Over on the Simulations blog as part of a more general investigation into the dynamics of the contest between punter and bookmaker in head-to-head wagering I've looked at the relationship between the probability score attained by the Head-to-Head Fund in each season and its profitability. What I found, among other things, was that the Fund's profitability was related not to the absolute probability score of the Fund algorithm, but to its probability score relative to the bookmaker's.
Just a quick post tonight in response to an interesting query from an Investor about the 'risk of ruin' of the Head-to-Head Fund. In other words, how likely is it that the Head-to-Head Fund will lose all of the money invested in it before the season's out.
To say that there's a 'bit in this blog' is like declaring the 100 year war 'a bit of a skirmish'.
I'll start by broadly explaining what I've done. In a previous blog I constructed 12 models, each attempting to predict the winner of an AFL game. The 12 models varied in two ways, firstly in terms of how the winning team was described ...
In conversation - and in interrogation, come to think of it - the key to getting a good answer is often in the framing of the question.
So too in statistical modelling, where one common method for asking a slightly different question of the data is to take the variables you have and transform them.
Consider for example the following results for four binary logits, each built to provide an answer to the question 'Under what circumstances does the team with the higher MARS Rating tend to win?'.
In earlier blogs I've claimed that there's not much additional information in bookie prices that's useful for predicting victory margins than what can be derived from a statistical analysis of recent results and an understanding of game venues.