# Thank the Crows and Blame the Saints

Which teams do you think have generated the most profit for each Fund, and which have inflicted the greatest losses?

When I've looked at this question in the past I've tended to take the most obvious approach to the analysis whereby I've calculated for each team the Return on Net Funds that has resulted from wagers on that. In short, what I've done is to determine how many cents each team has added to or subtracted from the value of a particular Fund as a result of the wagering returns it has directly provided.

This approach ignores another way that teams alter the value of Funds: by losing when they're expected to. If I wager on the Cats to beat the Tigers and the Tigers win, then the Tigers are at least as much to blame for my loss as are the Cats. So, in the analysis that follows, I credit and debit both of the teams involved in the outcome of each wager and derive a measure that I call the RONF Contribution of each team.

Here's the data for the New Heritage Fund.

Consider the row for Adelaide. It reflects the fact that the New Heritage has wagered on the Crows 4 times so far this season, winning 3 bets and losing the other. The total amount wagered in these 4 bets represented just over 29% of the Initial Funds in New Heritage and the return on those wagers was 37.8%. In aggregate, these wagers have produced an 11.1c increase in the value of the New Heritage Fund.

This Fund has also wagered against Adelaide on 6 occasions, winning the bet in 4 of those contests (when the Crows lost) and losing the other two. The total amount outlayed in those bets was about 47% of the Fund, the return on the wagers was about 16%, so the increase to the value of the Fund was 7.4%.

The RONF Contribution for Adelaide for the New Heritage Fund is then calculated by taking one-half of the RONF for the wagers made on Adelaide and one-half of the RONF for the wagers made against Adelaide.

Here are some of my highlights from this table:

• Adelaide has the highest RONF Contribution (9.3%), a result of a 3 and 1 performance when the Crows have been wagered on and a 4 and 2 performance when they've been wagered against.
• Sydney has the next highest RONF Contribution (8.5%), a result of a 3 and 2 performance when wagered on and a 3 and 0 performance when wagered against.
• St Kilda has the lowest RONF Contribution (-23.8%), which has come from a 2 and 3 performance when the Saints have been wagered on and a 1 and 4 performance when wagered against.
• All teams have been wagered on by this Fund at least once. Richmond has been wagered on least often (2 games), and Geelong and Collingwood most often (8 games).
• Geelong is the only team that the Fund has never wagered against. The Dogs have been wagered against only once - and successfully.
• Games in which the Dogs have participated have been those most likely to be passed over by the Fund. In only 7 of the Dogs' 18 contests has a wager been made.
• Games in which the Roos have participated have been those most likely to be wagered on. In 11 of the Roos' 18 contests a wager has been made. In total more than the entire initial value of the Fund has been wagered on games involving the Roos.
• The average bet size has exceeded 10% of the Fund for four teams: Essendon, Fremantle, Geelong and St Kilda. On none of these teams has a net profit been realised. The single losing wager on the Cats has wiped out the entire profit from the 7 successful wagers on them.
• For four teams also the average bet against has exceeded 10%: Fremantle, Kangaroos, Richmond and West Coast. Amongst these four teams only the wagers against the Roos have contributed a net profit.
• Finally, there are only four teams that this Fund has made a profit from when wagering on and wagering against: Adelaide, the Roos, Sydney and the Dogs.

Now the table for Prudence:

Some highlights:

• This Fund's conservative nature has kept the RONF Contribution for all teams in a narrow band, from +3.6% to -4.2%
• Sydney has the highest RONF Contribution (3.6%), a result of a 3 and 0 performance when the Swans have been wagered on and a 2 and 0 performance when they've been wagered against.
• Hawthorn has the next highest RONF Contribution (3.6%), which comes from 4 and 0, and 2 and 0 performances.
• St Kilda, again, has the lowest RONF Contribution (-4.2%), due to 2 and 2, and 0 and 1 performances.
• All teams have been wagered on by this Fund at least once. Geelong has been wagered on most often (7 times) and Port Adelaide least often (once).
• Neither Geelong nor the Dogs have been wagered against by this Fund.
• Games in which the Blues have participated have been those most likely to be passed over by the Fund. In only 4 of the Blues' 18 contests has a wager been made.
• Games in which the Roos have participated have been those most likely to be wagered on. Bets have been made on 10 of the Roos' contests, these bets totalling 42% of the Fund.
• The average bet size has exceeded 5% of the Fund for only two teams: Collingwood and Geelong. The wagers on Collingwood have generated a small profit, on Geelong a small loss.
• For another two teams the average bet against has exceeded 5%: Kangaroos and Richmond. The Roos wagers have been modestly profitable and the Tigers wagers relatively unprofitable.
• This Fund has made a profit when wagering on and wagering against six teams: Adelaide, Hawthorn, the Roos, Melbourne, Sydney and the Dogs.

Next, Hope:

The highlights:

• Adelaide has the highest RONF Contribution (12.4%) from 5 successful wagers, 3 on the Crows and 2 against them.
• Hawthorn has the next highest RONF Contribution (10%), from 1 and 0, and 2 and 1 performances.
• Geelong has the lowest RONF Contribution (-5.9%), from 6 wagers all against the Cats, 5 of them ill-advised.
• Neither Geelong or the Dogs have been wagered on. Melbourne, Richmond and West Coast have been wagered on most often (4 times each).
• Three teams have not been wagered against by this Fund: Port Adelaide, Richmond and West Coast. Geelong has been most often wagered against (6 times).
• Games in which the Blues or Port have participated have been those most likely to be passed over by the Fund. In only 2 of their 18 contests has a wager been made.
• Games in which the Cats have participated have been those most likely to be wagered on. Bets have been made on 6 such contests, totalling 34% of the Fund.
• The average bet size has exceeded 5% of the Fund only for Essendon. In aggregate these have not been profitable.
• For another two teams the average bet against has exceeded 5%: Geelong and the Dogs. For neither team have these, in aggregate, been profitable.
• This Fund has made a profit when wagering on and wagering against three teams: Adelaide, Hawthorn and Melbourne.

Now, Shadow, Ghost Canine who Bets:

And the highlights:

• Adelaide once again has the highest RONF Contribution (7.8%), here from 6 successful wagers, 4 on the Crows and 2 against them.
• Hawthorn has the next highest RONF Contribution (5.3%), also from 6 successful wagers, 5 on the Hawks and 1 against them.
• Port Adelaide has the lowest RONF Contribution (-6.1%), from 6 wagers, 3 on Port, which have all been lost and another three against them, which have all been successful (though not sufficiently lucrative to offset the damage caused by the other 3 bets).
• Neither Richmond nor West Coast have been wagered on. The Dogs have been wagered on most often (6 times).
• No team has not been wagered against by this Fund.
• Games in which the Saints have participated have been those most likely to be passed over by the Fund. In only 4 of their 18 contests has a wager been made.
• Games in which the Blues, the Dogs or the Lions have participated have been those most likely to be wagered on. Bets have been made on 7 such contests, totalling 35% of the Fund in the case of each team.
• This Fund has made a profit when wagering on and wagering against just two teams: Adelaide and Hawthorn.

Next, Heuristic-Based, which was the responsibility of Shadow for the first 12 rounds of the season and which has been in the care of Short-Term Memory since then.

And the highlights:

• Adelaide yet again has the highest RONF Contribution (17.9%), here from 8 successful wagers, 4 on and 4 against the Crows.
• Geelong has the next highest RONF Contribution (12.8%), stemming from 10 wagers, 5 on the Cats of which 4 have been successful, and 5 against the Cats of which 3 more have produced a return.
• Port Adelaide has the lowest RONF Contribution (-6.8%), from 9 wagers, 5 on Port for a 1 and 4 performance, and 4 against them, all successful (but, once more, not sufficiently lucrative).
• All teams have been wagered on by this Fund at least once. The Dogs have been wagered on most often (10 times), the Lions and West Coast least often (once each).
• No team has not been wagered against by this Fund. The Lions and the Dons have been wagered against most often (8 times each), and the Dogs least often (once only).
• Games in which the Swans have participated have been those most likely to be passed over by the Fund. In only 7 of their 18 contests has a wager been made.
• Games in which the Pies or the Dogs have participated have been those most likely to be wagered on. Bets have been made on 11 such contests, totalling 55% of the Fund in the case of each team.
• This Fund has made a profit when wagering on and wagering against four teams: Adelaide, the Lions, Melbourne and Sydney.

Finally, the line betting ELO-Line:

For which, the highlights are:

• Brisbane and Melbourne have the highest RONF Contributions (13.0%). For Melbourne, the contribution has come from 3 successful wagers on the Dees from 3 bets, and 4 more successful wagers from 5 against them. For the Lions it's come from 2 and 2, and 6 and 0 performances.
• Geelong has the lowest RONF Contribution (-10.8%), from 10 wagers, 5 on the Cats for a 2 and 3 record, and 5 more against them, for a 1 and 4 record.
• All teams have been wagered on by this Fund at least once. Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon and Sydney have been wagered on most often (6 times each), Hawthorn and Richmond least often (once each).
• No team has not been wagered against by this Fund. The Lions and Hawthorn have been wagered against most often (6 times each), and Sydney least often (once only).
• Games in which West Coast have participated have been those most likely to be passed over by the Fund. In only 5 of their 18 contests has a wager been made.
• Games in which the Pies have participated have been those most likely to be wagered on. Bets have been made on 11 such contests, totalling 55% of the Fund.
• This Fund has made a profit when wagering on and wagering against four teams: Essendon, the Roos, Richmond and Melbourne.

To finish, let's bring all the RONF Contributions together for each team:

So, if you've the Recommended Portfolio you can thank Adelaide for almost a 9c increase in Portfolio value, Hawthorn for almost 5c more, and the Lions, Melbourne and Sydney for about another 3c each.

You can also blame the Saints for destroying 8c worth of value, West Coast for over 4c more, and Carlton for almost another 4c. Essendon, Port and Richmond are each responsible for about another 3c each of value destruction.

Comment