[Hardcoar]

Well if there truly is a bigger chance than the one which would average out to neither loss nor profit, you're wrong. However, often times (rather every single time) your estimation (as well as the market's) of the actual probability is more or less incorrect. This issue is exacerbated by the fact that bookmakers apply margins, which means you have to be at least as much right as the margins to go +/- 0. Add to that the fact that more often than not, the market is going to beat you in estimating the chances of a particular outcome.

It's entirely possible I've misunderstood your point as well... I hope you understand what I mean by the above though.

[sluggy1616]

I understand what you mean!! Thanks for taking the time to answer. I did a poor job of explaining but your a smart dude and figured out what I was getting at.

Thanks!!!

[Hardcoar]

To simplify:

If there is a higher probability of a certain outcome than the odds of that outcome would imply, then yes; it is a good (on average profitable or "value") bet. The challenge is that:

1. The bookmaker applies margins to its odds, lowering them from a "fair" state, and therefore has an "edge" over you. This means you have to be more correct in your assessment than the extent of the margins applied by the bookmaker in question, in order to turn a profit.

2. Your assessment of the probability of an outcome is always more or less wrong, and it is always – without exception – impossible to absolutely determine whether a particular tennis bet is good or not, in spite of how determined you may be. Your long term return on investment (ROI) is the only way to know whether the odds you've been betting on so far averaged value or not. The best way to determine whether a particular bet is good or not is to look at your odds, and compare those to closing market lines. If your odds are higher, odds are it's a good bet.

[Hardcoar]

I think that's a more elaborative and easily understood explanation... I even managed a couple of sick puns in there!

To finish my point: It is well possible that there was for instance a 75 % chance that Berdych would win this match. If this example is true (which is impossible to know) then the bet was good. Since it's impossible to ever know the actual probability of an outcome (unless it's predetermined as in the case of a coin-flip or a roll of the die), all we can do is guess. My guess reflects my opinion of the bet.

[marniblitz]

HC--does this mean you set a line on the matches you bet in order to compare to the market to determine if you have value? Sorry if this is a stupid question. I've only been betting tennis for around a year, and while I understand, in principle at, least how to set my own line for, say, basketball or football--I'm not at all clear how to set a line for tennis.

[Hardcoar]

Just to clarify, when you say "line" you mean "odds", and not the size of the spread, don't you?

I'm asking for clarification because I've noticed there are a lot of people of a certain origin (one which you might share) who juxtapose "line" with "spread" (also known as handicap).

[marniblitz]

Well, since I'm most familiar with basketball and football, I think of a line in terms of spread. You're right though, in tennis I tend to think more in terms of odds.

[Hardcoar]

Yes that is probably why North-Americans in particular use the terms so confusingly. At any rate, I was asking so as to be properly fitted to answer your question:

Which is it in this case?

[marniblitz]

Which do you find most valuable/helpful in terms of handicapping tennis?

[Hardcoar]

I only ever estimate match-lines. I sometimes bet spreads but I don't dabble in them, other than the rare guess for amusement purposes. I do estimate match-lines quite a bit though; for fun as well as practical betting purposes. Which is the most helpful depends on the nature of your bet, although each can certainly help the other out, so to speak. As implied, I tend to favor match-lines, but I far from always do before looking at the odds.

To answer your question: Yes it does mean so, it's not a stupid question at all but rather a very valuable addition to my original points, as the larger the discrepancy, the larger the likelihood of there being value. It is very important to note however that the vast majority of discrepancies result from your flawed capping – not the market's meanderings.

[marniblitz]

I appreciate you taking the time to post this. Thanks. As with most beginners, I watch a lot of tennis and then estimate who I think will win a given match, but take little time reflecting on whether my bet actually has much value. It might be fun, but I've already seen that it's not all that lucrative to take this approach.

Again, thanks!

[tipsadontlikehim]

well done kenz

[Hardcoar]

I appreciate you taking the time to post this. Thanks. As with most beginners, I watch a lot of tennis and then estimate who I think will win a given match, but take little time reflecting on whether my bet actually has much value. It might be fun, but I've already seen that it's not all that lucrative to take this approach.

Again, thanks!

Simply picking the winner will earn you jack-shit in the long run unless the odds are above @ evens, but it's certainly a good complement. The best way to go about it is to just watch and learn... try and fail. Use smaller stakes until you're more confident and try to be selective about your bets.