So what's the verdict then?
Has jtw shown -over the years- that using head to heads is a good idea? I assume he must have done as why else would he continue doing such threads?
I must admit I've always thought the idea is daft and would never use such stats. But happy to be wrong even though I still don't understand how games years ago can affect games played now.
The explanation given by jtw is deeply flawed which doesn't help me see the light.
Apparently coaches will change the way a team plays if they have a bad record against a particular team?
But why? Surely they'd only do that if they believed it wasn't mere coincidence ? But most coaches surely understand that bad luck and coincidence are the most likely explanation for outliers in the stats.
Actually,come to think of it, that's the more likely explanation. A team really has sussed out how to play another team (even though the personnel and coaches are completely different ) but the coach of the losing team refuses to believe that it's anything other than coincidence and thus keeps making the same mistake.
On a serious note I did want to point out that if someone on a forum is serious about trying to prove such a theory is true its a mistake to compare their bets to nothing.
In other words there should be a control group.
In this case jtw should also attempt to make a profit by using games with similar odds and with similar staking but which do not fit his selection criteria. This is especially true when betting on short priced favourites due to the well known phenomenon, the favourite -longshot bias.
I'm afraid that without using such a control it may well be the case that all jtw has shown is that the favourite-longshot bias is alive and well.
