Lunatism’s Statistical Selections (lss)

[lunatism]

Re: Lunatism’s Statistical Selections (lss)

I believe the part about better value referred to the reduced juice. Maybe you can try contacting bwin or bet365 regarding offering handicaps?

I'll have to, so what they say and then post it back here :hope....i get the feeling both these guys won't care for it though (well, not from me abyway), since the only time i've been getting in touch with them lately has been to moan about some aspect of their service, or to complain about them reducing my betting limits :@ But i'll try in a bit and see what happens

[averick]

Re: Lunatism’s Statistical Selections (lss) bet365 reduced yr limits?

[lunatism]

Re: Lunatism’s Statistical Selections (lss)

bet365 reduced yr limits?

nope, bWin did. bet365 was the moaning about something else they did, plus I kept asking them for things and they've been getting shorter and less polite (obviously still within the realms of "decent" customer service though) each time I have spoken to them

[averick]

Re: Lunatism’s Statistical Selections (lss) oh yea have read quite abit of stuff about bwin. bet365 are pretty decent imo, haven't heard too much negative stuff about them yet.

[lunatism]

Re: Lunatism’s Statistical Selections (lss)

oh yea have read quite abit of stuff about bwin. bet365 are pretty decent imo, haven't heard too much negative stuff about them yet.

yep, they're pretty good....well in comparison to bWin at least, who are problematic to say the least. Before i took my break, and was having unresolved issues on a weekly basis with them (bWin). Becuase whenever they didn't like the question or didn't understand the question, or believe the question would give away some BIG secret about the workings of their bent cooperation (ok, that's harsh, but tell me if you should be able to sponsor teams and then be able to host bets on them too..... that's like paying your staff their wages, and then taking bets on what their futures would hold and paying them with this money....and they know you'll be doing this, so they do whatever they can to keep in your good graces....which means if they know you were expecting them to turn up to work at 8am...for damn sure they'd be there are 7:45am! maybe a little paranoia here, but a little paranoia is good for the soul :loon) they would say something along the lines of "thank you for using bWin, we hope we have dealt with your query in an acceptable matter, and do not hesistate to contact us again ...........blablablabla...." bet365 and I just had disagreements over a few live bets I made, the apparant country i appear to be in (i've lived all over the place), the cards that i've used to place my bets, the actual result of a match, and the number of teams I could use in an accy a while ago....."nothing" much :tongue2

[happygooner]

Re: Lunatism’s Statistical Selections (lss)

That's a pathetic excuse....not enough interest? More like losing too much from non-league betting. And how exactly do they think they increasing the number of live matches will provide better value for money?! by reducing the number of non-leagues (the value being that they couldn't be found anywhere else on the web and the prices were generally great)? :) More like increasing better profits for themselves Utter nonsense in my opinion - i hope an alternative springs up soon :unsure It's either that, or i'll have to sit down and completely rewrite LSS, to become more astute at not only the lower leagues, but the to ones too...sounds simple, i know, but damningly not so :( But this can't really continue any other way - 10 wins from 14 should be showing profit (current levels) yet it isn't due to lack of AH from pinnacle :wall (IMO bookies move forward by INCREASING number of leagues covered - not by reducing...also goes against my "soon all of these unbettable leagues will become bettable" theory :$) Thoughts, ideas welcome.....

Thoughts would be to work on the lay thing across all widely available leagues. Sure it would be possible and Betfair/Betdaq aren't going to limit you no matter how successful. Speak to you soon mate;)

[lunatism]

Re: Lunatism’s Statistical Selections (lss) in case you wondered, i'm waiting for one of the results, and that's why I haven't posted the stats yet. No selections for today

[lunatism]

Re: Lunatism’s Statistical Selections (lss) SUMMARY Matchday 7 (09/11/08) sorry about the delay, but the AFC 34 match only came up today (a no-bet i know, but still wanted to wait for it) DATE LEAGUE FIXTURE REAL RESULT CORRECT SCORE? CORRECT WINNER? RETURN 09/11/08 Armenian Premier League FC Pyunik v FC Kilikia 3 - 1 --- YES 7.15 09/11/08 Danish Denmarksserien - Group 2 Nordvest FC v Køge BK II 7 - 0 --- YES No Bet 09/11/08 German Oberliga - Bayern TSV Aindling v 1. FC Schweinfurt 1905 e.V. 4 - 0 --- YES 9.03 09/11/08 German Oberliga - Niedersachsen Ost Goslarer SC 08 v SSV Vorsfelde 1 - 0 --- YES No Bet 09/11/08 German Oberliga - Niedersachsen West VfL Oldenburg 1894 v Heesseler SV 2 - 3 --- --- 0.00 09/11/08 Hungarian NB II - East BKV Elore Labdarúgó Kft. v Tököl KSK 4 - 0 --- YES No Bet 09/11/08 Dutch Eerste Klasse - Sunday A Alkmaarse Football Club 1934 v USV Hercules 1 - 1 --- --- No Bet 09/11/08 Spanish Tercera Division - Group 2 (Asturias) Real Oviedo v CD Mosconia 5 - 1 --- YES 8.21 09/11/08 Turkish Lig B - Group 4 Corumspor v Yimpas Yozgatspor 3 - 0 --- YES No Bet 09/11/08 Ukranian Premier League FC Dynamo Kyiv v FC Lviv 1 - 0 --- YES 8.73 OVERALL BETS STARTING BANK 100.00 100.00 CURENT BANK 94.96 94.96 TOTAL STAKED 130.76 130.76 NUMBER OF BETS 34 19 WINNING BETS 27 14 LOSING BETS 7 5 STRIKE RATE 79.41% 73.68% YIELD -4% -4% PROFIT / LOSS -5.04 -5.04 ADDITIONAL STATS AVERAGE ODDS 1.40 1.40 CORRECT SCORE 6% (2/34) 0% (0/19) CORRECT MARGIN 18% (6/34) 21% (4/19) WINNING AT HALF TIME 15% (3/20) 21% (3/14) DRAWING AT HALF TIME 75% (15/20) 64% (9/14) LOSING AT HALF TIME 10% (2/20) 14% (2/14) HOME PERFORMANCE 79% (27/34) 74% (14/19) AWAY PERFORMANCE N/A N/A DURATION: 11 Days 11 Days LONGEST WINNING STREAK: 7 7 LONGEST LOSING STREAK: 3 3 CURRENT RUN: 3 Wins 2 Wins NUMBER OF MATCHDAYS: 7 7 As we do, me and goon have been knocking heads together, so there should be some kind of news on the horizon (let's say a week or two to make sure i'm not seeing rubbish rather than pattern) (horrible, i know - formatting didnt work for some reason)

[palaceman]

Re: Lunatism’s Statistical Selections (lss) The problem with this, Loon, is that without the AH, most of the bets that are available are simply unbackable because of the shortness of the prices. Of the 5 matches in which you were able to secure fixed odds, two were 1/10, and the others were 1/6, 1/5 and 1/2. I don't mind backing something at 1/2 if it seems a cert, but anything shorter than that and you are really hard pressed to argue that you are obtaining any value. And if you can't obtain value, then overall a loss is inevitable since, in football, even very obvious favourites will sometimes come a cropper, as Chelsea did last night. Indeed, the fact that the 1/5 bet was a loser rather demonstrates the point of how difficult it would be to avoid a loss if consistently betting at those sort of prices. No knocking you at all Loon. I really appreciate the effort you put in. I'm just pointing out that it's the AH prices (and the occasional fixed odds at around 1.5) that give the value that can make the system profitable. If you are spending a lot of time looking at leagues where only fixed odds will be available, and if they continue to be at the sort of prices you quoted in those recent matches, then you will be spending that time to little benefit.

[lunatism]

Re: Lunatism’s Statistical Selections (lss)

The problem with this, Loon, is that without the AH, most of the bets that are available are simply unbackable because of the shortness of the prices. Of the 5 matches in which you were able to secure fixed odds, two were 1/10, and the others were 1/6, 1/5 and 1/2. I don't mind backing something at 1/2 if it seems a cert, but anything shorter than that and you are really hard pressed to argue that you are obtaining any value. And if you can't obtain value, then overall a loss is inevitable since, in football, even very obvious favourites will sometimes come a cropper, as Chelsea did last night. Indeed, the fact that the 1/5 bet was a loser rather demonstrates the point of how difficult it would be to avoid a loss if consistently betting at those sort of prices. No knocking you at all Loon. I really appreciate the effort you put in. I'm just pointing out that it's the AH prices (and the occasional fixed odds at around 1.5) that give the value that can make the system profitable. If you are spending a lot of time looking at leagues where only fixed odds will be available, and if they continue to be at the sort of prices you quoted in those recent matches, then you will be spending that time to little benefit.

:) all of this is true, it's pointless without either AH or good odds....and that's why me and goon are working a way to improve this. all i'll say so far, is that the average odds would be between 1.75 and 2.50, and the backtesting so far has proven very succesful. We've starting paper trialling, and (as I wrote in my last post), shouldn't take more than a couple of weeks before there'll be something to say about it on here. It would of course mean that the strike rate would be lower, but still very high in terms of what you would expect from a system using my ratings. The handy thing about this new idea, is that it targets only the bettable leagues, you'll find 65% of the games available on Betfair, while the other 35% will be found on Bet365 or bWin and other bookies. And there will be the option to lay aswell (something that Goon fancies rather a lot), so we (me and goon) think it looks promising. I'll still be posting my LSS selections on here though, up until that point, and then....i'll just start a new thread (well, maybe a couple, since one will have to be for laying). Sorry to be all cloak and dagger about all this...just don't want to launch something *new* without proper testing (done this before and messed up....wasn't funny) :loon So for now, keep an eye on here for updates :ok

[palaceman]

Re: Lunatism’s Statistical Selections (lss) Progress report?

[lunatism]

Re: Lunatism’s Statistical Selections (lss)

Progress report?

You're right, probably about time for a progress report...ignore all the stuff i said before, what i was looking at then, well it kind of worked (meaning that the odds never seemed to b what they were supposed to be when looking at the bookies, so it's on hold.....). But there is something else, what do you think of laying? Currently testing a "lay the draw" system, that has average odds of 3.72 with a strike rate of 84%, obviously this mini testing i'm doing is going to doom it forever (seems to happen quite a lot, to a lot of people, quite a lot of the time :(), but i'm quite confident about it. Due to not so many selections it generates, I'll only be running it on Saturdays (otherwise i'd be in a situation where one loss is much more severe than it ought to be). Give me a week or so (need a few more Saturdays of live testing to complement my backtesting), and then i'll start up a new thread..... But as I said before, are you a fan of laying? :D

[palaceman]

Re: Lunatism’s Statistical Selections (lss)

But as I said before, are you a fan of laying? :D

I make well over 90% of my betting profits laying horses (jumping races only). However, I only achieved this after several seasons of detailed research. Anyone who thinks it's easy to make profits by choosing horses to lose, think again. But it can be done, if you know what you're doing. Over the latter part of the last football season, and during this one, I've also made profits - albeit only modest ones - using Paul Ross's ratings on this forum. This is by laying certain teams, or by taking their opponents in a +0.5 AH, which is effectively the same thing. So yes, I am definitely a fan of laying. But it must always be remembered that profiting from laying requires the same principles as any other betting - primarily that value is key. No bet is 100% certain to be successful, and profits can only arise if you consistently only select bets where the odds are better than the chances. However certain I am that a particular horse should lose, I know that it's not an exact science and I could be wrong, and so unless I can get odds that are better than I consider the actual chances to be, I'll leave the bet alone. There will always be another one. I'll be very interested to read about how your research on the draws progresses. If the average odds are, as you say, 3.72, then you are going to need a high strike rate to make it worthwhile, but I'll be surprised if the final figure will be as high as 84% when you've looked at a larger sample. It will be interesting to see how it develops. :ok

[lunatism]

Re: Lunatism’s Statistical Selections (lss)

I make well over 90% of my betting profits laying horses (jumping races only). However' date=' I only achieved this after several seasons of detailed research. Anyone who thinks it's easy to make profits by choosing horses to lose, think again. But it can be done, if you know what you're doing.[/quote'] I'm sure you're just using it for a comparison, but in case not, just a reminder - this is laying draws not horses :ok And i've been running my data updates for a long time now (apart from when I was off in Perú), so i've amassed an even larger amount of data to have as a starting point than I did when I started out with LSS. So the laying that i'm currently trialling is based on several seasons worth of data....i know it's not easy to make money from laying....just seems that all my months and years of data collection have been at hand to help me out with this one...but we'll see. Well hopefully, this new idea can be of help to you, i'll only start up a new thread if the trial shows up as well as the backtesting has, and 84% is good starting point! As soon as i've got all my "stuff" together on this one (and it works out ok in the trialling that i'm running), then i'll try to give a bit of info about my research and where I can see it going.

[palaceman]

Re: Lunatism’s Statistical Selections (lss)

I'm sure you're just using it for a comparison' date= but in case not, just a reminder - this is laying draws not horses :ok

Yes, of course. I was just trying to explain I'm a fan of the general principle of laying, and used the racing simply as an example :ok

[Gingertipster]

[happygooner]

Re: Lunatism’s Statistical Selections (lss)

I admire your endeavour Loon but: I do not understand your thread. In the last match you backed Besiktas to win at fixed odds of 1.22. Yet you believe Besiktas to have a 72% chance of winning. Have I got that right? But a 72% strike rate at 1.22 would result in a loss. If a punter has 100 individual bets of 1 point win, all at 1.22, and wins 72 of those bets (72%). Then he gets back 72 x 0.22 = 15.84 plus 72 points of his stake. 72 + 15.84 = 87.84 points returned. Staking 100 points and getting back only 87.84 points. This apparant discrepancy was throughout the thread, not just this one case. Unless I have got the meaning of your percentages wrong Loon. By your own percentages, you were bound to fail. On your bet above, judging by your percentages you should have three possible bets: Besiktas who you rate as a 72% chance. If better than 2/5 is available (1.4) Draw who you rate 22% if better than 7/2 is available (4.5) And Kocaelispor rated as a 6% chance at better than 16/1 (17.0) Ginge

Hi Ginge This thread is pretty much dead as pinny pulled the AH market on the lower leagues. As you quite rightly said the system couldn't sustain such low odds no matter if the s/r was good or not. Most of the time loon played the AH either - or + depending on his score prediction and he had a fairly good habit of hitting more often than not. You only have to look at the average odds of over 1.5 and the 80%+ s/r

[lunatism]

Re: Lunatism’s Statistical Selections (lss)

I admire your endeavour Loon but: I do not understand your thread. In the last match you backed Besiktas to win at fixed odds of 1.22. Yet you believe Besiktas to have a 72% chance of winning. Have I got that right? But a 72% strike rate at 1.22 would result in a loss. If a punter has 100 individual bets of 1 point win, all at 1.22, and wins 72 of those bets (72%). Then he gets back 72 x 0.22 = 15.84 plus 72 points of his stake. 72 + 15.84 = 87.84 points returned. Staking 100 points and getting back only 87.84 points. This apparant discrepancy was throughout the thread, not just this one case. Unless I have got the meaning of your percentages wrong Loon. By your own percentages, you were bound to fail. On your bet above, judging by your percentages you should have three possible bets: Besiktas who you rate as a 72% chance. If better than 2/5 is available (1.4) Draw who you rate 22% if better than 7/2 is available (4.5) And Kocaelispor rated as a 6% chance at better than 16/1 (17.0) Ginge

Thanks for your (rather belated....thread's been inactive since the end of November) response, but you see - that's the exact reason I had to stop this thread anyway...being forced (and taking away the market does force ones hand a little) into accepting low odds (which weren't really anything to do with the percentage given to each team in the first place...see more below) wasn't something I felt comfortable doing all the time. With Pinnacle taking away the option for betting AH on the lower leagues and forcing plain backing, well i didn't want to take the risk (even though, to the best of my reckoning (and you'll have to take my word for it, since i'm not digging up stats on this) LSS selections would be in profit just taking the fixed odds anyway - those low ones). I could have put more research into remedying the problem (solely AH, and perhaps the bigger leagues, widening scope of system without hurting the results too much), but i'm on to new ideas now, and eventually i'll be putting something concrete back into the systems and strategy section (i prefer private rather than public testing, so that's what i'm upto at the minute). And just to add...yes - you did get the meaning of the percentages wrong - they were a part of the variables that were used in calculating whether a selection would be a selection or not, and i never intended (or ever used them) as a guide to what would consitute fair odds or not...i just want the PL world to see what figures I was working with. If a person (such as yourself) chose to use these as an indication of fair odds...well that would be that persons perogative - never was the intention. I am a fan of Fair Odds work (so appreciate your redundant comments :)), and that's one of the avenues i've been looking at since I was forced "put down" LSS, and it would play a big role in any future systems I post on here (ask Goon, we talk about it all the time). Maybe if you look back through the thread, you might notice that the percentages weren't intially part of what I posted up with each selection? And I was just putting them "out there" to add a bit of depth the the selection... Once again, I appreaciate your response...but LSS aren't coming back, and so anything you say (regarding this) really can only be taken as a "wish this guy had said this several months ago instead of waiting until Pinnacle forced an early closure (hints of after eventing almost)" comment...obviously you don't mean it to come across in this way, and you're just trying to be helpful (and I appreciate that). :ok

[Gingertipster]

Re: Lunatism’s Statistical Selections (lss) Loon, I just do not see the point of working out percentages if you are not going to use them. And back against what your own judgement is telling you. The apparent taking of under the odds was from almost the start, nothing to do with pinnacle. From #54 onwards. Anyway, I do not come in to this part of the forum very often, just saw in another thread you were saying about having given up work to follow proven systems / gambling. So I've looked through a few threads and found nothing I could see as proof of this edge you have. But if you are looking at something else that is providing this wonderful system, then I wish you luck Loon. Ginge

[lunatism]

Re: Lunatism’s Statistical Selections (lss)

Loon, I just do not see the point of working out percentages if you are not going to use them. And back against what your own judgement is telling you. Anyway, I do not come in to this part of the forum very often, just saw in another thread you were saying about having given up work to follow proven systems / gambling. So I've looked through a few threads and found nothing I could see as proof of this edge you have. But if you are looking at something else that is providing this wonderful system, then I wish you luck Loon. Ginge

I'm glad you like to put in such thorough research Ginge, and I hope it stands you in good stead for the future (whatever your plans happen to be). I don't think that there is any way I could sate your thirst for blood without breaking down systems i'm using with you and explaining exactly how they work. And i wouldn't do that for anyone. Thanks for the wishes of luck, and I too wish you luck, with whatever it seems to be that you trying to achieve ;)

[Gingertipster]

Re: Lunatism’s Statistical Selections (lss) Sorry if you feel it is a thirst for blood Loon. Just on two other threads, one as far back as 12th feb 2008, the other recently. You seem to be saying what a profit you are making, without any evidence. Because although I admire the work that must have gone in to this thread, I see no evidence of this profit. Ginge

[lunatism]

Re: Lunatism’s Statistical Selections (lss)

Just on two other threads' date=' one as far back as 2006, the other recently. You seem to be saying what a profit you are making, without any evidence. Because although I admire the work that must have gone in to this thread, I see no evidence of this profit.[/quote'] i only started on this site in 2006, but that's besides the point, what I chose to publish on here and not publish on here is my own concern, and really i'm happy with my betting bank, i'm happy with my backtesting (which goes back a long way after a lot of selections), i'm happy with projected profits (even in worse case scenarios). I didn't join this site to proof some "super system" to the public, i signed up to be able to chat to like minded people, who would no doubt have ideas that i could use, and who i'd also be able to help out. Along the way, sure, a few systems i use (used) have been covered on here, but that's never been the sole purpose of being here, and never will. I'm not here to make a name for myself (as some people seem to be) and so i dont really think I need to take the OTT approach any further by proofing all my past results. ESPECIALLY for redundant systems! The next time I start a systems thread, no doubt i will be providing more information to punters such as yourself, who want the thread maker (or at least me) to provide just that extra bit more..... Once more, this thread is not active, i have no active systems (so to speak) on this site at present, so i all i can do is defend my actions in the past....and that's getting me nowhere it seems

[Gingertipster]

Re: Lunatism’s Statistical Selections (lss) Sorry:$, did make a mistake with the year, 6 and 8 look the same to me, so changed it quickly, not quickly enough it seems.:lol Had hoped you could point me in the direction of some winning systems you had put on here (evidence) Loon, but does not matter.:ok Look foreward to seeing your new system.:loon Good Luck:hope Ginge

[palaceman]

Re: Lunatism’s Statistical Selections (lss) Loon - when you start a thread on your new system, could you kindly post the link on this one :ok

[lunatism]

Re: Lunatism’s Statistical Selections (lss)

Loon - when you start a thread on your new system' date=' could you kindly post the link on this one :ok[/quote'] no problem - sorry about the delays...I've just been putting too much work into it (well, that and travelling around), soon as i start my new thread, you'll know about it :)

[Gingertipster]

Re: Lunatism’s Statistical Selections (lss) I am not surprised that you found it difficult to get a good price when betting on obscure leagues Loon. When there is only one or two bookmakers betting on an outcome he they will bet to a higher percentage (lower prices). Therefore far more difficult for the punter to show a profit. I am not in to football, but I'd have thought it best to concentrate on the leagues where there are more bookmakers offering prices, and easier to find out team news etc. With your analytical mind Loon, I would think you would find profit making easiser to work out the percentage chances of four or five matches in the bigger leagues than concentrating on systems for world football. When 2 or 3% either way can make the difference of a good or bad bet; I don't see how you can know team news, morale etc. about all these teams. I would imagine it might take at least half an hour per match to work out true odds. Team news, morale / confidence, referee, each teams recent form, home form, away form, form against each other. How each individual player is playing, are they scoring freely at the moment, leaking goals at the back. Is one team likely to cancel out the other. Working out all these things then giving each team and draw a percentage chance of winning. Convert to odds and back anything that you can get a better price for than your "true odds". Only a suggestion, as I do think your analytical mind is capable of doing this Loon. Ginge

[lunatism]

Re: Lunatism’s Statistical Selections (lss)

I am not surprised that you found it difficult to get a good price when betting on obscure leagues Loon. When there is only one or two bookmakers betting on an outcome he they will bet to a higher percentage (lower prices). Therefore far more difficult for the punter to show a profit

Might I add that there was never an issue of showing profit (being that I was most of the time IN profit) when I had the option of AH on the lower leagues, and despite bWin being the ONLY bookie to cover all the leagues for fixed odds, and Pinnacle being the ONLY bookie to cover most of the leagues for AH that I was interested in. So be it difficult or not, things were going fine (perhaps more than fine). Until Pinnacle pulled the plug, fair play to them, they were losing too much money from it and they did what any ruthless soul with brains does - cut off the weak link. It annoyed me no end, but now I understand why they did it, and I can't blame them.

Only a suggestion' date=' as I do think your analytical mind is capable of doing this Loon[/quote'] I appreciate the vote of confidence mate :ok

[Cogge]

Re: Lunatism’s Statistical Selections (lss)

I would imagine it might take at least half an hour per match to work out true odds.

More like 10 seconds, given he writes a program to do it :P 5 hours one-time is always better than 30 min infinite times :P

[lunatism]

Re: Lunatism’s Statistical Selections (lss)

5 hours one-time is always better than 30 min infinite times :P

that's the spirit (although that 5 hours is more like fifty :tongue2)

[Gingertipster]

Re: Lunatism’s Statistical Selections (lss)

More like 10 seconds, given he writes a program to do it :P 5 hours one-time is always better than 30 min infinite times :P

Don't see how it can be done. How can anyone write a programme that takes in to account how every player in every team around the world is playing? And how a team will be effected by one player not playing (injured). Sorry but can't be done effectively enough to produce accurate percentages. Ginge