Aussie Open Day 8 In-Game-Thread

**poker_dummy101** · 01-26-09, 03:21 AM

Does anyone know what court number this match will be on so i can watch online?

**topgame85** · 01-26-09, 03:24 AM

what the **** betjam took the line down it had a start time of 330am I stayed up all night for nothing ****in bull shit

**meganie** · 01-26-09, 03:25 AM

Originally posted by poker_dummy101

Does anyone know what court number this match will be on so i can watch online?

Rod Laver (Main court)

**topgame85** · 01-26-09, 03:26 AM

did it start early or something?

**poker_dummy101** · 01-26-09, 03:29 AM

no, wsex, greek, and cris all have lines up

and thank you sir for the reply

here is a link if anyone wants it

http://www.channelsurfing.net/watch-austrailian-open-3.html

**meganie** · 01-26-09, 03:29 AM

Originally posted by topgame85

did it start early or something?

Nope, it should start in about 10min or so. Scheduled for 3:30 EST, but usually they start about 10min later.

**ghn999** · 01-26-09, 03:29 AM

go tsonga!

**Stacocakes** · 01-26-09, 03:38 AM

Its funny that Tsonga has a bunch of girls painted up and cheering for him and blake has.....nothing

**donjuan** · 01-26-09, 03:42 AM

Took Blake +172

Good number. I got +170.

**pat venditto** · 01-26-09, 03:55 AM

Don juan I want to be like you one day pal.

**pat venditto** · 01-26-09, 04:10 AM

This is going to be a good ****ing match.

**Santo** · 01-26-09, 04:12 AM

Useless Scottish guy, Laura Robson is now anointed the great British hope :P

**pat venditto** · 01-26-09, 04:31 AM

Blake is on tilt.

**donjuan** · 01-26-09, 04:36 AM

Don juan I want to be like you one day pal.

I'm flattered. Good luck with Blake. Doesn't look good early on.

**HeeeHAWWWW** · 01-26-09, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by maniac0201

Murray is going to have incredible pressure on him come Wimbledon.

Which is daft, considering he's principally a hard court player. He's an OK mover on grass, but really wouldn't have much hope against Nadal or Federer. Maybe 50/50 against Djokovic, he's not a natural grass court player. Wouldn't like his chances against Tsonga either.

Apparently he was sick before the Melzer match, and that seems to have carried through last night - he was moving really slowly in the final set from what I saw. Have to wonder if knowing things like that enables backroom staff to cash in hugely......

**wannabet** · 01-26-09, 09:36 AM

nice match murray. you gave it your best. sorry to all those of you who predicted he would walk through for an easy first grand slam victory. I guess now all that has to happen is federer goes down, then you will be proven a group of lucky losers or squares. good luck, roger.

**The General** · 01-26-09, 09:45 AM

Wish I could have watched the Blake match. Good job, winners.

**HeeeHAWWWW** · 01-26-09, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by wannabet

nice match murray. you gave it your best. sorry to all those of you who predicted he would walk through for an easy first grand slam victory.

He was 3/1 at the start of the tournament, which means about 23 to 24% chance. Duh.

Come back when you understand odds. Thanks.

**gn09** · 01-26-09, 10:14 AM

i didn't expect murray to win the tournament anyway. not at the moment, im certainly expecting him to challenge for wimbledon and the us open. He noramlly does well at flushing meadows so i would back him there. ive got a sneaky feeling for djokovic at the aussie open.

**HeeeHAWWWW** · 01-26-09, 10:27 AM

Djokovic certainly has a shot now, although strangely enough despite not really playing well, as has been the case for 6 months now. His draw has been rather easy, Federer looks out of shape, and most importantly Nadal is much more likely to win the other half of the draw with Murray out. As he showed in Cincinatti, even an out of form Djokovic can beat Nadal's very best on hard court.

However, will Nadal even get there? I rather doubt it - Simon is a bad matchup for him (and ludirously good value), and Tsonga in the semis is a nightmare matchup.

The question for me is how to evaluate Federer. The Berych match was very poor, but then so was Andreev at the US Open - and Berdych played out of his skin, way better than Andreev. At the US Open, it seemed that match woke up Federer, and he went on to fairly comfortably beat Djokovic in the semi (and Federer healthy has a 7-1 head to head vs Djokovic, very bad matchup) and win the tournament.

Of course, the presumption is Federer will beat Del Potro. That's no given - a major part of Berdych's success was his ultra low error rate in the first two sets, combined with first strike tennis when necessary, and Del Potro has both of those attributes. Normally you'd think his lack of variety would be meat and drink to Federer (see their Madrid match), but if he gives away lots of cheap points he'll lose sets - and unlike Berdych, Del Potro is a strong matchplayer. Not sure how to read this match, and it seems others have the same thought, as Del Potro is +377 to Fed's -417.

**ghn999** · 01-26-09, 10:33 AM

Djokovic over andy roddick!

**wannabet** · 01-26-09, 11:11 AM

Murray is the only one of the top seeds to lose, and he loses this early. That goes to show he was not a good value at the odds that he was getting going into the tournament. He was just another lucky loser, not going very far, not showing any talent whatsoever. so much for his brilliant form going into the Aussie Open tournament.

also, you are right, Roddick has no shot at winning his next round matchup.

**HeeeHAWWWW** · 01-26-09, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by wannabet

Murray is the only one of the top seeds to lose, and he loses this early. That goes to show he was not a good value at the odds that he was getting going into the tournament.

Incorrect. A single result tells you nothing about value - anybody can lose any match. For example, Djokovic was third favourite for Wimbledon last year, and went out (in the 2nd round). Tells you nothing about the value, he simply ran into an on-fire Safin, and couldn't raise his game in the day.

Google 'variance'.

**wannabet** · 01-26-09, 11:23 AM

heehaw, you are just saying that there is alway a right bet, and you always take the right bet, whether you win or lose. Nope, you have to pick winners, you can't just say, well everyone I know says this was a good bet, therefore it was. Maybe you and all your cronies were wrong for once, did you ever think of that?

**HeeeHAWWWW** · 01-26-09, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by wannabet

heehaw, you are just saying that there is alway a right bet, and you always take the right bet, whether you win or lose.

Uh, no. Read again.

You can never conclusively prove whether a single bet was good value. You can only evaluate a method or an individual's judgement, when you have enough evidence to do so (many hundreds of bets, minimum).

"Picking winners" is classic mug talk. It's the very basis of how books make money, a total self-delusion.

Would you bet on Djokovic tonight at -10000? Of course not. Why not? Because there's a chance he might lose, and you get such a poor return from such a bet. Would you bet on him at -1000? Nope, same reason. -500? Some might. -300 is getting close. You're evaluating the chance of winning, and weighing it against potential returns.

Thus, you're betting value, you just don't realise it.

**EaglesPhan36** · 01-26-09, 11:34 AM

Fight Fight Fight!

**wannabet** · 01-26-09, 11:39 AM

I see there is a difference here, I am not trying to be like a stock broker and diversify my portfolio. I am just picking winners and losers. Murray was a clear-cut loser, if I had selected Djokovic to win Wimbledon last year, that would have been a bad pick, not a good value play, like I think he could have won. Murray goes out early, he was the squares favorite to win, and some people with real insight like myself could see that it wasn't going to be his turn. You are right, if it is all concrete, and you are a pro, good job, just make sure you are actually making more money that you are loosing. gl.

**HeeeHAWWWW** · 01-26-09, 11:50 AM

Answer me the scenario I mentioned above: would you bet on Djokovic tonight at -1000? If not, why not?

Originally posted by wannabet

You are right, if it is all concrete, and you are a pro, good job, just make sure you are actually making more money that you are loosing. gl.

You can have the same response as the last time you started making these sort of posts: the only proof there is. You know the account I took from GBP500 deposit a month ago to 11k ($15k)? It's at 17.5k ($24k) now:

ImageShack - Best place for all of your image hosting and image sharing needs

http://img338.imageshack.us/my.php?image=81254324jj0.jpg

Unlimited space to host images, easy to use image uploader, albums, photo hosting, sharing, dynamic image resizing on web and mobile.

Feel free to respond with your account

**HeeeHAWWWW** · 01-26-09, 11:51 AM

Edit: oops, double post

**wannabet** · 01-26-09, 12:15 PM

No, I wouldn't bet Djokovic because I do not take -200+. I am in a situation where I would only take moderate favorites through major underdogs. I will agree nothing is a lock, last time that was the case, Buster Douglas knocked out Mike Tyson. I refuse to accept that you are doing well based on one account like that. People like you just throw there money away all the time, and then you hit one lucky streak, and you say that's it, I am winning all the time. I haven't tracked your picks during the Aussie Open either. I think the mistake you made was to say that grand slams are just like any other insignificant tournament. I see no difference in your handicapping from little tournaments to big ones. They are different kinds of events that you are losing sight of that.

**meganie** · 01-26-09, 12:32 PM

Just look at the history of his postings, he hit some nice set bets + he had pretty many winners. Can't say that for you.

I'm up over 15u for the AO, one bet was 10u for ~-600 fav, otherwise I'm betting mostly units from 0.3-3 with some 5u bets. I'm not saying that I'm the best capper or whatsoever, but followed by your logic, I must have been right with choosing Murray/Federer for the win?! You see, that's simply some questionable logic, you can't hit all bets, and if you're saying that just because Murray lost, he wasn't the right bet, than you're not knowing anything about value. If he wins 1/3 when he's +250 would still mean a nice win.

**HeeeHAWWWW** · 01-26-09, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by wannabet

I refuse to accept that you are doing well based on one account like that. People like you just throw there money away all the time, and then you hit one lucky streak, and you say that's it, I am winning all the time.

Keep telling yourself that. When you're tired of losing money, go to the handicapper theory section, read and learn. The books aren't stupid - they have better models than you. In fact, they boot and limit people explicitly because they are value betters.

I haven't tracked your picks during the Aussie Open either.

Feel free to do so. Last ones I've posted: Tsonga, Simon, Gonzo 3-1, baghdatis 3-2, Federer (-125 inplay when he was two sets down), roddick 3-0, blake-5 (vs andreev), simon (vs ancic). The Gonzo and Baghdatis ones lost, at small amounts and long odds, and the Simon one was a void (at betcris). There was also another Roddick handicap that pushed because it covered the line exactly, but I've lost the details on that. Following Kelly staking, 28 units on those would have netted +16 units.

Now this is statistically insignificant, but you clearly don't believe in that sort of thing anyway.

I think the mistake you made was to say that grand slams are just like any other insignificant tournament.

You're confusing me with someone else, I've never said that. Clearly they are massively different - eg Federer hasn't done anything in masters for 2 years, but performs at the slams.

**wannabet** · 01-26-09, 12:41 PM

I don't know how you would have been right if you took Murray/Federer from the beginning, which I'm pretty sure you did. I'm to arguing against taking -600, I just don't have the units to risk that much on a favorite right now. If you are up for the AU, congratulation, and I won't begrudge that. I have no capped the individual matches, as I have been waiting for the big ones. All I can look at right now is the important bets, which probably have a lot of people betting these. Murray/Federer to win were not good bets. I almost wanted Murray to win, so that we could have the top 8, but I am more glad that he is out of the way, now you could be right if Federer wins, but I doubt that he will. Then you would have done better than breaking even taking Fed/Murray, but not by very much. It was almost pk murray/Fed vs., which may not have been a good bet. Just my opinion. Now it is getting more interesting with the marquee matchups coming up. too bad fo you guys that Murray isn't even in the picture anymore.

**wannabet** · 01-26-09, 12:45 PM

Heehaw, you were saying Murray's form has been so unbelieveable there is no chance he will lose in the Aussie Open, that's based on small meaningless tournaments, or tournaments that were nearly a year ago, such as last year's Wimbledon.

Well, maybe you are up 16 units on some plays good job, I hadn't noticed that. You were not right about Murray, let's see about Federer.

**meganie** · 01-26-09, 12:50 PM

You can argue as much as you want, I haven't lost a single bet with a fav over -200. And even if I would, if I hit 9/10 with odds around -300 I still make lots of money. Imo it's a lot easier to make money with the (right) favs, than with dogs. I also didn't bet on Murray/Federer since I'm not doing futures. Exception is today, since Nadal's odds dropped that much I took my chances with Federer. I also wouldn't have taken Murray at odds right before the start of the AO (he was around +250 or so), because there was simply no value imo. Different story are the odds before christmas, where he was about +500, that would've been great value.

There are NO IMPORTANT BETS. If you're betting on the final with even odds and win is the same as if you're betting on a first round with even odds and win. Difference is, chances that first round odds are off are bigger.