Glory Hunt Tracker Fund?

[harry_rag]

Humour me, just musing on something here. Say you handpicked a few threads from this section of the board, perhaps 6 to 8, where you were satisfied with the quality and quantity of the bets (i.e. someone with a decent track record who doesn't post too many selections per day) and followed their selections to progressive level stakes (e.g. % of bank), do you think it would show a profit?

Obviously you'd have a high strike rate but would it be enough to cover the losers when they came along? A lot of the threads have consecutive number of bets as the main focus with value not necessarily the primary objective.

Could a carefully picked "fund of funds" grind out a long term profit or do we think the very nature of glory hunts means you'd struggle to build a "portfolio" that didn't make a loss to level stakes?

[aldric]

Could get a great consecutive run going following some of the patient betters, eg Skittle.  However, I am not sure how that would work out with level stakes as most bets on this thread are well below 1.10.  ?‍♂️

[harry_rag]

1 minute ago, aldric said:

Could get a great consecutive run going following some of the patient betters, eg Skittle.  However, I am not sure how that would work out with level stakes as most bets on this thread are well below 1.10.  ?‍♂️

Think of it as an investment, stake x% of bank to compound the growth, assuming in the first place that it generates a positive return. It wouldn't be spectacular but it might grind out a reasonable return. More like "better than a savings account" then "get rich quick" but that's true of most profitable betting endeavors.

What I'm unsure of is the extent to which there are threads showing value if backed to level stakes as opposed to the very niche art of stringing together huge runs of consecutive bets. Maybe it's a stretch to expect to make profit from bets where, in some cases, making a profit isn't the primary focus! 

IF I try it I'd select a few threads and check them twice a day for any selections (e.g. once when first logging on and ahead of the evening action) as I wouldn't want to be too tied down by it. My curiosity may be sufficiently piqued to try it unless anyone can persuade me (perhaps for the best) not to!

[aldric]

Would you have the same stakes though, eg peanut has a decent strike rate (80 ish from memory) with his over 1.5 goals and obviously much higher odds, usually 1.30+.  Not sure how you could compare / adjust stake with his bets compared to all the 1.01 bets.

I'd be interested to see how you got on and what you came up with ?

[harry_rag]

4 minutes ago, aldric said:

Would you have the same stakes though, eg peanut has a decent strike rate (80 ish from memory) with his over 1.5 goals and obviously much higher odds, usually 1.30+.  Not sure how you could compare / adjust stake with his bets compared to all the 1.01 bets.

I'd be interested to see how you got on and what you came up with ?

I was thinking level stakes, could vary it by price but don't think so. A spread of prices would effectively be my diversification (wouldn't want to be too heavy on pure 1.01/1.02 bets). Not sure I'd post the specifics of what bets I was taking (might offend some egos to be left out, or the sheer pressure of carrying my money might impact the decision making process). 

Maybe see how long it took me to either burn or double my starting bank?

[Torque]

@harry_rag Why not just give it a go. Could use a fictional bank to start with 

[aldric]

Yeah go for it and let us know how you get on ?

[harry_rag]

One late idea would be to back the selections that are chosen by more than one member! 

I've gone for it, will chuck £100 at it with tenner as starting stake. 5 bets in play.

[harry_rag]

On 1/18/2022 at 4:07 PM, aldric said:

Would you have the same stakes though, eg peanut has a decent strike rate (80 ish from memory) with his over 1.5 goals and obviously much higher odds, usually 1.30+.  Not sure how you could compare / adjust stake with his bets compared to all the 1.01 bets.

Well, this has proved to be a big factor in my bets so far and one that raises a question that is answered by @peanut peanut deciding to end his >1.5 goals thread. The question would have been whether or not to include his selections and, if so, whether to apply a lower stake given the difference in odds. No criticism of the thread or the fact that I hit a few losers, just acknowledging the validity of the observation that it was a different beast to the typical GH thread in terms of the odds bet at and, as a result, the strike rate. Here's the tale of the tape so far.

1 - What has happened; I've had 20 winners from 24 selections and am down £20.89 to £10 level stakes (I decided to increase the stakes as the bank grew but not to reduce them below the initial £10). All 4 of the losers were >1.5 goal bets.

2 - What would have happened had I bet half stakes on Peanut's bets to reflect the difference in odds; I'd have been just £5.79 down (that's keeping it simple with flat stakes; there were a couple of days where I was in profit so could have increased the stake proportionately)

3 - What would have happened had I chosen not to bet on the >1.5 goals selections and focus on the shorter prices; I'd be 17/17 so far and be £9.68 in front betting 10% of bank (re-assessing stake after each day's betting) or £9.31 to £10 level stakes.

I'll take the £20.89 loss and carry on from here staking and recording the results on the basis of 3 above, to see how that goes in terms of doubling the initial £100.

[aldric]

Will keep following to see how this progresses ?

[harry_rag]

On 1/24/2022 at 4:24 PM, harry_rag said:

3 - What would have happened had I chosen not to bet on the >1.5 goals selections and focus on the shorter prices; I'd be 17/17 so far and be £9.68 in front betting 10% of bank (re-assessing stake after each day's betting) or £9.31 to £10 level stakes.

I'll take the £20.89 loss and carry on from here staking and recording the results on the basis of 3 above, to see how that goes in terms of doubling the initial £100.

23/23 now and 13.69 points up betting 10% of bank or 12.94 to £10 level stakes.

Maybe I should be posting the selections for a tilt at the leaderboard, might get there quicker than via my own endeavours! 

[harry_rag]

I reckon I’m beating the quoted odds on somewhere between two thirds and three quarters of the bets I’m following on, sometimes by 2 “ticks”.

I guess odds are irrelevant if you’re only concerned with the number of bets and sometimes people just want to make sure the bet is on but if the return is a consideration you might want to try asking for a better price and seeing if you get matched (time permitting).

I’m currently mulling over a staking approach that factors in a degree of going all in for x number of bets then resetting the initial stake as a proportion of bank, sort of a supercharged version of simple progressive staking. I just need to decide on the optimum number of bets for x! 10 is my initial thought.

[harry_rag]

The tale of the tape for January (I started this on the 18th). I've been lucky enough not to hit a loser yet* so it's 41 winners from 41 bets for a profit of 24.92 points (and a corresponding growth in starting bank of 24.92%). Profit to level stakes would be 22.9 points.

I'll carry on tracking the selections this way to see how I go in terms of the original premise of either doubling or losing the 100 point starting bank. I'm also going to try out the "Juggernaut" staking system (don't ask, or I'll only end up explaining it). The aim being to accelerate growth with a degree of rolling stakes over for a while then banking (sort of).

*For the first few days I was including Peanut's now ended >1.5 selections and was 20.89 points down so in real terms I'm only just in front. The results being quoted ignore those selections and focus on the more traditional, shorter odds, glory hunts.

[harry_rag]

On 2/1/2022 at 12:10 PM, harry_rag said:

The tale of the tape for January (I started this on the 18th). I've been lucky enough not to hit a loser yet so it's 41 winners from 41 bets for a profit of 24.92 points (and a corresponding growth in starting bank of 24.92%). Profit to level stakes would be 22.9 points.

First loser encountered yesterday via the Rangers +3 handicap. No recriminations on that front obviously, losers are inevitable the longer I carry on with this. That said, I was less keen on the bet than most so the lesson for me is it's better to swerve a bet on the rare occasion I have a negative feel about it (better to miss a winner than hit a loser in that scenario). 

That makes it 48 winners from 49 bets for +16.92 points, setting me back 6 days in terms of the return. Onwards we go!

[aldric]

Sorry about that...  did you also back Celtic +3 as a few had that one also.

[Skittle]

I've always felt that the old 'gut feeling' is worth some form of consideration.

[harry_rag]

6 minutes ago, aldric said:

Sorry about that...  did you also back Celtic +3 as a few had that one also.

Yeah. And I must admit that I immediately thought it was a preferable bet to the Rangers one before I saw that anyone had put it up. No need to apologise, as I say the occasional loss will be part and parcel of this, the question is whether it turns a worthwhile profit long term. Most of the bets I follow I just whack on without thought, so having any sort of a negative view is quite unusual. Hence the conclusion that I'll probably swerve such bets in future on the basis of better to miss a win at short odds than to regret the loss. But, in the grand scheme of things, I've probably been lucky to get this far without the first loser.

[harry_rag]

On 2/1/2022 at 12:10 PM, harry_rag said:

The tale of the tape for January (I started this on the 18th). I've been lucky enough not to hit a loser yet so it's 41 winners from 41 bets for a profit of 24.92 points (and a corresponding growth in starting bank of 24.92%). Profit to level stakes would be 22.44 points.

Now 61 winners from 62 bets. Profit is 25.46 points (level stakes 23.28). Just shy of the peak profit prior to hitting the only loser to date.

Level stakes figures corrected to deduct commission. 

Edited February 7, 2022 by harry_rag
Level stakes figures amended

[aldric]

Fortunate to dodge a few losers yesterday ?

[harry_rag]

14 minutes ago, aldric said:

Fortunate to dodge a few losers yesterday ?

Yeah and needed late goals in a couple of games as well. Might be one with my name on it soon!

[harry_rag]

On 2/7/2022 at 2:57 PM, harry_rag said:

Now 61 winners from 62 bets. Profit is 25.46 points (level stakes 23.28). Just shy of the peak profit prior to hitting the only loser to date.

Level stakes figures corrected to deduct commission. 

After hitting a second losing bet this week it's now 81 winners from 83 bets. Profit is 28.71 points (level stakes 26.23). Highpoint figures prior to the loser were 37.11 and 32.25 respectively.

Since the start of February I've been recording the bets using the "Juggernaut" staking approach and the figures look like this. 40 winners from 42 bets and a profit of 4.47 points. The profits to 10% of bank and level stakes are of 3.06 and 3.78 points. So just the 95% strike rate to maintain to stay in the black! 

[harry_rag]

On 2/14/2022 at 1:29 PM, harry_rag said:

After hitting a second losing bet this week it's now 81 winners from 83 bets. Profit is 28.71 points (level stakes 26.23). Highpoint figures prior to the loser were 37.11 and 32.25 respectively.

110 winners from 116 bets now and still just about in front. 0.73 points to 10% of bank and 3.96 points to level stakes.

On 2/14/2022 at 1:29 PM, harry_rag said:

Since the start of February I've been recording the bets using the "Juggernaut" staking approach and the figures look like this. 40 winners from 42 bets and a profit of 4.47 points. The profits to 10% of bank and level stakes are of 3.06 and 3.78 points.

69 winners from 74 bets now and a loss of 32.81 points. 19.56 points down to 10% stakes and 18.48 to level stakes. 5 losses means I'm out of "reloads" so at least I'm getting to stress test the staking plan! 

 

Edited March 2, 2022 by harry_rag
Minor typo

[aldric]

This making you think the juggernaut staking plan isn't a great idea?

[harry_rag]

2 hours ago, aldric said:

This making you think the juggernaut staking plan isn't a great idea?

A lot of conflicting stuff I'm trying to process to be honest mate. Wasn't an entirely flippant comment about it being useful in terms of seeing how the plan performs during a losing run. Bearing in mind that the last 2 bets both lost it's not surprising that the update is negative and, given that the staking plan involves rolling the stake over it was always going to sustain a bigger loss during a bad run.

There's also the fact that all bar one of the losses have come from a single source (the other being your Rangers handicap bet). Despite that I'm still in front overall from bets from that source,

I'll run it for a while longer and see what transpires.

[aldric]

Lol.. how does it always come back my my Rangers bet ?.

I'm sure you can make a success of it ?

 

[harry_rag]

4 minutes ago, aldric said:

Lol.. how does it always come back my my Rangers bet ?.

I'm sure you can make a success of it ?

 

Well, it remains unique in that it’s the only loser other than from XTC’s thread, probably by chance more than anything (there have been 1 or 2 losers on other’s threads that I either missed or didn’t get matched on). So all the other losers are from one thread but, despite that, I’m still in front overall from those selections. It does give rise to the possibility that those selections might be profitable but (being at bigger prices) not an ideal fit for the staking approach!

[harry_rag]

Time to wrap this thread up I think and move on to a simpler new approach. It's getting a bit time consuming to be recording 3 separate things (tracked bets from day one, tracked bets using "Juggernaut" staking since Feb and my own selections).

From day one, the record looks like this:

116 winners from 123 bets, -4.92 points with an ROI of -0.34% (10 points level stakes -1.23 points with an ROI of -0.1%)

6 of the losing bets have come from the same source; this is the record for 10 points level stakes on all bets from other sources.

79 winners from 80 bets, +17.74 points with an ROI of 2.22%

Had that single losing bet been a winner then it would be +28.62 points with an ROI of 3.58%. The February record (using the staking plan) is:

75 winners from 82 bets, -43.29 points with an ROI of -3.75%, (10% stakes -24.75 points with an ROI of -2.99% and 10 points level stakes -23.68 points with an ROI of -2.85%)

That leads me to the following conclusions:

1. I should stop following the selections that are responsible for 6 out of the 7 losing bets. That's not to say they might not be profitable long term; just that the strike rate makes them not really suitable for this approach.
2. Even if this approach can be profitable in the long term, the results are never going to be spectacular, as evidenced by an ROI of 2.22% from the 79/80 winning bets and 3.58% had the strike rate been 100%. That's an inevitable consequence of the odds being so short. It's more like a slow and steady return that might beat the interest you'd get from a bank than a "get richer quick" scheme!
3. The staking plan hasn't performed well in the circumstances. Trying to roll winnings over to achieve a 25% growth in starting bank is over-ambitious in view of how many losses there have been. Aiming for 10% might strike a more reasonable balance in terms of accelerating growth.