[Li Ching Yuen]

Originally Posted by duong

And I read how they made their bets, it was far from pure science.

I agree that generally they are quite fair, but it's not science either.

You're a statistician, your view on what is science is forever damaged.

[duong]

Originally Posted by Li Ching Yuen

You're a statistician, your view on what is science is forever damaged.

as far as betting is concerned, they have nothing else than statistics as far as the "science" department is concerned.

[samanosuke]

at least one digit is missing behind Nadal's odd

[Li Ching Yuen]

Originally Posted by Litotes

More often than you'd think. I've spoken to a professional about this. It's a few years ago now, but the fundamentals haven't changed in any way as far as I can see.

Bookies making gifts don't come into it. A gift would be to have "correct" high odds for a fan favourite, only to see half the field betting on him. Then they'd be cruelly exposed, and bookies hate uncertainty. Ideally for them, they'll be left with the same amount of money whoever wins the tournament.

Well there are a lot of poor amateur betters out there.

What I meant to say is that the role of the market, that is what betters put their money on as things go on is far less important than the science of it (the starter odds and however the bookmakers decide to lay things out for the actual market, the latter is crucial for them).

Things change as you go lower in the ranks and look at different events. Generally at the slam/ATP level things are pretty well laid out.

[Li Ching Yuen]

Originally Posted by duong

as far as betting is concerned, they have nothing else than statistics as far as the "science" department is concerned.

It's one of the classic academic jokes, sir.

[Kei_is_a_samurai]

Novak is rightly fave. Muz and Fed are close but I think most of us would back Fed in a match between them.

[motorhead]

Originally Posted by Abel

that's what I wanted to post

[philosophicalarf]

Originally Posted by Abel

For all those going on about the bookies over/underrating certain players. Let's just say the bookies very rarely get it wrong

Most books aren't that accurate, which is why almost all of them ban professional gamblers. It's simply cheaper for them to produce odds of mediocre accuracy and boot those who are capable of exploiting them. In tennis, the only ones that don't do this are Pinnacle, Greek, IBC and SBO (and the latter three not being really relevant because of poor prices and low limits).

At a guess, I'd say tournament winner odds would very likely be a market with a higher % of recreational gamblers, for practical reasons as well as mathematical ones (longer odds produce considerably worse bankroll growth at the same edge, because of the drastically increased variance). Can't prove it though, my database only covers odds related to individual matches.

[Roy Emerson]

Can Djokovic finally win an AO without losing a set?

[latso]

Two things are clear - Nadal will not win this tournament right after a severe injury. He'd be happy with a quarter final.

Second thing - Djokovic is the biggest favorite.

These 2 are facts.

From there on there are 3 more players who could win the whole thing in the following order -

Federer
Murray
Del Potro

These 4 could win the tournament. The rest can lose in second round or play the final, but couldn't win it overall.

For me the best bet for odds above 10.00 would be Pony, as he can actually really win the whole thing with a favorable draw.
The rest of the odds are pretty correct (few percents shorter than the chances).

If Fed takes Djokovic out in the semies (not impossible at all) and Pony takes Murray out, a Fed - Pony final is wide open, same would be for a Pony - Muzza final.

All the rest like Ferru, Tsonga, Berdych - only wishful thinking. We all know they couldn't get past the semies and they would major choke the final against whoever.

GL

[alter ego]

I've never bet but if I understand correctly the way the system works than some players chances are deliberatley underrated so as to make it more tempting to bet on them. I think this is Fed's case here. No serious analysts should consider him the favourite on the slower than ass surface that exists in Melbourne but that 6.6 odd sure makes it an interesting proposition.

[Saberq]

Originally Posted by Roy Emerson

Can Djokovic finally win an AO without losing a set?

very hard thing to do.........he won twice with losing 1 set in 2011 to Dodig of all people......Fed did it in 2007 but that's him

[Mark Lenders]

New odds:

Djokovic - 2.34

Murray - 4.4

Federer - 6.4

Del Potro - 17.5

Ferrer - 40

Berdych - 70

Tsonga - 85


Understandably, Ferrer's odds shorted now that he has the #4 seed, but still Del Potro is the only one given an outside shot to win the whole thing, which is about right.

[redshift36188]

Still Ferrer ahead of Berdych and Tsonga is weird. Peak Ferrer can't win it unless he gets lucky and doesn't face any of the top 3, while the other 2 at their peak can beat anyone.

[Mark Lenders]

Originally Posted by redshift36188

Still Ferrer ahead of Berdych and Tsonga is weird. Peak Ferrer can't win it unless he gets lucky and doesn't face any of the top 3, while the other 2 at their peak can beat anyone.

True. Ferrer ahead of Tsonga - who has a final and SF at this event and beat Federer, Djokovic and Murray here is simply baffling. At least they got the top 4 favorites right.

Federer vs Del Potro

Ferrer vs Tsonga

Murray vs Berdych

Djokovic vs Tipsy


This would probably be the best QF lineup with Rafa out.