So I have been mulling this over for a while and I think I will keep track of how this does, maybe it works maybe it doesnt but I think there is some value. This hit today with Lauren Davis and I had success on other plays in the past as well so it seems like something worth trying
The idea is pretty simple. I will note down all heavy favorites, meaning -400 or higher, and will keep track. Usually, if the fave loses the 1st set you can take them ML at even odds or even slightly + money to come back and win. In other words, I am taking a very heavy favorite live at short odds or + odds
Also, I am going to stick to ATP and WTA tournaments I won't be using this with Challenger tour or any other tour as they are unpredictable and shady things occur so I am staying away.
So looking at todays card the following qualifies
WTA
Madison Keys (-497)
Danielle Collins (-436)
ATP
Kovacevic (-477)
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
So I have been mulling this over for a while and I think I will keep track of how this does, maybe it works maybe it doesnt but I think there is some value. This hit today with Lauren Davis and I had success on other plays in the past as well so it seems like something worth trying
The idea is pretty simple. I will note down all heavy favorites, meaning -400 or higher, and will keep track. Usually, if the fave loses the 1st set you can take them ML at even odds or even slightly + money to come back and win. In other words, I am taking a very heavy favorite live at short odds or + odds
Also, I am going to stick to ATP and WTA tournaments I won't be using this with Challenger tour or any other tour as they are unpredictable and shady things occur so I am staying away.
I’ve been doing something like this but instead of taking them for the game down a set I just take them to win the 2nd set if they lose the 1st. Yes juice is higher but having a better winning percentage
1
I’ve been doing something like this but instead of taking them for the game down a set I just take them to win the 2nd set if they lose the 1st. Yes juice is higher but having a better winning percentage
That's an idea as well could definitely look into it. One thing I found out after some research is how often matches end in straight set winners, I believe its around 70% that end up finishing in straight sets. That was surprising to me as I assumed it would be closer to 50-55% that ended in straights
0
@YELAWOLF
That's an idea as well could definitely look into it. One thing I found out after some research is how often matches end in straight set winners, I believe its around 70% that end up finishing in straight sets. That was surprising to me as I assumed it would be closer to 50-55% that ended in straights
I would agree about being careful with the ladies. And most of the time when you're using this strategy you would likely be backing a high level player like Keys instead of a lower level player like Lauren Davis. I say that because lower level players can quite often lose to practically anybody on any given day. Davis was just a large fav because her opponent is not even worthy of challenger level right now.
But to be clear, I'm not criticizing the Lauren Davis pick itself. I actually bet on her after the first set too. I decided to bet it because I was watching the match, and watched both of Loeb's qualifying matches, and I really felt like Lauren was starting to gain footing and would be able to outlast Loeb down the stretch. Loeb was actually sitting on her couch not long ago when she got the call from Charleston asking her if she could possibly come play qualifying. There was a lack of players signed up and the tournament got desperate filling the qualifying draw.
I know that you were watching the match too and saw the same things I saw but my point was that generally speaking it is not a good idea to place a bet like this UNLESS you have a good reason to after watching the first set as we did. Often you will see people blindly bet a top player after losing a set and I would recommend that you never do this. There has to be a reason that you think they will win to make it worth betting. Also when you are betting on a top player after losing a set the odds typically don't have good value. This is because all the people in the market that will see someone like Novak lose a set (like a couple nights ago) and then they just want to hammer him because it feels valuable to them to bet Novak at such a good price without taking the full context of the situation into account. Of course 5 set GS matches are a completely different animal where dropping the first set is certainly not the end of the world.
And as far as the straight sets numbers, that would be skewed by all the heavy favs who routinely win in straight sets. BUT in the WTA a lot of times when you see massive upsets they actually often happen in straight sets. This is because an elite player can usually figure things out if they are given enough time. So sometimes there's better value on a 2-0 lotto bet than straight ML. If the good player is able to get it into the third set they typically win.
Just sharing my thoughts on the matter and I make bets like the Lauren Davis bet today fairly often but only when I'm watching live and like the value for them to win.
1
I would agree about being careful with the ladies. And most of the time when you're using this strategy you would likely be backing a high level player like Keys instead of a lower level player like Lauren Davis. I say that because lower level players can quite often lose to practically anybody on any given day. Davis was just a large fav because her opponent is not even worthy of challenger level right now.
But to be clear, I'm not criticizing the Lauren Davis pick itself. I actually bet on her after the first set too. I decided to bet it because I was watching the match, and watched both of Loeb's qualifying matches, and I really felt like Lauren was starting to gain footing and would be able to outlast Loeb down the stretch. Loeb was actually sitting on her couch not long ago when she got the call from Charleston asking her if she could possibly come play qualifying. There was a lack of players signed up and the tournament got desperate filling the qualifying draw.
I know that you were watching the match too and saw the same things I saw but my point was that generally speaking it is not a good idea to place a bet like this UNLESS you have a good reason to after watching the first set as we did. Often you will see people blindly bet a top player after losing a set and I would recommend that you never do this. There has to be a reason that you think they will win to make it worth betting. Also when you are betting on a top player after losing a set the odds typically don't have good value. This is because all the people in the market that will see someone like Novak lose a set (like a couple nights ago) and then they just want to hammer him because it feels valuable to them to bet Novak at such a good price without taking the full context of the situation into account. Of course 5 set GS matches are a completely different animal where dropping the first set is certainly not the end of the world.
And as far as the straight sets numbers, that would be skewed by all the heavy favs who routinely win in straight sets. BUT in the WTA a lot of times when you see massive upsets they actually often happen in straight sets. This is because an elite player can usually figure things out if they are given enough time. So sometimes there's better value on a 2-0 lotto bet than straight ML. If the good player is able to get it into the third set they typically win.
Just sharing my thoughts on the matter and I make bets like the Lauren Davis bet today fairly often but only when I'm watching live and like the value for them to win.
Hot Forum Topics
