Using your data provided we could assume that a 10/11 is basically an even money shot (worked in a bookies for a few years and they used to offer these on completely even money markets)
Thus a 45-27 ratio, using a chi squared test (two tailed), would be P = 0.0339 which is statistically significant.
44-28 would be P = 0.0593 which is slightly significant
43-29 is P = 0.99 (not really significant)
42 - 30 is P = 0.15 (not significant)
So, assuming your prices fall within the 10/11 range overall (with consideration made for shorter or longer odds and averages used) then there is a statistical significance in your results which could have been proved non significant had the figure been more around the 42-30 mark.
Therefore I wonder whether you have just simply been the recipient of a good run of luck, or whether all of your selections have been around the 50% mark (which would be represented by 10/11 in the bookies) to make your figure statistically significant!
Example, if you back teams which are expected, by going off the odds, to win 55% of the time then your 45-27 ratio would be NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT with a P value of 0.2IN FACT, to quote the calculator I used... if your teams are expected to win just 51% of the time (which is an improvement to the 50% I quoted for a 10/11 shot) then; The two-tailed P value equals 0.0509
By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be not quite statistically significant.therefore, unless you provide us with raw data then I can only conclude that, despite a 45-27 winning ratio sounding impressive, it might not actually be statistically significant and thus you might just be experiencing a good run of luck!
The maths is sound, and the source is;
http://graphpad.com/quickcalcs/chisquared2/ You seem precariously on the edge of delusional territory which is easily debunked by a nice statistical analysis but not otherwise picked up by someone experiencing a good run of fortune.
For a debate, please submit the odds of every winning and losing bet out of the 72 that you have placed and maybe then I could make a more accurate analysis, for better or worse!!
As it stands though, despite your record sounding good there is no reason to discount statistical insignificance and thus void your entire objective in your post. As they say in poker, you are value betting REALLY thin atm
I do admit that your 19/20 bet does alter the stats in your favour slightly but by extrapolation would only affect it in a ratio of 1:2. Would still love to see your raw data on all 72 bets placed tho
I really don't think your **** shines any brighter than any other punter though and I think you are one of those people who gamble with absolutely no concept of mathematics. It is sad in a way, I wish they'd make S1 mandatory for students. EVEN IF you prove to be statistically significant then, by virtue of playing poker for a living at one point, you ought to collect a much larger sample of games to analyse! Hell I wouldn't listen to less than 10k poker SnG games for a statistical analysis back in the day
I suppose i'm saying that you need to prove to me/us that of all the 72 bets you have placed you had a less than 51% chance of winning with them all... If you can do that then we can accept you are statistically significant. If you win 45/72 bets when you are likely to win MORE THAN 51% of the time then you are not actually statistically significant!!! A really fine line mate and I really don't think you appreciate that