STATS in sports

I've often said that in betting, the only people that profit from stats are the bookmakers.

Perhaps a simple view but on the surface, the past is not the best way to predict the future.

I've always taken the view that the 'context' of the stat is most important. 

The light bulb for me came in horse racing when I started developing my own ratings.  How quickly it becomes apparent that a horse who finished 6th can run faster than a horse that finished 2nd in another race.  Even without ratings, looking at the lengths behind the winner can carry greater weight than how a horse "places", a number assigned to when it crossed the line, not how it crossed the line.

But you listen to pundits who will say a horse has placed on its last three outings, the papers and bookies also taking that stance.

Another example is tennis stats.  I spent two year developing a rating that is given to a players performance.  Again, the numbers build pictures on a players ability rather than their win/loss percentage. 

Often, I will have a player go 3-1 in a tournament losing in the final.  It becomes the name that everyone remembers.  Meanwhile, another player went 1-1 against two better opponents and, in my book, gained some points in defeat and close to the player who went on.  From there, it is a matter of weighing out the value against the rankings.

Tennis will hit you with a flurry of stats.  But when you watch a match, again, the context then defines the weight you put on it rather than generalizing it.  Break Point stats say more about a player able to defend than a player able to attack their opponent.  And a solid serve percentage means less when it is over two sets.  The number of players, especially ranked in the mid-Top 100 whose service percentage drops rapidly in the third set are there.  Thus when against a player who pushes the points even over two sets will often falter during the crunch of a second set. 

The bookmakers greatest tease for a punter is the past encounters.  3-1 will say the stat and 1.60 if you back him.   But when one of those wins was in 2009 on a different surface than the match at hand, a line goes through it.

Then when you see that when they last met, the losing player was in the middle of a slump, losses flanked on both sides, again, the weight of that victory is questioned.

And in football, the 'form' stat is outdated.  With International, Cup and FA rounds in between,  the 'last six matches' is, again, a bookies dream.  Then, obviously, who were these teams they played?  A big difference between Man City and Fulham.

Scraping away at headline stats can often find value.  Similar to a 'diamond in the rough'

My latest koo is looking how teams perform IN DEFEAT rather than in victory.  On the weekend, Crystal Palace were expected to lose to Arsenal.  But value on backing Arsenal wasn't there.  The angle: Looking at the 'defeats', Crystal Palace still manage to play strongly in the first 45 minutes, their opponents needing to regroup at half-time to beat them.  Thus DRAW/ARSENAL the play at 7/2.

For U.S. sports, the stats on baseball are presented in such a way that the lights will never go out in Vegas or New Jersey.

Two seasons ago, I started looking at how teams did over certain intervals of a nine inning game.  It took a few twists and turns but eventually I found a strong window to rate a teams performance and it has nothing to do with the result but a period within the game.

When I put my 'ratings' against 'the standings', the differences were there and an edge was created. 

Bookies will put up 'Runs Per Game'.  No one puts up 'Runs per 9 innings'.  The extra innings in baseball are thrown into the stats.  There are no ties in baseball.  But, for me, if I am going to back a team, I want them to win in nine innings so that is the performance I look at, discounting the hits, the runs, the pitching during any extra period.

Last year, I built a picture on an NFL game (I believe it was Lions v Vikings).  Every way I approached it, the Vikings came out on top.  What the headlines said was that out of 11 visits to Detroit, the Vikings had only won twice.  The odds and line went that way.  I wagered on both and won.

A friend of mine who bets extensively on NFL created his own 'scoring' for matches.  A simple system that defines points for a type of score.  Examples, a field-goal merits one point.  A touchdown merits 3 to 5.  He also has a stat where each completed pass represents 'X' amount of yards.  No minimum or maximum ("one 70 yard pass/run with two 25 yard passes can totally skew the stats").  That was when we were in university together.  It is a bit more extensive now but still sticks to its roots.

I realize I've stated the obvious and, yes, stats are part of ones research.  But it is a matter of avoiding what I call 'the noise' and hype that stats can bring to an event.

Any views are, of course, welcome.