Following up the successful 2016 Summer League Campaign, here is our complete report on the 2016-17 Winter League Campaign, based on 18 different top flight leagues.
2016-17 Winter League Profit Curve
We will try to avoid repeating what was said in the summer league article so that it is all new information for you here.
For the sake of completeness, you should still read and digest both reports for a full idea of our strategies and thought processes.
And you will find the current stock of available HDAFU tables via this link.
2016-17 Campaign Report
Measures of Risk
Before beginning to plan any portfolio or placing bets, you will need to review your analyses and rank the systems you have found according to risk exposure based on the values of the upper inflection point odds.
This will allow you to compile a portfolio with a healthy balance of risk, which is essential to the success of any investment plan.
Here is our rough guide:
- Low Risk (Probability 45.00% or more; upper inflection point maximum odds of 2.22)
- Low-medium Risk (Probability 44.99%-35.00%; upper inflection point maximum odds of 2.85)
- Medium Risk (Probability 34.99%-22.50%; upper inflection point maximum odds of 4.44)
- Medium-high Risk (Probability 22.99%-16.00%; upper inflection point maximum odds of 6.25)
- High Risk (Probability 15.99% or less; upper inflection point odds above 6.25)
Discretion is used if a system does not fit these parameters or crosses two or more classifications – In these cases, the harmonic mean odds of all the games in the set is used as the benchmark to guage risk. The Excel formula for a range of odds in cells A1 to A100 would be: =HARMEAN(A1:A100)
Measures of Success
You will also need a definitive framework to be able to judge the final results.
For us, the final results of any league fall into four distinct categories:
- Systems that achieve a six-season-high (i.e. profits larger than any of the previous five seasons). (Over-Achievers).
- Those that make a profit over and above the size of the initial stake (£100 in our case), but fall short of six-season-high results. (Achievers).
- Strategies that break-even or, record a tiny profit or loss up to the size of the initial stake (£100 in our case). (Zero-Sum).
- Leagues that make a loss over and above the size of the initial stake. (Losers).
You can already see that two of these outcomes are favourable, one is neutral, and only one is detrimental.
2016-17 League-by-League Review
Let’s have a brief look at each league to see how our 22 systems fared. (Alphabetically according to the tab codes in the workbook):
1. AUS1 – Austria Bundesliga – Whole Season System
Only eight of 28 bets won, but this was enough to see a profit of £882.00. Hit rate and yield were both below the calculated averages and the resultant profit figure was lower than any of the five previous seasons’ figures.
Result: Achiever
2. BEL1 – Belgium Jupiler League – Whole Season System
Up to, but not including Europa League and Championship Group splits
Both the estimated hit rate (33 out of 97 bets won) and yield figures were surpassed by wide margins, leading to a six-season-high profit figure of £3,108.00.
Result: Over-Achiever
3. CZE1A – Czech Republic 1. Liga – First Half Season System
Up to the 04/12/2016 winter break
Nine out of 22 bets won, and whilst the hit rate and yield both outstripped expectations, the profit figure settled at £1,247.00, the fourth largest in the last six seasons.
Result: Achiever
4. CZE1B – Czech Republic 1. Liga – Second Half Season System
From 18/02/2017 start of the second half of the season
This one suffered its worst result in the last six seasons, but the resultant loss was minimal at -£310.00.
Result: Loser
5. DEN1A – Denmark Superligaen – First Half Season System
This was the only system employed in this league purely because the format of the second half of the 2016-17 season was to change from previous seasons.
Although hit rate and yield were both below estimates, the system still recorded its third highest total for six seasons at £1,238.00.
There were twice as many bets than expected (largely due to the fact that around 40% more games than usual were played in the first half of the season to accommodate the new second half season format).
Result: Achiever
6. ENG1 – England Premier League – Whole Season System
This system suffered the longest losing streak we have ever encountered, almost 14% worse than expected, for a very painful 36 straight losses. (A six-season-low).
However, the situation was mostly recovered by three big winners all carrying odds of over 12.00, for a final loss of just -£32.00.
The last six bets of the season lost, but had only one of these been a winner, this system would have returned a profit. Small margins.
Result: Zero-Sum
7. FRA1 – France Ligue 1 – Whole Season System
Hit rate and yield were both below par, but the league turned in a steady performance for a profit of £1,634.00, ranked fifth largest in the last six seasons.
Result: Achiever
8. FRA2 – France Ligue 2 – Whole Season System
The same story as France Ligue 1, but with a profit of £2,801.00, for its third largest profit figure in six seasons.
This one was unusual for a much higher number of bets than expected. (215 vs. 119 estimate – Profit was at £2,523.00 after 119 bets).
Result: Achiever
9. GER1A – Germany Bundesliga 1 – First Half Season System
Up to 21/12/2016 winter break
Another below par system, but one that still achieved a profit of £1,098.00. (Fourth largest in six seasons).
Result: Achiever
10. GER1B – Germany Bundesliga 1 – Second Half Season System
From 20/01/2017 start of the second half of the season
The very rare inclusion of a system with two non-profitable seasons (the oldest two) in the previous five.
It featured one more bet than expected, which won, to total one more winner than expected. Hit rate and yield both exceeded estimates for a profit of £1,294.00. (Fourth largest in six seasons).
Result: Achiever
11. GRE1 – Greece Super League – Whole Season System
The hit rate here was almost 8% below estimate and resulted in the worst performance for six seasons, and a loss of -£819.00.
Result: Loser
Saturday was a glimpse of fresh hope with a few high odd bets winning, but Sunday ate up most of the profit again. So I am back to status quo. The favorites in Italy and France are a complete disaster.
I had a winning weekend, 5 points up with 12 winning bets from 27 placed, which is more or less in line with the expected strike rate. 2 more bets likely today – one favourite, one underdog, so not yet certain what the end point for the weekend will be.
Obviously it’s way too early to be talking about a corner having been turned, but certainly the most enjoyable weekend I’ve had on this for a while. The fact that I’ve dropped stakes significantly means that the recovery in terms of £ value hasn’t been great, but I’ll take any win at this stage.
The adjustments that I’ve made to France Ligue 2 and Netherlands, in terms of chopping out teams that don’t work with the strategies has definitely helped stop the bleeding too.
Hi Scott,
Your results sound similar to ours, and like Jo above, several of our systems currently out of sync, are only a win or two away from being profitable.
Now that the international breaks are over, I fully expect things to settle down. For me, the acid test is the next 4-5 weeks. If the expected uniformity to proceedings does not return during this period, then I will have to make decisions on the dysfunctional systems.
I wonder whether it might be the early start to most of the winter leagues (for WC 2018), which has caused the stuttering start to this season? It will certainly be something I will look at once the end of the season arrives.
Hey Rado, Simon and Jo,
I’m sorry to hear that the betting isn’t going well.
May I ask if you use the value calculator to calculate the odds of each bet (in your portfolio) before you placing the bet?
Hi Audiendi,
No. Someone asked your question before in some article and answer from Right Winger was HDAFU tables and value calculator have different approaches of what to bet on. As far as I remember Soccerwidow is going to release 1X2 betting course, like O/U course. Before that and before you learn everything in it I don’t think it’s a good idea to use them both. If you read O/U course, there is a chapter under this name: “Everything that glitters is not gold” i.e. not every bet marked as “value” bet by the calculator is truly a value bet. I doubt if it will be a good idea to use them both anyway. It’s probably better to filter out teams that perform too bad consistently in any system and this should be value in the long run.
Hi Jo,
I saw that response. What I’m getting at is…
If things aren’t going well with the portfolio, why not use the value calculator now and then just as an extra precaution.
It may be a bit arduous to use it on the entire portfolio. But, for instance, why not use it for the high risk bets? Might be able to improve the hit rate.
Hi Audiendi,
VC and HDAFU are totally different attempts. VC is used for a single match and is based on short-term home and away team history plus H2H results. HDAFU is based on league odds and only works in a long-term strategy.
You can’t compare both strategies and you also can’t use VC to confirm or deny a single game in the HDAFU.
Hi acepoint,
But isn’t one of the main purposes of the HDAFU tables to identify value in bets in the long run?
I might be completely wrong about this. I have purchased the value calculator, which I test on random matches now and then, but I haven’t bought the HDAFU tables yet. So if I’m missing the point completely, I apologise.
From what I have learnt, I would be rather surprised if you can’t use the value calculator INDEPENDENTLY to test out individual bets in your portfolio which have already been selected on the basis of the HDAFU tables.
If a bet has value, wouldn’t both tools discern that the bet has value?
As I understand it, one tool is simply more precise (but laborious to use) than the other. Can they not be used in tandem to some extent in order to sharpen the edge that you get?
Why not try this. Provisionally, pick all your bets with the HDAFU tables. Then, if a particular system is doing very poorly (e.g. favourites), why not cross-check the bets you’ve chosen with the value calculator before placing them?
I’m no scientist. My understanding of scientific practice is, however, that it is built upon testing hypotheses (e.g. bets) with multiple tools to gain an idea of if there is a large amount of corroborating evidence or conflicting evidence.
I’ve got both the VC and the HDAFU tables. My interpretation is that the HDAFU tables allow you to identify a particular strategy with inherent value – for this odds range, the bookmakers have been systematically mis-pricing over the course of the past 5 seasons as the strike rate achieved exceeds that implied by the odds.
However, in order for the HDAFU approach to work, once you have identified a strategy you need to place a bet on every single match that falls within the odds ranges defined by that strategy. Only then will you give yourself a chance of repeating the success that you’ve identified from past 5 seasons history.
Introducing the value calculator as an overlay would mean intentionally skipping certain matches, but these might be the very matches that end up making that strategy a success in the current season.
Remember, you’ve identified your HDAFU strategies as being successful without the use of the VC. If you then introduce the VC in your live season, you’re no longer following the strategy that you’ve identified.
It’s an interesting idea though.
Hey Scott,
Thanks for the reply.
I agree that if the use of the value calculator forces you to deviate from the strategy prescribed by the HDAFU tables, then that simply defeats the purpose of that tool. And I agree the HDAFU tables are profitable The general premise is very sound.
But within the systems you use, based on those HDAFU tables, are there not ample instances where you have to choose between multiple bets?
So, for example, suppose one of the systems you use is the Germany – Underdogs, as our fellow contributor to this blog Simon uses. Suppose, each round the bettor places two bets in this system as part of their portfolio. There will only be certain number of bets which are suitable (as per the guidance of the HDAFU tables) each round for this system. But is it uncommon to find only two bets suitable?
Or would the HDAFU help you identify more than two bets which might be suitable and you simply have to choose two? As I haven’t started using the tables, I can’t say.
If you’ve only got two bets out of two bets to choose from, then fat lot of good the value calculator does.
But if the HDAFU tables suggest you have a reasonable choice of, say, 4 bets… well that’s where the value calculator might be useful.
Does that make sense?
I hope things have turned around for people on here btw. I’ve been profitable the last two weekends (+5 points last weekend, +3 so far this weekend with the possibility of one bet to go on this evening).
42.9% strike rate this weekend, which again is broadly in line with expectations.
Obviously a long way to go to turn things around, but it at least feels like things have started to settle down. There was even a draw in Ligue 2 ffs….! Serie A and Ligue 1 look to finally be pulling their weight too from a low risk strategy perspective, although Turkey is still all over the shop.
Anyway, hopefully others are starting to see an improvement too.
Scott,
Last week for me was a good week, registering like you, about 5 units of profit. Unfortunately this week has seen a loss of 1 point so far, although I have a few remaining bets for the Serie A and Jupiler league to go. The last 2 weeks have been more stable it seems, although the La Liga Underdog system, Eridivisie draw system and Turkey Super Lig favorite system are still the main culprits in that it’s just lose, lose, lose with those systems.
Anyway, its encouraging that things have stabilized over the last 2 weeks. Hope this continues for everyone involved.
In terms of the Value Calculator vs the HDAFU tables, for me they do different things – look at value in different ways. The HDAFU tables really focus in on long term historical profitable strategies, picking out odds ranges where money can be made. So everything in that strategy needs to be bet on.
The value calculator looks at individual teams and recent performance across home/away games, with the head to head factor important. So it takes into consideration things the HDAFU tables do not do so specifically.
For me, validating the HDAFU system selections with the VC would bring into play too much conflict. I haven’t tried it out myself to validate each HDAFU system selection with the VC, so I couldn’t say if they would line up perfectly and both would confirm value bets on the same selection. If they did, that would be great, but where they were in conflict, how do you decide what to be on?
I wouldn’t be comfortable with mixing two strategies founded on different selection criteria. I would only want to use one or the other. The HDAFU tables prove what is profitable or not, and I’m not sure it is necessary to use outside means based on different methodology to improve the profitability or mitigate losing streaks.
I do have the value calculator, but personally found it too time consuming to use to generate enough bets. HDAFU tables for me take a lot of time out of the day to day analysis. So other than the initial studying required to compile the portfolio, all I need to do is place my bets.
Either way, whichever method someone uses, I hope it is profitable!
Hi Simon – I managed to automate the value calculator to a certain extent. I still need to put in last week’s results, but once I do that if I select the home and away teams on the main VC page it’s formula-driven to pull back the last 25 home and away fixtures and the last 10 H2H matches for the 2 team. So it populates the Home, Away and H2H sheets automatically and by extension the main value calculator page gets auto-populated too.
It has a warning system in place too, so it tells you on the face of the calculator if there aren’t enough consecutive games or enough H2H match-ups in the last 10 years.
Took a while to do but it certainly shaves some time off the work required to get an answer out of the VC. I’ve got different VCs set up for each different league.
Anyway, back to the HDAFU stuff – you’re probably loath to make any changes at this point, but rather than underdogs in La Liga, I went with Away teams as a strategy and it’s proving to be one of my most profitable strategies. Like I say, you might not want to make any changes, but thought I’d mention it just in case.
Netherlands and Turkey have been a shitshow for me too, although I’ve managed to stop a lot of the bleeding on the former by eliminating a couple of teams from the strategy and refining the odds range slightly. It’s still losing though – I’m planning to swap strategies for the second half of the season in Netherlands….it can’t come quick enough! Turkey…I mean last Friday when Goztepe were 3-1 up with 10 minutes to go, I thought surely this one is in the bank. 3-3. Unreal haha!
Hey Simon,
Very good point. Great if it works but if there’s conflict then what to do?
Maybe just go with whichever options appear to be the least worst within the system.
Hi there – the “choice” is prescribed by the odds range that you’ve identified as being profitable. I also employ an underdogs system in Germany, but whether or not I place a bet is determined entirely by whether the odds of the underdog at kick off fall into the identified range or not.
If it does, I place the bet. If not, I don’t. There isn’t really a choice to be made beyond that. Some weeks there might be 5 or 6 matches that qualify, other weeks only one or two, it’s driven entirely by that week’s match-ups.
There’s certainly the possibility that there are underdogs elsewhere in that week’s fixtures, outside of the HDAFU strategy, which the value calculator would identify as being value bets, but that’s really a separate issue.
I think there might be a misunderstanding here as to how the HDAFU approach works – you don’t really get a “choice” of bets. You get teams that fall within the odds range that week (in which case you place the bet) and you get teams that don’t (no bet). There’s no further refinement to be made for which the value calculator could be employed.
Hope that makes sense..?
Hey Scott,
Yes, that makes perfect sense.
Your write… ‘I think there might be a misunderstanding here as to how the HDAFU approach works – you don’t really get a “choice” of bets. You get teams that fall within the odds range that week (in which case you place the bet) and you get teams that don’t (no bet).’
I reckon I get the gist of it. What I’m saying is WHERE you have a greater number of options (which, that week, fall within the odds range) THAN the number of bets your system prescribes you place, why not use the value calculator to decide which bets to choose ?
As you say, some weeks/systems, there may be no options. The number of suitable bets may be no greater than the number of bets your system suggests you place for that week. But that won’t always be the case. And that’s where I reckon the value calculator might be useful.
But I take on board the point that Simon made that presumably it will lead to conflict.
E.g. suppose the HDAFU tables suggested that the odds offered for four matches were good to place bets on for a particular system. Then you used the value calculator to work out which two to go with and it showed that none of those possible four bets had value.
That would be bloody unhelpful!
Hi Audiendi,
from what i understand you are suggesting to use the Value Calculator as an additional filtering tool to cherry pick the games to bet on… spot profitable ranges with the HDAFU tables, then using the Value Calculator on the games that falls into said range to perform an individual analysis, and decide if bet or not. Is that correct? That could be a viable road to take… i mean, our goal is to spot value on the bookies pricing. Using two different tools could indeed give us a further edge. Think about fighting a battle where to win we have to make money. I imagine the HDAFU table as the heavy artillery, and the value calculator as the snipers who’s job is to clean the battlefield picking “profitable loner targets”. Did you give this strategy a shot? I would be very interested in hearing further thoughts about it. I guess i will test something myself and let you know on what i can achieve (on paper).
Hey Daniel,
You’ve summed it up perfectly. And I think the military analogy is a good one.
I’m yet to put the combination of HDAFU combined with the value calculator into practice myself. Truth be told, I haven’t started placing bets yet (or bought any HDAFU tables yet). I just try the value calculator here and there and I try to learn as much as I can about the whole thing in general.
But I follow these blogs keenly. It’s great to hear when people do well, but when there are sustained losing streaks, it’s disheartening. So I figured I might as well throw it out there to you guys.
I really do like the idea of the precise knowledge which the value calculator can provide. Imo, there’s no such thing as ‘true’ odds. While it can’t give an exact answer (and while other things such as transfers and injuries have influence), I like to hope that the value calculator can provide the most accurate ‘approximate’ odds as can be compiled.
And I think the HDAFU tables are the brightest way of devising profitable betting systems.
If the two tools can be used to inform one’s knowledge of specific value bets, that surely has to be a good thing.
Please let me know how it goes.
My portfolio performed poorly again, worse than last week, “better” than disastrous weekend 3 weeks ago. 25% hit rate, 8 wins out of 32, but 7 wins won little. And I did not bet on 2 teams I decided to take out of my portfolio. Both teams lost. No signs of stability with my portfolio so far.
Hey Jo,
sorry to hear that. Have you thought about cutting off some of the worst performing systems? I guess if they are showing a totally different trend from what was expected, there’s no point in continuing wasting money on them. Better to focus on the best performing ones, and the ones who you still think, realistically, could put some money in your bank. Analyze them one by one and cut the rotten branches. A perfect example would be ligue 2 draws. That system is doomed. I stopped to bet several weeks ago and it is still performing very bad. Other cases of bad systems in my previous portfolio were Netherlands draw and Austria underdogs. I would have cut them after that bad run we all had, no doubt about it. I know that theoretically they could still deliver some wins and mitigate the losses. But realistically, if a system is going totally out of control, i don’t think that particular strategy it’s reliable anymore.
Hi Daniel,
yes, I did think about it, but it’s a big mental game that haunts me like what if they perform well all of a sudden? And well performing systems enter in a bad streak for a while?
It’s probably not the case with Ligue 2 which is almost certainly doomed to fail and odds range is too low to win losses back in a winning streak of 3-4 bets. Netherlands and Spain are tougher to decide because odds I bet are lower and can recover quickly even in a case of short winning streak. If I decide to cut them off and that streak happens then it would make me absolutely mad. Again I had a case like this in my summer campaign, when I cut off obviously failed system and then it had a winning streak of 6 bets straight away. I have 4 systems that fail badly, I would like to cut them of, especially 2 of them, but thinking “what if things turn around?” makes it very hard to decide. Even if I terminate all failing leagues my bank would be at around +2500, miles away from Right Wingers success at the same time last year. It looks like really unusual year for winter leagues, because my summer campaign is doing better and better. I even managed to run 2 systems concurrently in the 2nd half season of one league, and both systems are doing well, although there is a little bit left to bet, I expect them both ending up in profit.
Returning to winter campaign I consider maybe I pushed my risk too far since I have just 2 strategies that have more than 100 bets a season, lower data sample impose higher risk. Right Winger had 8 of them with more than 100 bets. However the one with more 100 bets per season is doomed Ligue 2, the second one is Ekstraklasa, which is doing well. Although summer campaign also has just 2 strategies with more than 100 bets per season and no problem.
Hey Jo,
Glad to hear your summer campaign is going well! I believe this is indeed an unusual (and unfortunate) campaign, at least so far. It was indeed a very demoralizing run for many of us, but i think things are starting to improve all around the leagues. Surely we won’t be able to replicate RW campaign this season, but we could still see decent profits at the end of it. And we still have the second half, that is a complete different game!
Like RW said, maybe this anomaly was caused by the early start of the leagues due to the World Cup. It is also worth mentioning that the introduction of the VAR technology on the Bundesliga, Serie A and Portugal Primeira Liga can affects results as well.
Good luck with your campaign, I am on the verge of stopping the paper testing and resuming betting real money.
I feel (and hope) that the storm is over
I thought about introduction of VAR too and because it’s just the first year of it in those leagues I’m pretty sure might have decent effect to our results. Right Winger, what is your opinion about introduction of VAR and effect to our results?
@Jo, @Daniel I think VAR has absolutely no impact, the decisions will level out themselves.
But I wonder how long e.g. in the Belgium League teams will score the decisive goal in injury time. I remember at least five games now. 😉
Hi Jo,
VAR is just another variable, like how strong the wind is blowing, or how vociferous the crowd support is.
It’s something that cannot be accounted for in odds setting – only the final result of the matches in question count, not how the result came about.
Personally, I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it – it will not affect anything connected with our use of historical stats in formulating a potentially successful system.
Hi Right Winger,
i have a question for you.
When, in your opinion, should be the right moment to plug off a poorly performing system from the portfolio? It is now clear that this first part of the season saw many systems underperforming, some of them became soon a disaster. I know this could be a matter of personal choice, but i would love if you could provide us a rough guide on the matter. Most of this systems continued to perform badly after most of us noticed it there was some problem with them. Cutting them before they could destroy a portfolio could really save a campaign. For what i see, when a system is doomed, is not hard to notice. Ligue 2 and Netherlands are two popular systems that falls in this category. I know that cutting a system too early could potentially prevent future profits, but as i said, the systems that were performing poorly from the very first weeks, are still performing the same way, none really catching up to what was expected.
I was thinking to use some kind of measurement. For example, capping the losses of a system to 10 units. I know some high risk systems can have longer losing streaks, but usually this systems have a limited number of games, and perhaps they can be an exception. But systems that have hundreds or so games, they can be dangerous if a very bad season happens. To keep it in a real life scenario, i don’t really see how Ligue 2 draws could recover from it’s tragedy. Cutting it weeks ago could have saved much money to many people (me included). And even if a system like this can recover in the future, i still see it a remote possibility. And honestly, i would prefer caution here, and direct my effort (and my money) on those systems who are maintaining their expectations.
So please, your thoughts on this would be really appreciated, by me and all the other users, i’m sure.
Hello Daniel,
There is no hard and fast rule about pulling a system that isn’t performing to expectations.
Personally speaking, I let everything go until the last match. Even if there is no hope of a profit in certain leagues, there is always the chance of some recovery to boost the bottom line. This chance is one that I never discard as it is important to the synergy of the campaign as a whole.
Of course, everyone is free to make decisions based on their own levels of security or adventure, and if a system is hemorraging money it is mentally easy to cut it from the roster.
But, if you are going to cut something, only do so if you have got to the stage that the number of estimated remaining betting opportunities will not provide the required respite, even if every single one of those potential bets were to win.
If you’re going to cut anything, then look more to the middle range of your systems. Cutting high risk or low risk systems will unbalance your portfolio, so always look at the effect that dropping a league will have on your overall risk profile.
Capping wins/losses is never as effective as being bold enough to bet on the nose every time.
Regarding Ligue 2, I am still sure the number of draws will pick up – even if the league does eventually record a six-season low, or a worse anomaly, there will still be draws between now and the end of the season to limit the damage to the portfolio as a whole.
Think in terms of statistics. Look at the draw percentages in the last five seasons. Look at the distribution of draws in each of those seasons. Each season has a similar number of draws but they are distributed randomly throughout the season. It’s just bad luck we’ve stumbled on the barren spell, which just so happens to be at the start of the season.
In summary, cutting the size of your portfolio reduces the synergy effect. Fewer betting opportunities generally means the rest of the portfolio has to work harder to fulfill the same expectations. Think twice before you do this.
A question to Right Winger (and maybe others):
Let’s assume pre-season you identify an odds interval for draw. Let’s also assume in the past five seasons the draw rate within this interval has been more or less steadily over and also within the seasons themselves. In first third of the current season you experience an abnormal low rate of draws.
What happens to the draw odds for future matches? They will probably go up as normal bettors won’t pay for relative low odds anymore. I guess, everybody involved in the inflection point strategy will know now, which league(s) I’m talking about.
But what are people doing, who made an inflection point strategy on a certain draw interval? Can they be more liberal for a while, putting money on matches slightly above their former interval?
Acepoint,
I know exactly which league you are talking about….our beloved Ligue 2.
To start the season the betting opportunities were plentiful with 4 perhaps 5 bets within the systems odds ranges each week. After a few weeks of the season, the draws as a percentage of the total results took a real nosedive. The draw odds now seem in most games to be way over the upper inflection point of the system. I don’t know if this is down to the fact that teams are just winning and losing, and thus odds are adjusted to reflect that certain teams have better winning records. The knock on of that is the betting opportunities have dried up considerably. Last week there was just 1 bet within the odds range of my system, and this week there looks to be just 1 bet too. That makes it harder and harder to claw back a deficit.
The season is one third complete, and so if we assume that the number of draws may increase as the season progresses to end up somewhere nearer historical averages (not necessarily equalling or bettering them), then perhaps the number of betting opportunities will increase per round too. As of now, with 26 rounds left to play, I’m not yet ready to give up on this system.
As for expanding the upper inflection point range, I don’t know about that. It would certainly increase the betting opportunities. The first thing that occurs to me though is any given season will unfold however it does, and no two seasons will be like for like, therefore odds will be set in some degree as per public perception. So if a particular team is winning every game, they will become shorter and shorter odds as the season progresses. I guess what I’m saying is that odds setting/pricing is dynamic and will change according to more recent form and public perception. I think this dynamism will be seen within the historical stats we use in the HDAFU tables to find our systems. So to tamper with that and expand odds ranges to pull in other games, well, maybe it could backfire.
Honestly, I don’t know….what I do know is that systems in a deficit will struggle to recover where the current number of bets per week will not get us anywhere near the projected number.
Same thing happened in Greece. I had a draw system with an incredible hit rate, 8 draws out of 10 matches. The odds started to go down, and the betting opportunities became fewer. So i suppose this kind of odds behavior happened in past seasons too, and so every analysis from the tables will include a similar pattern.
So my suggestion is, whatever happens, stick to your inflection points.
Hi Acepoint (& Simon & Rado),
Yes, I know exactly what you mean.
In the Winter and Summer League Campaign spreadsheets you will also find systems that for varying reasons didn’t produce the estimated number of betting opportunities.
If any result is not happening in the frequency that it was expected, then bookmakers will tend to take advantage of this by increasing prices to entice punters into this black hole.
The inflection points intervals are based on historical statistics, and the stats as a whole may even include a similar trend to the one being experienced right now.
If you have set your inflection points on five seasons’ stats, then straying outside the boundaries is not recommended. Try and be consistent. Once draws begin to happen more often the prices will stabilise once again.
If you decide mid-term to bet outside your original parameters and into an unknown odds range, the time you have spent coming up with the strategy in the first place is a little pointless.
My recommendation would be to sit tight and ride out the lack of betting opportunities. If it’s going to be an anomalous season, you’ll be protected to some extent from the chaos by sticking, not twisting.
There will probably be other leagues in your portfolio where there are more betting opportunities than anticipated. Things will balance themselves out in the long run. Have faith and stick to your game plan.