| Home | Forum | Newsletter | Football | Horse-Racing | Other Sports | Poker | Betting Theory | Free Tools | Bookshop |
Contents
Recent Forum Posts
Software to calculate Log Likelihood
- Can anybody recommend or direc... player ratings - was wondering if any of you ha... Draw odds compiling, Football. - Hello all, i'm new here and wa... Shot On Target vs Expected Goals - Having read Dixon and Robinson... rating/h2h - ratings+- h2h% 1 x... sites - wasnt sure where to put this s... odds compiling - ok using the spread sheet sum ... Open Office Calc Problem - My spreadsheets which have pro... Weighting and Preference - Lots of posting today :teeth_s... Relative Importance - I am trying to calculate the r... Related Articles Free Tipsters Subscription Tipsters Martingale System Choosing a Sport to Bet on Developing a Ratings System Part 1 Developing a Ratings System, Part 2 Interview with Zonker, Part 3 Fixed Profits or Fixed Stakes? Interview with Zonker, Part 4 Bulletin from the exchanges frontline Best of the Web: Betting Advice Recording Betfair Prices for Dummies Odds Or Evens? Paradise Questionnaire - Jamdog Hunter S Thomson review Singles or doubles, part 2 Paradise questionnaire: Grasshopper Compiling Soccer Odds for Dummies Introduction to arbitrage betting The Taxman Cometh Odds compiling for Dummies, part 2 Developing a Ratings System, part 3 Greg Gordon's Betting Experiment part 2 Developing a Ratings System, part 4 Greg Gordon's Betting Experiment part 3 How To Make Money By Doing Nothing The Paradise Questionnaire: Sailing Shoes Ask The Doc: Monte Carlo simulations Ask The Doc: Monte Carlo simulations part 2, Debunking the Kelly Debunker Kelly staking and Utility Functions Short and Sweet What is so unusual about this gambling sentence? In betting, the odds shortened from 5/2 to 2/1
Answer: When spoken out loud, it's the only way you can have 'two' or 'to' five times in a row and still make sense. Back to top |
How do I know if I have a winning system?Am I just on a lucky run or do I have a winning system?
Conversely, am I wasting my time on a particular system or is it just
an unlucky run?
It is impossible to give a definitive answer to these questions, but
what we can do is to use the science of statistics to estimate the probability
that we have a winning (or losing if that is the question) system. Most statisticians will, as a rule of thumb, look for 99% 'certainty' before they have
a confidence in a system, so we will adopt that stance too. However, exactly the same
priniciples apply for 95%, 99.9% or any other 'certainty level' that you desire to use. Most statisticians will look for 99% 'certainty' before they have a confidence in a system 1) Estimate, or calculate the overround on the bets that you have made. This will vary from sport to sport, and will strongly depend on how much shopping around you do for the best prices. To take an example - if you bet on the 1X2 market for English Premiership football, an individual bookie will typcially have an overround in the region of 11%. If you select from a range (e.g. 5 or 6) of bookies, you will normally bring this down to circa 5%. Lets assume for the rest of our example that the overround is 5% 2) Calculate the average odds at which you have bet. Lets say 2.31 for our example 3) Multiply the odds above by the overround e.g. 2.31*1.05 (5% overround) to get the 'bookies fair odds'. In this case that gives us a value of 2.43 4) Invert the answer from (3) above to get the 'bookies true chance' i.e. the probability of winning as estimated by the bookmaker. In this case 0.412, i.e. 41.2% chance. This is effectively the 'strike rate' that the bookie would expect you to have on the market. 5) Multiply the answer from (4) above by the number of bets made. Lets say we have made 165 bets, we would get an answer of 165*0.412=68.03. This is the number of winning bets that the bookie would expect you to have, assuming you had guessed randomly (according to the odds offered). 68.03 winners from 165 bets, means that the balance, 96.97 bets, were losers. 6) Note the actual number of winning and losing bets that you had lets say 75 and 90. 7) Use the 'Chitest' function in Excel to evaluate the following:
CHITEST(A1:A2,B1:B2) where cells A1 & A2 contain the actual number
of winning and losing bets (i.e. 75 and 90 respectively in our example), and cells B1
and B2 contain the estimated number of winners and losers, i.e. 68.03 and 96.97 "Be extra careful with back-testing as it is extremely easy to data-mine." 8) The answer returned in (7) above, i.e. 0.27, is the probability
that the number of winners and losers you obtained is as a result of chance, i.e.
just a lucky run. In other words there is a 27% chance that this is just a lucky run,
and correspondingly, a 73% chance that you have a winning system. As stated above, to be any way comfortable with the system (i.e. confident that
it is truly a winning system), then 99% is the the 'confidence threshold' that you
should be looking at. For 165 bets, 85 winners would be required to achieve this value. Also, the above analysis assumes that the record above is as a result of live testing. Be extra careful with back-testing as it is extremely easy to (often subconcsiously) 'data-mine' so that you extract some 'rules' related to a lucky run, rather than to a winning system.
|
Related articles From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Miracles occur under Littlewood's Law - expect a miracle every month The infinite moneys theorem - could they really do Shakespeare? Classical definition of probability - Probability of an event is the ratio . . Markov Chain in betting theory - used in modelling processes Law of averages in betting theory - used to express the view that. . Sample Space in probability theory - e.g. if the event is tossing a coin. . The history of Playing Cards - began in China after invention of. . The Doomsday argument is a . . - that claims to predict the future . . The man who broke the bank at . . - Joseph Jaggers (1830–1892) was . . The gambler's fallacy in betting theory - the first law of betting in many . . Inverse gambler's fallacy - is a tempting mistake in judgments Read these books The Art of Legging - The History Theory and Practice of Bookmaking on the English Turf A Licence to Print Money - A journey Through the Gambling and Bookmaking World The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic - Shortly after pithecanthropus erectus gained the ascendency, he turned his attention to the higher-order abstractions... The Mathematics of Games and Gambling - Fascination with games of chance and speculation on the results of repeated random trials appear to be common to almost all societies, past and present... Links Guide to probability theory |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© Punters Paradise. Material may not be used without express permission. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Home | Forum | Newsletter | Football | Horse-Racing | Other Sports | Poker | Betting Theory | Free Tools | Bookshop |