Tennis
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 129 comments are related to the topic:
Big John Isner
Big John Isner
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 129
|
By:
 i always critizise my bets when they loose then i say bad words |
|
By:
like fcking american gayboy
|
|
By:
betting assistan cheap stop loss fails betangel stop loss fails wtf peter webb
|
|
By:
right... one last push please
|
|
By:
if you toss a coin 1000 times and you have head 546 times it doesnt make head more probable in your next toss
similar situation with those who looking for probabilities within probabilities its just wrong looking for stats that players are more probable to win 3rd set coz they won 1st and it happened more often statistically are just wrong in basic because every match is a independent situation |
|
By:
at the end of the day, gambling is a mugs game ;)
|
|
By:
see above comment :)
|
|
By:
 |
|
By:
|
|
By:
probability of getting 2 way result is like coin toss(two way) just have different dimension in terms of weight of each side
|
|
By:
if we all play with infinite money and infinite time we would all loose 5% comission LOL but who cares
|
|
By:
you bet like that when Federer plays a player ranked 500+ next time then.
|
|
By:
BIG JOHN
 |
|
By:
isner merits this win
|
|
By:
This surprised nobody
|
|
By:
Well done SOA.
Still think the duration does have to matter though. |
|
By:
no it doesnt. The swing around those odds increases, but the starting odds should stay as a fixed point.
|
|
By:
yeah, but the starting odds are set for the players to win 2 out of 3 sets.
Look, you even said yourself the duration kind of matters as you don't think the odds for best of 3 and best of 5 should be the same. Why does that duration matter and best of 1 and best of 3 doesn't? |
|
By:
Or even best of 3 sets and best of 7 points as you said
|
|
By:
the starting odds are for both players to win 2 out of 3 sets, i.e. the match. At the start of a deciding set, why should the underdog then be given more chance of winning that match of one set than the favourite?
|
|
By:
He wasn't given a bigger chance of winning than the favourite. What are you talking about? Isner was still mostly 1.35
|
|
By:
*than the pre-match favourite
|
|
By:
so the underdog was given more chance than at the start of the match, for no reason.
|
|
By:
because its getting more random?
|
|
By:
but it isnt.
|
|
By:
shorter durations generally give the underdog a bigger chance of success.
|
|
By:
but they don't, they have exactly the same.
Or less, if you use stats as I do. |
|
By:
it is, imagine you have 4 points to play, do you think worst player shouldnt have bigger chance to win, ? just one point and done. if match is longer better players statistic will take advantage and its less likely for lesser player to win
|
|
By:
youre thinking about it as if the favourite, if they go behind, cannot turn it around because of a lack of time, but not thinking about the reverse, if the underdog goes behind, it is the same situation for the favourite. So, those odds shouldnt change, but with each point against serve they should swing more around that point.
|
|
By:
becoasue its not getting less random and actual better skills/stats taking advantage nad single random point doesnt have much impact as when you would have only two points in a match
|
|
By:
Yet the better skills should have the same amount of advantage in one point as they do in a match
|
|
By:
It's not about turning it around in that one set. It's about having a set in reserve.
Or a full half in reserve in soccer, or a full day in reserve in cricket, or a full quarter in basketball, or a full period in ice hockey.... |
|
By:
tennis scoring system is not bringing justice when match is short,the difference between [players is not that big that you can determine it after few point or even one set, more longer match skills/better stats of a player taking over rather than one chance
just look at the darts for example, shorter match taylor is longer ,long match he is 1.x common sence |
|
By:
Yet the better skills should have the same amount of advantage in one point as they do in a match
no because the difference between players is actually quite small so you need more chances to determine reasonable result same as with coin toss if u do it 3 times u can have 3 heads easly if u do it 100000 times it will eventually equal itself to the probability ok im done here,crzy discusion, i was in technical university would discus and explain it to u much better but my englihs dictionary is limited on mathematical field |
|
By:
*dictionary=vocabulary
lol |
|
By:
How often should a player win when they are at 1.2s?
|
|
By:
how often do they win when they were 1.2s at the start of the match and are just about to start a deciding set?
|
|
By:
its more or less the same %. But a bit more in favour of whoever won the first set.
|
|
By:
Exactly, because the player who won the first set has that one set in reserve that he's allowed to lose
|