New Posts For Thread: Big John Isnerhttps://community.betfair.com/tennis/go/thread/view/94186/29452141/big-john-isnerIt's fill your boots time people.... no way he loses to Fognini today... was expecting it to be around 1.1ok Jeff Tarango had been telling us that for years with his patented "Jeff Tarango Momentum switch" at the start of the final set. Looks like he was smarter than everybody always gave him credit for.https://community.betfair.com/tennis/go/thread/view/94186/29452141/big-john-isner?post_id=525362585#525362585ok Jeff Tarango had been telling us that for years with his patented "Jeff Tarango Momentum switch" at the start of the final set. Looks like he was smarter than everybody always gave him credit for.Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:38:35 -0500shouldhttps://community.betfair.com/tennis/go/thread/view/94186/29452141/big-john-isner?post_id=525362405#525362405shouldMon, 22 Oct 2012 14:33:39 -0500that is correct, whoever won the first set who be lesser odds than prematch when they are about to start the deciding set. Not by a lot, but just a bit.https://community.betfair.com/tennis/go/thread/view/94186/29452141/big-john-isner?post_id=525362385#525362385that is correct, whoever won the first set who be lesser odds than prematch when they are about to start the deciding set. Not by a lot, but just a bit.Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:32:44 -0500its like counting lottery numbers thinking that the chance for one number to be drawn is greater cuz it wasnt drawn for a year alreadyits just basic failhttps://community.betfair.com/tennis/go/thread/view/94186/29452141/big-john-isner?post_id=525362101#525362101its like counting lottery numbers thinking that the chance for one number to be drawn is greater cuz it wasnt drawn for a year alreadyits just basic failMon, 22 Oct 2012 14:25:16 -0500but i explained to you that ur statistic are not relevant in this situation. every match is singe chance, u cant look for probabilities within probabilities coz its basically wrong from mathematical point of viewhttps://community.betfair.com/tennis/go/thread/view/94186/29452141/big-john-isner?post_id=525362011#525362011but i explained to you that ur statistic are not relevant in this situation. every match is singe chance, u cant look for probabilities within probabilities coz its basically wrong from mathematical point of viewMon, 22 Oct 2012 14:23:15 -0500yes, I said that. Is that so wrong with your statistics?But an underdog who won the first set, then lost the 2nd, has a right to be slightly more favoured at the start of a final set than he was at the start of the match? Did I get that right just nohttps://community.betfair.com/tennis/go/thread/view/94186/29452141/big-john-isner?post_id=525361991#525361991yes, I said that. Is that so wrong with your statistics?But an underdog who won the first set, then lost the 2nd, has a right to be slightly more favoured at the start of a final set than he was at the start of the match? Did I get that right just noMon, 22 Oct 2012 14:22:57 -0500You were suggesting the underdog should have lower odds at the start of a deciding set, which is not correct, statistically, unless they won the first set.https://community.betfair.com/tennis/go/thread/view/94186/29452141/big-john-isner?post_id=525361847#525361847You were suggesting the underdog should have lower odds at the start of a deciding set, which is not correct, statistically, unless they won the first set.Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:18:29 -0500I was talking about the player winning the first set having a slight advantage to win the match, honeyhttps://community.betfair.com/tennis/go/thread/view/94186/29452141/big-john-isner?post_id=525361817#525361817I was talking about the player winning the first set having a slight advantage to win the match, honeyMon, 22 Oct 2012 14:17:39 -0500no, they would be 1-1.https://community.betfair.com/tennis/go/thread/view/94186/29452141/big-john-isner?post_id=525361773#525361773no, they would be 1-1.Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:16:58 -0500Thanks for finally acknowledging we are righthttps://community.betfair.com/tennis/go/thread/view/94186/29452141/big-john-isner?post_id=525361757#525361757Thanks for finally acknowledging we are rightMon, 22 Oct 2012 14:16:36 -0500