Fade Mladenovic until she can win a match. Time to start fading a lot of older players. Simon, Lopez, etc. Time for some changes
Not sold on Shalapalov. Two good tournaments don't mean much
Fade Mladenovic until she can win a match. Time to start fading a lot of older players. Simon, Lopez, etc. Time for some changes
Not sold on Shalapalov. Two good tournaments don't mean much
Fade Mladenovic until she can win a match. Time to start fading a lot of older players. Simon, Lopez, etc. Time for some changes
Not sold on Shalapalov. Two good tournaments don't mean much
If your book voids bets when a retirement happens, then Aleksandr Nedovyesov is someone to keep an eye on. He has "retired" due to injury 20+ times in the last 3+ years. The guy's retired three times since November. He basically retires in 1 out of every 3 matches he loses. He is a walking freeroll.
If your book voids bets when a retirement happens, then Aleksandr Nedovyesov is someone to keep an eye on. He has "retired" due to injury 20+ times in the last 3+ years. The guy's retired three times since November. He basically retires in 1 out of every 3 matches he loses. He is a walking freeroll.
Yeah Shapo is kind of a weird name to bring up. Shapo is so far and beyond better than every other player in his age bracket, among 18 year olds Shapo ranks #1 at #51 in the world, the next highest 18 year old is ranked #155. It's hard to imagine a scenario where at the very least he is a future top 10 player, if not a future #1. With that said i will kind of contradict myself because i am leaning to Edmund to beat him tonight in Brisbane.
Yeah Shapo is kind of a weird name to bring up. Shapo is so far and beyond better than every other player in his age bracket, among 18 year olds Shapo ranks #1 at #51 in the world, the next highest 18 year old is ranked #155. It's hard to imagine a scenario where at the very least he is a future top 10 player, if not a future #1. With that said i will kind of contradict myself because i am leaning to Edmund to beat him tonight in Brisbane.
He was 2-7 after the Open
He's 18 years old, hes still growing. He was a challenger player until he did well in Canada and won a few rounds in the US
He was 2-7 after the Open
He's 18 years old, hes still growing. He was a challenger player until he did well in Canada and won a few rounds in the US
Did the math and this was Shapo's 2017 as a 17-18 year Old
Overall: 48-26 +20.80 units
But i do believe we will see Shapo get more respect from oddsmakers now that his name value is higher. And it will lead to some inflated lines. He could very well be a good fade this year now that i think about it. Not because he isn't a great talent with a great future, but because his value will be lessened. It's the old MLB starting pitcher stat, where every year its the big name ace pitchers who tend to be the biggest money losers, only because they are laying inflated high lines on a nightly basis. And its always those out of nowhere names (like Shapovalov last year) who end up as the big money winners in the end. It's no different in tennis.
Look at Djokovic last year. He was 32-8 overall but -90.05 units if you backed him in every match. Losing as a -10000 favorite to Istomin will do that.
Andy Murray was even worse. He went 26-11 for -117.10 units. Losing to the likes of James Thompson (-3300), Vasek Pospisil (-2500) and Mischa Zverev (-5000) at last years Aussie Open.
Nadal went 72-13 overall for +14.70 units. His worst losses of the year were to Shapovalov as a -1600 favorite and Gilles Muller at Wimbledon as a -900 favorite. But like the legend that he is, he overcame that and made his backers money for the year.
Federer had a spectacular year by all accounts going 56-6 overall, however even he found his was in the huge negative at -31.10 units. Thanks in large part to two losses, vs Donskoy (-5000), and vs Haas (-1600)
My point is sometimes the big names are the ones to fade. Shapovalov is turning into a known commodity, who's anyone to say he won't be a great fade, when 3 of the 4 best players in the world turned huge negative units for 2017.
Did the math and this was Shapo's 2017 as a 17-18 year Old
Overall: 48-26 +20.80 units
But i do believe we will see Shapo get more respect from oddsmakers now that his name value is higher. And it will lead to some inflated lines. He could very well be a good fade this year now that i think about it. Not because he isn't a great talent with a great future, but because his value will be lessened. It's the old MLB starting pitcher stat, where every year its the big name ace pitchers who tend to be the biggest money losers, only because they are laying inflated high lines on a nightly basis. And its always those out of nowhere names (like Shapovalov last year) who end up as the big money winners in the end. It's no different in tennis.
Look at Djokovic last year. He was 32-8 overall but -90.05 units if you backed him in every match. Losing as a -10000 favorite to Istomin will do that.
Andy Murray was even worse. He went 26-11 for -117.10 units. Losing to the likes of James Thompson (-3300), Vasek Pospisil (-2500) and Mischa Zverev (-5000) at last years Aussie Open.
Nadal went 72-13 overall for +14.70 units. His worst losses of the year were to Shapovalov as a -1600 favorite and Gilles Muller at Wimbledon as a -900 favorite. But like the legend that he is, he overcame that and made his backers money for the year.
Federer had a spectacular year by all accounts going 56-6 overall, however even he found his was in the huge negative at -31.10 units. Thanks in large part to two losses, vs Donskoy (-5000), and vs Haas (-1600)
My point is sometimes the big names are the ones to fade. Shapovalov is turning into a known commodity, who's anyone to say he won't be a great fade, when 3 of the 4 best players in the world turned huge negative units for 2017.
It's skewed in terms of how much h profit you'd make with all these big lines. You'd have to work it out mathematical. For example Djokovic losing as a -10000 favorite, you'd get close to +2000 on Istomin. So by fading Djokovic you wouldn't win 90 units. But you would have lost that much backing him.
It's skewed in terms of how much h profit you'd make with all these big lines. You'd have to work it out mathematical. For example Djokovic losing as a -10000 favorite, you'd get close to +2000 on Istomin. So by fading Djokovic you wouldn't win 90 units. But you would have lost that much backing him.
Here's what it would be backing and fading the Big 4 in 2017:
Rafa Nadal
2017 Record: 72-13
Backing Nadal = +14.70 units
Fading Nadal = -26.15 units
Notable Losses = vs Shapovalov (-1600), vs Muller (-900), vs Thiem (-700)
Roger Federer
2017 Record = 56-6
Backing Federer = -31.10 units
Fading Federer = -22.30 units
Notable Losses = vs Donskoy (-5000), vs Haas (-1600), vs Goffin (-1200)
Andy Murray
2017 Record = 26-11
Backing Murray = -117.10 units
Fading Murray = +30.05 units
Notable Losses = vs Zverev (-5000), vs Thompson (-3300), vs Pospisil (-2500)
Novak Djokovic
2017 Record = 32-8
Backing Djokovic = -90.05 units
Fading Djokovic = +4.15 units
Notable Losses = vs Istomin (-10000), vs A.Zverev (-550), vs Berdych (-400)
Here's what it would be backing and fading the Big 4 in 2017:
Rafa Nadal
2017 Record: 72-13
Backing Nadal = +14.70 units
Fading Nadal = -26.15 units
Notable Losses = vs Shapovalov (-1600), vs Muller (-900), vs Thiem (-700)
Roger Federer
2017 Record = 56-6
Backing Federer = -31.10 units
Fading Federer = -22.30 units
Notable Losses = vs Donskoy (-5000), vs Haas (-1600), vs Goffin (-1200)
Andy Murray
2017 Record = 26-11
Backing Murray = -117.10 units
Fading Murray = +30.05 units
Notable Losses = vs Zverev (-5000), vs Thompson (-3300), vs Pospisil (-2500)
Novak Djokovic
2017 Record = 32-8
Backing Djokovic = -90.05 units
Fading Djokovic = +4.15 units
Notable Losses = vs Istomin (-10000), vs A.Zverev (-550), vs Berdych (-400)
Fade two top 10 players at the beginning of the season.
Sounds legit.
Fade two top 10 players at the beginning of the season.
Sounds legit.
With that logic then you would have to dismiss 90% of Feds matches. Since he's a big fave vs almost everyone.
With that logic then you would have to dismiss 90% of Feds matches. Since he's a big fave vs almost everyone.
My point still stands and is valid.
Funny how you omitted Halep winning.
The Slam is where it is at.
My point still stands and is valid.
Funny how you omitted Halep winning.
The Slam is where it is at.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.