Tennis
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
It's fill your boots time people.... no way he loses to Fognini today... was expecting it to be around 1.1
Show More
ok
First set winner more likely to win the deciding set of a match, and he is serving first, and his record.
Is it really that panicky and unrational to have a ~1.25 favourite ever so slightly higher in a 1 set shootout (which might very well end in a tiebreak) than he was when the situation was "win 2 sets out of 3"?
It's not like Isner was suddenly evens...
It's not like Isner was suddenly evens...
He's cute, look at the picture SteveDevo linked to at the start of the thread.
Oct 22, 2012 -- 3:32PM, StevoDevo wrote:
Isner has dropped a lot of sets in his last ten matches. Having said that, very hard to see Fognini winning this.He'll try to hang on:https://twitter.com/Fabio_Fogna/status/201653965660753920/photo/1
Yes, it is. This is why people lose money. They think uh oh, player I bet on is going to lose, and they try to get out of their bets, pushing the odds up. Statistically, doing that consistently = lose money.
The duration of the match is unimportant. If it was over two days, two hours or two seconds, the starting odds should not vary.
You don't think a favourite's/ a better player's chance to win 1 set out of 1 is generally lower than it is to win 2 sets out of 3?
The first set winner is more likely to win a deciding set. Its in the stats.
thats why isner is isner 15:40 first game does not make it and now gayboy gos to TB where everything can happen 
If the duration of the match is unimportant....you think the odds should be the same for best of 3 and best of 5 matches?
no, but the odds within those matches should be consistent.
Oct 22, 2012 -- 7:13PM, Srichaphan or Ancic? wrote:
The first set winner is more likely to win a deciding set. Its in the stats.
Isner wasn't underdog after the 2nd set, was he?
Im not getting into a debate about it, I know that statistically I am correct.
Ok, you say the odds of bet of 5 and best of 3 should not be the same.
Doesn't a best of 5 match kind of turn into a best of 3 match if they split the first 2 sets and nothing tragic like injuries, stamina problems, big runs happen?
Doesn't a best of 5 match kind of turn into a best of 3 match if they split the first 2 sets and nothing tragic like injuries, stamina problems, big runs happen?
odds changed from 1.39 to 3 in 2 points typical gayboy isner
If Isner were to get on serve again, even at the start of a tiebreak, I would have him at 1.2s.
C'mon, you'd put below pre match odds for a first to 7 points as a best of 3 sets? 
stop loss has failed as always so cmon american gay boy do it
I doubt that Isner is what you refer to as a 'gay boy' to be fair.
edy
22 Oct 12 19:12
Joined:
13 Dec 06
| Topic/replies: 5,183 | Blogger: edy's blog
You don't think a favourite's/ a better player's chance to win 1 set out of 1 is generally lower than it is to win 2 sets out of 3?
Kuznetsova would be the exception to that. Her chance to win the first set and the first break in the 2nd is lots higher than to win 2 sets out of 3.
i always critizise my bets when they loose then i say bad words
betting assistan cheap stop loss fails betangel stop loss fails wtf peter webb
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
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
Oct 22, 2012 -- 7:39PM, Moofer wrote:
at the end of the day, gambling is a mugs game ;)
trading is gambling you only make the odds smaller
Oct 22, 2012 -- 7:37PM, ;[p wrote:
if you toss a coin 1000 times and you have head 546 times it doesnt make head more probable in your next tosssimilar situation with those who looking for probabilities within probabilities its just wronglooking 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
players are not coins
probability of getting 2 way result is like coin toss(two way) just have different dimension in terms of weight of each side
if we all play with infinite money and infinite time we would all loose 5% comission LOL but who cares
you bet like that when Federer plays a player ranked 500+ next time then.
Well done SOA.
Still think the duration does have to matter though.
Still think the duration does have to matter though.
no it doesnt. The swing around those odds increases, but the starting odds should stay as a fixed point.
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?
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?
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?
He wasn't given a bigger chance of winning than the favourite. What are you talking about? Isner was still mostly 1.35
so the underdog was given more chance than at the start of the match, for no reason.
shorter durations generally give the underdog a bigger chance of success.
but they don't, they have exactly the same.
Or less, if you use stats as I do.
Or less, if you use stats as I do.
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
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.
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
Yet the better skills should have the same amount of advantage in one point as they do in a match
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....
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....
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
just look at the darts for example, shorter match taylor is longer ,long match he is 1.x common sence
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
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
How often should a player win when they are at 1.2s?
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?
its more or less the same %. But a bit more in favour of whoever won the first set.
Exactly, because the player who won the first set has that one set in reserve that he's allowed to lose 
I was talking about the player winning the first set having a slight advantage to win the match, honey
You 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.
yes, 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 now?
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 now?
but 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 view
its like counting lottery numbers thinking that the chance for one number to be drawn is greater cuz it wasnt drawn for a year already
its just basic fail
its just basic fail
that 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.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539