I don't want to paste his question but you can see it on the last post. In summary, Grant was suggesting that the betting banks you'd need for home bets wouldn't be the same as you'd need for away bets and therefore, the betting banks I suggested could maybe be improved up on. Grant even went as far to say that he thinks that you could maybe play twice the stakes on home teams and it wouldn't affect the overall drawdown of the systems. Hence, double the stakes but play the same betting bank I suggested before!
I could have looked at this for any system but what I've done is look at this for the 6 systems combined from 6-21 through to 8-22.
There are a few ways to look at what Grant has suggested. Firstly, I can analyse the drawdowns of the overall systems compared to the Home bets and the Away bets. Secondly, I can also look at the monthly returns of the overall bets versus the Home bets and the Away bets. Lastly, I can look at exactly what happens if I played twice the stake on home bets as compared to away bets to see if Grant was right.
Drawdowns
As you can see, the drawdowns for the overall systems is 90pts for H/A betting and 45pts for DNB. This is what I showed in my last post and I suggested 225pts as a bank for H/A and 112pts for DNB.
However, if we split this down as Grant suggests between Homes and Aways, we can see the drawdowns on both.
For Homes, the drawdown is 19pts for H/A and only 9pts for DNB. So, based on the same theory (2.5 times worst losing run), we’re looking at a betting bank of 48pts for H/A and 24pts for DNB or thereabouts.
For Aways, the drawdown is 96pts for H/A and 46pts for DNB. That would amount to 240pts for H/A and 115pts for DNB. Hence, only slightly higher than what I suggested as a betting bank for the overall system.
P&Ls
I could say lots but the key thing worth pointing out here I think is the fact that the Homes graph is much smoother than the Aways graph. Nothing too surprising considering the average odds for each type of bet.
Monthly Results
Again, I could write tons here but the key point here is that the overall system has less losing months than either backing just the Homes or the Aways. A little bit surprising possibly but then again, combining different types of risk and having more bets in a portfolio should help smooth your monthly returns.
And finally……….Is Grant right? Well, if you have looked at the above drawdowns and put 2+2 together, you’ll have a fair idea what the answer to this question is.
2pts on Homes and 1pt on Aways – The Results
Well, I take my hat off to Grant. An exceptional observation I think and something that takes portfolio betting to a new level with these systems if you are into this sort of thing.
The drawdown for H/A is only 82pts and the drawdown for DNB is 42pts. Hence, by increasing the staking on your overall portfolio (thus increasing the profits), you can actually decrease the risk of your portfolio.
Now, reducing your betting bank from 225pts to 205pts may not seem like an amazing thing but it’s a near reduction of 10% in your betting bank. In addition, by staking double on Homes as compared to Aways, you are increasing your ROI and your profits. Being able to increase your profits, increase your ROI and reduce your betting bank at the same time is something that everyone should strive to do! Increasing profits and reducing risk is what this game is all about and Grant has come up with a way to do this.
This post will either make perfect sense or it will fly so high above some people’s heads, they’ll get confused by it. Simply, I am NOT saying that anyone should stake more on homes or decrease betting banks etc. All my suggested betting banks are made clear on the blog and I suggest that 99% of people who follow these systems next season play to these betting banks and can hopefully make a good profit. The other 1% can have great fun trying to maximise profits whilst reducing risk at the same time as it’s the sort of thing that geeks do. ;)
Hi Graeme,
ReplyDeleteInteresting post, I clumsily stumbled through something similar to your last point in a post earlier today. Although I did suggest something slightly different.
I think the best way it would translate is instead of physically reducing your betting bank from 225pts to 205pts to actually increase how much each point is worth i.e if 1pt = £1 previously then instead of reducing your funds to £205 to make each point in your bank worth £1.10 (rounded up).
I'll confess that I've only briefly skimmed your posts in the past and so I might be missing the point and hence being well off the mark here. However through Grant's/your suggestion you're reducing the risk but you're also reducing your return (per £) assuming that you're syphoning that £20 off into your current account. If you have positive expectation then you're not increasing your risk at all but you will be increasing your profits. Apologies if this is what you were getting at. The more I type the more I assume it probably is.
Anyway, as I said the blog in general is an interesting read, partly as I come from a data mining and statistical background myself. I've added a link to your blog on mine. Keep up the good work.
Hi Curly.
ReplyDeleteYeah, what you suggest is just another way of looking at it. If you have a bank of say £5,000, instead of dividing by 225pts to give a stake per point of £22.22, you would use a stake of £24.39.
As I suggested in my post, these are fairly subtle points at times but if you are wanting to make the best use of your capital and maximise your return on capital, then this sort of thing can help.
Thanks for your comment.
Graeme
PS. I've added a link to your blog. Read a post a week or so ago when Cassini mentioned your blog but then forgot to bookmark it!