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.
I should probably have noticed this sooner, but last year was quite a profitable year for blindly wagering on Home Teams. A gambler who level-staked the AFL Designated Home Team in every game in the head-to-head and in the line market would have recorded an 8.4% ROI on his or her head-to-head wagers and a 4.1% ROI on his or her line wagers.
Over on the MAFL Wagers & Tips blog I've been introducing the updated versions of the Heuristics, in this post and in this post. I've shown there that these heuristics are, individually, at least moderately adept at predicting historical AFL outcomes.
All told, there are eleven heuristics, comfortably enough to form an ensemble, so in the spirit of the previous entry in MAFL Statistical Analyses, the question must be asked: can I find a subset of the heuristics which, collectively, using a majority voting scheme, tips better than any one of them alone?