BOYS! So glad to see this still plugging away...
i second your opinion, because i know there is bias in this approach. when you take all the things working up to date of course you will get positive results backtesting. it is important now to create winning edges. because of that i am looking for the trends since we added them. in the hl it gave us 50+ units.Originally Posted by dmitean
To be honest, I'm not big believer in Nash's tests, unless Nash corrects me. All the queries we added during this season - we added since they work this season.
If I will add now a query that is 24 - 5 this season, looking back, it will boost the stats, but wouldn't have increased our profit during the season and there is no way to know if it will conitnue to work.
I think the counter point to the short term bias of Nash' s back testing is the sample size. Between nhl and nba the raw number of plays was over 4000, which makes the results very compelling from a statistical standpoint.
I think this is where it becomes very important to groom the trends and cut out ones that don't have a good long term profile. Caution is still a good idea, but it would take a massive number of trends that were really good short term and bad long term to significantly shift a sample that large.
Some of our trends are indeed flashes in the pan, but more often they seem to have at least a fair long term profile. I agree with Nash's example of NHL 3-9. They are clearly short term successes, and should therefore be judged more harshly. The more of those we can ID and weed out (or at least mitigate to the side), the more stable the results should be long term.
Maybe I'll grind out a previous season's raw results over the weekend and see what it would have looked like (2012 for example)
I firmly against myself for LT trends and much prefer ST trends.
I feel that NBA has evolved and more important, bookies have evolved. If 4 - 5 seasons ago, I could easily find a raw line, now? Everything is very tight.
Public is much more aware of everything and the lines are much more correct.
I could care less what happened in 2011 or 2010. 2012 if it's very small sample size can matter, but basically, I'm looking at >2013 and >2012.
The only exception is monthly based queries. Some queries work well only on certain months and if we are on February 2nd and I know this is a query that works well in February, I don't care as much that it has poor results this season. If it's February 25th and still poor results... than I wouldn't play it.
I correct myself, obviously if in 2010 and 2004 and 1998 results are also good, I don't mind that. I'm just saying that I really don't care about it...
yep! and factoring in today's lines/totals within the trend and most importantly the margins.I firmly against myself for LT trends and much prefer ST trends.
I feel that NBA has evolved and more important, bookies have evolved. If 4 - 5 seasons ago, I could easily find a raw line, now? Everything is very tight.
Public is much more aware of everything and the lines are much more correct.
I could care less what happened in 2011 or 2010. 2012 if it's very small sample size can matter, but basically, I'm looking at >2013 and >2012.
The only exception is monthly based queries. Some queries work well only on certain months and if we are on February 2nd and I know this is a query that works well in February, I don't care as much that it has poor results this season. If it's February 25th and still poor results... than I wouldn't play it.
hi nash13 ... your method is great
Is it possible further decrease the volumn and increase the winning rate?
1.select a threshhold. like 3-0 or 4-0 bet 1 unit (3-0 mean 3 trend support,0 trend against it )
or
2. 3-0 bet 1 unit,6-0 bet 2 unit,9-0 bet 3 unit
this will not increase the profit, but lower the volume. but it is a possiblity for trust.hi nash13 ... your method is great
Is it possible further decrease the volumn and increase the winning rate?
1.select a threshhold. like 3-0 or 4-0 bet 1 unit (3-0 mean 3 trend support,0 trend against it )
or
2. 3-0 bet 1 unit,6-0 bet 2 unit,9-0 bet 3 unit
Last 3 days system is performing very very well.
+12 units yesterday
+36 units in three days. NHL and NBA are doing great.
hi nash13
Do you bet real money or just simulation?
very small bets as of right now, don't want to risk a lot in this evaluation phasehi nash13
Do you bet real money or just simulation?
Last 4 days NBA has been exactly break even for me, but NHL has been really good at +19 units.Last 3 days system is performing very very well.
+12 units yesterday
+36 units in three days. NHL and NBA are doing great.
I've been doing the larger volume variation where I play one unit on all non-conflicted trends.
But that's 4000 plays spread over like ~200 queries. That averages about 20 plays per query which is not a big sample size by any means. We've been cherry picking the queries that show solid win % and I can guarantee some of those queries are just purely random luck that they have solid win %. Filtering out the noise is the real art to the SDQL in my opinion.I think the counter point to the short term bias of Nash' s back testing is the sample size. Between nhl and nba the raw number of plays was over 4000, which makes the results very compelling from a statistical standpoint.
Also I should have mentioned in my earlier post about poor January performance that I ONLY place ATS queries and that number was just for NBA only. The NCAABB totals have been very good to me this month and basically kept me treading water. Sounds like the NBA totals are hitting pretty good recently as well.
I suppose it depends on how you define things. I'm considering all the queries as the pool. I could be wrong, but I think it's reasonable to consider their net result as a statistical group. I do think separating by sport is appropriate, however.But that's 4000 plays spread over like ~200 queries. That averages about 20 plays per query which is not a big sample size by any means. We've been cherry picking the queries that show solid win % and I can guarantee some of those queries are just purely random luck that they have solid win %. Filtering out the noise is the real art to the SDQL in my opinion.
Also I should have mentioned in my earlier post about poor January performance that I ONLY place ATS queries and that number was just for NBA only. The NCAABB totals have been very good to me this month and basically kept me treading water. Sounds like the NBA totals are hitting pretty good recently as well.
I'm currently backtesting the NHL for season '13,'11, and '08 using season filters on SDB (so I can't account for conflicting/duplicates). I'll post results when I'm done, but so far the results are fairly consistent with what Nash13 found for 2014 earlier this month. I'll do NBA too, but 168 trends was easier to bite off than 280.
i can assure you that you will find big successful data in the backtest. why? because the main filters with the queries must be positive, because they are all profitable backwards. it is better to look forward from the point when you recognized the trend. if it stays on track it could be possible that you are on to something.I suppose it depends on how you define things. I'm considering all the queries as the pool. I could be wrong, but I think it's reasonable to consider their net result as a statistical group. I do think separating by sport is appropriate, however.
I'm currently backtesting the NHL for season '13,'11, and '08 using season filters on SDB (so I can't account for conflicting/duplicates). I'll post results when I'm done, but so far the results are fairly consistent with what Nash13 found for 2014 earlier this month. I'll do NBA too, but 168 trends was easier to bite off than 280.
i can not understand the negativity towards the trend analyzing. some of them are just "noise" but i see it more as a mixture of factors which came together under support the same approach simultaneously. there is no harm in trying.
