Posted:
#1
The Monaco boy has a wildcard to this weekends ATP Monte-Carlo Masters.
0
Tank alert Valentin Vacherot
Posted:
#7
First of all tanking means to lose on purpose (because you don’t want to play etc.) - I think you mean “matchfixing” for an amateur they can seem the same - but one of them is illegal the other is frown upon but not something that is being enforced
Don't mention the frogs - we don't want to scare the toddler - we want him to sleep
0
Posted:
#8
You literally defined both as losing on purpose: Tanking = lose on purpose, Match-fixing = lose on purpose. The only difference you’re hinting at is motive—like match-fixing involves money while tanking might not. But let’s not be naive here: match-fixing happens in tennis daily, and it’s impossible to prove. The line between the two is blurry at best.
Preda to win over 4.50 games 
0
Posted:
#9
Quote Originally Posted by Bjorn_Borg:
You literally defined both as losing on purpose: Tanking = lose on purpose, Match-fixing = lose on purpose. The only difference you’re hinting at is motive—like match-fixing involves money while tanking might not. But let’s not be naive here: match-fixing happens in tennis daily, and it’s impossible to prove. The line between the two is blurry at best. Preda to win over 4.50 games
You literally defined both as losing on purpose: Tanking = lose on purpose, Match-fixing = lose on purpose. The only difference you’re hinting at is motive—like match-fixing involves money while tanking might not. But let’s not be naive here: match-fixing happens in tennis daily, and it’s impossible to prove. The line between the two is blurry at best. Preda to win over 4.50 games
If they were the same both of them would either be illegal or not - they aren’t so they are not the same end of story - and nice hit what was that odds -200 ?
Don't mention the frogs - we don't want to scare the toddler - we want him to sleep
0
Posted:
#11
And what would be the advantage of losing the first set on purpose if you wanted to lose on purpose because you didn’t want to play the match - your argument only makes sense if they wanted to profit from it
Don't mention the frogs - we don't want to scare the toddler - we want him to sleep
0
Posted:
#15
Quote Originally Posted by Calde13:
Quote Originally Posted by Bjorn_Borg: Thank you, it was 9/5. Klizan live 2/1 No way in hell you got that at 9/5 for him just winning 3 games in the 2set
Quote Originally Posted by Bjorn_Borg: Thank you, it was 9/5. Klizan live 2/1 No way in hell you got that at 9/5 for him just winning 3 games in the 2set
At that time he had won 6 straight games, had broken him 3 straight games and started to serve in the 2nd so only needed 2 breaks in the 2nd.
Sorry you missed it
0
Posted:
#22
Adding
Harrison/king + McDonald/Michelsen
Harrison/King have been great this year.
Dallas: Winner
Delray: Final
Acapulco: Winner
Indian Wells: Semi-final
Miami: Quarter-final
I think the fast surface will favour them as well, they playing Seggerman R. / Trhac P who is 2-5 in their last 7 matches and 1-1 this year. They are better on clay than Harrison/king who haven't played any clay matches together, but with this surface I have to go with King and Harrison.
McDonald/Michelsen have had some really good double wins in the past years winning over some top 10 players. Michelsen looks really good yesterday and same here with the quick surface would favor them here.
0
Posted:
#25
Quote Originally Posted by wgomel21:
Would like to hear your thoughts on the Michael Mmoh vs Adam Walton match. See a play here but need to make sure it is worth the risk.
Would like to hear your thoughts on the Michael Mmoh vs Adam Walton match. See a play here but need to make sure it is worth the risk.
suprised Walton is a dog here, probably because he never plays on clay but with these fast courts he should be favourite.
0
Hot Forum Topics
