Also is Berlocq a clay court specialist kind of guy? I think my book had him as like a +500 dog? Is that correct? He wins in straight sets? What is his game like? Did anybody gleam anything from the match with Nishikori?
 SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks |
Best Sportsbooks List
|
|
| |||||
| #1 FanDuel | SBR rating 4.8/5 | Review | #6 BetRivers | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review | #2 Caesars | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #7 Fanatics | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review |
| #3 DraftKings | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #8 Betway | SBR rating 3.8/5 | Review | ||
| #4 BetMGM | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #9 Borgata | SBR rating 3.5/5 | Review | ||
| #5 bet365 | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #10 ClutchBet | SBR rating 2.9/5 | Review | ||
-
03-13-13 02:44 AM #141
-
03-13-13 03:10 AM #142
It's just another factor. It actually makes the return game more interesting. I enjoy watching Raonic ace people in men's; I also enjoy watching people smash winners up the line off a weak Radwanska second serve. I enjoy both tours as separate things, no real point in comparing them.
Originally Posted by bigdrov1x
Could be. She sprayed plenty yesterday in beating Ivanovic.The matches were on Tennis Channel later, and no problems, but I did not see the Barthel match. Mona had a great 1st set against Ivanovic, and then destructed in the 2nd. I figure that she had the same problem with Stosur. Maybe with her topspin? Also these courts do not favor a player like Barthel who seems to like to hit a flatter ball. The thin desert air seems to demand heavy topspin to keep the ball in from what I have seen and heard.
Interesting. We know Nadal does not like hard surfaces at all. We know he feels he has proved he can win on them. Meaning he feels no need to compete on them from here forward. Thus, he must be attracted/forced to play on them or he probably won't. So it's possible Ellison might skew the surface toward Nadal's preferences. We'll see how streaking Errani does against Sharapova tomorrow.Also the court is like mega slow, and Barthel is a fast court player I think. I would look to clay court players, and heavy topspin players to close this tourney out. What are the odds of Rafa winning it all? I would think Rafa and then Joker would be my picks. Also on a tennis board, a guy who says he has a friend who hits with a pro said that once the balls are used a little and worn a little, they are losing some compression, and not going anywhere. I take it with a grain of salt, but I have heard from a lot of sources about the speed of the court being really slow. Also Larry Ellison skipped a Joker match to go practice with Rafa? Are they friends? He is paying for all of this investment into the Indian Wells facility. So the new courts are playing really slow this year? Favoring a clay court type game? Ellison and Rafa? Rafa would be a hugely popular champion? Who knows? Am I crazy? Opinions?
-
03-13-13 03:15 AM #143
Yes, Berlocq is a clay guy. I had him for a touch at +600 5dimes reduced juice. He hits very hard. He's competent, not great, but the last 2-3 weeks has been playing better than usual. Nishikori was great in memphis, I made a bunch on him over FLopez. One of the easiest calls of last month. Then he quit a point before dropping the first set to Karlovic in Delray (I think it was) as a big favorite. He was super sweaty that match and saved a lot of people a lot of money because he retired just before the first set was completed. He was grimacing and squeezing his leg the whole set like his muscles were sore. Today it was supposedly extremely hot. Nish sighed a lot and played poorly the entire match. Never got into it at all. Didn't appear injured. Possibly fatigued. I thought there was an outside chance Berlocq would win, but a much likelier chance he would be competitive and cover the games. Well, as I am learning, make this a rule, if a player can win games, then a player can win the match. Example I didn't cash but would have if I followed this rule: Puchkova over Venus Williams in Florianapolis. I KNEW Puch could take games off Venus. But I figured she'd just lose it in the end. Nope. She could win games - she could win the match. Lot of people laying 900 on Nishikori like he's a top player, but he's not yet. He's just been playing well in recent months. But he's hit a little slump. Wait for him to relax and recover and play some lower level unhot opposition and he'll be back on his feet. But 900 - no. He's not that good. Originally Posted by bigdrov1x
Last edited by Michael_Flieger; 03-13-13 at 06:05 AM.
-
03-13-13 05:35 AM #144
Haven't you heard? People love their
AK-47:sfavorites @ shitty odds-parlays.
-
03-13-13 06:06 AM #145
The problem with a parlay's that Originally Posted by Hardcoar
Just one loss and it goes splat.
-
03-13-13 06:20 AM #146
Beyond The Baseline @SI_BTBaseline
Talked to Stosur. Sounding relaxed, confident. Said she needed a set to figure out Barthel's patterns. Had never faced her before. #BNPPO13
-
03-13-13 06:26 AM #147
Beyond The Baseline @SI_BTBaseline
Not citing it as an excuse, Nishikori tells Japanese press that he picked up a left ab injury in Delray Beach. Affects serve. #BNPPO13
-
03-13-13 06:40 AM #148
2-parlay
Anderson -240 (Simon) win
Kvitova -255 (Kirilenko) loss
6.86/6.67 loss
Errani +455 (Sharapova): 2.00/9.10 loss
Errani +5' -116 (Sharapova): 2.32/2.00 win
Raonic +135 (Tsonga): 3.00/4.05 loss
7-parlay
Djokovic -2300 (Querrey)
Raonic +130 (Tsonga) loss
Murray -3200 (Berlocq)
Gasquet +165 (Berdych) loss
Anderson -245 (Simon) win
Gulbis +4 -120 (Nadal)
Kvitova -240 (Kirilenko) loss
.68/15.73 loss
14.08 + -10.54 = 3.54 unitsLast edited by Michael_Flieger; 03-14-13 at 02:23 AM.
-
03-13-13 04:49 PM #149
Gasquet +170 (Berdych): 2.00/3.40 loss
3.54 + -2.00 = +1.54 unitsLast edited by Michael_Flieger; 03-14-13 at 02:24 AM.
-
03-13-13 04:57 PM #150
Great call on Kirilenko @ +335 against ARadwanska the other day. I didn't realize she was such a solid player. She's really holding her own against Kvitova right now but I'm kicking myself for not taking Kvitova live at almost even odds during the first set.
-
03-13-13 04:58 PM #151
It 'gon lose... Originally Posted by Michael_Flieger
Unless Berdych ragequits after winning 1:st
-
03-13-13 05:03 PM #152
Raonic has a straight cannon of a serve. I had Tsonga, and was regretting my bet all of the way to the last game. How dominant is Berdych's serve going to be in this match? Is Gasquet going to be able to get many returns in? Is the +170 play more of a value play? I do not really know these two players as well as others. Also my guy has Murray -4k, and Berlocq +1.5k? Is there a snowballs chance in the desert that Berlocq can get an upset? I know Murray has a nice slice backhand. I have been hearing that heavy topspin is what is needed on these new courts/dry air. Is the slice sitting up, or does it stay down? Is Murray a fast court player? I know at the Aussies, his 2nd serve was a liability. I do not know, +1500 sounds like it may be worth a try? Opinions?
-
03-13-13 05:10 PM #153
Berlocq is an interesting prospect, but the odds should be longer.
Only thing I might go for is 1:st @ 11 (that's +1000 for you crazy Americans).
-
03-13-13 06:21 PM #154
Boy, the day went sour in a hurry. Feed keeps freezing not sure why Kvit fell apart needing to hold twice to win. Originally Posted by ohumad
-
03-13-13 06:27 PM #155
I would tell you but I couldn't watch it any more. Basically this:
Originally Posted by Hardcoar
Originally Posted by Hardcoar
Originally Posted by Hardcoar
-
03-13-13 06:32 PM #156
Honestly, I say mid-s2, this was a bit of a loose play on my part when I was thinking Kvit was going to win and I'd be up several units. Also, I am biased against Berdych. I think he's weak-minded. Not a wise bet, although Gasquet is at least making an effort in second set. I dont really think the return on Gasquet justifies the risk. Should be at least +220 or something. 170 not enough. Berdych simply playing too well these days. Originally Posted by bigdrov1x
Berlocq should lose. I'd take him with games if anything, but I'm not going to. I don't particularly like or trust Murray, but he should win. I was betting against Nishikori yesterday as much as on Berlocq. At best you could use murray in a parlay but that price is far too high and the risk far too great to take Murray on anything but games if you like him. I wouldn't put more than one unit on Berlocq. He's playing well. Great return if Murray happens to falter.I do not really know these two players as well as others. Also my guy has Murray -4k, and Berlocq +1.5k? Is there a snowballs chance in the desert that Berlocq can get an upset? I know Murray has a nice slice backhand. I have been hearing that heavy topspin is what is needed on these new courts/dry air. Is the slice sitting up, or does it stay down? Is Murray a fast court player? I know at the Aussies, his 2nd serve was a liability. I do not know, +1500 sounds like it may be worth a try? Opinions?
Actually no - the one truly DUMB pick I made today is Murray in the parlay. All it does is put the parlay at risk of losing. It has no upside, like maybe .50 extra return. Someone know doubt can calucate this precisely, but my thumbnail is you should not have anyone on a parlay over 2000. I'll go 2200 but that's all. I just made a mistake including Murray. You can well believe that could have been the one leg that lost that parlay, because every other pick on it is solid, even though some have lost.
Wawrinka would be a good dog here - except fed seems to have a mental hold over him, so I'm staying off it. Their personal relation seems to dominate the tennis stuff, otherwise you'd certainly like Wawrinka at sizable multiple. Federer isn't playing that great. Then again, I've gotten burned by Wawrinka in matches he as winning and should have won. He's not Mr Ice-Cold Closer against top competition. I just stay away from this match today. It's for study.
Now the dogs I want are Errani and Gulbis are hot as they come right now, absolutely peaking. Both of them are over 200+. Of course, they must beat Sharapova and Nadal. I often split bet and put half on games. But just as often I play it straight up on the dogs. The games lines are usually sided to the favorite by half a game because the peculiar psychology of tennis makes it much easier to imagine the dog covering than the favorite - the opposite of football, strangely enough.Last edited by Michael_Flieger; 03-13-13 at 07:02 PM.
-
03-13-13 06:50 PM #157
You're not kicking yourself now! Originally Posted by ohumad
I really dont know what caused that bizarre play. Maybe the sun got to her.
-
03-13-13 06:53 PM #158
That Almagro one made me angry. Comes all the way back and can't close. I've followed him as closely as anyone. Hell, Haas folded to Gulbis last week and he would have done it here. Originally Posted by Hardcoar
I dont find the women any worse than the men. They have great legs too! Pro tennis gets women in perfect shape.
-
03-13-13 07:03 PM #159
The snowball's chance is Murray breaking down. He has not tended to do that under Lendl, and I doubt he does here. Berlocq will play like he has been playing - strongly. But if Murray plays his average level, he will beat Berlocq. Originally Posted by bigdrov1x
-
03-13-13 07:07 PM #160
You don't seem to get it. Read my post again. It makes an extremely good point, as far as I'm concerned. Originally Posted by Michael_Flieger
-
03-13-13 07:13 PM #161
Originally Posted by Hardcoar
Women can't meet men's standards. Correct. Who doesn't know that? Now tell me something I can use to make money. If you want to be useful.
-
03-13-13 07:15 PM #162
The interesting question to me is WHY TODAY Kvitova made all those double faults.
Because, before I posted here, I made a bunch on her in that tournament she won. And every time she was in trouble, she served and hard-hit her way out of deficits. Every time. So it's not a woman thing. It's something peculiar to today. The sun might have bothered her, is all I can speculate. But my feed was freezing so I don't know for sure.
-
03-13-13 07:25 PM #163
That wasn't the point. Let's try one more time:
Just disqualify them both already! Ten whole minutes arbitrary locker room fashion change break without the umpire issuing either a time out or warning – Let alone uttering A SINGLE F*CKING WORD!
Meanwhile, in the grim world of harsh reality: Tommy Haas gets point deduction to lose service to Almagro at the end of the decider, having taken five seconds too long to serve at two and a half hours into the match. Tough luck Tommy boy!
-
03-13-13 07:44 PM #164
Is there some points besides that there is one standard for women and another for men? If so, I am too dim to make it out, and you'd best state it clearly. Originally Posted by Hardcoar
-
03-13-13 08:53 PM #165
Not originally, but I was referring to what you wrote about Almagro in that situation. What was truly upsetting is the fact that Almagro was gifted a break in said manner – especially in proportion to what transpired before the start of 3:rd in the Kvitova match today.
I should have probably just put it out there sooner. I did have kexx on 'Magro live by the way...
Also, what I pointed out about the women has nothing whatsoever to do with what women are capable of. Despite being physically weaker than men, and more uneven in tennis particularly, they are capable of plenty. I've seen fantastic WTA matches, and WTA tends to feature a lot more rallies on all levels of play, but certainly double faults are more prevalent in women's tennis, as are breaks and turnarounds.
Believe it or not, I am not actually misogynistic, but i find that "incident" severely demeaning to all women, and an absolute disgrace to the WTA and tennis in general. The reason I reacted to the fact that they're women is that I also fail to see the equality between the two cases I described. As long as there are no underlying conditional differences between sexes regarding something, there should also not be any moronic, completely unjustifiable differences. For example, women's grand slam matches being best of three is perfectly logical and justifiable. I would be equally shocked and furious if something like that happened in the ATP, however.
More than anything though pisses me off how a multi-billion dollar sporting industry can tolerate something anywhere near that severity.
I hope you find all of that somewhat interesting. At any rate I'm quite happy with the way it came out.Last edited by Hardcoar; 03-13-13 at 09:07 PM.
-
03-13-13 08:54 PM #166
4-parlay
Djokovic -2100 (Querrey)
Del Potro -385 (Haas) win
Gulbis +305 (Nadal) loss
Errani +440 (Sharapova) loss
1.00/27.86 loss
1.54 + -1.00 = +0.54 unitsLast edited by Michael_Flieger; 03-14-13 at 02:25 AM.
-
03-13-13 09:05 PM #167
Ah, ok. That's useful. I didn't SEE it because the feed wasn't working. I was lying down just watching the score roll over. Originally Posted by Hardcoar
He was the perfect guy to bet on for a long time; now he's more of a known entity. Not been real mentally impressive in the clutch lately.I should have probably just put it out there sooner. I did have kexx on 'Magro live by the way...
Well, some complain about them getting the same pay. I can understand that, as the men are better. But tennis is not just competition it is entertainment, and I enjoy the sexual appeal of the women. So I'm not really bothered by their getting equal prize money. Whereas in other fields, although they complain about getting less pay, it's because they aren't as qualified, experienced or dedicated. Their apologists never acknowledge that, of course.Also, what I pointed out about the women has nothing whatsoever to do with what women are capable of. Despite being physically weaker than men, and more uneven in tennis particularly, they are capable of plenty. I've seen fantastic WTA matches, and WTA tends to feature a lot more rallies on all levels of play, but certainly double faults are more prevalent in women's tennis, as are breaks and turnarounds.
Believe it or not, I am not actually misogynistic, but i find that "incident" severely demeaning to all women, and an absolute disgrace to the WTA and tennis in general. The reason I reacted to the fact that they're women is that I also fail to see the equality between the two cases I described. As long as there are no underlying conditional differences between sexes regarding something, there should also not be any moronic, completely unjustifiable differences. For example, women's grand slam matches being best of three is perfectly logical and justifiable. I would be equally shocked and furious if something like that happened in the ATP, however.
Women's tennis is the best women's sport and to me slightly preferable to men's. I also like it, and tennis generally, because the matches don't take forever. It really is the perfect betting sport.
I tend to agree, although it doesn't bother me as much. The feeds I listen to, on the men's side, the announcers are always arguing about the time calls on the serve. They can't agree on whether it should be called strictly, proportionately (so that neither player gets advantage), or loosely. This really is silly. If the point is to include fitness as part of the tennis equation, then the 25 secs should apply after every point, whether it was an ace or a 30-shot rally. But I don't know what the purpose of the rule was or what the makers intended. It may be they just wanted to have something there umps could use to smack the ass of the rare player taking too long as a strategy or habit.More than anything though pisses me off how a multi-billion dollar sporting industry can tolerate something anywhere near that severity.
I hope you find all of that somewhat interesting. At any rate I'm quite happy with the way it came out.
Certainly tennis reffing does seem to have a looseness that other sports don't have. But on the whole, reffing's not that big a part of the outcome as in, say, NFL.
One funny thing - one announcer said today that someone quizzed the top ten players on the rules, and NONE of them got all the answers right. So basically no one really knows what the rules are or wants to enforce them. It's just kind of random, I guess. But I only care from a betting standpoint, and I don't think it makes too much difference. I think it's ridiciulous at all, actually, to have trainers touch them at any point during a match. But I guess there are so many tournaments they kind of have to allow it.
-
03-13-13 09:06 PM #168
Have you considered splitting Errani and 'Biiiiiiiis? : )
-
03-14-13 04:54 AM #169
[into THUR +0.54 units]
Nadal +110 (Federer): 10.32/11.35 win
Have to think victory over Gulbis will prove tougher than beating Federer. Expect line to get worse so taking it now at odds on.
0.54 units + 11.35 = 11.89 unitsLast edited by Michael_Flieger; 03-14-13 at 11:43 PM.
-
03-14-13 05:09 AM #170
Berdych -400 (Anderson): 4.00/1.00 win
4-parlay
Berdych -440 (Anderson) win
Nadal +110 (Federer) win
Bryan/Bryan -810 (Gonzalez/Lipsky) win
Wozniacki +5' (Azarenka) canc.
2.00/8.08 win (3.79 adjusted)
11.89 + 4.79 = 16.68 unitsLast edited by Michael_Flieger; 03-15-13 at 12:40 AM.
-
03-14-13 05:17 AM #171
A song for encouragement. We will enlist the nameless forces operating the universe to send our way many tasty units.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=208ijq51V6g
-
03-14-13 09:54 AM #172
Goffin -190 (Marchenko): 1.90/1.00 loss
16.68 + -1.90 = 14.78 unitsLast edited by Michael_Flieger; 03-15-13 at 12:41 AM.
-
03-14-13 02:35 PM #173
Following this same logic, wouldn't beating Wawrinka prove more difficult than beating Nadal at this point? Originally Posted by Michael_Flieger
-
03-14-13 03:55 PM #174
That doesn't make sense. The only logic involved is betting on the player you think will win, assuming you get a reasonable price. This is a matter of analysis. Gulbis, at least at the moment, is a tougher opponent than Wawrinka, whom Federer has basically never lost to. In my estimation, Nadal will have an easier time with Federer than he did overcoming Gulbis. You can disagree, but it has nothing to do with logic. Originally Posted by Sharp Snake
-
03-14-13 03:57 PM #175
I guess we disagree about Gulbis being a more difficult opponent than Wawrinka at this point. If they played tomorrow there's no doubt in my mind that Wawrinka would be favored.
Reply With Quote