I've been a professional sports handicapper for the past 15 years and have the sharpest minds in the business on my speed dial. There's no such thing as a perfect algorithm to predict the outcome of sports wagers. The three way wagering used frequently in soccer (what the Euros call "football") is even more difficult to predict.
One thing you said that is dead wrong is that "60% accuracy is the threshold to begin having very interesting economic results". That's dead wrong for the simple reason that the theoretical breakeven points for sports bets is different at different moneyline prices. Now, if you were able to get all of your bets at even money or the standard -110 dealt for sports with pointspreads you'd be raking in the cash. At -150, however, your *breakeven* point is 60%.
The problem with your formula is that a good many plays that an algorithm would predict correctly would be priced higher than -150. Looking at next Saturday's English Premier League, for example, Chelsea is priced right at -150 and Manchester United at a whopping -500. At -500, theoretical break even is somewhere around 85%. So if Man U loses or draws you've lost nearly the equivalent of 5 units of your wagering bankroll. With the frequency of draws in soccer you're going to eat a few big losers like this over the course of the year. So if your algorithm suggested bets on Chelsea and Man U next weekend lets assume that Chelsea wins and Man U loses. For the purpose of tabulating wins/losses your algorithm has gone 1-1 but in terms of wagering units you've really gone closer to 1-5 (1 unit won on Chelsea, 5 units lost on Man U).
More later...
|