[Optional]

Excuse me if this has been discussed before, but I just happened across this Pinny article from March analyzing Home Court Advantage and found it interesting. Mostly because it is sooooo counter intuitive.

And counter-intuitive truths can often lead to a betting advantage. IF this is really a truth?


The table below illustrates the overall results of home players on the ATP Tour in the 2013 season, sorted by region. All prices used were Pinnacle Sports’ closing prices and all bets applied were using £100 level stakes.

Region	Matches	Won	Win %	P/L	ROI
N. America	238	112	47.06	344	1.45
S. America	39	14	35.9	-818	-20.97
Europe	418	213	50.96	-2647	-6.33
ROW	51	15	29.41	-2680	-52.55
Overall	746	354	47.45	-5801	-7.78

Is HFA a fallacy in Tennis?

We can see from the above table that only in North America did the home player have a positive return on investment. This is in line with previous research which shows that North American ATP players have strong records at home and very weak records abroad.....

....disregarding North American events, a blanket strategy of opposing all players playing at home can be considered


Article here: http://www.pinnaclesports.com/online...s-betting.aspx

[SirtySree]

Almost a 50/50 chance for the home player to win and considering a lot of the time, the home favourite will be a wildcard and a big underdog so I think it's technically actually better to bet on the home player based on value. Not sure how the ROI is calculated above though which could make my above statement wrong.

Personally, I always avoid the games where a player is playing at home. Way too unpredictable majority of the time.

[Hardcoar]

Calculated using Pinnacle closing lines.