There is an excellent comment in the comments section on the last post. Over the past 6 months or so, I have had some good questions asked on here but this one probably ranks above most others. One thing I struggle to know at times is whether or not readers fully understand the way the systems work and the results I'm posting. Questions like that from Peter help me in the sense it gives me something to discuss but importantly, it also challenges my thinking which is a great thing for me personally.
I know from the comments posted on here over the past few months that there are a lot of intelligent people reading this blog and they probably get a lot from it. I can't help but feel this blog would be a better read if I got more comments like this which then allows me to expand on the work I've done and the thinking behind the systems etc. I think what I post on here is just the tip of the iceberg but unless people ask questions and get me thinking, I think I'll struggle to improve things going forward.
I hoped that by posting on the SBC forum, I'd get asked lots of questions and people would challenge my thinking on there but so far, it hasn't happened. I can't even get a comment on the thread in all honesty which is confusing for me personally and a little bit frustrating as I'm now struggling for what to write next. I could park the blog and the SBC thread until September but I hoped I'd spend all Summer explaining the systems and models and how they work and looking at ways to maximise profits next season but I really need people to ask me stuff to give me something to respond to.
Anyway, Peter's comment is a really good one and it does challenge me and asks some very pertinent questions. I'll deal with one question at a time.
Looking at last season,the systems 6,7,8,21,22 all performed poorly compared to previous seasons.Do you think this was a one-off or would you say last season's results were indicative of what may happen next season?I dont understand why anyone would follow these systems next season after last season.
I think that's probably a very fair comment Peter. I've spent a lot of the last few weeks looking at these systems from last season and the results and wondering whether or not these systems are actually worth following in their own right. After all, I have shown that it is much better to be backing teams that appear on two rating algorithms rather than just appearing on one algorithm.
However, that's not to say that the individual systems aren't worth following. The 5 individual systems made a combined return of 5.5% from 1,760 bets last season in a live environment. I've applied a couple of additional filters on away bets after last season and tweaked the base ratings by a tiny bit which should increase the 5.5% return hopefully.
Looking at it subjectively though, I can see why a 5.5% return over so many bets might actually appeal to some people. If you are playing lower stakes and want a very high turnover of bets, these systems allow you to have enough turnover to employ this strategy.
If you are driven by higher ROI and a reduced number of bets, then I do think that these systems may not be fit for purpose. However, last season was a very poor season for these individual systems and there is no guarantee that next season will be as bad. These systems all looked very good until Christmas but suffered badly after Christmas with the high number of draws they were hitting.
Overall then, I can see why most people wouldn't choose to follow these individual systems next season but I can also see why they could appeal to the right sort of person.
Like many I assume,I will be concentrating on systems 6-21,6-22 and the like this season.Have you looked at how these 6 systems perform in a portfolio?If not, can you take a look.Can you also take a look at how systems 7-21,7-22,8-21 and 8-22 perform in a portfolio too please?I like these systems but I would prefer over 500 bets a season for a football system.
I agree with you Peter that most people will concentrate on these double systems. After all, the results from the first live season were very good and therefore, I personally would be more confident about these systems next season if I was forced to choose.
I haven't looked at how these 6 systems had performed in a portfolio. Here are the results:
The results look good I guess and it is appealing to have an ROI of 16.3% from last season and a sample of over 1,000 bets.
If I look at the top 4 systems, then the results are:
This looks even better with an ROI of 21.1% from last season and a sample of 541 bets.
You suggested you wanted a portfolio of systems that produce 500 bets a season and this might well be the portfolio of systems for you Peter. Obviously, there is more analysis you'd need me to do before betting your life on that portfolio next season........
You mentioned the idea of only backing homes on one of these systems as a possible way to achieve a high strike rate, 10%+ return. As you may already know,Football Investor runs a strike zone system featuring these types of bets (including bets from top European Leagues).Last season,it provided a very nice return for my portfolio.Can you look at devising a portfolio of home bets from the systems please that will generate around 200-300 bets at an ROI of 10%?Backing 50 homes in a season isn't a system I'd follow.
I mentioned this before on the blog but it really is up to the individual to go away and look at some of the stuff I've posted on the blog and if they come up with anything, I can confirm whether or not their calculations are correct. However, since you seem like a nice guy and have clearly done some work already Peter, here's a quick look at the homes on the 6 double systems. e.g. 6-21.6-22 etc.
The returns are as follows:
A remarkable 21% ROI last season with a strike rate of 64.4%. This is over 239 bets. At the end of the day, you can do this yourself if you look at the returns by system and look at home/away bets and so on.
I disagreed with a comment on your last post regarding leverage and the fact you don't get much leverage with these systems in a portfolio.Surely you would look at the performance of the portfolio and then calculate the betting bank as a result of the longest losing run the portfolio has encountered.You wouldn't do as you suggest and sum up the betting banks for each system.
This is an interesting one and I think you may have caught me out here. When I wrote this in my last post, I wasn't really thinking about this but I'll admit you are correct (I won't admit this too often that I'm wrong!)
If I look quickly at the P&Ls for the portfolios of systems 6-21,6-22 etc. the P&L and Drawdown graphs look like this.
If I look at the drawdown graph, the max drawdown was seen last season and was a substantial loss of 90pts for H/A betting and 45pts for DNB.
Based on these drawdowns, I would have suggested a bank of 225pts for H/A betting and 112pts for DNB.
If I sum up the banks I suggested for each system, it comes to 255pts for H/A betting and 140pts for DNB. Hence, if you are playing this particular portfolio of systems, you could use a lower bank than summing up each of the individual banks. I stand corrected.
I think my point was more around the amount of leverage you get from running a portfolio like this is nowhere near the leverage you'd get from 6 independent systems. The issue is the correlation of the bets that appear on each system.
Anyway, I hope this answers all of your questions Peter. Just get in touch if there is anything else you want to know.