Triggers in Action — a new high-scale, transparent strategy-testing project

Thanks for this project. Apart from its stated purpose it is teaching me sophisticated coding techniques.
The one that appeals to me most is the greyhound recovery method. I tried it and after winning 2 targets it hit a rough patch where it lost twice what it had won. I think that the recovery is too tight and can be overcome. I'm experimenting to find the sweet spot.

I'm experimenting to find the sweet spot

Thank you for sharing!
Yes, experimenting is key here, 7 days is definitely not enough to fine-tune the strategy.

I feel more comfortable with max recovery odds set to a lower number than 9.0. It takes longer to recover but it lowers the risk of laying a dog at a long price during the recovery phase when a stake, not a liability, is being used.

Hi,

I would not use that system live , you will end up losing your bank as you have no edge. I would use it to help coding , but just laying the fav will not be profitable. If it’s not profitable level staking it will lose your bank using a recovery staking plan.

You must be talking about another method. This one never lays the fav.
Thanks for the advice, tho.

Sorry must have got the incorrect trigger, however the triggers tested for 7 days all lose long term. They are good for formulas tho.

Hopeful you won’t lose your bank , but honestly don’t use a staking plan with a system that cannot make profit level staking:).

7 days testing in meaningless, I agree and I'm running this in test mode. I agree with all your safety first comments.
I'll continue to test, as it is actually making a level stake profit after 500+ events.
Reversion to the mean is probably waiting around the corner.

It’s Lay Dutching with a bit of price adjustment. 

You initially place two lay bets on both players in the Match Odds market in Tennis. Unlike most tennis strategies, this one does not require the score to be available.

The bets must be calculated in such a way that the sum of their chances (100 divided by their price) is greater than 100 (how much greater is defined in the constants).

If both bets get matched as the game progresses, you earn profit and do nothing in that market.

If one of the bets stays unmatched and the market goes against you (either the price drifts away or the player shows signs of losing the set), cancel that bet and place a new one that distributes the loss equally.

Lay Dutching on players in Tennis

The main expectation behind this is that the prices of tennis players may change dramatically between the games, so there is often a chance that the favourite loses its position and the underdog comes forward as the new favourite (and thus his/her price drops). They sometimes swap places several times during the match.

Tested for 7 days, from 21/02/2019 to 27/02/2019.

If you have a large enough bank or if you don’t mind placing small bets (which BetFair will certainly frown upon if you abuse the system for a long time), then this strategy is for you.

It’s plain and simple: you lay against the score 0 – 3 or 3 – 0 in favour of the underdog at the beginning of a football match. For example, in a match Lille v Dijon, determine that Dijon is the underdog (and Lille is the favourite) and lay on 0 – 3 in Correct Score.

The prices will be formidably high (up to 1000), but so will be your chances to win that bet.

Triggers in Action: Laying against 0 - 3 or 3 - 0 in Correct Score (football) in favour of the underdog

Tested for 9 days, from 03/03/2019 to 11/03/2019

Hi Oxa,
This is the best concept I have seen on the site, so more power to you.
I have a query on the Back 0.5 goals with increasing bets.
If the only result we need is for just 1 goal to be scored, why distribute losses at 80 mins when you would be hoping for a last minute (or late) goal to give you a win?
Surely you would just allow the game to run to its conclusion?
I hope this is not another one of my stupid questions with an obvious answer, but please assist my permanent bewilderment.
Regards, bobh

If the only result we need is for just 1 goal to be scored, why distribute losses at 80 mins when you would be hoping for a last minute (or late) goal to give you a win?
Surely you would just allow the game to run to its conclusion?

Absolutely, you can try turning off the trade-out trigger! You are welcome to make such suggestions, in fact, I think it is a very sound one. Looking at the numbers, I can see that the final bank would have been a greater value without the lay bets.

Thank you.  I now feel it is possibly a little too early for me to enter the nursing home for the permanently bewildered!

Just on the 0.5 strategy, I don't spend much time on soccer as in-play betting on sports is banned in Australia, but I am always interested in new strategies, and occasionally will test one for a short time in test mode. But I do keep lots of stats on the major leagues, so this may be interesting for some subscribers.

0-0 wins around 8% of games.

This means that your average dividend to break even would need to be $1.09. Add on a margin to make profit after commission, and you will need an avge price of greater than $1.15 to make a profit long-term.

From results to date, the avge is less than that, which does not bode well for long-term profits using the existing method.

It is a fine balancing act to judge how much to outlay in the early bets at a much lower price compared to the 40 min bet at the higher price.

Or even if you could place more than three bets up to HT at shorter intervals to increase the average?

I'll leave it open for discussion, and I will keep "playing" with the variables to see if I can "crack it".

bobh

From results to date, the avge is less than that, which does not bode well for long-term profits using the existing method.

Did you measure the average weighted price of all the bets placed during those days or just the first bets in each market?

Average weighted price Oxa.

But that was from running a my own test overnight using the trigger you provided.

I did not download your own results during your own test week.

In my own test (I didn't keep the records unfortunately), I just downloaded to an Excel sheet, did the calcs, saw the results, and then discarded.

I will try to retest again tonight (my time).

If I can, I will also run another test changing the bets to initial 1.25% of bank, then 60% then 37.5%, which would total $27.50 from a $1,000 bank.

This should increase the average price.

bobh

But in my triggers, I had a minimum price to back at, exactly for the reasons you have described.

What was your minimum price?