Arbs involving tennis matches

[xyz]

The rules regarding a tennis bet having action are different for different books. Here are a few examples:

Matchbook: One full set must be played
CW: Two full sets must be played
SIA: The match must be completed

So if one were to arb between these books, it is possible to win and push or lose and push depending on when the player injuries and quits.

The first question is if we assume that the event of a player injuries and quits is random, then over the long term, do the differences in rules matter?

The second question is if there is a way to compare the likelihood of quitting between two players prior to the match, how would you profit from it? For example, take the Roddick vs Djokovic match in this year's Australian Open. If we determine prior to the match that Djokovic is more likely to quit than Roddick, and the odds in those books present an arb opportunity, then the strategy seems to be bet Djokovic to win at SIA and bet Roddick to win at Matchbook. This way when Djokovic quits after one set, you would win at Matchbook and push at SIA. Thanks for your insight.

[rookie]

The rules regarding a tennis bet having action are different for different books. Here are a few examples:

Matchbook: One full set must be played
CW: Two full sets must be played
SIA: The match must be completed

So if one were to arb between these books, it is possible to win and push or lose and push depending on when the player injuries and quits.

The first question is if we assume that the event of a player injuries and quits is random, then over the long term, do the differences in rules matter?

The second question is if there is a way to compare the likelihood of quitting between two players prior to the match, how would you profit from it? For example, take the Roddick vs Djokovic match in this year's Australian Open. If we determine prior to the match that Djokovic is more likely to quit than Roddick, and the odds in those books present an arb opportunity, then the strategy seems to be bet Djokovic to win at SIA and bet Roddick to win at Matchbook. This way when Djokovic quits after one set, you would win at Matchbook and push at SIA. Thanks for your insight.

Arbitrage is riskless profit. Difference in rules is a risk. If you think difference in rules doesn't matter in the long run, why not just play the +EV team/ player every time and forget about arbitrage ? Since you are unsure and want to avoid risk, why take a risk on retirement rules ?

There's a certain book that requires only one point to be played for the bets to be valid. Why do you think it's the case ?

[u21c3f6]

The first question is if we assume that the event of a player injuries and quits is random, then over the long term, do the differences in rules matter?

This should even out over the long run, sometimes you get lucky and sometimes you get unlucky. The net result of this over the long run should become a blip to your bottom line. I like to "arb/hedge" my wagers during live action. My own personal experience in this area was a time when Matchbook was experiencing "technical difficulties" where I would wind up on only one side. Sometimes I won, and sometimes I lost. The net effect to my bottom line was a small overall loss. It was so bad at Matchbook one week that they gave me $50 in commission credits (as well as anyone else that was live at the time) to try to compensate for their "technical difficulties".

The second question is if there is a way to compare the likelihood of quitting between two players prior to the match, how would you profit from it? For example, take the Roddick vs Djokovic match in this year's Australian Open. If we determine prior to the match that Djokovic is more likely to quit than Roddick, and the odds in those books present an arb opportunity, then the strategy seems to be bet Djokovic to win at SIA and bet Roddick to win at Matchbook. This way when Djokovic quits after one set, you would win at Matchbook and push at SIA. Thanks for your insight.

I think you answered your own question. However, I would be concerned that there would not be enough data or trials to really give someone the confidence that they could adjust their wagers based on an expectation of one side quitting IMO.