Stephen left a comment under yesterday's post that touched upon a part of the thought process I went through when considering the reintroduction of Football Investor to the portfolio. With plans to expand the selection of The Football Analyst systems utilised in Season 2013/14, would following Football Investor bets not lead to a fair amount of correlation in the teams being backed each week?
I think it is fair to say that yes, there will be some correlation, but I don't see this as being a problem in any way at all. First of all, when looking at the portfolio as a whole, it is set up pretty nicely in terms of minimising correlation. It is inevitable that there will be some, but thus far, very little. Some correlation between the two football ratings services should represent only a very small part of the overall portfolio turnover. Secondly - and this is a more significant point - both Graeme (TFA) and Stewboss (FI) have identified and exploited the potential of the teams that are picked out by two or more of their own respective systems. I'll let you draw your own conclusions, but you can probably see what I'm thinking.
In the interests of transparency, I declare now though that I have already reached the stage of placing 99% of my football/sports bets with one of Pinnacle, 12bet, 188bet and SBO. I can get the odd bet on with Coral, Hills, and Bwin, but the days of me trawling through a host of bookies seeking the stand out price are long gone, I'm afraid. The knock on effect of this lack of choice in terms of where I can strike my football bets is that I am highly unlikely to be able to match the officially recorded ROI figures of the football services I follow. Again though, I am unconcerned. Let's remember that the point of the exercise in following more TFA systems and adding FI to the mix is to increase betting turnover and ROC, the new altar at which I worship.
I don't want anyone to be under the misconception that if and when the results recorded on this blog are running at lower levels of roi than those officially recorded by the services involved is due to those services being unfair or unrealistic in the way they record their performance. Let's face it, this is an accusation that can be levelled at some of the less scrupulous operators with some justification. There is an interesting debate around this subject in the SBC forum presently. It's noticeable that the main protagonists in that debate are the tipsters who, in my experience, operate the fairest policies towards the odds that they use to record their official results.
This is a subject I intend to discuss further in here. Not the content of the SBC forum debate, as that would be unfair. More the approach I take to trying to secure the best odds possible for each of the bets I place. Generally speaking, this involves no more than striking the bets as soon as I can after they hit my inbox, but there are one or two other points that are worth exploring.
More on this tomorrow.
Monday 8th April
Another losing day yesterday, although only mildly so. It would be nice to post a winning day sooner rather than later though, just so we can say that the recent rot has possibly been stopped.
No joy for On The Nose (0/1), Football Investor (Strike Zone) (0/1), or Football Investor (Combo) (0/1).
The one Winning Racing Tips bet finished second, providing a tiny profit (took me three bookmakers to get the bet on though, which isn't good!).
On The Nose: Staked 0.5pts, -0.5pts.
Winning Racing Tips: Staked 0.8pts, +0.033pts.
Football Investor (Strike Zone): Staked 1pt, -1pt.
Football Investor (Combo): Staked 1pt, -1pt.