Head-to-head prompt diff
043fa3fcfd52 → 207433de91f8
| 043fa3fcfd52 | 207433de91f8 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 136 | - probability synthesis, recommendation, and risk flags for this fixture | 136 | - probability synthesis, recommendation, and risk flags for this fixture | ||
| 137 | 137 | ||||
| 138 | If a piece of research is only meaningful because of the opponent, keep it in the H2H report. If it | 138 | If a piece of research is only meaningful because of the opponent, keep it in the H2H report. If it | ||
| > | changes the reusable understanding of the team, update the scorecard — but never with market prices. | > | changes the reusable understanding of the team, update the scorecard — but never with market prices. | ||
| 139 | 139 | ||||
| t | t | 140 | |||
| 141 | ## Post-mortem learning loop | ||||
| 142 | |||||
| 143 | When settled bets or prediction rows are reviewed, feed back durable observations as calibration que | ||||
| > | stions rather than mechanical overrides. Small samples can reveal recurring blind spots, but they sh | ||||
| > | ould improve the next baseline narrative instead of adding rigid rules. | ||||
| 144 | |||||
| 145 | Use post-mortems to ask, and briefly answer in future reports where relevant: | ||||
| 146 | |||||
| 147 | - Did the edge describe a team to win, or a team to resist the market's story? If the evidence mostl | ||||
| > | y supports resistance, make the draw/avoid-defeat channel visible in the risk flags rather than lett | ||||
| > | ing all disagreement collapse into the named selection. | ||||
| 148 | - When backing a favourite, has the report explained why the favourite win path is robust enough if | ||||
| > | the market is giving the draw materially more room than the baseline? | ||||
| 149 | - When backing a longshot against a strong favourite, is the upset path football-specific and source | ||||
| > | d, or is it mostly a price gap created by preserving generic underdog mass? | ||||
| 150 | - For confidence C predictions, what fact would need to be true for the model-market disagreement to | ||||
| > | be credible, and what unresolved data gap could break it? Keep the ledger disagreement, but label t | ||||
| > | he evidence quality plainly. | ||||
| 151 | - In mismatches, separate team-strength gap from match-shape variance: low blocks, tournament-openin | ||||
| > | g caution, finishing variance, goalkeeper paths, travel/logistics, and game-state incentives can sus | ||||
| > | tain draw/upset probability without implying the weaker team is close in underlying quality. | ||||
| 152 | - If a hedge or trade later changes the realised Betfair result, keep that separate from prediction | ||||
| > | calibration. The methodology review should still judge the original pre-match probability record aga | ||||
| > | inst the football outcome. | ||||
| 153 | |||||
| 154 | These are prompts for synthesis, not automatic probability moves. Apply them only when supported by | ||||
| > | the scorecards, recorded-stats card, and sourced fixture context, and document the reasoning in the | ||||
| > | baseline, market comparison, or risk flags as appropriate. | ||||
| 155 | |||||
| 140 | ## Report structure | 156 | ## Report structure | ||
| 141 | 157 | ||||
| 142 | Return, in order: | 158 | Return, in order: | ||
| 143 | 159 | ||||