Tennis
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 325 comments are related to the topic:
***** Petition for cancel rule of retiremnet *****
***** Petition for cancel rule of retiremnet *****
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 325
|
By:
No one should make money out of a retirement, and in this day and age it is occurring far more often than in previous times. Fact is though, if you bet on tennis you should not be betting with anyone that pays out on retirement if you have a half a brain.
|
|
By:
sign.. Lost 150 pounds coz of monaco when i was at 70 all green at one point :(
|
|
By:
sign.. Lost 150 pounds coz of monaco when i was at 70 all green at one point :(
|
|
By:
Newcombe, so you've never ever bet on tennis on betfair? Or are you implying you don't have half a brain yourself?
Anyway, as far as I can see on the ATP (didn't check WTA, but can't be that different) it was only the 2nd out of the blue retirement of a player who was leading in the whole season so far, the other being Darcis at the Australian Open (to be honest I don't know how out of the blue that retirement really was, but he led by 2 sets to love). The next matches that come close would be Roddick-Hewitt, where Roddick got injured in the 2nd set after winning the first but hanging in there for quite a while, and Davydenko at 1 set all in Rotterdam. Out of how many matches that have been played so far? About 850 main draw matches in ATP tournaments I think. So yes, the Monaco incident was unlucky but in the bigger picture it's hardly even worth a footnote. Negligible. So I strongly disagree that only people that don't even have half a brain bet on sites where retirements are not voided generally. You have insulted a hell of a lot people with that statement, you know? Even though you're actually the one who should be thinking about his views. |
|
By:
I was on tabsportsbet before joining betfair and they void on retirements so was a shock to the system when I came here. I would prefer void on retirement..just seems fairer to me.
|
|
By:
Fairer in some cases maybe.
Look at it this way: I won't go counting but I think it's fair to assume that a fair share of retirements are due to pre-exisitng conditions (like Berlocq his last two matches). Why should people not be rewarded for doing their homework while people who don't naturally get punished for neglecting the importance or simply not knowing about it because they were lazy. Or simply players giving up while in losing positions. Might still be able to walk and lift their arms, but they either already had or have developed a niggle and they see no point in continuing as they're well on their way to lose already. I don't see why people should not be paid out in those cases just because over a long period of time maybe 1% or less of total matches being played are like Monaco-Haase yesterday. |
|
By:
signed
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
To spend hours to trade on a match for nothing because the player who was going to lose didn't bother finish the match??? No thanks! Few of retirements are caused by a real injury, it's just a way to lose faster.
I know it's always painful to take a loss on a retirement but get a grip, on a lifetime luck and no luck come to 50/50, you will make as much on retirements as what you lost |
|
By:
There would be no fuss at all if it was Haase who retired...
Low odds backers were punished cruelly, and only low odds backers are really against this rule. Lex retro non agit, and to be fair I think, despite of the fact that people voting against the rule are more vocal and visible on the forum, they are in minority and would lose any referendum if we were to vote on that matter... |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Stop whining...it's fair.
|
|
By:
Here come the devil's advocates.
|
|
By:
Why is it more unfair than a void rule would be? Abolo and others have shared their views on why a void all rule would suck. Tell us why you think their reasons are outweighed by yours.
|
|
By:
There was no fuzz whatsoever when Jaziri retired against Hanescu last week btw.
|
|
By:
Because you can tell, whenever you win money from a retirement, that someone else has just lost their money, maybe even money they put on the match one point before, or sometimes, between the two sets, without a ball being played. With no pictures on most matches, and this rule in place, the ideal solution would be as on cricket, to have a 'completed match' market to safeguard customers against these things.
|
|
By:
A player 2-0 up and a break in 3rd in a five set match, opponent retires...that is UNFAIR.
|
|
By:
Srichaphan or Ancic? 18 Apr 12 14:36
Apr 18, 2012 -- 2:22PM, Elwira wrote: There would be no fuss at all if it was Haase who retired...Low odds backers were punished cruelly, and only low odds backers are really against this rule.Lex retro non agit, and to be fair I think, despite of the fact that people voting against the rule are more vocal and visible on the forum, they are in minority and would lose any referendum if we were to vote on that matter... There is every time a player retires. Why? Because the rule is unfair. Of course the rule is fair. As long as it is clear and not ambiguous, known to the all parties to the contract, then the rule is fair. We all agreed to the terms&conditions, we all know the risk. People who perceive this rule as a one that should be corrected may try to do so... |
|
By:
If you don't like the rule, bet with a bookie that voids on retirements.
|
|
By:
How can you possibly say "winning" on a retirement is "fair" when either it is an injury or it is just because the player says they want to retire. It is a farce. To win a match usually involves superior play, not the other player lying down and saying I won't continue because I am being beaten or I am hurt, or I don't feel like playing anymore. For the people complaining, don't bet on Betfair for tennis if you think it isn't fair because retirements are frequent. But if you think the odds outweigh the risk then you are betting with the knowledge that retirement counts as win or loss. To lose on Monaco yesterday would be sickening, but it just shows it can happen. A bet lost for nothing.
|
|
By:
The rule is fine, just another factor to be taken into account when placing bets.
|
|
By:
thread full of seethers
|
|
By:
Problem with tennis is it's one person against one person. If the heavy favourite rolls their ankle or their arm falls off then your screwed. If a player gets injured in a team sport your team can still win.
|
|
By:
Whenever anyone wins money someone else loses it
 . Whether by retirement or not. If you ask me it's ethically more questionable to use some kind of tennis scheme to fail-proof skim money out of people, i.e without giving people a chance to win money from you. Even courtsiders (whom you were referring to with your no available pictures, safeguard thing, right?) can misjudge injuries and offer prices that are plain wrong for the situation. Hence giving others, even pure scoreboard punters, getting somewhat of a fair deal against them. Even if the scoreboarders had considerable less information. Can your tennis scheme offer us a chance if you follow it exactly? Furthermore I don't see how your point outweighs that of abolo and incaseof, as that's the more far more likely and more frequent scenario than some freak injury, which I'm sure your vast amount of statistics will tell you are negligible. Also...safeguard customers from being hurt by scoreboard retirements? What the freaking fucking fuck? If you have no access to a stream you're simply quite likely at an disadvantage. Is that really unfair though? Hell no. You're an adult and you're fully aware that if you're sitting at home in front of your desktop, biting your nails while looking at a scoreboard that you will be slower, less informed than e.g courtsiders (who fully deserve their edge btw). Accept that with all of it's consequences instead of blaming others and crying for companies to safeguard you against everything. Again, they went through the trouble of attending the tournament, whether the tournament likes courtside betting or not doesn't really matter. It's not illegal by law, except in countries where gambling is outlawed completely. Courtsiding is more like...let's say you burping and smacking around in an expensive and exclusive french restaurant. If they see a player limping around on an outside court, why should they not be rewarded compared to the lazy people who didn't make the trip? Doesn't even have to be courtsiders. Can be...let's say a spaniard who watches on his local Pay-TV channel and hence deservedly has an edge over either another spaniard who hasn't subscribed to that same channel or a foreigner who never took the necessary measures to get it. |
|
By:
Newcombe 18 Apr 12 14:52
because retirements are frequent. what do you mean by frequent?  stats please, and not just vague unsubstantiated bullsh1t. |
|
By:
*Hence giving others, even pure scoreboard punters, the chance of getting somewhat of a fair deal against them
|
|
By:
You can always bet on set market if you worry about retirements, that one is fully void in case of retirement. But the rule for winner market is fair for me.
|
|
By:
trouble with that is liquidity. makes it hard to hedge out if you want to.
|
|
By:
there is no way to always win, you have to compromise sometimes.
|
|
By:
why the seethers didnt raised the problem before monaco hasse match?
|
|
By:
;[p 18 Apr 12 16:21
why the seethers didnt raised the problem before monaco hasse match? they did. last time there was an unexpected retirement that cost them money never at other times though. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
What has fairness got to do with betting?....................... its like getting justice mixed up with the law!
|
|
By:
I say no, leave as it is. Think how gutted you would be if you've just sat there for like 6 hours, now in the the 5th set, nice green everywhere but then a player retires and all your good work is gone, not to mention the waste of time. Of course you could argue against this and say this would be a positive if all massive red, but I will reply that it's just swings and roundabouts kiddies.
Last year I covered 346 matches, recording p/l for every injury time out and retirement. Biggest single lost was £156 and biggest single win was £471. At the end of the season I was up £1049. This year so far I'm in the red for £493. I recommend you guys record p/l for 'wrong side/right side' of injuries and it might not be as bad as you think. Without records you will of course remember the big loses better than the wins resulting from injury T/O & retirements. The market can completely over react to an injury time out, so put enough time in following the markets and you will learn to limit your loses, and if your good enough will be able to use the over reaction to your advantage. |
|
By:
Some strange answers on this.
|
|
By:
This rule is awesome, tell me sincerely, if you had won money on the match due to the retirement would you still come here and post the same thing? No, you would be quiet.
Also, this kind of things evens out in the long run, one day you're on the good side the other you're on the bad side. |
|
By:
It has nothing to do with courtsiders. The vast majority of punters for most matches on here, bet from a scoreboard. Courtsiders are going to have an advantage whatever the situation, and I have no problem with them. They do not affect match odds punters, just get the odds in advance and are able to make a profit more easily.
I disagree with the fact that the retirement rule affects people who put money on at low odds. When you consider that the majority of retirements are from players who are losing, the people most often caught out by this are the people who lay the in-play low odds. I think it is unfair if you are watching a scoreboard, one player wins a set, and then you think to yourself, they didn't deserve to win that set and that theyll lose the match, you put your bet on the other player, and two seconds after that they have retired. You have lost your money with no way of retrieving it and that isn't what sports betting should be about. I am more often on the player who wins via his or her opponent retiring, but I would be accepting of the removal of this rule because I know that if I win, I have won not via my sporting knowledge. I wouldnt actually be that bothered whether I was in profit on both players or not, because I would see the moral point in refunding the bets on this. I think it is the people who have less consideration for that point or simply don't understand it, that object to the removal of this rule. However, I am sure Betfair's reason for the rule is to gain more money, and my argument would be that they will get more money if they removed the rule, as people will place larger bets on the tennis. I didnt bet on the match yesterday, and I have said many times previously, having won because of a player retirement, that I would not mind if they removed the rule, however, I doubt they will and so a completed match market for every match would solve the problem - and make even more money for Betfair. |
|
By:
You would not count doing your homework better than some other people as part of your sporting knowledge? Which, if everything goes as planned, gives you the win if the player retires. I don't have stats on this, but that's the most frequent reason people retire, right? Pre-existing niggles or injuries. That's what you deserve to be rewarded for. This is part of why it's good to have a rule in place that pays on at least some retirements. Nothing unethical about that.
The rest, the sudden, acute injuries (broken wrists, torn ligaments) that you have no chance of getting out of, will eventually even themselves. So the rule as it is will not punish you if you're in the game long enough, at least not severely...unless maybe you back absolutely every player the moment you know he's severely injured, hoping for him to pull a Monfils. As Marin has pointed out if they deal heavy, heavy blows, simply learn from them instead of moaning around: Take your lesson regarding some money/risk management and come back stronger than ever instead of blaming any rules that you have probably been aware of for a while...it just never bothered you before. Even if you're the unluckiest person on earth and every imagineable sudden injury goes strictly against you....do your homework and you will likely get plenty of opportunities to get the money back from people who did not take the extra look at a forum, blog, newssite etc. (and hence fully deserve to lose). And don't you of all people dare question my moral/ethic foundation for having this opinion. What's that crap about us being less considerate and not being morally nice enough to see the point of unlucky retirements being refunded? Just two days ago you told me someone who all the time lies on purpose about who is injured, to what extend and who takes a medical timeout just to mislead people (and make them lose money - whether for his own gain or just for fun doesn't matter), is not at all worse than someone pasting a screenshot in here with the accompanying comment "haha look, that dude looked for David Beckham naked in a swimming pool" (I have googled shirtless Beckham, Safin, and ironically Juan Monaco, more than any single woman, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with it at all. If people want to make fun of it...go ahead. Hey, after all a not closer specified forum member called me a stupid German **** and another opened threads on numerous occasions to call me "just a girl" who has a love affair with gvl (once after I had voiced my displeasure with Raonic's hair cut sometime last year) . In the end there's no harm whatsoever in such exchanges, is there? I'm still alive, I know they're sooo totally not gonna be invited to the party I plan to organize when I finally move out of my parent's basement and everybody who read their comments knows so too.That other stuff, the direct, repeated and obvious attempts to mislead people on the official betfair forum, which your friend Lochinvar likes to do, is something that betfair should safeguard it's customers from by plain and simply removing posting rights after a few documented attempts. You're right about safeguarding in that respect. Also, I don't think the general betting public is severely spooked about injuries and limits their exposure by a lot because betfair settles after 1 set. I would question if betfair would make substantially more than with their current rule. Any estimated figures of sudden injuries that force players to retire compared to the total numbers of retirements and total numbers of matches played each year? |
|
By:
Lochinvar is not my friend, but he is someone that I have no problems with and seems to be quite a sensible punter. I have rarely seem him post injury information which is incorrect, but if you have seen that and if it annoys you that much, wouldnt it be better if doing that had no effect on profit because there was no retirement rule? It would stop what you are suggesting about the market being influenced by such things. I think people assume too often that there are a batch of new punters looking at the forum and believing, rather gullibly, all the ramping that is posted on here. Usually people bet on things they know about, and if they bet on something they don't know about and they lose their money, then they will learn quickly.
|