Joined
·
1,026 Posts
I think that Andy will win easy in 2.
Hass is in very bad form.
Hass is in very bad form.
R2. Roddick against Haas WWW
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Joined
·
469 Posts
Roddick in 2; however it could be an interesting encounter
Joined
·
12,245 Posts
Haas in 3
Joined
·
20,932 Posts
Well Haas leads the h2h 6-3 but Roddick leads on hard courts 3-2.
Having said that this has always been a tough match-up for Andy. Haas has the defensive slice BH that neutralises the inside-out FH and causes so many problems. Bottom line, MTF has voted Roddick 2-0 and we all know what that means.
Having said that this has always been a tough match-up for Andy. Haas has the defensive slice BH that neutralises the inside-out FH and causes so many problems. Bottom line, MTF has voted Roddick 2-0 and we all know what that means.
Joined
·
73,673 Posts
if it wouldn't be so no gambling would exist as everyone would make money from betting. the majority will always be wrong on average.
Joined
·
11,530 Posts
In terms of who will wins? Do you know that or are you just assuming because I think that's counter intuative logic. From what I see the majority almost always expects the favourite to win and the favourite does win far more often than not. People don't make money from gambling still because of the odds.
Joined
·
13,295 Posts
Wrong x 2 on bolded statements
Joined
·
11,530 Posts
What was wrong with my statement?
Joined
·
2,433 Posts
I'm not an expert on betting, but I would assume that odds makers adjust the odds such that the expected value of the bets (that is, the probability of one outcome times the payout, minus the amount staked) would be zero. So it's not important how many people are wrong, but how much was staked on the wrong outcome. Theoretically, I would think that the total amount won would be equal to the total amount lost on a bet. Therefore, the net amount made on the bets would be zero.
In actuality, maybe this is not true. I don't know much about the actual statistics and tendencies of betters. And of course, if you subscribe to the jinx-betting method, you can throw all of what I said out the window. :lol:
Joined
·
13,295 Posts
People don't make money from gambling still because of the odds.
Odds are not the reason why people doesn´t make money at gambling. In fact, the way to make money at gambling in the long run is finding the wrong odds, meaning by this those which offer a deviation big enough between an accurate estimation and the one implied by them
Joined
·
13,295 Posts
Oddsmakers try to adjust the odds according to the estimation they had on an event to occur, yes, but bookmakers make their profit bc the margin they work with as they´re not offering a fair deal to the gamblers (they won´t offer @2 odds on both sides in a 50% tennis match, they might offer @1.95, @1.90 or lower) it´s not so important to them how many people are right of wrong, they depend in a much higher percentage on the action they receive in those offers, it´s a simple statistics issue.
Joined
·
11,530 Posts
Actually, all I meant was that the reason gamblers tend to lose out overall is the fact that odds exist, if you got the same payback from betting on Federer or betting on GGL then everyone would be making money. I know that is stating the obvious but it was neccesary to say that to Bilbo because obviously the majority of people pick the favourite the majority of the time and the majority of the time the favourite wins, if odds didn't exist at all in gambling (it was just double or quits each tim for instance) the gamblers would always win.
What I don't understand is this:
Are these two statements not contradictory? I thought that people lost money gambling because the odds are stacked against them, the simple example of a 50/50 tennis match not being @2 on each side illustrates this. If the bookies are making money this way then logically the people are losing, that's what I was trying to say.
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!