AFL Mullumby Defender

Hmm after weekly manually calculating the MAE of all the other Squiggle Models  I have decided to use the 2017 data to predict early 2018 rounds - we will see how well this works.

Well we only had one bet, and the Cameron KO in the 1st quarter of the highest ranked defender (who happened to be a full back) probably swayed the result. We lost by 1 goal and the restructure caused to Brisbane has reignited the red card debate. So, for those still on the train I have indicated the two games that made the cut, until reliability was applied (in blue) as well as two selected games for round 15.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/25uv6h3dmvlprxo/rounds%207%20to%2013%20Mullumby%20Defender.xlsx?dl=0 Dropbox link to excel

After the numerical analysis, I have been directed to "Kelly Criterion" which corroborates the work I did AND provides the theoretical basis to examine past Mullumby Defender Data to work out the best betting strategy for the future. http://www.elem.com/~btilly/kelly-criterion/ Reliability 0% means not using the 2018 developed reliability (at respectively winning and losing selected bets), so MORE bets, but lower % won. The column is filled with the ACTUAL percentage of the selected bets won that season. next column is number of games selected in the season Proportion is the "Kelly recommended" proportion to bet. Return over bets is calculated return for proportion, probability and number of games. Reliability 35% is the statistics with bets of reliability less than 35% discarded Reliability (% wins when selected for the winner * % losses when selected as loser for the loser) 40% is the Kelly recommendation for the reliability 35 % method, but in...

Well, Tables first Very much middle of an impressive field, of course, Defender focusses on detecting bets it performs best with. So how do the models like the line bets on offer? Interesting that ALL the models like the single defender selected bet for the round, and that there is disagreement on every other line bet. Also, interesting that for the first time Defender is 1 out on calling Melbourne to win.

Worth noting that both Collingwood and Hawthorn "would" be bets except that Mullumby Defender automatically rejects all bets with lines less than -44 (but gee I like them). No bet will be placed on them.

The wandering drunkard is the base problem for a LOT of Statistical Physics. Have a read https://medium.com/i-math/the-drunkards-walk-explained-48a0205d304 Essentially the mathematics of a "item" with a probability of stepping right (winning) or stepping left (losing), then repeating forever. So if we have a succession of bets lined up that we "know" the probability of winning (say 0.6) then what % of the betting pool should each bet be to maximise profit? If you bet 100% of the pool each time, very quickly you have no money at all. Conversely, if you bet 0.000001% of the pool each time, well your pool will barely change size. So for a given probability of winning, what is the best fractional bet for "the next step"? A numerical analysis solution (over a thousand simulated bets, starting with $100) yields if p=0.7 win    fraction bet = 68% and above => $0 return over time    Otimal bet fraction  = 35%   return (2x10^35) if ...