Tipping backtest
Loading…
ℹ️ How tipping works
The idea. A "tip" is a pick of one team to win a game. This page backtests fixed strategies over historical results so you can see how each would have performed if you'd followed it every round — no hindsight, just the rule applied game by game.
Favourite system. Each round, tip a side by a simple rule — Tip favourite (the shorter price), Tip home team, or Tip underdog. We grade every tip against the actual result and total it by round and season: tips made, correct, correct %, and a flat $10-per-tip profit/loss at the closing price (so you can see if "just backing favourites" actually makes money after the bookmaker's margin — usually it doesn't).
Model tips ★. Instead of a blanket rule, the model rates each game from season form — win/loss, points for and against, home-ground edge, rest and recent momentum — turns that into a win probability, de-vigs the market price, and only tips when it sees an edge (its probability beats the market's implied chance). Confidence (lean → medium → high) rises with the size of that edge. The backtest then grades those model tips the same way.
Use it to judge a strategy's hit rate and ROI, not to predict any single game. Informational only — not betting advice.
Season by season (click a season to see each round)
| Season | Tips | Correct | Correct % | $10-flat P&L | ROI |
|---|
"Correct" = the tipped team won (as in an ESPN/office tipping comp). "$10-flat P&L" bets $10 on each tip at the closing price — a positive number means the strategy beat the bookmaker margin, which favourites rarely do. Per-round detail for the last 3 seasons.
NRL and AFL tipping — what the systems actually return
This is a backtest, not a tip sheet. It replays two tipping systems — always back the favourite, and the model's own pick — across every round since 2009, staking flat and tracking the profit and loss at closing odds.
The headline finding is worth sitting with. Backing favourites hits about 66% in the NRL and 70% in the AFL, and still loses money over the long run, because the odds already contain that information plus the bookmaker's margin. A high tipping score and a profitable strategy are not the same thing.
For footy tipping competitions, where you are scored on correct tips rather than returns, the calculus is different — there, hit rate is all that counts and backing favourites is a perfectly sound approach.
Frequently asked questions
Does backing the favourite make money?
No. It wins the majority of individual bets but loses money over time once the margin built into the odds is accounted for. That is the benchmark every other system on this site is measured against.
What does flat staking mean?
The same amount is bet on every selection, so results are not distorted by staking more on some picks than others.
How far back does the backtest go?
2009 for both codes, covering more than 3,500 games each.
How often does backing the favourite actually win, and does it make money?
| Code | Strategy | Matches | Correct | Return on turnover |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NRL | Back the favourite | 3,631 | 66.2% | -3.8% |
| NRL | Back the home side | 3,631 | 56.7% | -1.9% |
| NRL | Back the underdog | 3,631 | 33.4% | -4.5% |
| AFL | Back the favourite | 3,571 | 69.7% | -4.7% |
| AFL | Back the home side | 3,571 | 56.7% | -2.2% |
| AFL | Back the underdog | 3,571 | 29.4% | -9.8% |
These are the baselines, not tips, and the gap between the two columns is the whole point: backing the favourite picks the winner about two times in three and still loses money at flat stakes, because the price already accounts for it. The break-even strike rate at standard −110 pricing is 52.4%. Any strategy on this site is reported against these numbers rather than against a coin flip.
Do betting trends actually beat their own baseline?
| Code | Predictions graded | Trend hit rate | Matched baseline | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NRL | 8,251 | 55.3% | 57.5% | -2.1 |
| AFL | 18,291 | 53.6% | 56.6% | -2.9 |
| NFL | 17,168 | 56.5% | 59.6% | -3 |
The answer measured here is no. Across all four codes, situational trends hit at or below the rate the same teams were already achieving over the same matches, so the apparent edge is the baseline, not a finding. The comparison is against each team's own rate — never 50%, never the league average — because a trend that fires mostly on good teams will look predictive against any other yardstick.