;)
Monday, May 6, 2013 at 12:16PM | Post a Comment Surveys show that 75% of people have trouble with percentages. The remaining 50% find them no trouble at all. Turns out I'm part of the 75%.
Sunday, May 5, 2013 at 7:33PM | Post a Comment As Investors will know, the Line Fund carries a 60% weighting in the Recommended Portfolio, so when it ended Saturday with an 0 and 4 record, knocking 6c off the Portfolio's price in so doing, Sunday was always going to be a day about, at best, limiting the damage.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013 at 5:58PM | Post a Comment This week Investors enter a new phase of the competition as the first of the Funds changes its wagering strategy. Based on empirical data, the Line Fund performs better in Rounds 6 to 11 than it does in the first 5 rounds of the season, so this week it doubles its standard wager to 2.5% of the Fund. Next week it'll be the Head-to-Head Fund's turn to ratchet up the risk and reward.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 at 1:25PM | Post a Comment Over on the Statistical Analyses blog I've been dedicating significant blog-space - or whatever it is you want to call the online equivalent of column inches - to the MARS Ratings of teams throughout football history. In those posts the Ratings stopped at the end of last season. Now it's time to bring them up to date.
Sunday, April 28, 2013 at 7:54PM | Post a Comment Until late into time-on in the Lions v Dees game on Sunday afternoon I thought I'd be writing this week about our making a small profit, having extended our run of successful wagering to four weeks in a row, but then the Dees kicked successive goals at the back end of what's appropriately known as "junk time", the first turning a 1.4c profit into a breakeven result for the game, and the second consigning us to a 0.9c loss. Then in the last game of the round, the Hawks' inability to win by either of the requisite margin ranges made sure that all three Funds recorded a loss for the week. The Head-to-Head Fund dropped 0.4c, the Line Fund 1.5c, and the Margin Fund 0.3c, which translates into a 1.1c loss for the Recommended Portfolio.
