Thursday, 20 March 2014

Grab Your Raincoat

I seem to have a few threads going at the moment, which is good. At my age, it's good to keep the brain exercised. 

No prices or rationale yet from Peter Nordsted and his 'opposing tipping' strategy, but Hejik had this comment:
Good post Cassini and as usual I'd agree with much of it.

I find Peter's methods of operation astonishing to be quite honest and am extremely confused as to why he is so widely respected as a 'Tipster' and 'Betting Writer'.
I must stress this is merely my opinion but I've found his level of knowledge regards all things betting somewhat wanting and most of his ideas are just back-fitted nonsense and apparent guesswork (rigidly banding teams) and the sort of thing I was trying to make work in my first 6 months of betting.
The evident lack of progress and knowledge development over such a long period of time is quite startling and his approach to self-improvement, in a betting context, would appear to be denial of the very need for it.
I stress there's no personal ill-will as Peter actually seems a real gent on the face of things, but when you put yourself up as some kind of expert yet it's apparent to experienced people that you're anything but, you must be prepared to accept an amount of criticism of your ideas.
As I've said elsewhere, recent events would suggest that people need to "wise the hell up" and start questioning things a bit more.
The rigid banding idea is, of course, nonsense as Hejik says. Whether it is Peter or anyone else, the logic is akin to that of deciding to carry an umbrella on March 25th every year, because since records began, it has rained on that day more often than not.

To my twisted way of thinking, it is rather more relevant to check the weather forecast that morning. The weather on March 25th 2013, 2012, 2011, ....1892 is data, but it's useless data if you want to know what to wear on March 25th 2014.

Last night, Pete's 'model' suggested a bet on the Colorado Avalanche @ 1.91 playing at the Winnipeg Jets. I say 'model' in quotes, because to me, a model spits out a probability, and you bet if you can find a price that beats that probability.

A model is not something that tells you that March 25th was wet 70 times in the last 100 years, and 4 times in the last decade, is 80% wet in Leap Years and in years ending in a 1, it has rained every year except when there was a World War in progress or Halley's Comet was paying Earth a visit. That is trivia, all very interesting to some perhaps, but it is not useful data to base your clothing choice on.

Did Peter's 'model' suggest Colorado should be priced at 1.81, and thus (allowing for 5% padding) 1.91 was value? No. The selection was made because it just so happens that a narrow band which includes the 1.91 opening Colorado price, has in the past been profitable.

A subsequent email from Peter said:
I have also had an email on whether Colorado is still a pick as they have drifted out to 2.04.
The answer is yes as the selections are all based on the opening prices.
Presumably the answer would have been yes if the question had been "Is Colorado still a pick as they have shortened to 1.09?" since the selection is based on the opening price?  At what price are these selections recorded in the record books? 1.09, 1.91, 2.04?

Selections have to be based on value, (using opening price is ridiculous), and if you don't have a clue what the 'true' price should be, you are just wasting your time and ultimately money, although I doubt that anyone plays a 'system' like this for real money.

Colorado lost 4:5 after leading 1:0 by the way, although irrelevant to the issue.

Like football clubs, weather patterns change from week to week, month to month and year to year. Using previous weather records for a specific date as a predictive tool is as silly as using Manchester United's record versus Liverpool since 2005 to calculate the probability of a win against them in 2014. That it rained heavily on April 1st in 2012 and 2013 doesn't mean it will rain again in 2014. Look out the window and check the forecast if you want to know whether to grab your raincoat.

Danny left this comment:
I am not a fan of using current form for a couple of reasons.
One is that it's something punters put too much emphasis on and it tends to drive the price on a team too low as a result. And it's even worse if the team has a big following, try getting value on Leeds for example if they have won their last four matches.
Another reason is if you are talking about the last six games you are looking at a very small sample and luck may well have played some part. Also home and away form are very different animals so is there much point in lumping them both together?
Market theory would suggest teams in good recent form could get over backed so I would argue price action is a better way to find value than form.

Every team has it's price!
When have Leeds ever won their last four matches? If form leads to teams being backed too short, then there is an opportunity on the lay side. The trouble with basing selections on price is that you are effectively trying to reverse engineer the selection.

If you input your (useful) data into your proven model, it will generate probabilities which can be compared with the market's assessments, and value bets jump out at you.

If you start with the prices, it's not so easy to objectively say what the true price should be and explain why the market has it wrong.

Colorado are not value at 1.91 because the market at one time thought they were a 1.91 shot. They may be value at 1.91, or they may not. Had they opened at 1.89 would they have been value? 1.9?  Such arbitrary distinctions based on lines drawn in the sand while looking back, make no sense.

2% chance of rain today according to the forecast. I'll leave the brolly at home. 

No comments: