Football teams, at this time of the year, can be cagey about the form they're in, which is what I'm hoping is also true of the MoS Funds. Together this week they managed to lose another 1.1% of the original Overall Portfolio Fund, the Head-to-Head Fund shedding 0.9c on a 2 from 4 performance, the Line Fund shedding 1.5c on a 2 from 5 performance, and the Overs/Unders Fund shedding 0.6c on a 3 from 6 performance.

That leaves the Overall Portfolio, having lost money the past four weeks, up by just 6.7c on the season.

The Overs/Unders Fund likes a lot of what it sees in this week's offerings, sufficient to make wagers in six of the nine games, which is the most it's made since Round 10 when it also made six bets.

As I've mentioned previously, I get nervous about wagering at this time of year because the motivations of teams become less clear. In modelling terms, this can manifest as a change in a team's mean ability, as an increase in the variability of its performance around that mean, or as both. All you can really do is abstain from wagering or hope that, on balance, the motivation-induced error and variance terms work in your favour.

Well that was quite a round.

Enough, in fact, to have MARS re-ranking half the teams and ChiPS re-ranking eight.

Another poor weekend's wagering saw almost 6c wiped off the value of the Overall Portfolio - another record - as both the Head-to-Head and Line Funds missed on all four of their wagers.  

In keeping with this week's theme of "balance", the Overs/Unders Fund has made four bets this week, two on the unders and two on the overs.

This week, Investors face no especially high-stakes games. the most radical head-to-head wager priced at just $2.60 and the largest line bet sized at just 1.5% of the Fund.

It was a relatively quiet week for team re-rankings on both MARS and ChiPS this week, with MARS promoting or demoting three teams by a single place and ChiPS doing the same for five teams.

Another loss this week, in fact the worst in a single round this season, as the losses from the Head-to-Head Fund's 1 from 5 and the Line Fund's 3 from 6 couldn't be overcome by the Overs/Unders Fund's profit on a 4 from 5 performance.

With the change to the methodology for predicting team and total scores as described in last week's blog, it appears we've entered a new phase of overs/unders wagering. For the first time in the Overs/Unders Fund's history, it's made more overs than unders wagers this week.

At this point in the season, with a number of teams looking to next year as their source for additional honours, I usually get a little nervous about how wise it is to be wagering essentially oblivious to that reality. This year is no different.

The Saturday of a golfing tournament is sometimes referred to as "moving day". Round 16 of the AFL appears to have been "moving week".

Though the Dons gave Investors (once again) false hope of an unlikely profit on the weekend, the eventual 2.6c loss for the Overall Portfolio was probably a fair reflection of the round.

The Overs/Unders Fund has gone all Goldilocks on more than half of the weekend's TAB Totals, declaring them "just right" and thus unsuitable for any investment. 

Both the Line Fund and the Head-to-Head Fund have taken the opportunity afforded by the first 9-game round for three weeks to ramp up their wagering activity, finding value in the first two and the last two games of the round.

A fairly quiet week for MoS' traditional Rating Systems, with MARS moving only six teams in total and just three teams by more than a single spot, and ChiPS also moving only six teams in total and just one by more than a single spot.

A perfect set of wagering results this week, with the lone head-to-head and line bets on Port Adelaide proving successful, and the Overs/Unders Fund guessing correctly in the five other games.

It looks as though Investors can safely rely on the Overs/Unders Fund to provide wagering action even when the two other Funds have decided to save their money for another day.

If last weekend's Head-to-Head and Line Fund activity levels seemed a little pedestrian, this weekend's have stopped only just shy of comatose.

It's a hallmark of ELO rating systems that their level of surprise determines the size of their rating response, and this week's results provides an interesting case study of this behaviour.