Set the Line Djokovic playing the Aussie..

pavyracer · 01-08-22, 08:38 PM

If they don't let him play who ever wins this year it's going to have an asterisk.

jjgold · 01-08-22, 10:31 PM

+160

JacketFan81 · 01-08-22, 10:56 PM

If he plays, I'd take him all the way down to pickem

Pareto · 01-09-22, 07:53 AM

If you look at the future market at Betfair, it looks like the market is expecting him to play.

jjgold · 01-09-22, 08:24 AM

He is bigger than Aussie gov't

biggie12 · 01-09-22, 11:59 AM

will be a short fav

Mac4Lyfe · 01-09-22, 12:01 PM

Will he be a fan fave or will folks turn on him?

yisman · 01-09-22, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by Mac4Lyfe

Will he be a fan fave or will folks turn on him?

definitely not be a fan fave if he plays

they would be booing him

Paddy K · 01-09-22, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by Pareto

If you look at the future market at Betfair, it looks like the market is expecting him to play.

I initially saw that but then read this on the market info:

If a player does not start a tournament then all bets on that player will be void.

Ha, I guess people are at least thinking that if he does play, this ordeal won't have much effect on his chances.

Pareto · 01-09-22, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by Paddy K

I initially saw that but then read this on the market info:

If a player does not start a tournament then all bets on that player will be void.

Ha, I guess people are at least thinking that if he does play, this ordeal won't have much effect on his chances.

I already knew that when I made the post.

Odds still indicate that he is more likely to start than to sit. Odds would be lower on his competitors if there were 60-70% chance that he sits.

Imagine you have a 3-person race where:

- Person 1 has 50% chance to win,
- Person 2 has 25% chance to win
- Person 3 has 25% chance to win

In a perfect market the odds would be

Person 1: 2,0 (+100)
Person 2: 4,0 (+300)
Person 3: 4,0 (+300)

Now lets assume there is a 60 percent chance person 1 will miss the tournament. What should the odds be now (if we assume he is replaced with no one or someone with 0% chance to win)?

Person 1: Same odds. If he plays he has 50% chance to win. If he doesnt play bets are returned.
Person 2: He now has 25% chance to win tournament if player 1 plays ( 0,4*4) + 50% chance to win if he sits ( 0,6*2). (0,4*4+0,6*2)
= 2,8
Person 3: Same as person 2

So the market goes from 100% to approx. 121%.

Right now the market for Mens australian winner is 112,7%

Thats lower than the market for womens winner which is 118,6%

And remember in that market you have about 70-80 players included that have zero chance of winning but they are still listed at +100000 odds because thats the highest you can get at Betfair.

So by looking at the market you wouldnt expect the big favourite among the men to miss out. The market does assume there is some chance that Djokovic doesnt play because the market for lay is 101,9%. Meaning if you sold all the players you would earn a guaranteed profit of a few percent if djokovic plays. On the womens market it is only 98,2%.

Paddy K · 01-09-22, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by Pareto

I already knew that when I made the post.

Odds still indicate that he is more likely to start than to sit. Odds would be lower on his competitors if there were 60-70% chance that he sits.

Imagine you have a 3-person race where:

- Person 1 has 50% chance to win,
- Person 2 has 25% chance to win
- Person 3 has 25% chance to win

In a perfect market the odds would be

Person 1: 2,0 (+100)
Person 2: 4,0 (+300)
Person 3: 4,0 (+300)

Now lets assume there is a 60 percent chance person 1 will miss the tournament. What should the odds be now (if we assume he is replaced with no one or someone with 0% chance to win)?

Person 1: Same odds. If he plays he has 50% chance to win. If he doesnt play bets are returned.
Person 2: He now has 25% chance to win tournament if player 1 plays ( 0,4*4) + 50% chance to win if he sits ( 0,6*2). (0,4*4+0,6*2)
= 2,8
Person 3: Same as person 2

So the market goes from 100% to approx. 121%.

Right now the market for Mens australian winner is 112,7%

Thats lower than the market for womens winner which is 118,6%

And remember in that market you have about 70-80 players included that have zero chance of winning but they are still listed at +100000 odds because thats the highest you can get at Betfair.

So by looking at the market you wouldnt expect the big favourite among the men to miss out. The market does assume there is some chance that Djokovic doesnt play because the market for lay is 101,9%. Meaning if you sold all the players you would earn a guaranteed profit of a few percent if djokovic plays. On the womens market it is only 98,2%.

I'm back in my lane, good stuff!

Wrongside · 01-09-22, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by yisman

definitely not be a fan fave if he plays

they would be booing him

He loves when they boo him...This, alone, has probably won him an extra 3-7 Grand Slams...

I have seen so many times where he has not had the energy or to be sparked by the crowd against him, even if most of it was imaginary...
He needs it.

Let me reemphasize --it's saved his ass many times...

Allure · 01-09-22, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by Wrongside

He loves when they boo him...This, alone, has probably won him an extra 3-7 Grand Slams...

I have seen so many times where he has not had the energy or to be sparked by the crowd against him, even if most of it was imaginary...
He needs it.

Let me reemphasize --it's saved his ass many times...

Yeah but this is a little different this time. Crowd would not be booing because they want Federer, or whoever he was playing, to win but because they'll be sick and tired of his — behavior. That's a difference, let alone all spectators will have to be vaxxed while he doesn't.

A fukking useless guy who plays tennis should not be above the law of an entire nation. Whether you are pro or against the vaxx that's besides the point. How can you take a fukking country seriously that cannot enforce its laws against a fukking tennis player?

Wrongside · 01-10-22, 01:57 AM

Originally posted by Allure

Yeah but this is a little different this time. Crowd would not be booing because they want Federer, or whoever he was playing, to win but because they'll be sick and tired of his — behavior. That's a difference, let alone all spectators will have to be vaxxed while he doesn't.

A fukking useless guy who plays tennis should not be above the law of an entire nation. Whether you are pro or against the vaxx that's besides the point. How can you take a fukking country seriously that cannot enforce its laws against a fukking tennis player?

Im pretty anti mandate, but I don't mind this take...