 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 | ||
Anyone awake tonight and sweating the women Wimbledon semi matches? Radwanska +145?
Sick price on this carpet muncher.
Most experience n pedigree by far out of the 4 bulls left.
+145 seems out of whack here.
Little too much hype on the favorite just cuz Serena lost one match.
Radwanska OWNED this girl last match they played earlier in the year also.
I watch Men's way more than tennis for obvious reasons. But the price seems tasty to me here.
Anyone else like this play/value??
Shari?????? Vyom??
You awake??
Gonna put a few bucks on it.
Last edited by BennyBigNuts; 07-04-13 at 01:58 AM.
Good luck tonight Benny!
Originally Posted by ApricotSinner32
Yeh, nothing like some 5am degen action.
I just noticed the price on the dog here and had to see why. Didn't make sense. She has minor nagging injury that's only reason.
I know you won't post who you like until the match is over
I also post pics of me getting buried my burials are well documented. I am not floyd mayweather only posting winning tickets settle down.
Lisicki 28-7 career on grass, the right player is favored. Not just someone who beat Serena, she can play on this surface. Over is the better play imo
Yeah I saw that.
Radwanska has all the experience and has beaten plenty of the top players before. She's had a couple cracks at majors before.
I like the price mainly. Seems like a value play on a coin flip if not slight edge to the dog IMO. But I'm not strong in women's tennis because I can't stand watching them.
respect it, I won't be watching this one either. But I played the over so hopefully we both win
I'm on Aggie but only for small. Trying to predict the winner of these matches now is a crapshoot so anyone who's confident enough with these women to go huge is a fullblown nutter in my eyes. If Lisicki serves like she did against Serena, she has a good shot of winning but Aggie's going to draw errors out of her like she does everyone. Lisicki had 19 against Kanepi in a relatively easy match so that's a real concern for her against a player of Radwanska's consistency, as is her emotional state. If she can't control her errors she's toast. Aggie won't be the physically stronger one on the court but she is by far the smarter one with incredible defence, shot selection and pace so I'm taking the + odds in the hope she plays the same game she did against Li. If she does, she wins.
|
|
It is a 50:50 match, yes. So the value is on Radwanska. I do have a small bet on her.
(However I hope crybaby Lisicki wins, Germany needs a big tennis title to get more attention again. Days of Stich, Becker, Graf are long over and nobody was able to replace them.)
[ ] 50/50
What book?I'm on Aggie but only for small. Trying to predict the winner of these matches now is a crapshoot so anyone who's confident enough with these women to go huge is a fullblown nutter in my eyes. If Lisicki serves like she did against Serena, she has a good shot of winning but Aggie's going to draw errors out of her like she does everyone. Lisicki had 19 against Kanepi in a relatively easy match so that's a real concern for her against a player of Radwanska's consistency, as is her emotional state. If she can't control her errors she's toast. Aggie won't be the physically stronger one on the court but she is by far the smarter one with incredible defence, shot selection and pace so I'm taking the + odds in the hope she plays the same game she did against Li. If she does, she wins.
lol @ how many times people use the "50/50, value with underdog theory".
You do realize you saying 50/50 doesn't make the match a 50/50 proposition. Books are smarter than any of us and if the match-up truly was a toss-up, the price would reflect it. Vegas isn't stupid enough to offer +145 on 50/50 match-ups.
And even if you think a particular match is 50/50, you can't just assume ur doing urself good by betting the underdog at + money. This would mean that not only would u need to place thousands of bets to make sure u get the benefit of the 'price value' by winning half of those bets, you would also have to make sure that ALL those bets are infact 50/50 match-ups that you bet (an impossible task to say the least).
i think i just threw up ^^^
and radwag's injury will come into play imo, lisicki wins in 3
and even after all of that you need to hope the site is not down for maintenance.............
Books are setting the line to get close to even action on both sides. So what's the point of your tirade dude ? You on Lisicki then ?
Wow......If anyone ever looks like a possible former man she's a prime candidate.Root in bartoli
does she have kids?
This guy gets it
I wouldn't hesitate to hit it bennay
365. Trying to clear out the scraps in my account after withdrawing everything after live betting Murray too much last night. I put the rest on Bartoli.
Shari mushed bartoli fuk.
Sure did even though I was on her in her last match. As I was Radwanska. And Flipkens.
Lisicki v Fat-oli final.
Got 3.5 units on Radwanska. In my opinion she's a 60-65% favourite over Lisicki. Yeah I'm watching the match. It's 930pm local time for me.
It is so fcking funny that so many of these wise guys don't understand that.....
Same with "Vegas is setting up a trap". No, wrong. Books are evening out their action. They don't give a flying fukk who wins, because they win anyway.
Couldn't be farther from the truth.
Pound the over
And pound the first set over 9.5 should go tie break IMO
Keep thinking that pal.
Especially for our special kid here, enjoy pal....
"By adjusting the odds in his favour or by having a point spread, the bookmaker will aim to guarantee a profit by achieving a 'balanced book', either by getting an equal number of bets for each outcome, or (when he is offering odds) by getting the amounts wagered on each outcome to reflect the odds. When a large bet comes in, a bookmaker can also try to lay off the risk by buying bets from other bookmakers. The bookmaker does not generally attempt to make money from the bets themselves, but rather by acting as a market maker and profiting from the event regardless of the outcome. Their working methods are similar to that of an actuary, who does a similar balancing of financial outcomes of events for the assurance and insurance industries."
After further research, I am laying off A-Rad and keeping the over only. A-Rad has spent 50% more time on court and the average rating of her opps was only 69 vs 29 for Lisicki. I do not like these stats. As much I like A-Rad, I think Lisicki probably wins. I see more value in Flipper vs the beast. Since, I bet on A-Rad at the book that cancels the bet if the player retires, I am hoping A-Rad retires after the 1st set
At long fukking last – two individuals who aren't utterly ignorant of bookmaking. THANK YOU!!
No, it is in fact the exact, absolute, undisputable truth.
Last edited by Hardcoar; 07-04-13 at 06:02 AM.
|
|
Isn't the ignorance incredibly funny?
It's both amusing and frustrating, because it seems people never understand the very basics of bookkeeping, regardless of how many times I try to teach them. : (
Reply With Quote
BennyBigNuts gave shari91 2 SBR Point(s) for this post.
