Oddsmakers: Federer again for U.S. Open [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Oddsmakers: Federer again for U.S. Open

Devotee
08-11-2005, 03:26 AM
Sure Shot: Oddsmakers Favor Federer To Defend U.S. Open
http://www.sportsmediainc.net/tennisweek/FEDERERs.MullaneMiami05.jpg.jpg
Photo By Susan Mullane By Tennis Week
08/11/2005

Roger Federer will make his summer hard-court debut in Cincinnati next week, but the world No. 1 is first rate among oddsmakers who favor Federer to successfully defend his U.S. Open title. The five-time Grand Slam champion is a 5-8 favorite to capture his second consecutive major title at Flushing Meadow.


Sports Betting.com (http://www.sportsbetting.com/trial/index.html) has installed the Swiss stylist as the odds on favorite to win the Open.

Andy Roddick, who was upset in his opening-round Rogers Cup match last night, follows Federer as a 7-2 shot to reclaim the U.S. Open title he won in 2003. Reigning Roland Garros champion Rafael Nadal, who has won all eight of his tournament titles on clay this season, is a 6-1 shot to win his second major of the year.

Former U.S. Open champions Lleyton Hewitt and Marat Safin are both 10-1 shots to win the Open. Two-time U.S. Open champion Andre Agassi and 2002 Wimbledon finalist David Nalbandian are both listed at 25-1.

Notable long shots include: Ivan Ljubicic, 30-1, Tim Henman, 50-1 and Taylor Dent, 75-1.

oneandonlyhsn
08-11-2005, 03:50 AM
:scratch: Interesting, especially with his foot injury and his long lay off. He might be rusty, but plz prove me wrong Fed :D

disturb3d
08-11-2005, 04:02 AM
Riddock 7-2? What a joke...
When did they forget, he's number 5 in the entry ranking.

Black Adam
08-11-2005, 09:22 AM
Riddock 7-2? What a joke...
When did they forget, he's number 5 in the entry ranking.
Well you will see how he is gonna do better than some of the guys ranked ahead of him and also he is playing at home. ;) :wavey:

its.like.that
08-11-2005, 10:31 AM
Agassi only at 25-1?

Haven't they seen him play recently or something?

:scratch:

skel1983
08-11-2005, 10:47 AM
Agassi for me is a long shot indeed i don't think sh should be shorter, Agassi throughout his career has been the sort of player if he get's on top of you he will run away with it against the lesser players, hence his current form since he has been back he hasn't really played a top player and i don't think he would be able to beat either Fed-Roddick-Hewitt or even Nadal at the us and i can't see him not meeting any of these guys on his way to trying to win the event.

I think the Bookies are quite happy to lay Agassi as they know there will be intrest because of who he is and possibly his last Major who knows.

bad gambler
08-11-2005, 12:45 PM
Agassi only at 25-1?

Haven't they seen him play recently or something?

:scratch:


yeah they have, saw him bitch slap no namers in a no name tournament last week

go andre go :D :D

croat123
08-11-2005, 12:47 PM
Agassi only at 25-1?

Haven't they seen him play recently or something?

:scratch:
he's played two matches against pretty weak opponents and still has struggled a bit. he's not gonna win it

Neely
08-11-2005, 12:49 PM
The real joke are Federer's odds to win Wimbledon 2006. It's something around 1.60, and remember these odds are to win OUTRIGHT, not to win one match :lol:

PamV
08-11-2005, 12:51 PM
:scratch: Interesting, especially with his foot injury and his long lay off. He might be rusty, but plz prove me wrong Fed :D

It's not like he recently injured his foot. The foot condition has been an ongoing problem all year....yet he's been winning tournaments. The lay off hasn't been that long either. He would never bother with the small US tournaments like Indy, LA, and Washington. Not entering Roger's Cup is too bad because it's turning into a cakewalk. Let's see how Roger does in Cincy.

oneandonlyhsn
08-11-2005, 01:13 PM
The real joke are Federer's odds to win Wimbledon 2006. It's something around 1.60, and remember these odds are to win OUTRIGHT, not to win one match :lol:

Are those high or low odds :scratch: sorry dont know much about this stuff

bad gambler
08-11-2005, 01:15 PM
Are those high or low odds :scratch: sorry dont know much about this stuff


translation - other players shouldn't bother turning up

oneandonlyhsn
08-11-2005, 01:18 PM
translation - other players shouldn't bother turning up

:eek: Holy Fuck really, I mean Fed is in another class on grass but I am sure even he knows that anything is possible. Isnt he going to try out more clay tournies next year for RG preparation too, that should factor heavily on his performances at Wimby

Neely
08-11-2005, 01:19 PM
Are those high or low odds :scratch: sorry dont know much about this stuff
These are very very low odds for winning a whole tournament, in this case even a Grand Slam and having to predict that 11 months in advance.
So if Federer is injured or just running bad form, you will get your stakes in most cases not refunded.

I can imagine if Federer is in good form and wins Halle again, the odds for him to win Wimbledon outright could be even lower then, maybe 1.40 :lol:


translation - other players shouldn't bother turning up
:lol: :yeah:

bad gambler
08-11-2005, 01:22 PM
:eek: Holy Fuck really, I mean Fed is in another class on grass but I am sure even he knows that anything is possible. Isnt he going to try out more clay tournies next year for RG preparation too, that should factor heavily on his performances at Wimby


not even sampras was this low in the midst of his wimbledon run

actually you will find fed is $1.50 to win Wimbledon next year and $1.60 to win US open, both insane odds

mitalidas
08-11-2005, 02:12 PM
nadal has better odds than agassi, hewitt and safin. how are these computations done?!! :lol:

1sun
08-11-2005, 02:20 PM
not even sampras was this low in the midst of his wimbledon run

thats becoz roger has dominated wimbledon more so than smaprass did in his first 3 titles(but obviously in the longer run sampras has dominated longer). sampras was pushed more and had tougher matches in is first 3 whereas roger hasnt really had any. sampras dropped 11 sets in his first 3, roger 4(i think).

Dirk
08-11-2005, 02:29 PM
4 is correct. He lost a set to Fish in 03, a set to Hewitt and Andy in 04 and just a set to Kiefer this year.

max122
08-11-2005, 02:58 PM
Agassi all the way :)

Merton
08-11-2005, 04:14 PM
nadal has better odds than agassi, hewitt and safin. how are these computations done?!! :lol:

Rational market makers try to set odds that minimize their exposure. There are more people believing that Nadal is more likely to win than Hewitt or Agassi, so the market maker must offer shorter odds. Similarly, there are more people that believe that Federer is more likely to win, then Roddick and so on.

Winner-take all markets are interesting, because (in constrast to individual matches) they are subject to a "frequentist" statistical approach. That is, analysts can observe the past history and make inferences about the likelihood of current players emerging as winners.

Merton
08-11-2005, 04:23 PM
I don't have the time to perform such an analysis, (i am sure that it is already done by investment banks on behalf of big customers) but a casual look at the past 25 year winners show that top ranking players (big favourites) won in all but two occassions: 1990 and 2002.

In the first case, Sampras came out and won as a dark horse. In the second case, Sampras came out and won when he was written off. That suggests that almost all the probability mass should concentrate around Federer, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nadal. I think the odds posted reflect this.

Merton
08-11-2005, 04:28 PM
Neely and BG, you are right, odds for Federer for next year's Wimbledon are indeed insane. Behavioral economists would argue that bettors overreact to Fed's succeses, pushing his odds to unreasonable highs. However, i think that a big role is played by the fact that investors are not allowed to sell short on Federer's winning in 2006.

RonE
08-11-2005, 04:46 PM
I don't have the time to perform such an analysis, (i am sure that it is already done by investment banks on behalf of big customers) but a casual look at the past 25 year winners show that top ranking players (big favourites) won in all but two occassions: 1990 and 2002.

In the first case, Sampras came out and won as a dark horse. In the second case, Sampras came out and won when he was written off. That suggests that almost all the probability mass should concentrate around Federer, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nadal. I think the odds posted reflect this.

In 1994 Agassi was unseeded and in 1997 Rafter seeded 13th (if I remember correctly). Were they considered favourites to win the title too in those respective years?

Merton
08-11-2005, 05:09 PM
In 1994 Agassi was unseeded and in 1997 Rafter seeded 13th (if I remember correctly). Were they considered favourites to win the title too in those respective years?

Good point! I saw Rafter 1998 and missed 1997. As for Agassi, i did not bother to check his ranking in 1994. Therefore, add 2 more dark horses in the past years.

Merton
08-11-2005, 05:12 PM
Just a point to show that statistical analysis on itself can carry many pitfalls: A good indicator of success for the U.S. Open is performance in Indy. Therefore, a causual analysis would show that Ginepri is one of the favourites for U.S. Open :lol: :haha: :haha:

mitalidas
08-11-2005, 05:14 PM
Rational market makers try to set odds that minimize their exposure. There are more people believing that Nadal is more likely to win than Hewitt or Agassi, so the market maker must offer shorter odds. Similarly, there are more people that believe that Federer is more likely to win, then Roddick and so on.
No, but that was my point --who are these people? I didn't think there are many people who *currently* think that nadal is more likely to win than Hewitt, Agassi or Safin. He's playing his first major hc tournament in 5 months and collected 8 titles on clay. His last outing to Flushing got him a very bad drubbing (I think it included either a bagel or breadstick).
ps. If you're related to (or, *are*) bob merton, then I will accede to what you say

Merton
08-11-2005, 05:29 PM
Each has his/hers beliefs. I am a Rafa fan (and an Andy fan) but i agree that Federer, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin and Agassi have superior chances. Having said that, it is not the case that Rafa is crap on hard courts, as he showed in the first part of the year.

Of course i am not Robert C. Merton. I am spending some time these days studying the papers of the great man, so i paid him tribute with my user name in this forum. I am Kyriakos by the way.

mitalidas
08-11-2005, 05:32 PM
Each has his/hers beliefs. I am a Rafa fan (and an Andy fan) but i agree that Federer, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin and Agassi have superior chances. Having said that, it is not the case that Rafa is crap on hard courts, as he showed in the first part of the year.
Yes, but nor are hewitt safin or agassi crap on hardcourts, each of them has won the USO, and hewitt and safin have met on a Major (slam) hardcourt final this year. one Miami final for nadal is the reason for this? it is extremely premature for him to have such good odds

Merton
08-11-2005, 05:41 PM
I agree, his odds should be smaller, but obviously the market thinks otherwise. The NASDAQ valuations in 1999-2000 were far more outrageous (and eventually hurtful for the society) than this.