|
By:
Is is not dutched 4.6 and 4.6 = 2.3 which is smaller than 3.0, so the handicap is the better bet?
|
|
By:
No because he could either lose both, win both, or win one.
|
|
By:
your handicap bet is the same as laying player B to win 2-0.
based on set odds of 4.6 for player 1, and assuming independence (which you can't) the probability for player 2 to win 2-0 is 61.2%, so 38.8% he doesn't = 2.58. the handicap bet appears to be better. problem is that the odds for a favourite to win 2-0 are always lower than the independent set probabilities. |
|
By:
Hello there Wicked Whisper, i'll give this a go.
It's best to look at the opposite price assuming around 100% book. So in the first instance if player 1 is 3 to win a set then player 2 must be 1.5 to win 2-0. In the second example if player 1 is 4.6 to win the set then player 2 must be around 1.27ish, lets say 1.275. So to win 2-0 then the price would be 1.275 x 1.275 which is around 1.62ish. So the latter option is better. There you go, that's my thoughts, don't know if i've missed anything important. |
|
By:
If player one is 4.6 to win first set and player two handicap is 3 and if he wins one set then it is ok already then there must be sth wrong here because you could dutch these and make a profit whoever wins the first set...
|
|
By:
Ok never mind my bad...i read it all wrong as if you were talking about two players but you were takling about one.....disregard
|