One Big Game

Another compulsory donation to Betfair yesterday, (charges only up to 19.78%), money which apparently isn't being invested in improving the stability of the site. As someone with a few years experience of working in an IT, I'm well aware that these things happen, but a little honesty would go a long way. On Saturday when the site was up and down like a whore's drawers, they put a notice up claiming the outage was 'planned'. No one believes that, because it wasn't true. And I thought integrity was important in business too.

I was reading "The World Is Flat" recently, and it got me thinking that in some ways, the exchanges - read Betfair - are like a big game. We all turn up with our boots, (hoping to fill them), optimistic that on day one, we know something that a million other people don't know.

Some of us struggle from the beginning, and are driven out of the game early on. Some leave the stadium never to return, while others keep coming back, paying the entry fee and supporting the successful players financially. The officials running the game take a fee from the more successful players, and stand outside the ground waving the money around with special deals in an attempt to recruit more players. The rules change from time to time, and some winners fall by the wayside to be replaced by more innovative or perhaps fresher players, while others adapt, improve and prosper. It's not quite eleven years since the game started, and I have no idea how many people from the early days are still prospering, but I doubt that it is too many. There's the odd geriatric who thinks that horse-racing and punting is the way to go, and that value doesn't exist, but for many, including me, horses are smelly and unreliable things, and the best opportunities are in sports.

I am coming up for seven years on Betfair, having signed up at the end of March 2004. The early bird gets the worm, but second mouse gets the cheese (so THAT'S where it went!), and although I wasn't in the first wave, I wasn't too far behind. Seven years is a long time, but while the sun is still shining, it's not yet time to quit the hay-making. I may take a few more breaks though. April through September for example.

I came across the term Frugal Fatigue the other day - a term meaning essentially "a tiredness over pinching pennies" and the principle can be applied to trading. Why trade at all on days or events where your return is expected to be significantly reduced from other days when your better events are available? If you have nothing better to do, then so long as you make a profit, then it may be worth it to you, (at least you're not out spending money), but after seven years, and a pretty good idea of where the good and not-so-good days are, I'm becoming a lot more selective. Quality not quantity.

Royals Ransom

I was told this past weekend that my "blog is interesting when it's not about betting" and that I should write more about non-gambling related stuff, so here's a post about a relatively obscure baseball pitcher named Gil Meche. (At least it's sports related).

His story actually received some coverage in the Daily Mail, but as that 'paper' is unreadable for anyone with half a brain, I'm hoping no one saw it there. Gil Meche made the headlines last month because he announced that he would retire and forfeit $12.4 million on his contract, money he would have been entitled to simply by reporting to spring training with the Kansas City Royals. Shoulder injuries have made him ineffective over the past few years, (5 losses from 9 starts last season) and he felt that taking the money "just wasn't the right thing to do".

There's no need to pass the hat around for Mr Integrity though - over the last four years he's pocketed $43 million, so he should be able to put money on the table for a while yet. What did the hapless Royals get for their $43 million? Over four seasons, Meche won 29 games, and lost 39.

Liverpool and Chelsea will be hoping for more from their recent investments.

Goal Famine

I seem to have been all over the place this weekend. With the knowledge that a hit from the PC is coming, my bets have been, if not reckless, a little more free-spirited. I didn't pick a good weekend for the Over / Under experiment in the EPL, with a record breaking Saturday for goals, and Overs everywhere. Today I had Over in the West Ham United v Birmingham City game, and of course it finishes 0-1. When I looked at the Chelsea v Liverpool game on Friday, the Under / Over market was priced at exactly where I had them (1.9 / 2.11), but a little before kick-off this afternoon, and the Under 2.5 had lengthened significantly and was value at 2.08. I was a little hesitant, guilty perhaps of the 'anchoring' effect of yesterday's goal-fest, (a partial reason perhaps, why the odds had drifted so much) but I jumped on the Under and it paid off nicely for a profit on the day. Overall a small loss on the weekend on these bets, but if the Total Charges are over 20% this week, it'll be worth it.

There was an interesting discussion on the Betfair forum concerning someone (the Investor) who had lost £14k on the Newcastle - Arsenal game. The main point of contention was whether or not he should have layed off at 1.01. The individual concerned is one of the more successful on the exchanges, at least as far as one can tell, and my feeling is that he is successful, at least in part, because he DOESN'T lay off at 1.01 unless it is value to do so. A number of, to put it kindly, less experienced, or more bluntly, clueless, posters seem to think that you should always lay off at 1.01. Of course, these same individuals who have no concept of value are people whose banks never build up to the level where one can 'afford' to lose £14k. There's also the issue of how much £14k is to someone. One poster referred to it as a 'mortgage deposit' and for him that may be true, but for someone with a paid-for house, and a million or two in investments, (there were 489,000 UK millionaires in 2007), a loss of £14k is not much more than an irritation. In fact, it is quite likely that a down day for the stock market (not an infrequent occurrence) would result in a loss exceeding that amount, which is one big reason why the number of UK millionaires dropped to 242,000 in 2009! The bottom line though, is that you do not lay off at 1.01 simply because you can. You should do so only if it is value to do so.

At 4-0 to Arsenal, I would say that 1.01 was a value back, but borderline when reduced to 10 men. I wasn't watching this market, so I'm not sure how it moved, but I would imagine 1.01 was available on the back side once Newcastle had scored, and if I had £14k on the line, I'd be looking to close out fast!

No joy for Peter Nordsted's Drawmaster system this week, going 0 for 3, as did my strong draw picks. Two wins from four for Football Elite, with Bologna (2.16) following Hannover (2.6) today. Osasuna and Cagliari were the losing picks.

One strong draw out of three for me, with Auxerre v Lille at 3.3. These continue to be very profitable, and three for three in the Six Nations, with the brilliantly thought out strategy of backing all favourites paying dividends.

And then there's the small matter of the Super Bowl later tonight. The unique Green Bay Packers face the Pittsburgh Steelers in Arlington, Texas. While the Dallas Cowboys arrogantly claim to be America's Team, in my opinion it is the Packers who are more deserving of this name. The Packers are the only non-profit, community-owned franchise in American professional sports major leagues, and while the typical average city population of other NFL franchises is not far short of a million, the city of Green Bay, Wisconsin, has barely 100,000. Between them, the Packers and Steelers have won nine Super Bowls, with Pittsburgh winning a record six titles.

It should be a close game, with Pittsburgh +2.5 at 2.2 looking like the value punt. As one tipster says "Big Ben is really good at two things: avoiding rape charges and winning Super Bowls". There should be plenty of trading opportunities though for those who can sleep in.

Goals Galore

Quite a day so far in the EPL with goals galore and anyone on Under 2.5 goals being taken to the woodshed.

The early game set the tone for the day, with Stoke City and Sunderland coming up with five goals between them, and a game that was a likely loser from the second minute.

The Overs was won inside of 10 minutes at Newcastle with Arsenal off to 3-0 start, and Carlos Tevez had won for me within 39' at Manchester City. Wigan Athletic and Blackburn Rovers combined for seven for the third winner.

A last minute goal at Tottenham took away a small profit, so three winners from seven games at 1.74, 1.99 and 2.34. I need the Overs at West Ham tomorrow and the Unders at Wolves in a few minutes to turn a profit on these.

One advantage of backing Overs versus Unders is that they can be winners long before the game is ended, and even a goalless game late on can still turn into a winner.

An example of never-say-never was seen in an amazing finish at Newcastle as the home team turned a 0-4 deficit into a 4-4 draw, taking full advantage of Arsenal's reduction to 10 men. Obviously Arsenal traded at 1.01 for a lot (see screen-shot), the draw traded at 490, and Newcastle United traded at 1000. Very nice for someone, agonising for the money-buyers. Was 1.01 value at 4-0? Arguably, given that no EPL team has lost a 4 goal lead before, but I doubt that's much compensation to a lot of people.

Peter Nordsted's Drawmaster system picked Stoke City v Sunderland, Wigan Athletic v Blackburn Rovers and tomorrow's West Ham United v Birmingham City. Two losses so far, but a nice win for Football Elite with Hannover '96 beating Wolfsburg 1-0 at 2.6.

The Six Nations is off to a profitable start, with England winning at 1.59 last night, the only real close contest. I also bought some money in the Ireland v Italy game at 1.18 - Cassini going with his head rather than is heart - but a 13-11 win suggests that this was hardly value. I have France tomorrow at 1.14.

An apology is owed to Steve, whose post I referenced earlier today on the subject of targets. Steve's mention of 10% wasn't actually in reference to that number being a target for him, but as the daily percentage that his bets were returning.

However, my point remains that targets are nonsensical. Bet when it's value to do so, and don't when it's not, and if that means no action on some days, and 16 hours on others, then so be it.

Off Target

The author of one of the blogs on my blogroll had this to say in his most recent post:

I have done well today, considering my bank size and staking, I don't want to get ahead of myself too quickly, as I have been in this situation before and don't want to end up where I am out of my depth in terms of liability exposed to the market when it goes against me. Don't get me wrong it's been good making and increasing my Betfair bankroll by 10% a day but sooner rather than later I feel I would be in for a big shock if didn't start taking some out each day.

So what I have decided is that there are 24 days left in February so I am going to increase my bank by only 3% a day and withdraw the remainder of the profit at the end of each trading day.

Today I made £12.14 but I did get lucky by being on the right side of a couple of market spikes, not saying its all a bed of roses as I took a loss of £3.21 in the Lingfield 3:25 race, it wasn't a case of not accepting the loss quick enough, it was me getting involved in the market too early with too high stakes and market just plummeting away, I redded up but everything I tried just made it worse so I took the loss and moved on.

So bank increases by 3% and I take home £8.39

I have written before that the actual amounts people make is meaningless, since a £1 win for one person can be far more in real terms than a £1,000 win to someone else, but I don't understand what the writer of the above post is going to achieve by withdrawing a sum that is equivalent to about three pints of beer.

Nor do I understand the point of having a daily target, be it 10% a day (impossible to achieve for more than a few days) or 1% (equally impossible but achievable for a little longer perhaps). Targets just add pressure, and have the effect of either making you stop trading too early, or push you to make poor value bets. It's logical to stay on while the going is good and quitting when there's not too much happening, which is the complete opposite of what targets do for you.

But back to the subject of building a bank up, which is surely the goal of all of us. Fund your betting account with money you don't need - now or ever, and leave it there, at least until it can reward you with more than a few beers. The writer uses as justification that "I don't want to end up where I am out of my depth in terms of liability exposed to the market when it goes against me". This suggests that the bank reflects your liability, which is not true. Your liability is limited to what you put into the market, and if you lack the self-control to not risk your entire your bank on a trade, well, I'm sorry, but you shouldn't be trading. Leave the money alone, and slowly increase your staking in proportion to the size of your bank. You'll soon reach a level above which you either can't get bigger bets on, or you don't feel comfortable betting them. A stake of 2% is fine when you have a few hundred in the bank, but when you have say £50,000 in there, 2% might make you uncomfortable.

My personal preference is to pull out money only if (OK, when) my wife tells me I have a specific (and large) expense to cover. I typically have far more in my account than I will ever need, but in the event of a disaster, I like to have more than enough of a cushion to bounce back without ever having to top the bank up again.

Holidays, air fares, (and in recent months apparently windows, furniture, engagement ring and weddings) - expenses like that are legitimate reasons to me (if I know what's good for me) for a withdrawal, and I pull out round numbers occasionally (five times last year), which makes it much easier to track P&L.

And for married men out there, there's another reason to leave the money in your trading account. The wife can't see it or get her hands on it! Note to self - do not share news of decent wins any more.

Shortening Overs

I updated the previous post with the prices available on my Under / Over value bets at the time of writing, and it's interesting to see how much some of them have moved in about 18 hours.

Every single Over bet has come down, by 8 ticks, 13, 10 and 6 respectively, although the five Unders haven't moved quite so much. Villa and Stoke games down 4 ticks, Spurs and Wolves about the same, with just Everton v Blackpool drifting out by 18 ticks (2.5 to 2.68).

I've not spent a lot of time studying pre-off price movements. The markets seem to have a mind of their own, and there are better ways to spend my limited time, but if I had hours available, it would be an interesting area to research. I like the idea of being able to close out a position pre-off and locking in a guaranteed profit, but the idea of these is to reduce the PC, so I'll be happy to break even.

Another winner in the Bundslayga system earlier, with Borussia Dortmund (1.67) failing to beat Schalke '04. I guess this is something of a local derby, as I was in Dortmund for the Brazil v Ghana World Cup Round of 16 game in 2006, while staying in Gelsenkirchen waiting for the England v Portugal Quarter-Final and I don't recall too much driving. Happy days. Somehow I don't think a trip to Qatar holds quite the same appeal, although Brazil does!

Weekend Value

Something a little different this week, in addition to the usual draw and value picks, and that is using my Elo based ratings / Poisson system to look at the Under 2.5 goal markets in the EPL for value. The Unders looks value in the games at Aston Villa (1.8), Stoke City (1.7), Everton (2.5), Tottenham Hotspur (2.1) and Wolverhampton Wanderers (2.2) while the games at Manchester City (1.74), Newcastle United (1.99), Wigan Athletic (2.34) and West Ham United (2.14) look value for Over 2.5 goals. The Chelsea v Liverpool game is priced exactly as I have it.

I have Wigan Athletic as value to win at 2.64, although they also show up as a weak draw possibility, so a lay of Blackburn Rovers at 3.0 will be my play here.

Not many strong draws again this week, Nuremberg v Bayer Leverkusen, Auxerre v Lille and Almeria v Espanyol are the three.

I have Brest priced at 1.85 v Nancy, and 2.22 looks a generous price.

In Serie A, Udinese also look too short at 1.7 v Sampdoria, as do Parma at 2.52 v Fiorentina and Internazionale (2.02) v AS Roma.

In Spain, Osasuna at 2.16 v Real Mallorca and Real Zaragoza (2.14) v Racing Santander look good.

After Manchester City gave me my first losing away pick in midweek, I'm looking to the other Manchester side to get them back on track with a win at 1.47 at Wolves.

I thought it might be interesting to look at Mark Iverson's comments regarding some of the upcoming games, and then throw in my thoughts. Mark's comments in bold.

Stoke v Sunderland: According to my form table Stoke are the worst team in the Premiership at the moment, so I was surprised to see them such strong favourites for this one. Sunderland will miss Darren Bent but in my opinion there's still value to be had in opposing the home team. Conclusion: Lay Stoke @ 2.16

I have Stoke priced much higher too (2.46), and 2.16 is a lay for me also.

Everton v Blackpool: Everton's last 4 game average is much better but is their short priced justified? They still haven't got a prolific goal scorer and Blackpool are my 8th best performing away side in the league. Conclusion: Back Draw @ 4.80

Everton are too short for me, and a lay at 1.49.

Man City v WBA: WBA are shading the 4 game average and it's pretty close on the home/away ratings. Man City have the better players on paper but the Baggies could nick something out of this at a big price. Conclusion: Back Draw @ 4.80

Manchester City are value here for me, as short as they are. I have them at 1.27, and at 1.45, that's value.

Newcastle v Arsenal: The big teams are starting to up their game at the right time and Arsenal have been very consistent of late. Newcastle's performances have started to tail off over the last 4 games and without Andy Carroll I can't see them matching the Gunners firepower. Conclusion: Back Arsenal @ 1.70

I'm looking at laying Arsenal at this price.

Tottenham v Bolton: Bolton are another team struggling and their win against Wolves midweek could flatter to deceive. A performance in the '20's' from Spurs should be enough to see them off. Conclusion: Back Tottenham @ 1.63

Tottenham value for me too here. I have them as 1.36, so 1.66 (which is now available) looks good.

As January Goes

There's an old Stock Market adage 'as January goes, so goes the year'. I hope it applies to my trading, as the month just ended was my second best month (with December 2010 being the best) in two years. I am in form, and with a decent win yesterday (Monday) I now have six days of devil-may-care betting ahead of me. The Total Charges percentage is up to 19.81% (up from 19.66%) but still not quite enough to dodge the charge. January is usually a strong month with plenty of quality NFL games, the football season in full-swing (weather permitting), and the NBA passing the halfway mark. Tennis, cricket, golf and Golden Globes have also helped the bottom line. The Academy Awards are at the end of this month, and I owe someone a few beers after he tipped me The King's Speech back in November before I'd even heard about it. I hope the small error of using Helvetica font in a 1930s scene, when the font wasn't designed until 1957, won't do too much damage! It would be petty to mention that Betfair haven't even listed it correctly, missing out the apostrophe which is just poor. What would Lynn Truss say?

A few bets tomorrow on the football, with strong draws at Chievo Verona v Napoli (3.2) and Blackburn Rovers v Tottenham Hotspur (3.5).

Other picks are Fulham, priced by me at 1.72, available at 2.12 v Newcastle United. Bolton Wanderers are fair at 1.95 to beat Wolverhampton Wanderers, and I have Blackpool at 2.02 v West Ham United, but available at 2.42. Over 2.5 goals at 1.71 in this one looks value too.

Palermo are also good value at 2.26 to beat Juventus. I also have Sampdoria (2.42) v Cagliari. I have Sampdoria much shorter than this.

The away pick is Manchester City (1.91) priced up by the Cassini model at 1.74. Away picks are incidentally running at 100% in 2011 in case you were wondering.

And if they all lose? Less PC!

Red Devils

Some people really shouldn't have betting accounts. The Betfair Forum had this question on it today

What's the difference between "Half Time/Full Time" and "Win Both Halves" -if Team 1 wins half time and full time, then they have also won both halves, eh?

With a joining date of 22.Jan.11, he does have the excuse of being a new kid in town, but really. Sharp minds indeed.

With the abandonment of Bologna v AS Roma, I had just two strong draws this weekend, with both ending up as home wins. One weak draw winner from four, so nothing to shout about unlike Peter Nordsted and his Drawmaster system which produced two winners from two League One selections.

The best pick of the weekend was probably Lorient, who as I mentioned, I had priced at 1.57. When I backed them on Friday morning, the price was 2.06, but following my post, or perhaps it was Football Elite's selection of them, they came in to around 1.9. Still value, and they duly won 2-0. Real Sociedad also won 2-0, but I lost half my stake as Lille could only beat Lens by one goal, and Lecce cost me all of my stake as they finished 1-1 with Cesena (to a 93' goal...ouch).

In an effort to reduce the Premium Charge this week, I also had a couple of FA Cup trading dabbles - on Manchester United to beat Southampton which was a nerve-wracking time but came out OK in the end, and on Fulham v Tottenham Hotspur, which didn't.

I backed both winners in the Australian Open Singles events, and had one of my best cricket wins in the Pakistan v New Zealand ODI. Once I know that I am (almost) definitely going to pay the PC for the week, I become a little more relaxed about my betting. Certainly not reckless, (I'm not as stupid as I look, something that was a great relief to my Mother), but there's a certain devil-may-care attitude to the bets which stops at midnight on a Sunday. The PC really should be a little more of a 'rolling' charge.

As a Surrey boy, it's a little galling to see two Sussex teams into the FA Cup Fifth Round, and the Red Devils of Crawley Town now face a trip to the other Red Devils in Manchester - the biggest game in their history (Crawley Town's history that is, lest there be any doubt).

Some early NBA games today with the Los Angeles Lakers hosting the Boston Celtics in a rematch of last season's final. Both sides had awful performances on Friday, with the Lakers -13.5 favourites at home to the Sacramento Kings, not only failing to cover the spread, but losing the game SU. Regular readers of this blog will have made money on this result.

Drawmaster Picks 29.Jan.11

Below are Peter Nordsted's Drawmaster picks for today:

The match with the biggest draw bias is Rochdale v Charlton.

Rochdale's recent home record against teams of Charlton's grading is W1 D2 L0. Charlton's recent away record against teams of Rochdale's grading is W3 D4 L3.

This is the first time in recent years the two teams have met at Rochdale. Rochdale have drawn four of their last five home matches. Charlton have drawn three of their last five away matches.

Match Odds: Rochdale 2.50, Draw 3.25, Charlton 2.55

Tip: Rochdale v Charlton draw @ 3.25

The other draws I will be backing this weekend are Carlisle v Oldham (3.25) and Swindon v Exeter (3.25)

For what it's worth, I have Rochdale v Charlton Athletic as a weak draw, but the other two matches look like home wins to me - Carlisle especially.

Channel Crossing

No EPL games this weekend, with the FA Cup Fourth Round, but action in the other majors.

Strong draws? Only three - in Italy, Bologna v AS Roma and in France, Caen v Auxerre and Valenciennes v Olympique Lyon.

Weaker draws are Sochaux v Stades Rennes, Nuremberg v Hamburg, St Pauli v Koln and Deportivo La Coruna v Sevilla.

Home value: I have Real Sociedad (v Almeria) priced at 1.88 and available at 2.06. Almeria have won just three times all season, including a home win last week. Real Sociedad have won five of nine at home, and both games against lower placed teams.

Lorient (2.06) v Brest. I have Lorient as low as 1.57 for this one. Lorient have conceded just one goal in the last five home games, and Brest are not in good form right now.

Lille are value to beat Lens and the -1/-1.5 Asian Handicap (2.0) in my opinion. My ratings have them to win by 2 goals, and priced at 1.28 SU.

Finally, Lecce (2.2) v Cesena. Lecce are in fine form right now, with a win at Lazio, a draw at Fiorentina, and a home draw with AC Milan. Not too shabby. I think 2.2 is a good price.

For an away value pick, I'm going for Paris St Germain at a very poor Arles-Avignon who have won just once all season. They did scrape a 1-1 draw with Lyon back in October, but in all other home games against top half of the table teams, they were beaten. 1.58 may not look a great price, but it's value in my opinion.

Who Moved My Port?

The best-seller "Who Moved My Cheese?" by Spencer Johnson is, in summary, a parable about a mouse who is let out from 'home', into an area with three tubes. He wanders down the first tube to find it empty, retreats, tries tube number two, and finds some cheese there. He returns home, and the next day the process is repeated. He tries tube number one, finds nothing, tries tube number two, finds his cheese, and returns home happy. After a few days, the mouse learns that he's wasting his time wandering down tube number one, so he skips it, goes straight to tube number two, gets his cheese and life his good.

One day, he strolls as nonchalantly as a mouse can stroll, down tube number two only to find that there is no cheese there. The bastard scientists conducting the experiment had moved it to tube number three. What did the mouse do?

Anyone guessing that he retraced his steps and tried tube number one or tube number three would be mistaken. The mouse stayed where he was, and had he been allowed to, would have starved to death there. An example, of course, of how because something has always previously worked, there's no guarantee that it will continue to do so.

The only constant is change.

There is also the issue of the mouse never venturing beyond tube number two, even though tube number three may well have offered Stilton and a glass of port. And who knows what might have been in tube number one at any time?

So how many gamblers develop a system, and either stick with it for too long after it has stopped putting food on the table, or alternatively find something that works, yet never try other markets that may well offer even greater riches?

As in the experiment, circumstances on the exchanges change. The bastard scientists in our world are the Premium Charge inventors, or the cross-matching implementers, or other gamblers who like cheese as much as we do - even if it isn't always Stilton with a glass of port.

Finally, one of those strange coincidences that happen from time to time happened to me yesterday. I am reading another book at the behest of my boss, and there in a chapter titled "Do Less or Work Faster" (I went for the former option) is another piece about Signor Paret - in bocca al lupo.

Cassini Principle

I am currently reading "Stumbling On Wins", by David J Berri and Martin B Schmidt, a Xmas gift from my daughter, and came across a reference to the Pareto Principle, also known as the 80-20 rule, the law of the vital few, and the principle of factor sparsity, (which sounds more like a medical condition) which states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes. The original observation was in connection with income and wealth. Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto noticed that 80% of Italy's land was owned by 20% of the population. He then carried out surveys on a variety of other countries and found to his surprise that a similar distribution applied. (He also observed that 20% of the pea pods in his garden contained 80% of the peas - some people really should get out more).

Anyway, my initial thought on reading this was the possibility that a similar ratio applied to my returns from trading, i.e do 80% of my profits come from 20% of the time that I spend trading. Now that my daily trading records go back a full five years, over 1,850 days, (Vilfredo isn't the only one who should get out more), this should be fairly easy to measure.

The 80-20 rule doesn't handle negatives too well, and unfortunately my daily totals do occasionally include a red number. Nevertheless, I ran the numbers and found that just my best 112 days comprised 80% of my profits from five years of trading. If only I knew in advance when those 112 days would be!

It's certainly a fact that my profits are not evenly distributed across all months as I have noted before, and taking a complete break during the six months of April through September would have the effect of reducing my profits by just 22%. I make 78% between October and March. Not quite the 80-20 rule, but I'm proposing a new rule for traders which proposes that 80% of profits are made in half of the year. It's called the Cassini Principle. Cassini / Pareto - we're both of Italian heritage, we both like our numbers, and we both have principles, but the similarity ends there. I shall not be counting peas in my garden. OK, so we should both get out more, and I may well do that in April, which has a record of three losing months (out of five) and an overall loss. Trouble is, the competitive nature in me means I'm more determined than ever to turn April around this year.

Any traders out there who can run their numbers and see if the Cassini Principle holds true?

Sophomore Blues

I know I shouldn't complain, but another sizeable sum will be taken from my account in the next few hours. After a good week, my total charges are down to 19.66%, and the Premium Charge continues. While I am OK with playing with up to £100 on the more speculative punts made more to reduce the PC than with any expectation that they are anything much above borderline value, I am just not comfortable throwing much more out there, but I probably need to, or at least find more markets to do this in. The credit I receive for winning / losing in these markets is a drop in the ocean when I have a decent four figure win. The other annoying thing is that in a losing week, a PC reduction strategy is quite likely to simply increase the loss, and you don't know if your week is a winning one until Sunday night. Make a big profit on the NFL that is settled at 11:59pm, and that doesn't leave a lot of time to minimise the damage. Make it on a Monday morning on the 12:30 at Newton Abbott, OK, so that'll never happen for me, but you get the point - it gives you a full six days to work your magic.

But complaining never did any good so I'll shut up. The Blackpool v Manchester United game went pretty much as expected, with plenty of goals and Blackpool losing. It seems like a lot of teams that are expected to go straight back down after a promotion do far better than expected in their first year, but then suffer from what the Americans call, a sophomore slump -

A sophomore slump or sophomore jinx refers to an instance in which a second, or sophomore, effort fails to live up to the standards of the first effort. It is commonly used to refer to the apathy of students (second year of college or university) the performance of athletes (second season of play), singers/bands (sophomore album), television shows (second seasons) and movies (sequels/prequels).

I think it's five teams who have been relegated from the Premier League in their second season - Middlesbrough, Bradford City, Ipswich Town, Reading and Hull City. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. With Blackpool looking to survive this season, next season could be a lot tougher. This is from the University of Surrey newspaper at the start of 2007-08:

Second Season Syndrome…

Since the Premiership began, teams that have won promotion and then achieved unexpected success in their first season in the Premiership have generally failed set the right goals and achieve the right balance the next season. There is a very difficult balance to find, and excluding Blackburn Rovers, a club seemingly big enough, or just managed well enough to cope with all the pressures of returning to top flight football, clubs generally are hit with the familiar sounding football term; ‘Second Season Syndrome’. Wigan and West Ham showed last season the difficulties of recapturing unexpected success, both dropped into a relegation fight after top half finishes the year before. In previous years, Nottingham Forest 1993/4, Charlton 1999/00, Ipswich 1999/00, Middlesbrough 1994/5 and Manchester City 2001/02 have all suffered at the hands of ‘second season syndrome’. Others have too, but those are the worst cases. Ipswich were relegated in the 1999/00 season having finished 5th the season before, they fell thirteen league places. Blackburn seem to be the masters of avoiding this, twice overhauling admirable first efforts. In fourteen seasons only four times has a promoted side improved on their first season in the Premiership. Twice this has been Blackburn, in 1991/92 4th - 2nd and 2000/01 10th - 6th (Derby and Birmingham have also achieved this feat). Combining those team’s that have lost ground, 72 league places have been dropped at an average of 4 places by every team in their second season. Hence if Reading were to drop this season - according to stats - it would only be to mid-low table obscurity, with the possibility of being dragged into a potentially open relegation battle. Will Steve Coppell and Reading be able to avoid the dangers of a hangover after last season and improve on things?

Not a bad write up. I looked for his piece the next season, but couldn't find it. Upon enquiring, it turned out that the writer had spent too much time betting and not enough on his studies, and was sent down during his second year. Oh the irony.

Super Bowl Set - Go Long

Things are looking up for the Stock Market this year. The famous Super Bowl Predictor maintains that if the team that wins the Super Bowl has its roots in the original National Football League, the market will increase. If the winning team was originally from the old American Football League, the market will decline.

This year there is no doubt about the outcome, and we should all load up on shares. The reason is that the two teams this year, as indeed was the case last year, both trace their roots to the original National Football league. The Green Bay Packers have won three times previously, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average rising an average of 14% in those years, while the years when the six-time champion Pittsburgh Steelers won have seen a rise of an average of 18.4% .

This indicator has correctly predicted the direction of the Dow in all but nine of the 44 years that this game has been played, which works out to a success rate of just under 80%.

While this idea may seem nonsense, there is one logical reason why it may hold true, which is mass psychology. If enough people believe the market is going in one direction or another, they will collectively turn this belief into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Perhaps the fact that the US Stock Markets were up big on the first trading day after the Super Bowl teams were known, is a sign that traders think that this will be another up year for stocks.

That's Entertainment

After my post yesterday, Sir Alex Ferguson has asked me to publish the following write up on tonight's Blackpool v Manchester United game.

Blackpool have picked up fewer points at home than anyone else (but they have played 2 or 3 games less than anyone else) so they are well overdue a big win over a top team. Yeah, yeah, so Manchester United (of Manchester) are unbeaten, but away from home they have won just two of their ten games. I'm not saying that United definitely won't win, because on any day, or night, of course that is possible, and merely by writing this post, I have single-handedly doomed Blackpool to a 0-4 thrashing!

As entertaining for my readers as the 4-0 win for Chelsea was, I don't think too many people predicted such a convincing performance. One person went so far as to suggest the game was

Probably the hardest game of football to call ever in the history of the game.

I wouldn't go that far, but I'll certainly remember this game for a while.

Being serious about the Blackpool - United game, Over 2.5 goals looks value at 1.62. Blackpool at home are 100% on overs, with every team scoring, and while Manchester United's average away is a modest 1.4, when you extract the games at top six sides, the average goes up to a more reasonable 2 exactly. A United win by 2-1 (9.8) or 3-1 (13) doesn't look a bad bet according to my spreadsheet, but it's been known to be wrong before. In it's defence, it'll take a few weeks before the correct values are all there.

Craig, writer of Against All The Odds, is back, with a long re-opening post, and some kind words:

The third option would be to make this a poor version of Cassini’s blog – Green All Over – a blog that is without compare (Unless it’s actually a meerkat in disguise). This option appeals but I’m not sure I have the imagination or inspiration to find so many diverse topics to write about. Still, it is an option that intrigues me and ideas permitting, I will certainly be looking to make general comments about topical issues.

Thanks Craig.

Bolton Wanderers v Chelsea

I mentioned earlier that for me, I thought the value for tonight's Bolton Wanderers v Chelsea game lay in the unders. Clearly my pricing model underestimates the goal-scoring probability for Chelsea in this game, as I am over-weighting recent games and Chelsea haven't exactly been banging in the away goals of late. In fact since the opening two away games in September, Chelsea have exceeded one goal just once in nine matches, a 2-1 win at Blackburn back in October - almost three months ago. Since then, they have scored (oldest first) 0,0,1,1,1 and 0 so why does the market expect Chelsea to score two goals or more? (This has traded at between 1.72 and 1.77 on Betfair). It's not as if Bolton give up too many goals at home. For their last six home matches, 2,1,2,1,0 and 1. Bolton last lost at home in October, 0-1 to Liverpool. 64% of their home games do go over 2.5 goals, but then 64% of Chelsea's away games go over. I'm not saying that Chelsea definitely won't score two goals or more, because on any day, or night, of course that is possible, and merely by writing this post, I have single-handedly doomed Bolton to a 0-4 thrashing!

Here's another view from BlueOrange

Chelsea's away form has been pretty poor over the last couple of months so god knows why they are the odds on favourite to win this match. Bolton aren't the best team at home with 5 draws but they have only lost once at home this season. My ratings say that the overs markets are where the value is. Recently all my bets have been on overs I put this down to the fixtures producing games with one team a clear form favourite and the other being out of form. Now I know Bolton haven't scored against Chelsea at home since 2002 but this has got to be their best chance yet. I have odds of 1.14 for over 1.5 goals and at the moment that is 1.33 on Betfair.

I don't put too much stock into the fact that Bolton haven't scored at home to Chelsea since 2002, but 1.14 (88%) on Over 1.5 goals looks far too short. I have this at 1.47 (68%), arguably far too long, but it's interesting how two people can have such a difference of opinion. I shall be watching this game with added interest tonight.

Rovers Return

Another profitable day yesterday, with Bayer Leverkusen (1.92) doing the business at Borussia Moenchengladbach by 3-1, and Blackburn Rovers beating West Bromwich Albion 2-0 at a very generous 2.48. A much needed morale booster for Football Elite on this game too. As I said in my initial write up, the odds here were quite bizarre to my mind. 

Less than a month after winning at WBA by 3-1 (arguably lucky given that Blackburn scored 3 goals from 6 shots, while West Brom had 21 shots, but a win nonetheless) and with a solid home record against lower rated teams, this was good value.

Chievo Verona failed to beat Genoa, and no joy for the strong draws with Udinese beating Internazionale 3-1 and Sporting de Gijon winning 1-0 over Atletico Madrid. The weaker draw selection of Bologna v Lazio finished 3-1.

Not much doing in the NFL games last night. Small profits in both games, but neither the Green Bay Packers nor the Pittsburgh Steelers looked like losing once they had taken 14 point leads, and they will meet in the Superbowl in two weeks.

Back to real football now, and my numbers for the Bolton Wanderers v Chelsea have goals less likely than the prices available would suggest - i.e value on unders. The big difference is in our estimations of how many goals Chelsea will score, presumably because I go back in time a lot less than conventional wisdom suggests I should, and Chelsea's recent games on the road haven't produced many goals. As Bill James discovered in baseball though, just because something has always been done a certain way, doesn't mean it should be done that way.

Unfortunately, by the time the latest features are fully included into the calculations, we will be getting close to 'silly season'. But there's always next season!

Poisson

This blog wields more power over the markets than I thought! The healthy 1.8 on Over 2.5 goals tipped up here yesterday morning for the Hamburg v Eintracht Frankfurt game soon disappeared, and traded as low as 1.67 pre-game. It could have been the millions from Asia moving the market, but I think it was my blog. 1.67 was borderline value, and while I am hesitant to say I traded out for a risk-free bet on Overs because you will all accuse me of after-timing, I did actually go for the risk-free bet. So no win, but no loss either.

I've been tinkering with the ratings spreadsheet again. Actually tinkering is something of an understatement, since I have now added a Poisson distribution calculation to the process. I now use the team ratings in my formula to calculate the probability of each team scoring against a specific opponent, so for example Fulham would be expected to score less versus Manchester United than they would versus Stockport County. My 'model' also weights the latest games more highly than the older ones. It's been many years since I sat in my Croydon classroom learning about the Poisson distribution. Anyway, still some tinkering to do in the area of low scores (0-0, 1-0, 0-1 and 1-1 where, I am informed, the independent Poisson model doesn't hold) but there is a wealth of information out on the web when I have time.

Not a bad day for my picks, with one of two strong draws a winner as Tottenham Hotspur drew at Newcastle United (3.6). Werder Bremen lost 0-3 at Koln, but the strike rate on these remains high and very profitable. I also managed to find a rare home value winner as Parma beat Catania 2-0 at 2.07.

Peter Nordsted's Drawmaster system was profitable again, with one from three, but for Football Elite, the dreadful run continues. Three Recommended Bets today, and not one winner with Wolves losing to Liverpool, Hannover '96 losing to Schalke '04 and Freiburg drawing with Nuremberg. The losing run now stands at eleven, with the last winner back on New Year's Day. My ratings didn't concur on any of today's games, so I was a spectator on these. A Short-List bet was Mainz '05 to beat Wolfsburg, but the streak that ended was Wolfsburg's seven consecutive draws as they beat Mainz '05 1-0.

I traded the Aston Villa v Manchester City game after backing the 0-0 on the Correct Score market at 13.0 and laying No Next Goal at 11.0 to reduce the PC next week. I could have done with a 0-0 result, but it all helps. I'm trying the same on the AS Roma v Cagliari game which is now in progress.

Drawmaster Picks 22.Jan.11

Peter Nordsted's Drawmaster selections for this week are below:

The match with the biggest draw bias is Wolves against Liverpool.

Record of teams of Wolves' grading against teams of Liverpool's grading reads W4 D5 L14. Wolves' recent home record against teams of Liverpool's grading is W2 D1 L5. Liverpool's recent away record against teams of Wolves' grading is W3 D3 L2.

Head to Head recent record at Wolves reads Wolves 0 Draw 1 Liverpool 0. Wolves have drawn none of their last five home matches. Liverpool have drawn one of their last five matches.

Match Odds: Wolves 3.20, Draw 3.20, Liverpool 2.10

Tip: Wolves v Liverpool draw @ 3.20

The other draws I will be backing this weekend are Newcastle v Spurs (3.20) and Fulham v Stoke (3.20)

Not a huge surprise that I have two of the three on my draw radar, but I have Fulham by 0.6 over Stoke City.