Having paper traded qualifying matches for 4 days, with 92 qualifying matches I think I can start pulling some conclusions together. Below is the summary page from my spreadsheet:
With a strike rate of nearly 36% and a return on investment of just under 25% this little experiment tells me, first and foremost, that my simple selection criteria are actually quite accurate and reliable. The frequency of our scores, in all three instances, is above the averaged frequency figures for the major European leagues (i.e. in our games 1-1 has been the result in 13% of matches against an average of just over 12% in the leagues.). This is just what I would hope and expect to see as we are actively trying to seek these results out!
Whilst it would be interesting to continue with this exercise over a more meaningful time scale I am going to leave that to others more motivated than me! I am convinced that I don't need to tweak my match selection criteria too much to produce a workable mechanical trade, although in reality I often so this trade with favourites a bit shorter and dogs a bit bigger than the limits I set myself here. When I look at some of those 92 games I am convinced I would have made more trading them - the 2-2 matches for example - must, by definition have passed through 1-2 or 2-1, and some of them would have passed through 1-1 as well. The green opportunities were there!
Did you do fixed staking on the scores or did it vary, dutch etc? Would there have been a difference in the P&L if you had staked differently?
ReplyDeleteThis was a paper trade Mike, and the stakes and odds assumptions are detailed in an earlier post. I've done no further analysis - the aim was to establish the accuracy of my match selection criteria for the trade, and I think it has achieved that aim.
ReplyDelete