I’m quite curious how setting a lower threshold for the stop-loss would indicate lower risk aversion. Shouldn’t a higher stop-loss minimize a further streak of losses on the way down?

Perhaps it’d be good to link to the previous articles that were referenced as well. I can’t seem to find one which mentions the ratcheting stop-loss.

Thanks.

The first AND formula…

$K10*$Z$6
$K10: Zero Odds
$Z$6: set to 0% (you can put any number in Z6)

$J10>$Y$5
J$10: expected hit rate
$Y$5: currently set to 50% (you can put any number in Z6)

The formula means… bet on everything, even if the odds are far the expected Zero odds as long as the expected hit rate is above 50%

The second AND in the formula you can now probably work out yourself… 😉

I do have a few question about the formula in “Y10” cell under system performance if it’s possible to get some insight.

In the first nested AND function It states that if the odds available when placing bets are smaller or equal K10*Z6 (which always equals 0), why does it also check if the expected hit rate is bigger then 50%. Since the first part of function is only “TRUE” if the odds when placing bets are 0 or less why would we then even need to check if expected hit rate > 50%?

Second question is why are we using exactly 50% in Y5 to compare it with expected hit rate. Also in the second AND function is there a specific reason 85% is selected to multiply zero odds with?

Hi Gasper,

yes, we removed the formulas intentionally. It’s a monitoring not a formulas-give-away spreadsheet. The opening, closing and mid-time odds that the spreadsheet contains are already priceless information as well as giving away the systems we used.

You at least bought our Over/Under course at some time in the past. Thank you very much for supporting Soccerwidow! And I truly hope that you learned a lot from the course. 🙂 However, we have countless readers who don’t buy anything, enjoy reading our website and get all the information for free. Therefore, please accept my apologies that there are no formulas contained in the workbook if it wasn’t necessary to make the workbook to work.

just curious if the staking tab in the Winter League Campaign Report is missing formulas for flat stakes & ratcheting intentionally?

It would be great to see what the winter portfolio results would of been if the ratchet system was done on a daily basis rather than a round basis? Excellent content as always and looking forward to more portfolio reports in the future

Hi Bruce,

the statement that ‘no leagues performed to expectations’ means that no league exactly hit the goal.

Say, the average height of a population is 1,75m and you go out and measure the first 50 you come across. Do you really think that your result will be exactly 1,75m average height? It probably won’t and you too would make the statement that the result ‘didn’t exactly meet the expectations’. But if you would do it with 10 different groups then you will probably get pretty close to 1,75 when you look at these 10 groups together as a whole. That’s then the ‘portfolio effect’.

Hope that example makes sense.

Thanks for the reply – I’m actually surprised that the ‘smoothed’ version led to a higher profit – although you note this may not be significant.

I agree that such a staking plan has problems – reading your report on the last season almost no leagues performed in line with expectations – so a staking plan based on those expectations seems flawed – but then if no leagues perform as per expectations one might say the whole concept of looking at past performance is flawed but your results suggest otherwise.

I shall experiment with reasonably small stakes and see where I end up.

The portfolio with flat stakes only produced 38,925; the one with ‘smoothing’ 41,327. The difference is insignificant to say that ‘smoothing’ leads to much better results.

You cannot even say that the portfolio with fixed staked produced regularly higher losses than the one with flexible stakes. They are both pretty equal although the ‘smoothing’ stakes are probably (slightly) easier on the nerves. The problem is that you simply don’t know when the losing streaks occur and LLS 5 may happen at the same time as LLS 10.

Thanks for the reply. I used the examples of Home wins in Greece and draws in the EPL because those systems had different expected hit rates – so I think we’re on the same page there.

I can quite imagine that the whole thing gets complicated – my own plan is to calculate, using the predicted hit rate, the longest losing run of each system in my portfolio. I then plan to size my bets so should such a run occur in any of the systems its affect on the bank would be the same. So a system where the calculated LLS is 5 would have a bet size twice that of a system where the calculated LLS is 10. I think that actually ends up pretty close to the numbers you’ve suggested above. Did that smoothing have much effect on overall profitability? Personally I like smooth and will sacrifice some profit for an easier ride.

This is sort of an experiment and so the starting stakes are pretty small – I’ve got your report from last season so I could play around and try and fine tune things but the season is upon us.

PS – sorry about the double posting but my post seemed not to be showing up so I wrote another.