I can subjectively agree. I do think that both ways are about as good, however someone who bets based on their own judgement makes more mistakes because it's often a biased and/or misjudged analysis, whereas I with my statistical approach always know exactly what I am going to do.SuperSwede wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2020 4:54 pm I like to think I am a hybrid of the two but given the choice of the options you gave i'd side with your approach simply because the other will be more likely to drastically increase stakes and chase losses.
On another note, the big thing that is still in question is whether or not FDI's projections are accurate enough. Obviously I'm not starting with betting straight away as long as I have no assurance that my strategy will/might work. I might be able to adjust the percentages FDI suggests after having collected information from a handful of TV tournaments and end up with a minimum that I should be able to work with, almost assuring an ongoing profitable strategy; similar to what I did today with the bets I've 'made' and shared: if I would decrease FDI's percentages to 70% of what they are now - suggesting they are negatively inaccurate - I would still make a profit on average. If I have a 'low boundary' for the FDI's ratings with which I could still turn in a profit, I might start betting with some of my own cash.
My parents are tending against it, though.
