Ideas and tactics about betting on tennis [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Ideas and tactics about betting on tennis

Yashirobai
11-16-2006, 06:15 PM
I was wondering if anyone has some "principles" when deciding what looks like a good bet in the tennis world.

For instance, would you bet on your most favourite or hated players? (As the fact that you are not neutral towards them might influence your decision);
do you think it is a good idea going for extremely safe bets (such as Federer, 1st round where you may get 1.01)? Or you think it's a better option to bet for a possible upset? Would you ever put a big amount of money on a particular bet if you were very convinced it would work out, or you'd never do it? Do you have any particular strategies?

Any thoughts, techniques, tactics and ideas are welcome.

adee-gee
11-16-2006, 06:17 PM
First piece of advice - Go to to the gamlers forum :)

jayjay
11-16-2006, 06:35 PM
For instance, would you bet on your most favourite or hated players? (As the fact that you are not neutral towards them might influence your decision);

If you bring emotion to gambling, you will lose out in the long run. If you want to start with a rule book, rule 1. Do your homework, gamble with your head, not with your heart.

do you think it is a good idea going for extremely safe bets (such as Federer, 1st round where you may get 1.01)?

No. You should forget any match where the price is lower than 1/5. I still deal in fractions. :p It depends who you are and what you're staking. Ideally, singles and doubles. The more selections, the bigger danger.

Or you think it's a better option to bet for a possible upset?

25% of underdogs win out in Slams and Masters events across the board. Look for match ups and slip ups by the bookie, they make them, so make them pay when they do.

Would you ever put a big amount of money on a particular bet if you were very convinced it would work out, or you'd never do it?

Yes. Gamble what you can afford to lose. Otherwise, take up gardening or something.

Do you have any particular strategies?

Yes. Do your homework, watch as much sport (tennis) as you can. Be as informed as you can be, don't make mistakes because you were too lazy to check up on information that is readily available on the world wide web.

Any thoughts, techniques, tactics and ideas are welcome.

Gambling is not a joke. Take it seriously if you want to do it well, and don't fool yourself. Take stats, know what you're good at, and what you're not. Work harder on what you are good at, and leave well alone what you are not.

If you are not hitting regularly over 65%, you won't make a living out of this. So be aware, that 1 in 2, is not enough. The prices are in the bookies favour, not yours.

Yashirobai
11-16-2006, 07:54 PM
If you bring emotion to gambling, you will lose out in the long run. If you want to start with a rule book, rule 1. Do your homework, gamble with your head, not with your heart.



No. You should forget any match where the price is lower than 1/5. I still deal in fractions. :p It depends who you are and what you're staking. Ideally, singles and doubles. The more selections, the bigger danger.



25% of underdogs win out in Slams and Masters events across the board. Look for match ups and slip ups by the bookie, they make them, so make them pay when they do.



Yes. Gamble what you can afford to lose. Otherwise, take up gardening or something.



Yes. Do your homework, watch as much sport (tennis) as you can. Be as informed as you can be, don't make mistakes because you were too lazy to check up on information that is readily available on the world wide web.



Gambling is not a joke. Take it seriously if you want to do it well, and don't fool yourself. Take stats, know what you're good at, and what you're not. Work harder on what you are good at, and leave well alone what you are not.

If you are not hitting regularly over 65%, you won't make a living out of this. So be aware, that 1 in 2, is not enough. The prices are in the bookies favour, not yours.


Makes a lot of sense. Thanks for your advice

Boris Franz Ecker
11-16-2006, 08:02 PM
do you think it is a good idea going for extremely safe bets (such as Federer, 1st round where you may get 1.01)?

What do you want to win with 1.01? 1 Euro and risking 100?
10 Euro?

No....

I advise live betting.
You get great offers and you needn't to risk much money.

Example: Tomorrow.. Nadal loses the first set. In this moment, you get a great offer for a Nadal-Victory. You know what to do. Bet on him. He will be a thankful boy.

Horatio Caine
11-16-2006, 08:23 PM
If you are not hitting regularly over 65%, you won't make a living out of this. So be aware, that 1 in 2, is not enough. The prices are in the bookies favour, not yours.

I agree with all of that apart from this comment :)

I used to go for average odds of 1.60...and yes, as you say, hitting them 65% of the time allowed me to break even. However, for a little while now I have been hitting much higher odds, 2.00, 3.00, 4.00...this is the way to do it. I only have a 47% success but I have staked well and that has allowed me to get to +29% ROI.

Anything is possible :cool:

jayjay
11-16-2006, 10:50 PM
I agree with all of that apart from this comment :)

I used to go for average odds of 1.60...and yes, as you say, hitting them 65% of the time allowed me to break even. However, for a little while now I have been hitting much higher odds, 2.00, 3.00, 4.00...this is the way to do it. I only have a 47% success but I have staked well and that has allowed me to get to +29% ROI.

Anything is possible :cool:


It's true, technically speaking you can hit 90% and still come out with a loss. If you are staking say 1k 9 times at 1/2, then you come out with a profit of 4.5k, if you then go and blow a 5k bet at 1/10.

You come out 500 down, but yet 9 times out of 10 you were hitting.

The 65% is just a generally understood percentage, if you are playing consistent stakes, at consistent prices.

We know that things aren't necessarily like that, but what newcomers to the world of gambling should be aware of, is that if you can't even predict 65% to begin with, you should not try to take it up as anything more than an occasionally, inexpensive hobby. And I think that's a mistake people make who think this is an easy business. Every gambler has their bad periods, and I've had some pretty dark days myself at times, and basically my advice to people is stay away unless you have utmost confidence in what you are doing, have the stats to back up your belief in your ability, and are prepared for some very very bad moments, because they WILL happen to you no matter how good you are.

Another bit of advice of course to Yashirobai, is don't "chase". If you're unfamiliar with this term, it means when you lose, and feel the need (which you will) to make it back ASAP, and end up rushing into a pick that really you were not going to play at the start of the day.

All gamblers have chased at one time or another - much easier to give advice than take your own at times - and anyone will tell you, it hurts very bad. So make sure you get a handle on that discipline, because it's one of the main ones that if you don't get a hold of, can lead you to a slippery slope.

For the record Yashirobai, I know I may be coming across as the Grim Reaper with the stuff I'm telling you, but you asked for advice, so you should know the potential pitfalls as well as the possible benefits.

I liken gambling to being a shutdown corner in the NFL. No matter how fucking good you are, there will be times when you get burned. And if you don't have it in you to get up again and do it all over again, you should think very carefully before you start playing numbers you won't be able to handle.

Hope some of the things I've said will be helpful for you, and I'm sure others will chip in with their experiences too. :wavey:

good_gambler
11-17-2006, 03:37 AM
Piece of Advice Number 1 - Don't bet on Tennis. :p

:lol:

b_boy
11-17-2006, 03:45 AM
i agree :p

bad gambler
11-17-2006, 04:47 AM
Not specifically to tennis but applies to gambling in general

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=77860

sports freak
11-17-2006, 06:16 AM
First piece of advice - Go to to the gamlers forum :)

Adee Gee :wavey: :)

sports freak
11-17-2006, 06:17 AM
I was wondering if anyone has some "principles" when deciding what looks like a good bet in the tennis world.

For instance, would you bet on your most favourite or hated players? (As the fact that you are not neutral towards them might influence your decision);
do you think it is a good idea going for extremely safe bets (such as Federer, 1st round where you may get 1.01)? Or you think it's a better option to bet for a possible upset? Would you ever put a big amount of money on a particular bet if you were very convinced it would work out, or you'd never do it? Do you have any particular strategies?

Any thoughts, techniques, tactics and ideas are welcome.

Stick to what works for you,everybody has different methods no doubt :)

Mr Flamboyant
11-17-2006, 08:56 AM
Piece of Advice Number 1 - Don't bet on Tennis. :p

:lol:

AB-SO-LUTELY! At the end of the day you're placing your money on ONE person .. You have NO IDEA what their frame of mind is about the match, whether they're fully fit or if they even feel like winning today!? I mean, what's a second round exit to most of these guys? They take their $10,000 and move on to the next tournament ..

Personally am marginally in front on tennis .. but for the number of bets I've had on it, it's simply not worth it .. There's too much money to be made on other sports to bother with Tennis IMO .. Basketball totals & Soccer .. that's where it's at!

If you MUST get involved in tennis, I think "TImeout" (the artist formerly known as "Jez") has the good oil .. pick your spots with underdogs and you'll gain more than you lose .. "Anders" has a great nose for this type of betting and his record is proof of that .. He probably wins 40% of bets at best, but is a long long way in front money wise because he bets underdogs ..

Having said that, I did find rhyme and reason to tennis betting (I always lean towards favourites) during the clay season .. Probably because there are guys who CAN play on clay, and guys who flat-out can't .. Given that some of the latter are top 20 players, you get some very good prices about lowly ranked clay specialists to beat highly ranked guys who hate the surface ..

Yashirobai
11-17-2006, 02:07 PM
AB-SO-LUTELY! At the end of the day you're placing your money on ONE person .. You have NO IDEA what their frame of mind is about the match, whether they're fully fit or if they even feel like winning today!? I mean, what's a second round exit to most of these guys? They take their $10,000 and move on to the next tournament ..

Personally am marginally in front on tennis .. but for the number of bets I've had on it, it's simply not worth it .. There's too much money to be made on other sports to bother with Tennis IMO .. Basketball totals & Soccer .. that's where it's at!

If you MUST get involved in tennis, I think "TImeout" (the artist formerly known as "Jez") has the good oil .. pick your spots with underdogs and you'll gain more than you lose .. "Anders" has a great nose for this type of betting and his record is proof of that .. He probably wins 40% of bets at best, but is a long long way in front money wise because he bets underdogs ..

Having said that, I did find rhyme and reason to tennis betting (I always lean towards favourites) during the clay season .. Probably because there are guys who CAN play on clay, and guys who flat-out can't .. Given that some of the latter are top 20 players, you get some very good prices about lowly ranked clay specialists to beat highly ranked guys who hate the surface ..

Why do you think it's better to bet on football or basket rather than on tennis?

jayjay
11-17-2006, 02:45 PM
Why do you think it's better to bet on football or basket rather than on tennis?

I disagree with Mr Flamboyant, but that's just because different people find different sports more productive for them.

I think you should leave Basketball and Baseball well alone. I won't go into the reasons for now as I don't have time, but unless you are well clued up on those sports and will pick and choose your spots, leave well alone. I applaud anyone who can consistently come out on top in those sports night to night, it's very difficult, I found at least.

My bread and butter is football, tennis and nfl. I once got in a dispute (light hearted) with a basketball pro gambler who couldn't understand why I would play tennis and that it seems too difficult. My view was the exact opposite to his, maybe it had more to do with my knowledge on the ins and outs being greater for tennis and him likewise for basketball.

Honestly though, I think there is a strong objective case to say Tennis is an easier (and one of the easiest) sports to play. I'll go into those reasons at a later time if anyone cares to know why I think that way.

Ultimately, the simple rule is, play the sports you know, leave the ones you don't.

Horatio Caine
11-17-2006, 03:15 PM
I'm agreeing and disagreeing with Mr. F and Jay... :lol:

I think the beauty of tennis is how individual the sport is...you mostly know exactly how a player will approach a match...it is just a case of how they match up.

Any sport can be very profitable...much depends on how well you stake. Check out the likes of Deivid...

As to Timeout...he is still Jez at heart ;)

Anders and Mistaflava have been my inspiration at any rate...pity that Mista doesn't post here very often these days. Both have unique staking plans...and if you combine the two stategies, you can do quite well.

Whilst clay is a good way of determining the men from the boys...I find it one of the hardest surfaces to bet...too many match swings. Indoors is where it's at...until the Tour arrived in Paris :rolleyes:

Ultimately, Jay has the right idea - ONLY play the sports you know pretty damn well.

The Tennis Ninja
11-17-2006, 05:44 PM
My advice would be to aim for a small profit over a long period of time.

5% in a month is solid stuff.

You're not going to make a quick killing here just steady long term profit is the order of the day.

Bankroll management is big. Don't bet more than 1% of your roll on any one match.

bad gambler
11-17-2006, 06:58 PM
Why do you think it's better to bet on football or basket rather than on tennis?

Yash I assume you are just a beginner? In that case I'll just echo the comments that others have made here and strongly advise you bet on those sports you actually have a thorough knowledge in such as tennis.

Feel free to drop by if you decide to bet on tennis in the future, good luck :wavey:

bad gambler
11-17-2006, 06:59 PM
My advice would be to aim for a small profit over a long period of time.

5% in a month is solid stuff.

You're not going to make a quick killing here just steady long term profit is the order of the day.

Bankroll management is big. Don't bet more than 1% of your roll on any one match.

good post - always think long term. My favourite saying is "gambling is a marathon and not a sprint"

mini bad gambler
11-18-2006, 10:37 PM
Honestly though, I think there is a strong objective case to say Tennis is an easier (and one of the easiest) sports to play. I'll go into those reasons at a later time if anyone cares to know why I think that way.



I want to know why? :confused:

jayjay
11-19-2006, 12:10 PM
I want to know why? :confused:

Ok, here goes. :)

Bear in mind I am saying this from the perspective of someone who should know their tennis (specifically mens, as womens tennis early rounds prices are not competitive).

Tennis is a sport less open to be disrupted by other factors other than the players themselves. Sure, from time to time an Umpire will intervene and make a correction on a far baseline that he/she should not have done, but by and large tennis matches are not affected by poor lines people, and now with hawkeye in, it enables the players to sort it out themselves.

Compare this factor with say Basketball or NFL. We know officials like to get busy in both of these sports, and for example an official might give a holding call against an OL where there was none. A case of seeing something that wasn't there which may very well have an impact on the drive. And with respect to instant replay, that's still open to a subjective opinion by the guy in the box and I'm sure we've seen many incidents where IR got it wrong (for example Polamalu interception v Indy in Playoffs last season).

This kind of thing can't really happen in tennis. The ball is either in or out.

The individuality of tennis also makes it a plus point. If you follow tennis, you know the state of mind on court of many players. You know those likely to serial tank (Gaudio for example), you know those who will pretty much always fight till the end and give you a run for your money (Hewitt for example). You know the serial chokers (Mathieu for example).

You know who plays well on what surface, who is in good form and should be backed, who is in poor form and should be left alone. Form book and history counts for alot in tennis.

Team sports rely on you prediciting the performance of a greater number of individuals, with differing mind sets and abilities. It's all very well backing the Colts because Peyton is a good QB and their O can put up points, but they can't help their D stop being gashed on the ground.

Tennis doesn't suffer from these differences, and thus makes it easier to predict. The officials are largely out of it, the weather is not a factor in the sense that play stops for rain. Of course, there is the consideration of the weather making conditions heavy and that favouring one player or the other, but you should be on top of that within reason.

You take the over in an NFL game outdoors with 2 teams who can eat up yards quickly, and then it starts pissing down, the game changes, here come the drops and both start to utilise a ground game. The pattern of the match is directly affected by the weather. Whereas this doesn't happen in tennis so much, other than how players may react to delays. Where again, you have the knowledge of which players have experience of these situations and evidence as to who is likely to deal with such circumstances better.

Take a match from a couple of days ago, Nadal v Davydenko. For me this was a no brainer to pick Nadal. Why? On mentality alone. Just that. Davydenko has proven that he beats who he should, and loses to who he should. He showed v Blake that there were things going on in his head with regards to taken further steps up the ladder. Nadal, although not playing particularly well of late, has more than proven he is up there when it comes to mental strength and a battle of wills. In their match, Davydenko ended up getting the slight edge in more rallies, but when it came down to it, when the big points were to be played, it was the champion mentality that pulled Nadal through in a tight contest, and Davydenko made simple errors at the most crucial times (that he would not make during other parts of the match).

Nadal at 8/13 was a great price, because you just won't get him at those kind of prices on clay or most of the season, so you have to eat it up. Davydenko is not Berdych or Blake with the ability to blow Nadal off court and put aside any mental deficiencies, so that was the kind of match I feel you can back just on mentality, as there are players out there who have a problem taking names down.

Bookies quite often don't take all the facts into account, and this is why they are vulnerable against the knowledgeable tennis gambler. They put names alone above match ups, form and H2H. They don't particularly adjust their prices in such circumstances. Which I have never understood, someone has not been doing their job.

For example, we all know Roddick is a dud on clay, and yet in Masters events or at RG he is always made a fav in the past for example against the likes of Massu or Acasuso. Players who have played on clay their whole lives up against a player whose biggest weapon is his serve (which is to an extent nullified on clay)? You have to take advantage of the times where the bookie puts name or ranking above what really counts which is surface, match ups, form, and history.

inmeclf
11-23-2006, 04:48 AM
The above post is without doubt the best post I have ever read on MTF

:worship:

lephter
12-26-2006, 02:54 PM
Bookies quite often don't take all the facts into account, and this is why they are vulnerable against the knowledgeable tennis gambler. They put names alone above match ups, form and H2H. They don't particularly adjust their prices in such circumstances. Which I have never understood, someone has not been doing their job.

For example, we all know Roddick is a dud on clay, and yet in Masters events or at RG he is always made a fav in the past for example against the likes of Massu or Acasuso. Players who have played on clay their whole lives up against a player whose biggest weapon is his serve (which is to an extent nullified on clay)? You have to take advantage of the times where the bookie puts name or ranking above what really counts which is surface, match ups, form, and history.

Very good post and one to take into account for sure...thanks for your insight.
But regarding why bookies put names alone above match-ups,form etc...well,you are thinking like a bettor.Try and think like a bookie for a short while and you will find the answer:) The ideea is to attract action on both outcomes as much as possible.That way,a bookie doesn't care what the result of the match will be cause they win either way.
For those who don't get it,take a 50%-50% match for example...with odds 1,85-1,85...if a total amount of 100$ is bet on 1st player at 1,85 the bookie will lose 85$,if that player wins....but if the same amount of 100$ is bet on 2nd player at 1,85,the bookie will also lose 85$...Now,the total amount bet on that match was 200$ right?But whatever the outcome,the bookie will lose 185$ so that means that they win 15$ no matter what the outcome is,AS LONG AS THEY GET EVEN ACTION ON THE MATCH FROM A BETTING POINT OF VIEW.
That is why,on many occasions,you will see a match like Roddick-Acasuso on clay,first round priced at 1,5 Roddick and Acasuso at @2,25,even though this is more like a 50-50 match...or,given the circumstances,Acasuso should be favoured.
But you see,if the odds were like 1,85-1,85 on this game,then there won't be many people backing Acasuso.Why?the reason is simple!There is no Value left...or even if it is,the percentage is low and not worth backing.So that means that a lot of money will flow on Roddick only,and if he wins,sportsbooks will lose,even though the ods were correct right?50-50 match...no?
The bookie knows that public tends to follow NAMES,while the proffesional gamblers seek VALUE.That is why they INFLATE o
r DECREASE odds for the reason i said above:TO GET EVEN ACTION.

As a conclusion,it is very good if someone who bets on tennis(but not only tennis) can think first as a bookmaker,and then as a proffesional gambler.That way you can justify why odds are in such a way on some games.Don't underestimate bookies;)

ps:hope i could be of some help...Cheers:wavey: