[Michael_Flieger]

Yeah you bet too much man! : D

I would agree if I were betting large amounts, but these are like a bunch of minnows that add up to one delicious sea trout (hopefully). Biding my time, getting my pacing down, seeing how they're doing, waiting for some feeds. Reading twitter and watching the line moves. Seeing who wants to be here. No need to force it.

Dislike Goffin, Voskoboeva, Puig and Mugurza @ those odds.

Goffin won. He played poorly last couple times out, I played him same as Peer yesterday, time for him to revert to better form. Didn't necessarily think either would win, thought both would play at least 50-50 match and +150 and +450 justified a water. Really, the price matters as much as anything if you think your man will be competitive. Vosko lost in three. I just thought she is better than Krumm. Eh...just an ordinary loser. Puig is still going. Mugu has won the last several times I've been on her, why not one more here?

If you're interested, my favorite bet of the day is Granollers @ 3 (+200 for you crazy Americans).

Nalb is one I don't like to go against, although I do like Granollers often. Nalb is handling him as I write.

Also, I'm worried about how Martic and Dulgheru are doing. Do you know anything about their conditions?

I don't. It would be on twitter if anywhere, I suppose. Dulgheru doesn't seem to be on twitter yet.

[Michael_Flieger]

Pospisil +210 (Istomin): 1.00/2.10 loss
Pospisil-Istomin 22' over -110: 1.10/1.00 loss
Hlavackova/Hradecka -350 (Lepchenko/Zheng): 3.50/1.00 win
Dushevina/Panova -115 (Kerber/Petkovic): 1.15/1.00 win
Kops-Jones/Spears -170 (Erakovic/Watson): 1.70/1.00 loss
Black/Rodionova -175 (Mladenovic/Voskoboeva): 1.75/1.00 win

-4.23 +.20 = -4.03 units


(Following swiss on some of his doubles picks. Istomin is a bit of a head case, I think he either loses or at least drops a set.)

[Ontnr]

I actually don't have one pick I like better than others today, as I liked Puchkova yesterday and Petkovic the day before (both losers, btw!). Today, in my view, is a day to go for dogs, shooting for a high return. Like yesterday. Keys over Oudin at -500? Why do people think Madison Keys is some kind of great player? There is no basis for that line. Will she win? It's likelier she wins than loses. But it's nowhere near -500, I can tell you that.

I'm handicapped by not being able to see these matches yet. I'm playing for small amounts expecting to grind out small profit, looking for ones I can hit harder. The amounts I put show you where my stronger feelings are. For dogs, I'm mostly just playing a feeling the match is likelier to be competitive than the line suggests. Feelings are based on knowledge of circumstances. For favorites, I need a stronger reason. As the tournament moves along, the stronger picks will come.

If there were no juice in sports betting, but just an investment like any other investment (although you'd have to beat the market to ensure profit, unlike other investments expectedly), I would agree with your strategy, but seeing as it's just about freaking impossible to find value in sports betting given the advantage of the bookies, betting this high a percentage of the available objects in a sport, makes it even more impossible. In theory, value should be a rare thing. I'm sure there are plenty of others who have studied the market efficiencies in sports betting more than I currently have, but I always say to myself that there's likely no value at all in this match, especially if it's near the closing, so that my arguments for a play needs to be really, really solid. Would be interesting to know the just about percentage of closing lines in for example tennis betting that are actually off.

So why do serious investors who happen to be sports nerds, elect to bet? Is it action? Probably. But the great thing, regardless of that, is that the turnover time for one investment is so short. A tennis match lasts a couple of hours. Bang. If you're betting profitably, you can make huuge turnover amounts a year. So instead of betting small on many matches - at about even steven profits if you're good, I bet bigger (but follow BR management obv), parlay when there's value in two objects in one bookie (which is like christmas eve) and like that, there are endless possibilities... not taking into account limits, taxes, variance and everything else that makes life worth living......

It's probably theoretically impossible to bet profitably if selection is around 50% in a given sport, although there are most likely some exemptions to the rule, such as qualifiers and other low volume markets, as lines can be very off, and there are a great deal of line movements.

But, if you make some dough, it's damn impressive, so I won't question your knowledge as I'm sure you'll be able to beat the market, but can you beat them enough to make it profitable?

[Michael_Flieger]

If there were no juice in sports betting, but just an investment like any other investment (although you'd have to beat the market to ensure profit, unlike other investments expectedly), I would agree with your strategy, but seeing as it's just about freaking impossible to find value in sports betting given the advantage of the bookies,

I don't agree with that at all. There's all kinds of value. I'm a feel/circumstance bettor. I read people and situations. I don't do numbers or stats. My approach works for tennis and NFL. It does not work for baseball, except very specific situations.

I'm not putting as much thought into these early picks as you and others seem to think. They're just somewhat selective dog plays, based on at least one lightish reason to believe a dog match is actually more 50-50 than the line suggests. There's no deeper reasoning than that, nor need there be. You really can't go too far wrong with this approach in the early rounds. Meanwhile, whether you win or lose, you track the matches and build your knowledge base for that tournament. Then in the 16 and 8 rounds you're ready to have 3-4 real solid opinions, and some minor ones. And put more money on that. That's how I do it, it works pretty well. You have to treat these two-week tournaments a little different. Play dogs and strings favs in parlays. But the 2-weekers get more players one is less familiar with, so one must be more careful. Especially when, as with IW, there are no feeds yet.

There's only no value if you sports betting as a mathematical function. In that sense, you're right. You'll never catch the oddsmaker out unless you can develop a slicker algorithm. I certainly can't. But there are things that by their nature simply can't be reflected at true weight in the odds, because they haven't happened yet. Trust the line. But realize the line only reflects history. And then is pushed by fallible men with warped perception. The game in front of you will very often be different from what history suggests, and if you can read the human factors and the circumstantial factors, there are many times you can figure this out beforehand. Just because there's no way a computer can account for certain things before the fact. Then sometimes the game will go exactly as it's supposed to on paper. But they play fifty matches a day! There is value all over the place. That's why the tennis splits are so huge. Because it's not that hard to figure who will win in a lot of the matches.

betting this high a percentage of the available objects in a sport, makes it even more impossible. In theory, value should be a rare thing. I'm sure there are plenty of others who have studied the market efficiencies in sports betting more than I currently have, but I always say to myself that there's likely no value at all in this match, especially if it's near the closing, so that my arguments for a play needs to be really, really solid. Would be interesting to know the just about percentage of closing lines in for example tennis betting that are actually off.

I don't know the answer but I can tell you last week in the matches I bet on the line was moving the wrong way far more often than the right way. But that's anecdotal.

Sports betting isn't like the stock market, it's more honest. There are people on earth who know the actual truth about every single company on the exchange. You're going to beat those people without your own inside track? Not likely. But not a single person in the world knows who will win the Muguruza-Jovanovski match tonight, including the two players. There's value all over the place. If the public is always wrong, and the public (granted, a thinner, smarter, interested slice) is moving the money, how can there not be value all over the place? There is.

So why do serious investors who happen to be sports nerds, elect to bet? Is it action? Probably. But the great thing, regardless of that, is that the turnover time for one investment is so short. A tennis match lasts a couple of hours. Bang. If you're betting profitably, you can make huuge turnover amounts a year. So instead of betting small on many matches - at about even steven profits if you're good, I bet bigger (but follow BR management obv), parlay when there's value in two objects in one bookie (which is like christmas eve) and like that, there are endless possibilities... not taking into account limits, taxes, variance and everything else that makes life worth living......

Sure, no doubt. And you're no doubt better at the math than I. But I do the same things you do. They're all just tools. Betting across a group of dogs - not blindly, but not super-qualified either - betting big on 2-3 or just 1 a day. Doing parlays of dogs or stringing favorites. I do all these. They all have their place. It's not an either/or. It's how you look at it: I could say, yesteday I batched 10 small dogs into one dog instrument equivalent to one large bet. If it's more a dog day than a fav day, then I win, if not i lose. I look at the batch-small-bets-on-big-dogs as like that Grand Salami thing in hockey, like a group total. I basically just bet it would be a dog day more than a fav day.

It's probably theoretically impossible to bet profitably if selection is around 50% in a given sport, although there are most likely some exemptions to the rule, such as qualifiers and other low volume markets, as lines can be very off, and there are a great deal of line movements.

If you can pick one in three dogs at +200 you make money.

I think in tennis, the key is that you can't bet the favorites lightly or you'll be in a hole you can't escape. it's actually the losses of the 140s-200s that kill you. Not the huge favs. You just have to be very, very careful if you're laying 1.7 or more, say. Whereas you can be much looser taking dogs.

But, if you make some dough, it's damn impressive, so I won't question your knowledge as I'm sure you'll be able to beat the market, but can you beat them enough to make it profitable?

I think so. But time will tell.

[Michael_Flieger]

WBC Netherlands +245 (Cuba): 1.77/4.34 win
Meffert -120 (Barton): 1.20/1.00 loss
Przysiezny -130 (Chiudinelli): 1.30/1.00 loss

-4.03 + 1.84 = -2.19 units

dont like chud. think meffert is a little better. netherlands because often a team will drop the first game of a round after sweeping the last.

[Michael_Flieger]

3-parlay

B.Bryan/M.Bryan -600 (M.Cilic/J.Erlich)
Pavlyuchenkova -285 (Larsson) loss
De Bakker -470 (Lama) win

1.96/1.79

-2.19 + -1.96 = -4.15 units

disappointed in poor showing by pavlyu, on whom i've had good success in past

[Michael_Flieger]

Govortsova +7 -125 (Kvitova): 1.25/1.00 win
McHale +3' -120 (Kirilenko): 1.20/1.00 loss
Lino +735 (Errani): 1.00/7.35 loss

-4.15 + -1.20 = -5.35 units

[Hardcoar]

Of all the dogs you pick Govortsova and Lino.

lol...

[Ontnr]

I think so. But time will tell.

Good answer man. No need to go further into our disagreements, but we agree about a lot as well.

Good luck today.

[Michael_Flieger]

Good answer man. No need to go further into our disagreements, but we agree about a lot as well.

Good luck today.

Thanks, you too. Nice hit on the live Arvidsson.

[Michael_Flieger]

Isner/Querrey -210 (Ferrer/Robredo): 2.10/1.00 win
Bopanna/Ram -160 (Kubot/Tipsarevic): 1.60/1.00 loss
Dodig/Melo -180 (Monaco/Zeballos): 1.80/1.00 win
B.Bryan/M.Bryan -750 (Cilic/Erlich): 15.00/2.00 win
Llodra -170 (Munoz-De La Nava): 3.40/2.00 win
Reynolds +100 (Becker): 2.00/2.00 win
Haase -110 (Blake): 2.20/2.00 loss
Gimeno-Traver +185 (Lacko): 2.00/3.70 win
Falla -240 (Phau): 2.40/1.00 loss
Peer +360 (Zakopalova): 1.00/3.60 loss
Peer +5½ -115 (Zakopalova): 1.15/1.00 loss
Paszek +210 (Burdette): 1.00/2.10 loss
Paszek +4 -118 (Burdette): 1.18/1.00 loss
Sanchez +1275 (A. Radwanska): 1.00/12.75 loss
Sanchez +7½ -130 (A. Radwanska): 1.30/1.00 loss
Lino Games Won +6½ -105 (Errani): 2.10/2.00 win
Arruabarrena-Vecino +168 (Lepchenko) 1.00/1.68 win
Arruabarrena-Vecino Games Won +3½ -105 (Lepchenko): 1.05/1.00 win

-5.35 + 3.55 = -1.80 units

[Michael_Flieger]

following swiss on 3 doubles matches; i like bryan2 myself; this is the only ATP 1000 they haven't won, so i figure they get close, that means winning this match.

llodra - just better than munoz. becker is uneven, reynolds in three. blake sucks, even haase can beat him now. G-T is very much worth nearly 2:1 vs lacko. phau is phausy. peer - if she cant win again, i still think she comes close, so the games subsidizes a shot at the big dog. same with paszek. i just dont think burdette is that good. sanchez - if she can whip puchkova, perhaps she can coem close to aradw in opening round. any kind of slow start and sanchez covers. lino - time for errani to cool down, come back to earth. lino is a fighter, see las round. close and possible big upset. arrua - good price for very plausible result.

[Hardcoar]

On sanchez too. Now there's my +1650 dawg! <3

Might go with Peer, but I'm staying clear of Paszek.

Liking Arruuuba as well.

You make so many bets haha!

Do you know doubles well?

[Michael_Flieger]

Of all the dogs you pick Govortsova and Lino.

lol...

Notice that I only took Govort on the games line, not the ML. It won.

[Michael_Flieger]

On sanchez too. Now there's my +1650 dawg! <3

Might go with Peer, but I'm staying clear of Paszek.

Liking Arruuuba as well.

You make so many bets haha!

Do you know doubles well?

No, I don't know doubles. Like I said, I'm following swiss on a few, and then I have a particular idea about Bryan/Bryan.

Yeah, I've been a little loose with bets last couple days, but it will tighten up. I will bet more on fewer matches as they tournament gets going.

[Hardcoar]

You need to focus on making fewer bets, and less shitty ones. Do your best to stick to the ones you find the most value in.

[El Sol]

You need to focus on making fewer bets, and less shitty ones. Do your best to stick to the ones you find the most value in.

As long as your margin is greater than 2% ( some say a 1% margin is acceptable) you make the bet regardless. IN tennis, the linesman arent as sharp as in the Major sports (NBA. NFL etc) and the volume of matches creates many opportunities where the betting odds don't represent true odds. A good tennis better could find a minimum of 20 matches where the better's margin is greater than 2% on days like this. Obviously, when the tournaments progresses, the lines sharpen up. But early on, its a buffet.

[Hardcoar]

I agree to a certain extent, but even so I believe you'll see better results with fewer, focused picks.

[Michael_Flieger]

On sanchez too. Now there's my +1650 dawg! <3

Might go with Peer, but I'm staying clear of Paszek.

Liking Arruuuba as well.

You make so many bets haha!

Do you know doubles well?

What is up with that Phau match? That scores been stuck for hours.

Boy, after finally getting video feeds, and watching Sanchez, really makes you wonder how she beat Puchkova the other day.

[Michael_Flieger]

I agree to a certain extent, but even so I believe you'll see better results with fewer, focused picks.

If you make 10 bets at avg 1.1 unit to win 1, and you make 1 bet at 11 units to win 10, how many bets have you made? I'd argue it's equivalent to making two big bets.

Look at what I posted the day I had peer at +450 and cashed. My tiny dogs made a bunch. But the profit was destroyed by my one, big, selective, hard-thought bet of the day. Your advice doesn't square with my posted experience - so far. It's been my big bets that have failed more than the dogs.

At the risk of sounding smart-ass, which is not my intention, if I knew which of my bets were going to lose, I wouldn't make them. Like I said, my basic rule - and I don't know how you could refine it to a science - is if you get a decent dog, anything over +120 or so, and you think there's at least a 40% chance it cashes, then play it. If you're getting 150 200 250 450 800 return, you don't need any more precision than that. The belief you can be more precise than that seems dubious to me. I mean, you can make a line and bet deviations of more than 2%, but that's kind of a bogus precision. I was very selective in my Puchkova (Sanchez) and Petkovic (Puig) picks. and I could give you several strong reasons for betting on the side I did. I lost both. It happens.

[Michael_Flieger]

As long as your margin is greater than 2% ( some say a 1% margin is acceptable) you make the bet regardless.

This means you're making a line yourself, or how do you figure the two percent? For me, it's just a feeling a match will be competitive, as long as I'm getting more than, say, +120 in return. I don't know how one would refine to that degree of precision.

IN tennis, the linesman arent as sharp as in the Major sports (NBA. NFL etc) and the volume of matches creates many opportunities where the betting odds don't represent true odds. A good tennis better could find a minimum of 20 matches where the better's margin is greater than 2% on days like this. Obviously, when the tournaments progresses, the lines sharpen up. But early on, its a buffet.

I agree - if you know the players. I think the optimum value is in the 16 to 8 round and 8 to 4 rounds. In these giant tournaments, I have no doubt there's value all over the place - but only if you know the players. And when you get into the 100-200 ranks, it's harder to know them than the top 50.

[Michael_Flieger]

Why Puchkova did so well in Brazil last tournament:

Olga Puchkova @puchkova5

@IrenaPavlovic hey hey thank u sexy chicka it's my fav color so one of my dreams came true to play on purple courts. Hope u r well.

[Hardcoar]

If you make 10 bets at avg 1.1 unit to win 1, and you make 1 bet at 11 units to win 10, how many bets have you made? I'd argue it's equivalent to making two big bets.

Look at what I posted the day I had peer at +450 and cashed. My tiny dogs made a bunch. But the profit was destroyed by my one, big, selective, hard-thought bet of the day. Your advice doesn't square with my posted experience - so far. It's been my big bets that have failed more than the dogs.

At the risk of sounding smart-ass, which is not my intention, if I knew which of my bets were going to lose, I wouldn't make them. Like I said, my basic rule - and I don't know how you could refine it to a science - is if you get a decent dog, anything over +120 or so, and you think there's at least a 40% chance it cashes, then play it. If you're getting 150 200 250 450 800 return, you don't need any more precision than that. The belief you can be more precise than that seems dubious to me. I mean, you can make a line and bet deviations of more than 2%, but that's kind of a bogus precision. I was very selective in my Puchkova (Sanchez) and Petkovic (Puig) picks. and I could give you several strong reasons for betting on the side I did. I lost both. It happens.

I kinda bitched out on replying to your last essay (which made some good points, and some bad or at least invalid ones, in my opinion), but I'll try being pragmatic about this one, and take one thing at a time as concisely as possible.

If you make ten small bets and one large one, you've made eleven bets, with the obvious distinction that one is much larger than the other. Depending on the stakes, it could be equivalent to two big bets (had you made one single bet out of the ten lesser ones), however, there's nothing to say you need to wager the sum of the "as-many-bets-as-possible" approach.

At least what I meant personally is that you should bet on fewer picks – the ones you find most value in. I didn't mean you should necessarily bet the same total amount, and I didn't mean you should avoid dogs in any shape, way, or form. I never even said anything about betting fewer dogs, as far as I know – only fewer bets in total. My advice was never meant to distinguish between different scales of odds (i.e "dogs"/"favs").

Basically it looks like you misunderstood me – which could very well be my own fault, I'm well aware, so don't worry about sounding like a smart-ass).

Also, that doesn't prove much: A good bet isn't necessarily a winning bet in a particular instance.

Oh and Puchkova – 2GD

Oh, and Towelie 2-0 @ 39 (+3800).

[Michael_Flieger]

4-parlay

Simon -600 (Lorenzi)
Ferrer -475 (Anderson) loss
Wawrinka -700 (Odesnik) win
Federer -1450 (Istomin)

1.8/1.31

Hsieh +255 (Hampton): 1.00/2.55 loss
Dulgheru +180 (Peng): 1.00/1.80 loss

-1.8 + -3.8 = -5.6 units

[Michael_Flieger]

Arvidsson +4 -120 (Goerges): 1.20/1.00 loss
Niculescu -250 (Flipkens): 2.50/1.00 loss
Flipkens +4 -120 (Niculescu): 1.20/1.00 win
Isner -220 (Hewitt): 4.40/2.00 loss
Janowicz +135 (Nalbandian): 1.00/1.35 win

-5.60 + -5.75 = -11.35 units

[Hardcoar]

Was on Hsieh too, and I'm on Jerzy'.

Go go power Pole!

[Michael_Flieger]

Hantuchova +1430 (Azarenka): 1.00/14.30 loss
U. Radwanska +205 (Stephens): 1.00/2.05 win
Tomic +195 (Gasquet): 1.00/1.95 loss
Townsend +6' -125 (Ivanovic): 1.25/1.00 loss



-11.35 + -1.20 = -12.55 units

[Michael_Flieger]

4-p

WBC Venezuela -1175 (Spain) win
Nishikori -490 (Petzschner) win
Almagro -850 (Gimeno-Traver) win
A. Radwanska -1150 (Cirstea) win

2.00/1.17

Dolgopolov -265 (Berlocq): 13.25/5.00 loss
Kirilenko -330 (Burdette): 3.30/1.00 win

-12.55 + -11.08 = -23.63 units

[Sam_Hawkins]

oh man so many units on dolgo :P He's so unstable lately :/ GL tho

[Hardcoar]

Wow.

Good luck tonight!

[Dmoneytx]

I like Dolgo today also, but man he is the MOST unstable player on the tour today. I like some of those plays today man, BOL sir!!!

[Michael_Flieger]

Yes, guys, you're right. I'm trusting Dolg's tweet that he feels healthy for the first time since Davis Cup. He's a guy I've followed pretty closely and had good luck on.

[Michael_Flieger]

WBC Dominican Republic -165 (Puerto Rico): 1.65/1.00 win

-23.63 + 1.00 = -22.63 units

[Michael_Flieger]

Tough loss on Dolg, but in the end a bad pick. It went the way I thought except for his inability to serve it out, but still not justified at the price based on how Berlocq has been playing lately.

[Michael_Flieger]

WBC Netherlands +1' +185: 1.85/2.87 win

4-p

Berdych -1300 (F. Mayer) win
Anderson -220 (Nieminen) win
Azarenka -2800 (Flipkens) win
Kerber -280 (Wickmayer) win

5.00/6.10

Muguruza +108 (Rybarikova): 2.00/2.16 win

-22.63 + 11.13 = -11.50 units