Curse Of The Billy Goat

October became a little greener on the final day of the regular MLB season with both the Los Angeles Dodgers (~1.29) and the Pittsburgh Pirates (~1.48) both winning. That makes it seven from seven for this season and over five years since the last sub 1.51 hot favourite lost an October regular season game.

The third profitable season in four, and the record of this strategy over the last twelve seasons looks like this:

Over the twelve seasons, the strategy is most profitable in April (+22.55) and least profitable in September (-64.90) but clearly things have changed and the conclusion of a famous study from 1994, updated in 2003, doesn't seem to hold true today*.

In contrast to the consistently observed favourite–longshot bias found in racetrack betting markets, it has been shown that gamblers in the market for Major League Baseball games reveal the opposite behaviour. This paper updates the previous study with ten years of additional data for the 1990–99 seasons. The strength of the reverse favourite–longshot bias is virtually identical to the original paper. The result suggests that, contrary to most reported inefficiencies in gambling markets, this bias appears to be permanent.

Permanent? Never say never. The strategy is profitable from as far back as 2008, with the most recent eight seasons +34.06. Since the 2007 season, every month with a full schedule is profitable bar May, which strangely was the most profitable month when the reverse  favourite–longshot bias was, while waning, still present.

It's also interesting that fewer teams, a lot fewer in fact, have been starting at 1.5 or less in the last few seasons. The 356 in 2004 became just 124 ten years later. Baseball punters becoming a little sharper?

Anyway,regular season is in the books now, and by the time the new season rolls around next April 4th you'll have all forgotten this, so it's on to the play-offs which start tonight with the New York Yankees visiting Houston for a one game play-off. The Astros are slight favourites, and the following evening the National League's Wild-Card play-off game sees the Chicago Cubs favourites to win in Pittsburgh.

While laying all favourites has been profitable in the play-offs since at least 2004, (only in 2009 would more than a small loss have been the outcome), laying away favourites has been more profitable than  home:

Should the strategy prove successful in Pittsburgh on Wednesday night, it will of course mean the Curse of the Billy Goat will continue for at least another year. It's only been 107 years - what's another one?

* Another study noted that:

Woodland and Woodland (1994) argued that betting in baseball yielded a reverse favorite-underdog bias, with underdogs underbet. Gandar et al. (2002) made a minor correction to the Woodland-Woodland methodology and found that if there were any bias, it was very slight.

Green October

The 100% October record for sub 1.51 favourites continued yesterday with the Los Angeles Dodgers beating the San Diego Padres by a single run. The Pittsburgh Pirates drifted to ~1.53 and ended up not being a qualifying selection, which was a good thing because they lost.

It's déjà vu all over again, as the recently departed Yogi Berra once said. Today our favourite pitcher is in action again, and even though the Dodgers have nothing to play for having already won the NL West, they are around 1.32 with Clayton Kershaw to beat the Padres again today. 1.32 will be the second shortest price of the season. There's not much chance of this price drifting past 1.50, but the Pittsburgh Pirates are possible qualifiers currently around the 1.47 mark. This one could drift, but either way, this will be the end of betting on hot favourites in baseball for a few months. The play-offs are a completely different ball game, pun intended.

Hopefully some of you have made some money on this strategy since I made the observation just before the All-Star Break in early July. Since that day, there have been 84 winners from 115 selections with a profit of 15.95 points - an ROI% of  13.9%. 

Regular Season October Baseball

It's the final weekend of the 2015 MLB regular season, and a good time to look at whether or not it is a profitable strategy to back the hot favourites in the play-offs. Unsurprisingly there are fewer such opportunities in post season play, an average of 10 a season if we define hot favourites as those with an implied probability of 60% or greater (1.6).

If we relax the constraint on 'hot' to 'tepid' 55% or greater implied probability, we get more selections - but an even worse outcome.

And if anything, the returns on favourites in the play-offs have declined over recent seasons.

The competitive nature of the post-season appears not to be kind to favourites. Note that down for the next few weeks.

Jeffrey's observations on the fate of favourites and underdogs at different times of the season resulted in me taking at look at results by moth over the last five seasons. Only May shows a loss for hot favourites (sub 1 .51) but I'll wait for the 2015 regular season to finish this weekend before publishing all the numbers.

With a couple of likely qualifiers today, namely the Los Angeles Dodgers and the Pittsburgh Pirates, some of you may be interested to know that hot favourites in October have a 100% record at 6-0 since 2011. Bizarrely, three of those six were on one single day, which was yesterday, and all three won. Happy days.

The Dodgers tonight are currently 1.41 on the exchanges, with the Pirates at 1.48. 

Hopefully, it's not meaningful that the six winners have all been against Right-handed starters and tonight's are both Lefties!

Pre v Post All-Star Break

Jeffrey had a comment on my Studies Have Continued post saying:

I'm on the other side of this coin, backing dogs coming off a win in certain situations.

One thing I've noticed for three years running now, is that it all goes south in the month after the All Star break. Suddenly favourites predominate until around mid-August onwards, when my dogs start winning their share again.

I can only think that by July-August, the bookies have got the measure of the teams when pricing games up, and it takes the back-end of the regular season, when teams gather themselves for one last tilt at a play-off spot (or in readiness for off-season contract negotiations!) that certain underdogs start over-achieving again.

I just wondered if you had noticed this trend and, if so, if you had any theories as to what might cause it.

I like these thought-provoking comments and did a little research. I took a look at how shorties (1.50 or shorter) perform in the period leading up to, and following on from, the All-Star break which is held somewhere around the second week of July. I compared June and pre-All-Star July with post-All-Star July and August for the past five seasons.

The results showed that over that period, backing shorties both before and after the All-Star break was a profitable strategy, with the 'after' period showing a slightly more profitable ROI%. while the win percentage was almost identical. With the All-Star game usually in the first half of July, there are more qualifiers in the 'after' period.

Over the past three years, Jeffrey's period of observation, late July / August showed a profit of 28.80 points after versus a loss of  5.65 points before the break when backing all shorties.

Without knowing what the 'certain situations' are that determine Jeffrey's selections, or the price ranges of his underdogs, it's impossible to say much more, but hot favourites have been pretty solid recently in the 6  / 7 weeks following the All-Star game.

Jeffrey suggests that "by July-August, the bookies have got the measure of the teams when pricing games up" but the days when bookies priced games up are long gone. Prices are determined by punters, and we are collectively pretty accurate. Sportsbooks such as Pinnacle Sports and the exchanges lead the way of course, with the more traditional bookies shadowing those prices and allowing anyone with half-a-clue to bet a whopping 25p if they're lucky.

Wanted - Active Investors

At the end of a rare second consecutive losing month for stocks, it was interesting to read the comments of Goldman Sach's Tim O'Neill on the topic of active versus passive investing, although given that he is 'primarily in the business of active investing', his opinion on the subject is not the biggest of surprises:

Tim O'Neill, Goldman Sachs' partner and global co-head of the investment management division, has a warning: If passive investing gets too big, then the market won't work.

"So in terms of the size, a market needs both active and passive investing because if everybody's a passive investor, there's no one to buy from," O'Neill said on a new "Exchanges at Goldman Sachs" podcast with communications chief Jake Siewert. "And if passive becomes a certain oversized percentage of the market, the market doesn't function."

O'Neill is getting to the heart of the debate on active vs. passive investing. Passive investing has boomed in recent years, with index-tracking exchange-traded funds hoovering up trillions in assets under management.

The problem is that the market needs active management, otherwise there will be no one to buy from, and individual stocks will just move with the overall index.

As a result, O'Neill, who previously called passive investing "a potential bubble machine," said that both strategies are necessary.

Here's an excerpt:

Well, the promise of active investing is that they're going to deliver performance net of fees better than the benchmark, whatever the benchmark might be for the US, global, or Europe. It's been a difficult seven years for active investors because the markets have risen so consistently and persistently higher. So most active managers have net of fees underperformed the benchmark. So it led back to this debate about whether or not the fees that you pay for active managers are worth it. And there's been simultaneously a great shift towards passive investing because it's cheap, and you would get all of the market returns, net of five or 10 basis points.

The problem for passive is that its size, at a certain point, may be too much for the market to handle. And it's also all on autopilot. So in terms of the size, a market needs both active and passive investing because if everybody's a passive investor, there's no one to buy from. So there's no one ... your beta is my alpha and vice versa. So you need a balance in the market. And if passive becomes a certain oversized percentage of the market, the market doesn't function.

The other problem with passive, of course, it's all on autopilot. And when you get to periods of misvaluation, over or undervaluation, you need active decision-makers. Because valuation always matters in markets, and investing.

Peter Andersen of Forbes has a slightly different opinion:

Rather than choose one of these philosophies over the other, I take the unpopular stance of embracing them both, and there are very good reasons to do so. Let me explain how I came to this position. Take a look at the (above) graph, which shows schematically what percentage of active managers outperformed the passive S&P 500 index investor.

Clearly there is some type of vague cyclicality here. There seems to be a horizontal line at 45% around which the graph oscillates. At some points such as March 2005 to March 2006, and again in March 2009 to March 2010, a high percentage of managers outperform the S&P. On the other hand, these periods of strong out-performance are followed by sudden drops in performance. That is, the passive investor beat the active stock picker. I’m proposing the following behavioral reasons for the cyclicality:

Picture many highly skilled analysts all competing to obtain and synthesize relevant information on a stock before everyone else. So many are working so hard, that it is difficult to uncover valuable information before others. At the extreme point, where all information is known by all hard-working analysts, there is virtually no advantage to staying in the game if you’re hoping to gain an information edge. Ironically, staying–and expecting not to gain an information edge–would ensure that no one else gains the information either.

If all keep working as hard as possible and none drop out, active management has no edge. With no information edge, indexing begins to look like an appealing alternative and may very well be outperforming active management. But what if some participants become discouraged from the lack of return on their efforts, and they drop out of the active circle and choose to index? That creates the opportunity for the other active die-hards that haven’t given up.

I propose that this dynamic is behind the cyclical shifts of active versus passive performance:

When market participants become frustrated by the lack of out-performance of active management, some exit the active arena, choosing instead to index. That very exit from the active arena sets the stage for the remaining active managers to outperform. The siren song of active out-performance then lures those participants back in the game. But when everyone piles into active management, the ability to gain an information advantage diminishes, causing the cycle of switching back to passive again. And thus the cycle continues. In an odd way, one could argue that the oscillations between active and passive promotes a type of market stability.

Examine the graph again, this time keeping my theory in mind. I’m sure you will see the pattern makes more sense. When considering the choice of active versus passive, a more reasonable answer is to open your mind to both alternatives, not just one.

Studies Have Continued

In my post "Studies Have Shown" from July, I pointed out that the strategy of backing baseball shorties has become profitable in recent seasons, after years of this sport being the poster-boy for the reverse favourite-longshot bias.

At the time of that last post, 2015's profit was a solid 7.45 points, and this has since climbed to 24.00 points with the subsequent 90 qualifiers generating another 16.55 points.

A more complete look at this strategy going back 12 seasons is below, and I'll update this again at the end of the season.

Some of you may have seen that this blog's most closely watched pitcher Clayton Kershaw, took his first loss since June at the weekend, although he returned to winning ways last night. Opposing Kershaw since I first mentioned the idea would have made 5.48 points (no prices yet from last night's game):

That 1.28 on 14th September was only the second sub 1.30 price this season (the other being Kershaw's 1.27 on July 8th). There was also only one such price last (2014) season, and that was also a Kershaw game.

Some of you may also have noticed the trend towards Unders on Kershaw's games - from 30 starts this season, the profit would have been 6.40 points. Impressive, and over Kershaw's career, backing Unders would be up 20.15 points (246 games). Of course Kershaw was an unknown as a rookie, so no one on Earth would have actually done this, but since the 2010 season when he did become rather well known, the Kershaw / Unders record has been solid:

A change in personal circumstances has meant that I have had to scale down my blogging, and indeed betting, activities as some of you may have noticed, but I do still try to keep up with some of those blogs on my blog roll, and found this entry from my old friend Geoff:

The King of Bloggers! As the saying goes, Once a King, always a King, but once a Knight is enough.  

Absolutely Disgusting - Wurst To First

The music loving, but apparently rather closed-minded TechnoViking100000 commented on an older post, writing about the statement I made - "As I have written before, P and L figures are of no interest to anyone but yourself" - saying:

Enjoy the blog, but got to disagree with this. I'm always interested to hear what others are making especially if they are fellow pros. Hearing how others are doing adds motivation to improve in ones own betting. Also have other people, both people in the game and regular Joes ask how much I make.

What I meant to say was that blogs stating only the profits or losses are not very interesting, it's the context that makes the outcome interesting. Reporting that Football was +£2.34 on the week tells readers nothing. It could be that he had one winning bet or had a hundred bets with thousands staked, ending up with a meagre profit.

Then there's the issue of trusting the numbers, although I really don't think too many people can keep telling porkies for too long. Losers rapidly lose interest in telling the world that they are, literally, losers and winners find it easy to add a little context and keep the updates coming. Admittedly, some choose to adjust the numbers and exclude bets with unfavourable outcomes, which is up to them I guess, but hardly makes the numbers meaningful to anyone at all.

There's also the issue of what does the win or loss mean to the writer. We're not all the same in wealth, age, stage in life or responsibilities. Reading about a win of say £500 and half the readers are wetting their pants, the other half are wondering how many hours of time did that win take and was it worth it. What was the opportunity cost? £500 after 100 hours of intense trading is quite different to £500 made on a punt while you were outside, smelling the roses. All pros are not created equal either. Some have huge banks to play with, others are living on state handouts incapable of being gainfully employed, and 'pro' by default.

That (opportunity cost) is probably the biggest reason why I think profit and losses are only of interest to the individual. If you think about comparing salaries, it is far more interesting to compare yours with those of your colleagues than it is with someone in a completely different line of work. You likely have similar qualifications, put in approximately the same amount of hours as your colleague, and perform a similar job, so any differences are extremely interesting (and probably extremely irritating to someone).

It might add motivation to know what your boss is earning, but I don't see how it is motivating to know what your brother's friend with a different IQ, different qualifications, different job, working more or less hours than you makes.

I'm not a rocket surgeon, so whatever they earn is meaningless to me. I'm also not unemployed, so what they get in handouts is also meaningless to me.

I'm not sure what kind of company TechnoViking keeps, although I can guess based on his Eurovision comments above, but in my circles it's considered extremely poor taste to ask people how much they make - "absolutely disgusting" in fact.

I'm also not sure what Techno's rather unhealthy obsession is with people who are different from him, but it's disappointing to see that such sentiments still persist. Live and let live.

Right, time to listen to a Eurovision winner who like to dress up - the great music is just a bonus.

Average Pairs

Although often misquoted, the words of Mark Twain - "The report of my death was an exaggeration" - are relevant here, as I prematurely wrote off Big Pairs' blog, which is still alive and well:

The blog is actually still running but I've made it 'by invitation only' to avoid any further aggravation. My journey continues! You would of course be a very welcome reader.

The latest post actually recorded a loss after many winning weeks, but Big Pairs is still well ahead. The most eye-opening blog post of the week was once again from Australia, where Steve M revealed a couple of surprises.

One was this:

My own personal experience with problem gambling started when I was 18 and I started playing the poker machines. I lost hundreds of thousands in my early 20’s and fortunately for me I looked into the maths and psychology behind the games and realised that I was never going to win.

Strewth, that was a shocker! While the source of Steve's bank is his own business -I'd always assumed he'd sold his grandmother - I was somewhat surprised that someone who is usually so disciplined in gambling once had a problem with it. The other surprise was this:

I’m your average aussie dad who likes to bet as a hobby. I see it as a mental challenge and believe that given the chance, I can use skills in maths and other areas to make a small profit from betting. I am a bit different in that over the past 5 years I have managed to make a profit. The numbers thrown around are that only 2-5% of people make a profit from betting. I don’t always win, over the last year if we added my sports betting and Horse race betting together, I made a loss.

While Aussies like a bet as Steve mentions in his post, I wouldn't agree with Steve's self-assessment that he is an "average Aussie Dad betting as a hobby". The sums that Steve puts down on outright punts are, to my mind at least, huge!

The post is actually an open letter in connection with an Australian government inquiry into offshore / on-line gambling, so Steve has every reason to play up his 'averageness' and play down his winnings, but if betting AUD 12,000 a day (£5,500) is "average", Australia has a few more problems than I knew. Next thing he'll be telling us he has 2.4 children.

Pairing Off

On the 27th June this year, I wrote:

New in-trading focused blogs spring up, but not many last the distance. I'm actually not aware of any long-running legitimate in-play blogs now that Mark Iverson has departed the scene. The latest that have come to my attention are Tennis Trading and Big Pairs, and how long they last will be interesting to see.

A little over two months later and Tennis Trading told me to go away, so may or may not still be active, but Big Pairs blog has now vanished almost as quickly as it began.

Courtesy of Steve M's trail-blazing and long-running Daily 25 blog, apparently the last post from Big Pairs read like this:

Soon after I started my blog back in October 2014 I began receiving comments from an individual called ‘James’. His comments became increasingly abusive and aggressive and eventually I had to block him from posting. Sure enough, a week or two later, he reappeared as ‘Anonymous’ and did exactly the same thing. I blocked all anonymous posts and then recently, presumably after his summer holiday, he reappeared as ‘Jonesy’. Last night James/Anonymous/Jonesy posted a comment full of defamatory remarks, false accusations and general abuse, none of which are remotely founded. I’ve chosen not to publish it, or respond.

In the whole time I’ve been blogging here and posting on Twitter I have probably been very lucky to have only experienced this one internet troll. In fact I’ve made some good friends, received advice from a couple of intelligent, very helpful betting professionals and enjoyed a huge amount of support from people in a similar position to me. Unfortunately the internet allows keyboard warriors like this to make their comments without retribution. It wouldn’t happen in the real world, but online there are sadly thousands of people with these tendencies.

As a result of this abuse, which is getting gradually worse, I have decided to end the blog here.

I could just block all comments, but if someone is willing to take the time to create three separate identities to continue with these personal attacks, then who knows what they are capable of. I will continue with my journey and share progress with the guys I’ve got to know well in private. Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to read the blog, offer advice and share their experiences.

Good luck with your betting and trading.

BP

Whatever the real reason for closing the blog down was, and it would indeed be disappointing if one troll were the reason, it's yet another blog dying a relatively early death. If you are successful in any endeavour, there will always be those envious of you, and a long-running blog is certainly one of the surer signs of lasting profitability. Human nature, as has been said before, makes it easy to continue something that is going well. When things don't go well, it's human nature to lose interest. For the record, Steve's been blogging for at least five years I believe.

On the topic of dealing with trolls, Steve wrote:

To put it mildly, I’ve had to deal with my fair share of trolls over the years. Like anything new, I had to learn to deal with it and at the start my method was to try and make them understand how dumb they were. Trolls feed off replies, it is their lifeblood. Knowing that they have made any type of impact gets them all sorts of aroused.

Unfortunately, trying to make dumb people understand how dumb they are doesn't work, so the best approach is simply to ignore them. Often trolls have an established track record, maybe thousands of tweets or perhaps other former targets all too willing to share information. Steve adds:

These poor lost trolls were living such sad lives that they needed to feel any connection they could and would do what used to get them attention as a child. They would simply act out. I went from hating these morons to actually feeling sorry for them.

That Big Pairs was able to attract a troll so soon after starting should have been taken as a compliment. No one trolls losers after all, and while most of us are not as nice as Steve and able to feel sorry for them, it is satisfying to know that their trolling is an implicit admission that they are not as successful as their targets. The irony is that if they put as much effort into learning from the advice and knowledge shared as they did into their trolling, they would be better off. Once again though, the mindset of a troll is probably incapable of understanding that.

Cheap Money

The term "free money" is eye-catching, but like much in advertising or marketing, it is often not exactly true. Fellow blogger Peter Webb has a post with this title today looking at the short prices on international (mis)matches. While internationals are generally not of any interest to me from a betting perspective for a number of reasons, Peter's words on 'shorties' were interesting, mirroring my own observations on them in the top leagues.

Using Pinnacle's prices for the three season 2012-15, backing every selection at 1.05 or shorter has a 100% winning record. Mind you, the competitive nature of league football means that there was only one qualifier in those three seasons (Barcelona v Celta de Vigo, 26 March 2014) so we need to lengthen our search.

Looking at those selections with an implied probability of 75% or greater,  sub 1.34 in decimal odds terms, there were 516 candidates, of which 437 won for a 17.539 point profit (ROI  3.4%).

Peter writes:

So the curious thing is, that there is probably value at that end of the market, but why won’t anybody take it?

• The first thing to note is that nobody will recommend it. If you do and it gets turned over, people will remind for the rest of your life. Therefore it’s safer to ignore it or pass it off.

• Second, there appears to be little satisfaction at grabbing value at short odds. Land a 60-1 and you are a god, pinch some cash at 1.04 and you are a moron.

• The third element is staking. If your staking is inconsistent then the one loss could kill a whole bunch of positive results. Human nature will rear it’s head again and the ‘sods law’ fallacy will prevent you from pressing the button if you use a larger stake or a progressive staking process.

So I suspect value gaps like this will probably always exists, because human nature will always get in the way and stop people from exploiting it; even if there is (effectively) free money on the table.

While many ill-informed punters are of the opinion that backing odds-on selections is a losing strategy, the truth is to the contrary. Value can exist at any price, including 60.0 and 1.04, and an ROI of 3.4% over 516 bets is a great result. When you consider that Pinnacle's prices can usually be beaten (although whether higher prices are available to you is another thing altogether) this simple strategy is, in practice, even more profitable.

London Blues

It may be slightly premature, but the next round of the EPL in two weeks time sees a potential title decider as the current top two face off at Selhust Park on September 12th.

It's rather an oddity that only one London Premier League club (Crystal Palace themselves as it happens) has won a home game this season with lesser city rivals Arsenal (L,D), Chelsea (D,L), Tottenham Hotspur (D,D) and West Ham United (L,L) all win-less in their home matches.

The decline in EPL home advantage I wrote about at the start of last season continued last season, where blindly backing Away sides to win would have made you 9.29 points on the 379 matches Pinnacle Sports priced following 19.30 points from 2013-14's 380 matches.

Having said that, a more profitable 'blindly backing' strategy in the EPL would have been that of backing the underdog which was +54.69 points over the last three seasons, with each season profitable, and a strategy that would already be in profit by 26.14 points this season

Early days yet, but Away wins in the Premier League are off to a flying start this season with a 42.5% strike rate and +30.48 points. Only seven teams have won a Home game while 13 have won on the road.

Road To Nowhere

Some people take my writing here a little too seriously, so to clarify I am, of course, teasing Steve M about Australia and its sport. For a nation of 23 million, they consistently punch above their weight in several team sports, as well as producing individual stars in other team sports and in individual sports such as golf, which as Steve pointed out on Twitter overnight, saw its final Major of the season won by Jason Day, no longer one of the best players to never win a Major.

Steve recently had a guest post from Matthew Trenhaile who some of you may be familiar with from his several previous thought proving and constructive comments to this blog. A well written and worth reading post from Matthew, and I also see he has his own blog, which I am happy to add to my blogroll. Matthew writes well, and is very knowledgeable about his subject, even if his choice of font and text colour takes me back about 30 years to my days as a computer programmer in the less than salubrious surroundings of West Croydon:

Another blog that might prove to be interesting is Cherry Analysts, whose intro reads:

I enjoy working out the puzzles of betting markets using maths and logic to beat the interest rates the banks offer. I stick to certain events that I enjoy and have shown that I can make a profit in over the last decade. The reason I stick to these markets is simple, I am happy to put hours of work into them as they interest me. You won’t see me giving out advice on Lithuanian under 19s Basketball for example, as I don’t care about it and in the end that would probably cost me money.

A man after my own heart, and it helps that the author also appears to be another Crystal Palace fan. Such good taste. Even closer to home than Crystal Palace, is a team called Whyteleafe. While following their fortunes on Twitter on Saturday, it appears there was a lot going on. The score went from 2:2 to 1:2 to 1:1 to 2:1 in the space of a few seconds. Amazing scenes.

Were the game in-play on Betfair, there would have been some interesting price movements! Whyteleafe eventually won 3:2 in case anyone is interested - first win of the season, although the gods of randomness were in a jovial mood at the end:

Diamonds In The Sporting Wilderness

I need to make an apology for an ill-considered line I wrote recently. In a casual and poorly researched comment about the quality of sport in Australia, I wrote this:

I think the fact that Steve doesn't really care where he lives is more helpful. Steve's 'fortunate' to live in Australia, where decent sport is hard to come by

The Steve referred to is of course Daily 25's Steve M who, unless I have missed it, has been very quiet about his nation's top sport.

While the Rugby team took another hammering this weekend, unbeknownst to me, Australia has been hosting a World Cup in Netball over the past few days, and my Twitter feed today tells me that Australia actually won it. Yes, really! Congratulations to Steve and I am especially impressed over how modest Steve has been about his nations biggest sporting success in many a year.

Before getting too carried away, it should be noted that the tournament is only taken seriously by two countries, with New Zealand being the other, so calling it a 'World Cup' is a little cheeky.

A quick look at the record of this tournament shows that of the 14 tournaments, Australia has won (or jointly won) 11 and been second the other three occasions. New Zealand have won (or jointly won) it four times, and been runners-up eight times. England, South Africa and Trinidad and Tobago are the only other nations to ever finish in the top two.

Anyway, this observation is not intended to take anything away from Steve, who is no doubt celebrating this rare international sporting success late into the night with a glass (or two) of wine. Perhaps they will ease the pain of the Wallabies result. 

Warts And All, Or Not At All

A couple of comments on my previous post, with Martin (Brulati) taking umbrage at my thoughts on his repeatedly justifying why it is acceptable to 'not count' certain losses, and why, given his previous history in the area of discipline, I don't feel he's cut out to be a trader. He snaps:

Nobody force you to read my blog. ;-) In my opinion you should make a small step down of your big horse or how was the performance of your draw section? It's easy to be always negative against everybody and not have the same objectivity about the own results.

Martin is certainly correct that no is forced to read his blog, but he specifically asked me back in June to add his blog to my blog-roll, which rather gave me the impression he was looking for readers and comments. Apparently I was mistaken, or at least comments are only desired where they align with his own already formed opinions, so I shall dismount from my 'big horse' (I think Martin means 'high horse'), offer comment and advice no more, de-blogroll his blog, wish him well for the future and leave him in peace.

As for the ability to be objective about ones own results, I think after twelve consecutive profitable years of betting / trading, it's one thing that I am able to be, and if constructive criticism is to be construed as 'negativity', well so be it. I call it as I see it.

G commented:

Good advice for Martin - doubt he'll listen though. I wonder if I should adjust my P & L figures when I have a loss due to indiscipline? Hmmm probably best not....

Apparently G called that correctly. "Advice is only welcome when it agrees with my own opinion". As I have written before, P and L figures are of no interest to anyone but yourself, but if they are not an honest record of your results, they are meaningless. As with the weekend golfer who intends to hit the ball but misses, and who chooses not to count the stroke, you are only cheating yourself. My betting spreadsheet goes back to January 1, 2006 and records every profit and every loss since that day. It would look a lot better if I excluded losses incurred during half-time when the score was adjusted (NBA) or losses due to being tired, or losses due to any number of other unfortunate events, but it wouldn't be worth anything had I done that. It has to be warts and all. My net-worth spreadsheet would look a lot rosier if I didn't count my liabilities, or overlooked alcohol related spending, but the truth isn't always pretty. Putting lipstick on a pig is another expression that springs to mind.

60, Sequences End And Train Wrecks Predicted

My previous insightful post on the quality of Australian sport (a rather timely post it could be said, following their Ashes performance), drew this response from Steve M (Daily 25) on Twitter:

As Crystal Palace's Steve Parish commented in his The Times interview last week:

“The Premier League receives £753 million from the 212 TV stations overseas per year for the right to show the games. That’s more than Serie A, La Liga, the French League, the Bundesliga, the NBA, the NFL and the baseball [MLB] for their overseas rights put together. That is just staggering. We have one of the greatest products in the world.

By way of contrast, the AFL is watched in Fiji, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand and Ireland by an average viewing audience of 60 - although this number climbs to 61 if Seamus's sciatica is playing up and he can't sleep. Coincidentally, the average viewer age is also 60. 60... Now where have I seen that number before? For anyone worried that I'm giving Steve a hard time, we go back a long way - he even sent me a nice gift on one occasion - and he doesn't read this blog anyway :)

Anyone following the C-LAY-ton Kershaw system would have pocketed a modest 1.35 points last night as the eponymous laying system stopped its losing run at four. Unfortunately, the Unders winning run also came to an end after seven wins:

Finally, and it's an 'Oh dear', Martin (Tennis Trader) is at it again. Some of you may recall the Mulligan he took a month ago, writing after a trading loss:

I didn't count this loss to my profit & loss statement (exactly -100 Euro), because I will not do this approach any more. It's looking like an excuse, that's true. Probably I would count the profit if I could turn the trade in a winner. I am honest about this issue. You see, never believe a profit & loss blog ;-).

Indeed, and now he's at it again.

I will keep the KPI on the right side unchanged, because the mistake happened outside the strategies that I am testing at the moment.

Those of you who have followed this blog for a while will know that Martin (Brulati) quit trading back in April after (apparently) recognising that he had no edge in his chosen sport of tennis:

In the end only platforms like Betfair or betting companies make profit. There is no added value in trading sportsmarkets. If two people make a bet, one will win and the other one will lose. Over long term both will lose, because Betfair (and the other companies) takes the margin.

He wasn't quite right in his comment above (a small number of customers on Betfair do manage to make a long term profit - hence the need for the Premium Charges), but anyway, comments such as this one:

Just seconds after I lost the trade, I transferred a big part of my money back to my saving account. This lack of discipline was only possible, because there was too much cash at Betfair.

reveal that Martin self-admittedly doesn't have the discipline requited to be a successful trader:

Trading Psychology

The psychological aspect of trading is extremely important, and the reason for that is fairly simple: A trader is often darting in and out of stocks on short notice, and is forced to make quick decisions. To accomplish this, they need a certain presence of mind. They also, by extension, need discipline, so that they stick with previously established trading plans and know when to book profits and losses. Emotions simply can't get in the way.

His blog is not pleasant reading to be honest, (a train wreck waiting to happen), and in my humble opinion, Martin should focus on his day job, and walk away from betting / trading altogether.   

Aussie Time

Several of you appear to recognise a bargain when you see one, with both some renewals and new rookies signing on for next season. Rather oddly perhaps, an email from a non-renewer was just as pleasing to read:

I wont be renewing but this is no reflection on you or your service but purely a personal decision to not be involved in the betting world for now. Yours was one of my preferred service due its simplicity and efficiency. I run an ecommerce business which is growing and I need all my cash (and more!) for investment in stock. All being well I will return one day. I wish you good luck in the future.

And I wish the gentleman in question good luck with his new venture. The mention of simplicity and efficiency was shortly followed by a read of Steve (Daily 25's) latest post, which included these words of wisdom:

The biggest challenge for me has always been and I'm sure always will be not wasting time watching the games I have bet on.

Steve  preceded that nugget with:

I think the fact that I don't really care about betting is very helpful for me, while it might seem I spend a heap of time betting, the reality is it takes up less than 10 minutes each day and maybe an hour on Friday and Saturday.

I think the fact that Steve doesn't really care where he lives is more helpful. Steve's 'fortunate' to live in Australia, where decent sport is hard to come by (unless an England / British team is touring), but for those of us with a veritable smorgasbord of top class sport available year round, it's all too easy to spend (waste) a weekend watching sports.

More seriously, while we all want our betting hobby to be profitable, 'not caring' is a very good thing. Not having any pressure to make a profit keeps emotions out of our decision making, and it's another reason why full-time betting is, for most of us, a terrible idea.  

Bookies Catching Pigeons

A well (and anonymously) written article in the Observer / Guardian yesterday on the issue of bookmakers closing accounts. While the practice of closing or limiting accounts is certainly not a new phenomena, (as mentioned at least six and a half years ago, I can personally attest to it being applied in the 1980s), it appears to be far more widespread today, and ever growing. As the article explains, this is increase is in part because tracking individual punters is now easier than ever. Here it is in full - well worth a read:

As G Force burst through to win the prestigious Betfred Sprint Cup at Haydock, I began celebrating my biggest priced winner of the flat season, having backed him at odds of 25-1. But my joy at such a profitable day’s gambling was soon tempered by the realisation that yet another account with a bookmaker was effectively being shut down. After nearly four decades as a punter my betting is heavily curtailed. Not out of choice, but because I have had the audacity to win several thousand pounds.

Most of my internet betting accounts have either been closed by my bookmakers or so “restricted” that they might just as well be shut down. Time and again my attempts to place bets of £50 or less are greeted with responses such as “Alert – your bet has not been placed.” Instead, I am offered wagers of just £2 or similar amounts: bookmakers’ less than subtle code for “Get lost: we don’t want your custom.”

I am not a professional gambler; racing is simply my hobby. My love of horse racing began almost half a century ago. My late father, a freelance writer, took me to see Arkle race in 1966. I was just eight years old, but watching the greatest steeplechaser of all time had me hooked.

Today I still love the athleticism of the magnificent racehorses. I admire the courage of the undernourished jockeys.

Most of all I love the thrill of a bet, pitting my wits in a gladiatorial contest between punter and bookmaker. I can’t resist listening to the whispered racecourse tips from those supposedly in the know, that horse X is “catching pigeons” (showing great speed) on the training gallops. And I spend a couple of hours every evening after work poring over the horses’ form on my computer.

I bet on form, not inside information. Over the past four decades I suspect that, like most punters, I have lost more than I have won. However, in 2010 I won £700 and the following year I won £2,079.61. 2012 was a disaster: I lost £6,626.68. In 2013, I fared better and won £451.56. Yet 2014 was – by my modest standards – a remarkable year: my Cheltenham Festival winners included Sire de Grugy, backed at 28-1 for the BetVictor Queen Mother Champion Chase, and my Aintree winners included Pineau de Re, backed at 40-1 for the Crabbie’s Grand National. I finished the year exactly £18,012.92 in profit.

The first email officially closing one of my accounts arrived on a Saturday morning, just as I was choosing my bets for that afternoon’s televised horse-racing on Channel 4. The email from BetVictor read: “We are contacting you today to advise that a business decision has been taken by our Senior Traders and I must inform you that your business account has now been closed and no further business may be executed on your behalf… As explained in our Terms and Conditions, a Traders [sic] decision is final and will not be overturned.”

Other account restrictions followed and I was finding it harder and harder to get my bets (typically between £50 and £200) placed with my bookmakers, many of whom I had been a client of for more than 30 years. G Force’s win last autumn came after I opened a new account with Sportingbet solely in order to back the horse at 25-1, when other bookies were offering just 16-1.

When that punt was duly landed, my new account was effectively closed overnight after just two £50 bets – one a winner at 25s, the other an unplaced loser. When I rang up Sportingbet to ask why I had been offered £7 to win online instead of the £50 I was requesting on a horse as my third ever bet with the firm, I was told that I was on the “restricted list” after placing just two bets. I pointed out that if I couldn’t have £50 on a horse, I would never bet with them again. “That’s your choice, sir,” came the polite reply. Our brief association ended with me £1,200 in profit.

My experiences are not unique. Every week, up and down the country, leading bookmakers are closing accounts or severely restricting some gamblers’ bets because that individual is deemed to be – horror of horrors – a “winning punter”.

The news that bookmakers refuse to accept wagers from winning clients was met with incredulity by my non-gambling friends. “That’s outrageous,” said one. “Surely that’s against the law?” said another.

In fact, refusing to strike a bet at their advertised odds may break the spirit of the regulations, but it does not break any law. However, more and more bookmakers only want to accept bets from “mug punters”: those without discipline who bet far too much almost every day of the week and consistently lose more than they win.

Bookmaking can be traced back to the late 18th century in the UK. However, the punter-versus-bookmaker battle has been raging in earnest ever since the Gaming Act was passed in 1845. The bookies are usually the winners because, on average, they aim to shape a “book” in which they will make a profit of around 20% of all bets struck on a single race or other contest.

In the past two decades, however, the industry has changed significantly with new technology resulting in the spread of internet gambling and this, in turn, has made it easier for firms to identify winning punters than in the days when bets were mainly placed anonymously in smoke-filled betting shops.

“The large bookmakers increasingly employ mathematicians and risk managers, rather than those knowledgeable about sport, to ensure that they maximise profits – and have no chance of losing money,” said one senior industry source.

Like all businesses, bookmakers need to make a profit and no one denies them this right. But today, they make the rules, set the odds hugely in their favour and, with all these advantages and having already made healthy profits, they then increasingly refuse to take a bet. Is it any wonder that so many punters feel they are getting a raw deal?

Some “banned” punters try various tricks to strike their bets: some open accounts in the name of friends – but bookmakers then track internet addresses to try to thwart this tactic. One successful punter recently told the Racing Post that he had operated some 500 betting accounts under 30 different names over six years, but “the restrictions got so ridiculous I knocked it on the head”.

Barney Curley, now 75, is a legendary punter and former trainer, who has masterminded several seven-figure betting coups over the past 40 years. In recent years he has had to go to extraordinary lengths, getting scores of “foot soldiers” to place tiny bets the length and breadth of the UK and Ireland, in order to land wins totalling millions of pounds. By placing a succession of small bets at advertised odds, Curley can, for a time at least, avoid suspicion that someone is planning a raid on the bookies. By the time firms wake up to the fact that they are facing huge payouts on one or more horses, they have to honour the bets already struck.

Curley says: “Today the bookmakers, along with the racecourses, run racing. No one has the knowledge or the power to take them on, and there is no one to represent the punters’ interests. There is no one who will upset the applecart and say: ‘This [not taking bets from winning punters] is an absolute disgrace.’”

Curley no longer has any bookmakers willing to lay him bets with accounts in his own name. “I have to try to get my bets on with losing punters which is a pain in the arse because then you have to get them to pay you your winnings. I retired from training because it was so hard getting any money on my horses.”

In fact, bookmakers have rarely been under such scrutiny as they are now, after a series of complaints that they are ripping off punters in other ways, too. In April it was revealed that there had been an “over-round” of 165% on the 2015 Grand National – meaning there was a theoretical profit margin of 65% for the bookmakers built into the available odds at the time the race started. Allegations were made publicly that off-course bookmakers were manipulating the system to the detriment of punters, though these were denied.

It was announced in June that there would be a public consultation on whether the present system of producing a starting price – the odds at which most bets are settled by bookmakers – should be changed.

Alex Salmond, the former First Minister of Scotland and a keen punter and race-goer, told me that he intends to raise the issue of bookmakers refusing to take bets from winning punters in his new role as vice-chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Racing & Bloodstock.
“It is not acceptable for bookmakers to refuse to take a reasonable-sized bet because the client has a record of winning,’” he said. “If it is not a breach of advertising standards, then it should be. Bookmakers today simply don’t want to take any risks.

“In my new role, I intend to bring this to the attention of the Gambling Commission [which regulates gambling in the UK] and Ibas [the Independent Betting Adjudication Service, which rules on disputes between punters and bookies]. There is a difference between bookmaking, an entirely respectable profession, and fleecing people, which isn’t.

“Maybe it is time that the distinction was made harder in terms of the law. There is a difference between being risk-averse and being responsible for misleading advertising. An unreasonable refusal to accept bets should, in my estimation, be a reason for disqualification from a bookmaker’s licence.”

BetVictor refused to respond to specific questions about its trading or accounts’ management, but a spokeswoman said: “BetVictor reserves the right to refuse the whole or any part of any bet request for any reason… We also reserve the right to close or restrict any account without obligation to state a reason.”

Sportingbet declined to respond to any questions. However, most bookmakers will acknowledge, either privately or publicly, that the activities of winning punters are curtailed, although they stress that the desired bets of most punters are accommodated.

Craig Reid, head of trading for Betfred bookmakers, said: “The guys who are factored really well down [heavily restricted] are 2% of our whole database. They are shrewd. We will try to offer them some sort of bet, but they will get restricted.”

A spokeswoman for the Advertising Standards Authority, the advertising watchdog, said it had received more than 250 complaints so far this year about gambling advertisements, but she did not think any related to punters’ grievance about being restricted from placing bets.

Ibas said its primary role was to adjudicate on bets that have been struck. A spokesman said it would require a change the industry’s regulations, such as forcing bookmakers to accept bets of a specific size on advertised bets, before it could address complaints relating to restrictions on the size of bets.

I should point out that not all my bookmakers have turned away my bets. Ladbrokes and bet365 have invariably been willing to lay me a fair-size wager, but they are in the minority.
I can always bet as much as I want, within reason, on modern-day betting exchanges such as Betfair – in which one punter bets against another – but that is not my preferred way of gambling. In order to have a chance of a winning edge in the long run, I need to be able to back a horse at the best possible advertised odds. I often bet “ante post”, days, or even weeks, in advance of a race.

So I now have no fewer than 17 accounts with bookmakers and one with a betting exchange in order to have some remote hope of striking the bet I want. Of those 17 bookmakers, I would struggle to get on a bet of £50 at, say, 10-1 on the evening before a race, with most of them. I regularly get my intended £50 or £100 wagers reduced to £7, £6, £5 or even less (the record low offer for a bet is £1.67).

At one point, I lived in west London and could walk, anonymously, into a high -street bookmaker to strike a bet. If I needed a larger than usual bet placed, I employed the (free) services of my mother, who is now 87, to double my stakes. After she collected on two successive big wins at one shop off the King’s Road, the regular punters started revering her like a Mafia boss. However, I now live deep in the countryside miles from any betting shops and so using the internet is my only regular way of gambling.

Today I spend as much time plotting how I might be able to strike the occasional big bet as I do studying the form of racehorses. However, old habits die hard and, whisper it, I think I might have discovered a cunning method of getting one up on the old enemy…

The author’s name is known to the Observer, but it has been withheld at his request

2015-16 Plans

While I haven’t exactly been inundated with inquiries into my plans for the 2015-16 football season, a couple of subscribers have asked, the most recent enquiry being:

I was wondering if you were running your service again for this upcoming season?
If so how much is a subscription and how do I go about renewing.

I must admit that I was pleased to see the end of last season, in large part because running the FTL took so much time each week. 

While on this subject, FTL entrant TFA_Raz, also known as David, made a much appreciated gesture when advised that there would be no FTL this season, writing:

That's a shame mate it was a lot of fun. Please keep the £25 as a thank you for all the effort you put into it last season. My performance didn't deserve a cash anyway!

There won't be an FTL this season, so with kick-off just a few days away, it’s decision time on the Cassini Service. After much deliberation, and perhaps a little soul-searching, I have decided that, while results last season were overall on a par with other services, they are not enough to justify continuing as before. Pretty much everyone was saying what a tough season the last one was, (i.e. big losses), and in the leagues I follow there were certainly some unusual (compared to previous seasons) results, but with most subscribers paying £99 for the season, did it offer value for money?

Relative to other services I would say yes, but I am biased, and frankly even though the XX Draws and Bundeslayga selections are targeted at those looking to mitigate Premium Charges, I'm not comfortable that the Value Selections proved to be anything but, and pulled the overall achievable returns into the red.

So looking forward, since I will still be generating prices on each of the big 49 matches each week (EPL, Ligue 1, Serie A, La Liga, Bundesliga) for my own use, it's not a big deal to plug these numbers into a newsletter each week if the interest is there. I will also be adding some bets from a new league. Nothing too original, but the strategy has been profitable for the last three seasons where Pinnacle's Prices are available.

The cost will be £59 for the season, (£49 for renewing subscribers), and because I need an 'official' profit / loss number, I will include some 'official' selections each week (or round). The reason is that if this 'official' number, (actually the ROI%), measured against Pinnacle Sports prices as recorded by Football Data.co.uk, finishes the season below -2.0%, (i.e. no edge), I will refund half of this amount. As mentioned before, Pinnacle's Prices are usually beatable, so this 'official' number will be easily achievable with the smallest of efforts. Why only refund half the cost? The fee is so low because the money is secondary to the challenge of beating the very competitive football markets. I'm an old man by some measures (though not as old as some) and this is very much a part-time hobby for me, not a job, but it does take some time each week, and the small charge is for this effort. As with any betting venture, there can be no guarantees. A loss doesn't mean that there is a fraud being executed - and if anyone thinks it's worthwhile doing this for £29.50, they need help - it simply means that the markets continue to be hard to beat despite our best efforts.

For anyone interested, payments can be made via PayPal or Skrill to calciocassini@aol.com  

For anyone not interested, good luck to you this season. Having watched the Community Shield game earlier today, and with 'my' Crystal Palace making some positive moves in the off-season, the excitement is back.