Amritraj is just a gritty guy. Maybe a C grade version of Hewitt, but he is a grass vet. I don't know that he is more than a longshot to win, but I think it could be competitive & Hewitt tends to slide into three set matches with his play still lacking consistency.
-
Comment -
I was referring to the outright though!Comment -
ATP Newport: Hernych +125
Thanks man.
Comment -
Appreciate your advice as always, EP. The words "gritty" and "longshot" kept me from touching this one. Gritty reminds me of Luis Scola. Decent player. Gives you a good effort. Probably on the wrong end of most of his matchups. haha.
I lost some of what I made on Kuzzy yesterday by backing him again, though
Comment -
I think Ram has a flight to catch.
update: plenty of time nowLast edited by fitguy67; 07-10-13, 02:56 PM.Comment -
He played like Kudla yesterday. Oh well hopefully the Parlay hits to get close to breaking even. Amriyraj was heinous on serve. Hewitt started slow and anyone with a pulse could have probably run out with the 1st set.Comment -
EP can I get your thoughts on Mahut/Myczek. Thanks.Comment -
Check out this post he made in another thread regarding this match: http://forum.sbrforum.com/tennis-bet...l#post19106448Comment -
Thanks ParlayininHTown.Comment -
Well form holds with a seed losing. I should blindly follow the weird trends of this tourney. Hopefully Mahut as a WC follows the pattern.Comment -
Gonzalez-Lipsky doubles match (2nd leg of parlay) FINALLY underway, many hours late...BOL to all.Comment -
They got smoked in the super breaker. So the day goes in the toilet at 1-3.Comment -
Overall Profit: +1.93Comment -
EP...definitely on the WSOTC (wrong side of the choke) on this one...Kudla strikes again!
Last edited by fitguy67; 07-10-13, 07:09 PM.Comment -
Perils of doubles more than anything else. Pretty even match, but with the super breaker to decide - it's a free for all that sometimes is unforgiving to the better team. Some times I really like that format, some times I wish they would play a 3rd full set and just go to a regular TB at the end.Comment -
i'd prefer they dispense with all the artificial "tie-breaking" hoseshit and just play one old-fashioned (ie. gotta win by two games) long set
(say 11 games target for a regular tourney...extend to 17 for a major)...even if you ended up in a real battle of attrition and that set (which would equal a match in my model) went say 16-14...it's still fewer games than the typical 3-setter nowadays with those damn coin-toss TBs...a similarly extra-long major might end 22-20 (again, still less than a standard 5-setter)...so we'd have the coin-tosses removed, and the possibility of the occasional (dramatic) extra-long match (which would still be shorter than current full-setters...removing the "exhaustion" argument) AND far more decisive victories...as winning by two games is a hell of a lot more decisive than "winning" a goddam bullshit TB by two stinkin' points
i fukkin hate artificial tie-breaking concoctions of all stripes (including goddam "shootouts" in soccer)...with an absolute passion.
In tennis, it would actually be dead simple to have great decisive matches of even shorter duration than is now the case WITHOUT any special "tie-breaking" mechansim at all. Just redefine "match" to mean one "old fashioned" set (=just like the 5th set at all majors except the USOpen...meaning u gotta win by two with no contrived win-cheap "escape clause")...just lengthen the number of targeted games beyond 6 as appropriate to the setting...and voila!...no need to abandon serving protocols and the definition of "game" at all...just let the players break their own ties...by winning their one-long-set by 2 full-definition tennis games...no need for any contrived "TB" bullshit
_____________
I teach economics for a living...so i think along the lines that this reversion back to the old definition of a set (while dropping the need for more than one of 'em)...will be simultaneously superior in terms of both
*effectiveness (cuz it determines a winner more decisively), and
*efficiency (cuz it requires on average considerably fewer games to do so)
as a gambler, it'd be better too, cuz it'd reduce greatly the "variance" caused by poorer players stealing sets on the cheap as so very often happens now...in a surprising % of games, the player winning fewer tennis games wins the match...in my model that would NEVER happenLast edited by fitguy67; 07-11-13, 03:10 AM.Comment -
National Slurpee Day aka July 11th
ATP Bastad: Almagro-Garcia Lopez Over 21.5 [-115]
ATP Bastad: de Bakker +4.5 [-120]
Comment -
Adding....
ATP Newport: Russell +255
0.5 unitComment -
Then why would you take it? LoL.Comment -
Ah. It took me two years to quit betting his matches.Comment -
I actually LOL'd multiple times at work. He is doing it because he is a degenerate (I don't mean that in a mean way).
I've been try to preach all week theres no need to take these plays for anything significant unless you mean it, but not everyone can hold off (myself include on a few peanut plays).Comment -
Blew it twice serving for the match. Was fun until then.Comment -
I'm not betting this week and while scoreboard watching at work, even I felt the pain of that choke. Once a challenger, always a challenger. Better luck on the next one.Comment -
Kurt Russell was playing till late in the 2nd set...then replaced by Rosalind.Comment -
It was quite epic when Sijsling handed him the 2nd shot to serve out. This is what I expected when I took an aggressive play on the ML instead of the over that I also liked.Comment -
Back from the dead, up 4-3.Comment -
Yay! A tiebreak to crush our hopes!Comment -
One word, ORGASM.Comment -
Overall Profit: +5.21Comment -
July 12th
ATP Bastad: Berdych-de Bakker Under 20 [-130]
ATP Bastad: Berlocq-Ramos Over 22 [-130]Comment
