can control a process.

Jogged Memories (2009)

Some interesting comments on my previous post that I shall return to as time allows, but in the meantime this news about Gary Calder brought back a few bad memories. 

Back in 2009 as my Elo based ratings were beginning to evolve, I used to rate the Football Conference and posted on February 21st:

Putting into practice my belief that there may be more value in the lower reaches of senior football, I have a few quid on Weymouth (4.0) at home to Rushden and Diamonds (this ‘appears’ to be great value, but I fear I am missing something)

What I was missing was a little inside informations -

Former Weymouth chief executive Gary Calder has been suspended from football for eight years after being found guilty of multiple breaches of the Football Association's betting rules.
Calder, who denied the charges, was guilty of providing information not publically available, for, or in relation to betting on the game against Rushden & Diamonds on 21 February 2009. 

His side lost the Conference Premier match 9-0, after fielding a youth team because their senior players refused to play after their insurance had lapsed.

Calder, who left the financially troubled club later that year, was also found guilty of further breaches of FA rules on betting and fined £2,500.

Perhaps the FA will consider refunding my lost few quid, or better idea yet - when the police come round to discuss Mrs Cassini's immigration status and  / or my inclusion of a link to one of Hejik's posts, I can ask them where I stand regarding a civil action. It's been a while since the police interviews with Jonny reportedly took place though. "Is there a problem officer?"

The reference to Mrs Cassini's immigration status was in response to a very unoriginal comment from Jonny who shamelessly copied my old friend Stephen Hughes, who in 2009 (a popular year it seems) wrote this wonderful comment on a post about Adam Heathcote:

sorry, but you are clearly a miserable old man.

Get a life pal, having read snippets of your blog you demonstrate extreme arrogance.

Who the hell do you think you are? Take a look at yourself and learn from people like Adam.

Your the type of bloke that would marry a Thai bride, sport a little beard and wear crocs.

Write about something interesting ffs.

Youre an idiot.

"Extreme arrogance"? Now does that really sound like me?

I particularly liked the irony of Stephen calling me an idiot, while blissfully unaware of how to use "your / you're", but the "Thai bride, little beard and Crocs" line is an all-time classic - one frequently brought up in the Cassini home and a possible sub-title for the Green All Over book (Cassini to be played by Brad Pitt in the movie).

If you type "thai bride little beard crocs" into Google, the first three results are all for this blog, something that amuses me no end. I'm easily amused.

Sadly, Jonny's not quite the wordsmith he thinks he is, and could only, rather lamely, came up with:

Is it true your wife is an Internet bride ?

Hilarious!

That's More Like It

Life is never dull. By sheer chance, my early morning perusal of my Twitter timeline drew me to the latest post from Steve over at Daily25 and what do I find but my name mentioned a couple of times. The first reference was innocent enough: 

This morning I woke up to a Graeme-esk (TFA) length tirade (the length was Graeme-esk, not the tirade) in my comments section. I felt Skeeves voice should not languish in the comments section where only a few people will see them and instead I will directly answer his comments in a new blog post. Hat tip to Cassini for showing me how to produce lots of content this way.

I think Steve meant Graeme-esque, but he's Australian so we'll let that go. The second mention of my name was in a "Skeeve said / Steve said" 'discussion' where my post from yesterday was quoted in reference to the AFC Chester v Nuneaton Town [no longer Borough] 3:3 draw. Here's Steve's comment about Skeeve's follow-up email comment:

Steve: Yes it was very very lucky. Chester had a player sent off very early and kept taking the lead. Here is a quote from Cassini about your pick as well “including fluking a 3:3 draw in the AFC Chester v Nuneaton Borough game!”, I do not see you commenting on his blog about that. This is a real bugbear of mine and I have posted about it before. When you have a losing bet where woodwork was hit or penalties missed you are the first to let everyone know in your recap emails, o woe is me, it’s not that I didn’t pick well, it was that the woodwork got in the way or a player didn’t play his best or the ref was a cheat. This was your quote on the Chester win. “That’s more like it. Chester and Nuneaton shared points in a high-scoring 3:3 draw”. So you are not very consistent in your commenting, there have been a number of last minute goals and missed penalties that have gone your way, but I have never heard once you say how lucky we got. It’s betting, luck goes both ways but if someone was to read your emails, they would assume all the gods ever created were against you. I feel your ego gets in the way sometimes and it is the case on many of your recap emails.

I can assure Steve, and anyone else reading, that not one god has ever existed or been created. Not even the 'one true god', and which 'one' that is of course varies depending on geography and your choice of parents.

Anyway, the quote from Cassini about fluking the draw when it is 3:3 or above is one I have used since at least 2011, probably longer, and usually to describe my own XX Draws selections, and its origins are in the fact that when you are looking to select a draw, you are looking for a low-scoring game.

The 0:0 is the perfect draw, the 1:1 is perfectly acceptable, the 2:2 is a little embarrassing, but selecting a draw that ends 3:3 or above is frankly very embarrassing. The draw was value because your expectation of goals was lower than the market's expectation, but you were totally wrong and the fact that the game ended in a draw was pure luck.  

I do see how Skeeve's comment on the selection "That’s more like it. Chester and Nuneaton shared points in a high-scoring 3:3 draw” could get under Steve's skin, because "that's more like it" suggests everything went to plan, a perfect 0:0 perhaps, yet it clearly didn't. It was a goal-fest, and the fact the teams ended with three apiece was a fluke. Perhaps Skeeve meant his words as an "about time we had some luck go our way" comment.

I'm not sure what Skeeve's 'official' results are for this season, but I do know that backing his selections as singles to level stakes, he is blowing the other professionals I follow and track out of the water. I've written before about my dislike of betting multiples, and following Skeeve by my rules has been very profitable:

An 18% ROI using Pinnacle's prices is not to be sniffed at. Backing Skeeve's selections to level stakes using his recommended multiples is also profitable:

Skeeve does vary his stake size which is another no for me unless I know the edge size. Here are the full numbers for the Professionals:

Betslayer commented:

Seems very petty to include Paul Finns draws (as Jonny G) on a bad week for him, when he has provided his draws since July on SOTDOC and betontarget.com forum for FREE.
I must admit its the first time I've seen him hit a blank so its a little ironic
Regards

Now I am very confused. After being bombarded with Tweets in the first-person plural saying that sotdraw were "making my XX Draws look pants", I rather assumed that Jonny was part of the show and that the multiple Tweets promoting the selections were a cry for attention.

Who Paul Finn is, I have no idea, and I'm afraid I have never heard of the betontarget forum, but my attention was caught on Feb 26th, which was only last week, which is why following the selections started this weekend. I like draws, as I have mentioned several times before, and I am always interested in comparing my selections with those of others.

Obviously I can't back-date selections to before they caught my attention, but as I said yesterday, when you have an edge, it makes no difference in the long-run when you start because the profits will come, and I'm not one to get too excited or despondent until we have several weeks and selections behind us.

What was quite interesting to me was that three of sotdraw's selections were XX Draw selections also:

Sochaux v Bordeaux (2:0), Cagliari v Udinese (3:0) and Ajaccio v Lille (2:3). 

I often have an overlap with Peter Nordsted's Drawmaster too - this week we shared Werder Bremen v Hamburg (1:0), Getafe v Espanyol (0:0), Cagliari v Udinese (3:0) and Hoffenheim v Wolfsburg (6:2). 

Pete and sotdraw also shared Hull City v Newcastle (1:4), but I had the value on the home win here. 

FTL (Plus One) Update 2.March.2014

Hopefully the accounting department didn't mess up the numbers this week, another error on Jamie A's would be especially embarrassing, but here they are. Not much change at the top, other than Fedslam leap-frogging Webbo into fifth place and in line for an extra £25. After 243 selections, Webbo is up by 0.01 points, but at least he is up.

The Cassini Value Selections started with a loss as Hull City went down to Newcastle United, but four subsequent winners meant an overall profit of 4.44 points.

Skeeve made 3.79 points to stay close with a 100% performance in the Conference, including fluking a 3:3 draw in the AFC Chester v Nuneaton Town game! The Bundeslayga selections picked up 2.87 points to stay second in the race for the cash.

The chasing pack saw Hofs Hackers and Jamie A swap places, and the Football Analyst steadily making up ground reducing his liability by another £25 to just £125.

The XX Draws dropped two places, but the XX Unders moved up two places and a net loss of 0.89 points. Football Elite had their best weekend of the season, picking up 7.61 points.

The rest of the table looks like this:

Peter Nordsted's woes continued with the Drawmaster dropping 3.79 points with one winner from seven draws, and three losses on the Premier Betting selections.

Old friend Jonny G has been claiming great things for his own draw selections, albeit from a small sample size to date, so I have decided to unofficially track the selections and report on them moving forward. Clearly to maintain integrity, I can't be including selections from past weeks of which I was unaware, but one of the good things about a winning system is that it doesn't matter when you start recording the bets - the positive edge ensures that the profits will come. 

Here were the Unders and Draw selections this weekend :

Back Under 2.5 goals Hull v Newcastle @ 1.70
Back Under 2.5 goals Aston Villa v Norwich @ 1.78

Evian v Nantes 3.50*0.27 v 3.04*0.32 = 0.94 v 0.97 odds 3.2
Hibernian v Dundee Utd 4.41*0.27 v 4.11*0.32 = 1.19 v 1.31 odds 3.4
Hull v Newcastle 3.48*0.31 v 5.26*0.23 = 1.08 v 1.21 odds 3.3
Sochaux v Bordeaux 4.92*0.22 v 4.16*0.26 = 1.08 v 1.08 odds 3.2
Aston Villa v Norwich 3.55*0.28 v 3.74*0.20 = 0.99 v 0.75 odds 3.4
Cagliari v Udinese 3.76*0.24 v 3.80*0.28 = 0.90 v 1.06 odds 3.25
Milan v Juventus 4.34*0.28 v 4.21*0.32 = 1.21 v 1.35 odds 3.4
Ajaccio v Lille 3.76*0.26 v 4.49*0.26 = 0.98 v 1.17 odds 3.55

I may have erred, it does happen, but I don't believe there was one winner in those ten selections, so after week one:

* Any selections in linked blogs, posts, articles, papers or tweets are of course those of the authors of the blogs, posts, articles, papers and tweets and do not necessarily represent the views, opinions, or positions, of myself, and should not be considered a recommendation. 

Illogical Lays

I had a good question from a subscriber regarding the Bundeslayga Selections for this weekend. With Borussia Dortmund priced by Pinnacle at 1.286 at the time of the email, I added a comment that:

Borussia Dortmund will not be a selection if they shorten to 1.26 or less

Not unreasonably, I was challenged with:

Why would you not want lay Dortmund if they go shorter ?

A perfectly good question, with the answer being that these selections are based on a perceived weakness in the prices of some favourites in the Bundesliga, rather than based on the matches themselves.

Any system based on prices should make no sense at all, since there is no inherent reason why any price band should be wrong over the long term, and basing a selection on what the market thinks rather than what you think, is diametrically opposed to the logical method of identifying value by determining your own price and comparing it with the market's.

In the short-term, short being a relative term that may well cover more than one season and/or hundreds of bets, there will be always be what appear to be weak spots, but they won't normally persist. We humans look for patterns where none exist.

Take any full season's worth of data from any league, and it is 100% certain that you could find a winning 'system'.

Back the draw in matches where the home team is priced between 2.0 and 2.99 (English Premier League 2012-13, 134 Selections, 51 Winners, +43.38 points [Pinnacle prices]).

Lay the draw in all matches (Eredivisie 2009-10, 306 Selections, 244 Winners, +25.27 points [Average prices]).

The thing that makes the Bundeslayga unusual is that the system has been profitable for several seasons, and that the profile of the league provides a reason why this should be. Selections are also from a fairly broad band (1.3 to 2.0) and while it's not a system that will make you rich, it is ideal for generating a slow and steady profit and mitigating either current or future Premium Charges.

Any time a selection is made from a narrow band, say 1.6 to 1.69, with no logical reason why this band should be different, it is likely to be the result of back-fitting, and it is unlikely to be profitable in the long run.

Similarly, any claims to have a winning system based on just a few selections or over a short period of time, should be treated with a large degree of scepticism.  

When The Smog Clears, UCLA

I mentioned 'laying low' as one of my favourite strategies in my earlier post, and here is an example from last night of how it can pay off.

With 1.3 seconds left, it didn't look good, but the thing with these low risk / high reward plays is that I'm quite comfortable with taking a loss when the bet was value. I'm not exactly happy to take the loss, but I'm ok with it. In the event, UCLA tied the game up with a three-pointer as the clock hit zeroes, and the game went to double-overtime.

Unfortunately Oregon eventually prevailed winning 87-83, but two overtime periods and all the stoppages that go with those ten minutes, provided plenty of time to lock in a consolation win, even if the preferred outcome didn't transpire.

There was some bloodshed in the Totals market too - with Under 155.5 points looking a certainty, 1.01 traded, but with overtime points counting, the game ended up going Over.

Lay low, you never know. Very catchy.

Lay Back And Simplify

I was reading a paper called THE EXTENT OF PRICE MISALIGNMENT IN PREDICTION MARKETS by David Rothschild David Pennock* and while the subject matter is probably not of much interest to anyone until October 2016 (the paper looks at the arbitrage opportunities which existed during the 2012 Presidential Election, and I like to be prepared), there were a few general market observations of interest, including this line:

For example, buying and selling are logically identical yet almost every exchange makes selling more confusing; ideally, traders should see no difference.

Most of us grew up on the punter side of the betting fence, with its limited choices of betting on something to win, or not betting at all. In theory, the lay option was there in the clumsy form of backing every other outcome with varying stakes, but this was rather impractical for any event with more than three possible outcomes.

On the bookmaker side of the betting fence, laying has always been the order of the day.

It’s not that selling (or laying) is more complicated, it is simply that laying is not what most people are used to.

For many of us, the arrival of betting exchanges provided the opportunity to learn and use the previously unavailable bookmaker’s side of the equation.

And that’s all it is – an equation, which by definition is “the process of equating one thing with another".

What is risk on one side is reward on the other. Laying may have added another string to the punter’s bow, but it is not a silver bullet (to mix metaphors) to profitability.

In the early days of the Betfair Forum, or at least fairly early since I didn't join until late March 2004, many people espoused this view, which always seemed a little naïve to me.

A lay is simply a traditional bet (a back) in reverse. There is, and never was, anything magical about it, and the same laws of mathematics apply – if you have value, you will make a profit, and if you don’t, you won’t.

Most of my betting is done in binary markets, so whether I back A or lay B, the bet is essentially the same. (One option may be slightly better than the other because of rounding differences so it does pay to check). 

With one of my strategies being that of ‘laying low’ (much catchier than ‘backing high’) I am obviously extremely comfortable on the lay side of the fence, and with practice anyone can be, but the comment in the paper raises a good point, which is that exchanges do not need to have two prices on a binary outcome.

If Roger Federer is 1.5 to win a match, then the interface could simply list the two outcomes (WIN or LOSE, along with the opposite result for his opponent) and one price rather than the four prices as now. I’m not sure the alleged confusion is really that bad, but I do agree that the exchanges could make the process simpler.

But then the cross-matching profits would vanish, so it’ll probably never happen.

* The views expressed in linked blogs, posts, articles, papers or tweets are of course those of the authors of the blogs, posts, articles, papers and tweets and do not necessarily represent the views, opinions, or positions, of myself.

Suns Fail To Shine

I hope some of you made some money from yesterday's lay recommendation of the Phoenix Suns. At the time of writing, the Suns were in the low 1.8s, but from the chart below (taken at tip-off)...

...you can see two big moves. One was obviously triggered when I highlighted in my post Phoenix's first quarter struggles of late and sharp minds followed me in and moved the market, and the second move was when it was revealed that the Dragon, Goran Dragic, would be missing with a sprained ankle.

I jest about the reason for the first drift, (it was likely because insiders became aware of the injury), but the drifts do highlight the dangers of betting too early on a sport where team news can move a market hugely.

On this occasion the news was in our favour, and with Utah Jazz winning the first quarter as expected (by 3) you could have traded out of that 1.85 lay by backing at 2.88. Or you could have let the lay run (not unreasonable given the Suns short-handedness), and enjoyed an easy win.

The Suns led for a total of three seconds early in the second quarter, but in the end Utah (receiving 1.5 on the handicap) just about covered, winning by 23 points.

Sportgasbord

Messing up on Jamie A's numbers is becoming a weekly occurrence, but fortunately Jamie is a most honest chap, rather like myself, and he took himself out of the prize money by querying my total for him. Here is the revised portion of the table:

A few contenders had selections in last night's games, but one update a week is enough. It occurred to me that this blog hasn't mentioned sports other than football for a while, so here goes.

Despite changing markets, there are still opportunities to skin the NBA cat by following strategies previously revealed on this blog. Last night / this morning saw the Minnesota Timberwolves value (in my opinion) as 3.5 underdogs at over-achievers Phoenix Suns.

Phoenix travels to Utah tonight, and a pre-game lay of the visitors is in order as they tend to start slow. The last three games they have lost the first quarter every time before waking up for the middle two periods:

The revelation that the NBA is looking at the possibility of a 4 point shot was interesting, but somehow I can't see it being a serious discussion. 

Still in the US, and Spring Training opened in baseball yesterday with a game between the New York Yankees and college team Florida State (who included quarterback Jameis Winston in their team). The pros won, and the NHL is back tonight. I make that three major US sports, plus a couple of college sports! 

Finally, from the world of Twitter yesterday came this gem, re-tweeted by Ian Erskine:

And this not such a pleasant Tweet from PGA homophobe golfer Steve Elkington: