Certified Legendary Thread Squiggle 2017

Remove this Banner Ad

SterlingArcher said:
Final Siren

Probably been answered before, but interested to know the Squiggles tipping percentage for early in the year v later in the year.

My only thoughts were that the predicted ladder only has teams moving 2-3 spots generally. I understand the reasons for this, but am curious as to whether this affects early season (say first 6 rounds) tipping results as the Squiggle adjusts, because there's always a bolter or 2 and a slider or 2, compared to later in the year when it's motoring along?

Or does the Squiggle somehow tip consistently from round 1, and if so, what's the theory for that?

Cheers
Click to expand...
Last year I started paying more attention to this kind of thing. I found three things mainly affect tip accuracy:
  • Margin: The greater the predicted margin, the more likely the tip is to be correct.

  • Round Number: Games that occur later in the season are more likely to be tipped correctly.

  • Weeks Until Game: Games that are far in the future are less likely to be tipped correctly.
Margin is by far the biggest factor, of course.

Round Number is fairly significant, with average tip accuracy rising from about 66% at the start of the year to about 70% by mid-year.

And Weeks Until Game is significant, but less so than you'd think: squiggle only loses around 3 percentage points of accuracy tipping 20 weeks in the future vs tipping the current week. I posted about this last year, because it's funny how it's not much easier to tip Round 23 the week before than it is months and months before.

As for the ladder predictor, you're right that most seasons have at least one big bolter or slider -- just like most rounds of football have at least one big upset. But it's one thing to know there will be a surprise somewhere; it's another to say what the surprise will be. You will usually be more accurate by tipping the most likely outcomes all the time and just accepting that some will be wrong than by trying to guess the upset, unless you have some kind of special insight or inside info. So that's what squiggle does.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Doctor Gero said:
That. It's incredibly grating when fans of historically strong clubs belittle the opinions of other fans merely because they've followed a team devoid of success. Maybe next time remember you haven't won a final for 13 years, so we can all play that card.
Click to expand...
62394.jpg
 
Hey Final Siren is there a squiggle that includes revery VFL/AFL game? Would be interested to see where clubs sit all-time.
 
Final Siren said:
Last year I started paying more attention to this kind of thing. I found three things mainly affect tip accuracy:
  • Margin: The greater the predicted margin, the more likely the tip is to be correct.

  • Round Number: Games that occur later in the season are more likely to be tipped correctly.

  • Weeks Until Game: Games that are far in the future are less likely to be tipped correctly.
Margin is by far the biggest factor, of course.

Round Number is fairly significant, with average tip accuracy rising from about 66% at the start of the year to about 70% by mid-year.

And Weeks Until Game is significant, but less so than you'd think: squiggle only loses around 3 percentage points of accuracy tipping 20 weeks in the future vs tipping the current week. I posted about this last year, because it's funny how it's not much easier to tip Round 23 the week before than it is months and months before.

As for the ladder predictor, you're right that most seasons have at least one big bolter or slider -- just like most rounds of football have at least one big upset. But it's one thing to know there will be a surprise somewhere; it's another to say what the surprise will be. You will usually be more accurate by tipping the most likely outcomes all the time and just accepting that some will be wrong than by trying to guess the upset, unless you have some kind of special insight or inside info. So that's what squiggle does.
Click to expand...

Cheers for that. I guess my suspicions were sort of correct but not a huge difference really.

Just a follow up question if you're happy to share these stats - if round number is a difference of 4%, what is the difference in margin tipping (say under 20 v over 20, or whatever the Squiggle deems to be a small v large margin).
 
The best thing about footy is here

Am I the nonly person who when watches a game is therE thinking 'how will this affect the squiggle"
 
Last edited:
Final Siren said:
Long and erect. You can probably imagine it from this image I posted last year:

c4viXMA.jpg


GWS in 2012 and 2013 were absolute trash. They were so bad, they passed beyond our ability to categorize, because we think the bottom standard is Fitzroy. But Fitzroy 1996 were actually competitive before the VFL ripped out their hearts and they lost their last 3 games by an average of 108 points. GWS were rubbish from start to finish.

GWS were so bad that they made Melbourne 2013 look sort of all right, and they weren't. They were not all right.
Click to expand...
Do you sell this in poster size?

Asking for a friend.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Squiggle Dials! Now I pull together tips from the best online models for you:

https://squiggle.com.au <-- I made a site

Currently looks like this:

jc0364m.png

My plan is also to post links there to online analysis from sites like The Arc, Figuring Footy, Matter of Stats, and FootyMaths Institute. Because they produce some really great stuff, which I think most people don't even notice. I'm not sure if I'll be able to keep up with this throughout the year, but I'll give it a shot.
 
Final Siren said:
Squiggle Dials! Now I pull together tips from the best online models for you:

https://squiggle.com.au <-- I made a site

Currently looks like this:

jc0364m.png

My plan is also to post links there to online analysis from sites like The Arc, Figuring Footy, Matter of Stats, and FootyMaths Institute. Because they produce some really great stuff, which I think most people don't even notice. I'm not sure if I'll be able to keep up with this throughout the year, but I'll give it a shot.
Click to expand...

Looks nice.

If one were to use this to assist in betting would I be right in saying that North @ $3 is probably a good bet, given the aggregate is about 50/50 for that one?

While Adelaide @ $2.35 would also be a good bet given they're slightly favoured.

Finally Hawks @ $1.61 seem good odds for the team rated most likely to win.
 
nameless said:
Looks nice.

If one were to use this to assist in betting would I be right in saying that North @ $3 is probably a good bet, given the aggregate is about 50/50 for that one?

While Adelaide @ $2.35 would also be a good bet given they're slightly favoured.

Finally Hawks @ $1.61 seem good odds for the team rated most likely to win.
Click to expand...
That's a valid assumption if the models are better predictors than the bookies.

The real question is why there's a marked difference between the bookies and the models! There are quite a few R1 games like this. On the site, you can see that Punters (which are really bookies) are a lot more optimistic about Essendon's chances against the Hawks, for example, and more pessimistic about North's vs West Coast.

What's going on is information asymmetry: Punters know something the models don't. None of the models (I think) are sensitive to off-season personnel changes, so they don't know that Essendon is regaining a bunch of players as well as, perhaps, some self-belief and passion, nor do they know that North cut a bunch of veterans while West Coast acquired a player who's so good he won a Brownlow in the off-season.

So the Punters have an advantage over the models here, and I reckon they're probably more right. It's hard to beat the bookies at the best of times, and this isn't the best of times: it's been six months since the models last tasted fresh data, while human beings have had that time to think about just nine games. That's an advantage-humans situation. In a few rounds time, it should balance out, as we start to struggle to make intuitive sense of the mix of results, while the computers can go about processing it and forming objective conclusions.
 
Final Siren said:
That's a valid assumption if the models are better predictors than the bookies.

The real question is why there's a marked difference between the bookies and the models! There are quite a few R1 games like this. On the site, you can see that Punters (which are really bookies) are a lot more optimistic about Essendon's chances against the Hawks, for example, and more pessimistic about North's vs West Coast.
Click to expand...
But how much is allowed for Bookies Bait? ie setting a price to attract more flies?
 
GreyCrow said:
But how much is allowed for Bookies Bait? ie setting a price to attract more flies?
Click to expand...
I find it goes the flipside a lot.

EG Collingwood - often are short (particularly against non-Vic sides) due to the average Pies punter.
 
Final Siren said:
Squiggle Dials! Now I pull together tips from the best online models for you:

https://squiggle.com.au <-- I made a site

Currently looks like this:

jc0364m.png

My plan is also to post links there to online analysis from sites like The Arc, Figuring Footy, Matter of Stats, and FootyMaths Institute. Because they produce some really great stuff, which I think most people don't even notice. I'm not sure if I'll be able to keep up with this throughout the year, but I'll give it a shot.
Click to expand...
Can you make them max out at 11?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Always Ballin
Carlton 2022 = Melbourne 2017
2
Replies
46
Views
1K
Gysberts2Bate
Gysberts2Bate
CASEYS9420
Opinion Richmonds 2017-20 Dynasty would have beaten every other Premiership side of the 2010's
10 11 12 13 14
Replies
344
Views
10K
Nebular
Nebular

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top