Tennis Bettors... Heres a question that deserves a Response

[aortega521]

Would you rather
A) Have the tennis player you bet on win the 1st set in a 2 out of 3 set match
B) Have the tennis player you bet on win the 2nd set in a 2 out of 3 set match

[apeterlives]

That's kind of a hard question to answer because it depends on a players momentum, fitness/health, and mental condition at the time. If I had to pick I'd say 1st set. Why are you wondering this?

[tevari]

2nd. There gives a greater chance to let what's "supposed to happen", happen. Though, I rarely do either. For set betting I like to get + odds on a player winning in straight sets, ie 2-0 or 3-0 at slams.

[Cappinpicks]

[DoubleRedDragon]

Well look at the tendencies of who you're betting on.... when down a set how do they play? It's situational kid.

[Dmoneytx]

Uh, not to sound stupid here.........but I think EVERYONE would rather take a player who WINS the first set if its win 2 out of 3 sets. RIGHT???? Why on earth would you want to take a player to lose the first set, then win the second, and then have to go 3 sets??? I am confused here........ I think I would rather take the guy who wins the first set so that he can just freaking win in straights and be done with the match. Would anyone really want to take a player who loses the first set, just bec they play better if they happened to go the distance???

Maybe I misread this entire thread. It said best 2 of 3 sets right?? That means you could win in straights. Or go 3 sets. Hmmmmm....

[RosieTheGreat]

Where does it say he has to lose the first set to win the second?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

It doesnt make a difference mathematically.

let your picks probability of winning a set (by skill) be X

You guarantee 1st set win, Thus your player can go WW or WLW and come up with a victory, The first W has probability of 1 so:

Probability of win= X +(1-X)X

You guarantee 2nd set win, thus your player can go WW or LWW. The second W has probability of 1 so:

Probability of win= X +(1-X)X

[Sport_Fish]

I don't know the stat but I'm certain that players that win the 1st set win the match more often than if they don't win the 1st set.

So isn't the answer obvious here? What am i missing here

[Pinocchio]

You're missing the fact that some people are dumbasses...

[Demonata]

Win the first set. Why would you want to know the player you bet on is already losing. I would feel better being up a set.

[BrianLaverty]

I think op was implying that if the match went to 3 sets... which one would you rather choose

[Luca Fury]

I think op was implying that if the match went to 3 sets... which one would you rather choose

Precisely.

As for me, it depends on the player in some situation, but for the most part I'd prefer my player to win the first set. You often times see a player win the first set and then relax a little bit in the second set while their opponent gives 110% effort. Then when set 3 starts, the person who won set 1 and took the last set off often times seems to have a bit more mental and physical energy.

I'm not sure of the stats, but it seems to me that in matches that go the full 3 sets, the player who wins set 1 wins the match more often. The times where the other player wins, seem to mostly be cases when a favorite starts out slow, then pours it on after they're down a set.

[Sport_Fish]

I think op was implying that if the match went to 3 sets... which one would you rather choose

Even so, you would obviously go with 1st set winner because they win at a higher %

[BrianLaverty]

Even so, you would obviously go with 1st set winner because they win at a higher %

Oh really?

Lets hear the exact #'s....

On 3 set matches, I'm pretty sure its close to 50/50 with longterm results as to whether or not 1st set winner wins the 3rd set.

[bane]

On ATP player stats, they specify Win Rate on surface (e.g. clay hard court), against left/right handed players and "After Winning First Set", "After Losing First Set". I've yet to see a player with a higher Win Rate after losing the first set. Has anyone?
Some are better at recovery than others. For example, Almagro takes 37% of his matches after losing the first set. Takes 91.5% of his matches after winning the 1st set. Tipsarevic is ranked similar and takes 41% of his matches after losing the 1st. Takes 89% of matches after winning the 1st.
Some players are at 0-20% after losing the 1st set; they can't recover.

I don't understand why losing the first set is preferable. Show me a player who has a higher win rate losing the first set as opposed to winning it??

[BrianLaverty]

I am continually shocked that so many of you lack basic reading comprehension.

Going into the 3rd set...hes asking who you feel better about...the person who won the first set or the person who won the 2nd set?

Were not talking about in general... he is saying 3-setters strictly.

[bane]

Why wouldn't ATP stats apply to 3 setters? Either way, I don't know of a player that has a higher winning percentage after losing the first set. So, going into the 3rd set I'd feel better about the player who one the 1st. I'd assume he was taking a breather in the 2nd set, like players often do. I'd assume the player who won the 2nd set couldn't maintain the momentum and would be beaten in the 3rd set. And I'd have historical data to support that lean.

[BrianLaverty]

Why wouldn't ATP stats apply to 3 setters? Either way, I don't know of a player that has a higher winning percentage after losing the first set. So, going into the 3rd set I'd feel better about the player who one the 1st. I'd assume he was taking a breather in the 2nd set, like players often do. I'd assume the player who won the 2nd set couldn't maintain the momentum and would be beaten in the 3rd set. And I'd have historical data to support that lean.

I don't care about the 90% win percentage when they win the first set..The 2-setters that they win don't count.

Almagro has a 90% win % when he wins first set... thats great.. But since February of 2011, he is just 8-8 in 3-setters when he has won the first set.

Tipsarevic is 89% win % when he first set.... 11-10 since the beginning of 2011 when winning the first set of a 3-setter (non grand slam)


I could keep going.... Give me some more players that you think are sooo obvious.

[BrianLaverty]

More players in the top 20:

- Raonic is 2-7 this year when winning the first set but going to a 3rd set.
- Cilic is 3-3 this year
- Gasquet is 5-4 over the last 2 years
- Isner is 13-4 over the last 2 years (not surprising with the way he takes sets off when down a break)
- Nishikori is 4-4 this year
- Wawrinka is 12-5 the last 2 years

etc etc

I would put alot of money on the fact that the lower ranking the person is, the better chance of them blowing it after winning first set. Donald Young, for example, is 1-7 this year when winning first set but losing 2nd...

[BrianLaverty]

btw...

Almagro is 12-9 in 3-setters when winning 2nd set, but 8-8 when winning first set over the last 2 years. Bad example of you picking him out.

Tipsarevic is 9-6 when winning 2nd set of a 3-setter, but 11-10 when winning first set.

Raonic is 4-4 when winning 2nd set of a 3-setter, 2-7 when winning first..over the last year

Ferrer is 12-8 when winning 2nd set of a 3-setter, 7-1 when winning first.. over the last 2 years

Berdych is 11-6 when winning 2nd set, 10-10 when first over the last 2 years

Tsonga is 13-12 when winning 2nd set, 6-6 when winning first over the last 2 years

[BrianLaverty]

Funny thing about Del Potro... he has played 54 best of 3 matches since October of 2011 and only 9 of these matches have gone to 3 sets....

[bane]

Thanks for taking the time to extract 3 setters to answer my question: "I don't understand why losing the first set is preferable. Show me a player who has a higher win rate losing the first set as opposed to winning it??" I randomly chose 2 players w/ a similar rank on ATP. Don't have the time nor inclination to cherry pick players to support an argument either way. That's what you're for. Unless it's one of the fellas you mentioned, I'd like my guy to win the first set.

[BrianLaverty]

So you just ignore the stats? I didst look beyond the top 20... I feel like the results will be the same.... close, but u have more of an edge if u win the 2nd set of a 3-better.

[BrianLaverty]

Tsonga wins the first set today, but loses the next two.

Bellucci wins the first set today, but loses the next two.

Tipsarevic wins the first set yesterday, but loses the next two.

Karlovic wins the first set yesterday, but loses the next two.


All together, between ATP/WTA Singles/Doubles.. there were 37 3-setters the last two days, and the person who won the first set only won 16 of them.

etc etc.

[Sport_Fish]

Yeah of course u can ignore the stats when your using a sample of 3 figures...when the actual total matches is easily in 5-6 figures.

The stats are irrelevant unless u use a significant sample.

[BrianLaverty]

Yeah of course u can ignore the stats when your using a sample of 3 figures...when the actual total matches is easily in 5-6 figures.

The stats are irrelevant unless u use a significant sample.

I used the stats for the last 2 years of most top 20 players.

I'll do the whole year this year.. i don't care.

I'm pretty sure the stats will show the same.. but I would love to prove everyone wrong.

[BrianLaverty]

Here we go... On Main Draws only... for 2012:

The person who won the first 1st set of 3-set match:
- Masters: 80-80
- 500-Level: 34-46
- 250-Level: 190-204
- Olympics: 6-11

All together.. so far for 2012:

The person who won the first set is 310-341 (47.6%)

Not so "obvious"

[BrianLaverty]

Just as I thought... many proven wrong but no one will live up to it. I will take a years sample size for all ATP tourneys as a good base to start. Its not as "obvious" as many of you thought.