Shari's tennis plays

[Ace_of_Spades]

Thanks Pinnacle for being down. Couldn't get Ferrer +7.

[kingsr]

True that. I am being honest here when I say I just had a feeling that something would go wrong for Nadal. I didn't know what it would be but I just had a feeling. Gladly it was right.

Damn! Gotta love when those feelings work out! LOL well done nice cash

[shari91]

True that. I am being honest here when I say I just had a feeling that something would go wrong for Nadal. I didn't know what it would be but I just had a feeling. Gladly it was right.

Like I said, while I'm so sad this happened to him especially after that damn virus, I couldn't think of a better person to have cashed in on this one. Congrats Mikail! It's awesome when those sneaky suspicions that come out of the blue work out!!!

[ApricotSinner32]

So nadal wins this match 100% of the time if hes 100%? GTFO thats nonsense everyone has bad days even at 100%

[shari91]

So nadal wins this match 100% of the time if hes 100%? GTFO thats nonsense everyone has bad days even at 100%

Patty what are you on about?? I didn't see anyone post that and I sure as hell didn't post that myself. But I do think Nadal would've won this match. Like I said on TI, if Raonic had had more experience he would've had a decent shot at taking Ferrer out. Poor shot selection, errors happening when Raonic was even sitting there shell shocked. But no - I never would've bet these odds either way. Just because a book's hanging a big line doesn't mean there's a point in taking it. If you think that's the case, then start laying $100 on every $6+ favourite and see how that works for you. I'll save you the cash because I've seen the stats - you'll go broke.

[shari91]

Oh - and I'm saying that as the poster in here who plays more bigger dogs than anyone else.

[ApricotSinner32]

Patty what are you on about?? I didn't see anyone post that and I sure as hell didn't post that myself. But I do think Nadal would've won this match. Like I said on TI, if Raonic had had more experience he would've had a decent shot at taking Ferrer out. Poor shot selection, errors happening when Raonic was even sitting there shell shocked. But no - I never would've bet these odds either way. Just because a book's hanging a big line doesn't mean there's a point in taking it. If you think that's the case, then start laying $100 on every $6+ favourite and see how that works for you. I'll save you the cash because I've seen the stats - you'll go broke.

Shari you said you "think" nadal wins. This is not a question who you think will win. This is a question of what % of the time will nadal win. And never did I say to blindly back at huge underdogs. I said betting public favorites is suicide. I thought nadal would win too but thats not the point. Gambling is percentages.

[Coochiemudlo]

I took the under and thought i was done when david took the first. Got so lucky

[shari91]

Shari you said you "think" nadal wins. This is no a question who you think will win. This is a question of what % of the time will nadal win. And never did I say to blindly back at huge underdogs. I said betting public favorites is suicide. I thought nadal would win too but thats not the point. Gambling is percentages.

Well, I'm not sure what math you did on this match but I did my own based on the info I collect from every rinky dink tournament. This match was a no play but not based on my numbers. The price offered didn't meet what I feel comfortable betting in any fashion even though the stats said it was a play. There's no hope in hell I'm ever going to lay chalk like that but try to be realistic here. I realise you're excited you won but winning a bet when the number one player in the world injures himself during the match, that doesn't mean you made a good bet. That means you may have got lucky. Big difference and one we'll never know the answer to. Congrats on your win though. Lucky or not, it's still a cash.

[ApricotSinner32]

Unreal.

[kingsr]

Well, I'm not sure what math you did on this match but I did my own based on the info I collect from every rinky dink tournament. This match was a no play but not based on my numbers. The price offered didn't meet what I feel comfortable betting in any fashion even though the stats said it was a play. There's no hope in hell I'm ever going to lay chalk like that but try to be realistic here. I realise you're excited you won but winning a bet when the number one player in the world injures himself during the match, that doesn't mean you made a good bet. That means you may have got lucky. Big difference and one we'll never know the answer to. Congrats on your win though. Lucky or not, it's still a cash.

Nicely said!

[ApricotSinner32]

Shari the only thing that matters is before the match what % chance do you give nadal or ferrer to win. You're telling me that ferrer didn't have atleast a 12% chance to win?That's the breakeven at +750.No play based on your numbers is basically saying you think nadal wins 89% or more of the time .

[ApricotSinner32]

Stop kissing ass king her response was silly.

[shari91]

Unreal.

I'm not even sure what you're going on about. I didn't bet this. You didn't take money off of me. You pop in the tennis forum so rarely and usually just to say you're taking a big dog. Most of the time your bets don't win. And today you posted your play when the match was over. Not sure what else you want me to say but the fact you're going on about this bet when he injured himself says a lot. If he wasn't injured in the first set- great call!! But the fact is that he was. What else do you want me to say?!

[kingsr]

Stop kissing ass king her response was silly.

Im not kissing ass, its just funny you got OWNED by a woman

[kingsr]

On to tomorrow...

2 leg parlay:

Li, Na ML
Federer ML

$2.40

[Optional]

Shari the only thing that matters is before the match what % chance do you give nadal or ferrer to win. You're telling me that ferrer didn't have atleast a 12% chance to win?That's the breakeven at +750.No play based on your numbers is basically saying you think nadal wins 89% or more of the time .

I heard the commentators say Nadal's only ever lost the 1st set 11% of the time... so 89% isn't too far off the mark probably.

But I've been backing Ferrer all tourny. And I think he had a chance, injury or not.

Then again, I'm last or next to it in both AO contests.

[ApricotSinner32]

How did I get owned. Shari states she would not back anyone based on the math so what she is saying is ferrer doesn't win the match atleast 12% of the time as +750 and higher was widely offered. How the fuk do you not think ferrer has a 12% chance or better?

[shari91]

Shari the only thing that matters is before the match what % chance do you give nadal or ferrer to win. You're telling me that ferrer didn't have atleast a 12% chance to win?That's the breakeven at +750.No play based on your numbers is basically saying you think nadal wins 89% or more of the time .

I actually had Ferrer at a 5.6% chance to win - actually just a little over 5.5 but I'm rounding up - and a 19% chance of pushing him to a tiebreak. But I suck at prop bets for the most part so until I get those numbers right, I don't bet that shit.

Remember Patty, some of us collect data all year long, for many years running. Please tell me what info you had to make you think he had a 12% chance of winning other than seeing a big line, taking a shot and getting lucky that he injured himself.

[ApricotSinner32]

I heard the commentators say Nadal's only ever lost the 1st set 11% of the time... so 89% isn't too far off the mark probably.

I've been backing Ferrer all tourny. And I think he had a chance, injury or not.

Then again, I'm last or next to it in both AO contests.

Ok I feel like i'm talking to psyche ward patients. That stat may be true but lets use our fuking brains here. This stat is against a majority is much much weaker players and not david ferrer so really it's irrelevant.

[ApricotSinner32]

I actually had Ferrer at a 5.6% chance to win - actually just a little over 5.5 but I'm rounding up - and a 19% chance of pushing him to a tiebreak. But I suck at prop bets for the most part so until I get those numbers right, I don't bet that shit.

Remember Patty, some of us collect data all year long, for many years running. Please tell me what info you had to make you think he had a 12% chance of winning other than seeing a big line, taking a shot and getting lucky that he injured himself.

Shari you are destroying youself here. You state you believe ferrer had a 5.6% chance to win which is laughable but lets stay on that topic. Say a rough % is right around 5.6%.. You would have a 3.4% edge in backing nadal -1000. Break even is 91% on a -1000 and i'm pretty sure there were better prices than -1000. Why didn't you take the 3.4% edge?

So really you're outta your league here shari. Yes you can say i'm broke and I blew multiple huge bankrolls etc and thats fine, but what you're stating are contradictions.

[Optional]

Ok I feel like i'm talking to psyche ward patients. That stat may be true but lets use our fuking brains here. This stat is against a majority is much much weaker players and not david ferrer so really it's irrelevant.

Agreed. But I still don't think 89% against Ferrer is "too far" off the mark.

Not enough to say it's an obvious good bet anyway.

Glad you won on him though. So did I.

[ApricotSinner32]

Yes optional congrats to you too as well. Lets try to stay out of the online casinos and rigged poker games online. I am a paranoid individual I don't trust anything or anybody anymore.

[shari91]

Ok I feel like i'm talking to psyche ward patients. That stat may be true but lets use our fuking brains here. This stat is against a majority is much much weaker players and not david ferrer so really it's irrelevant.

Patty this post right here is how I know your tennis knowledge is very limited to say the least. They're head to head is 12-4. One win 6 years ago when Nadal first came on the tour, one win on carpet and hard in 07 when Nadal was shit on anything but clay and now this one today. So actually before the match Nadal was 12-3 with Ferrer taking one set off Nadal in one carpet match and one clay match in the past 3 years.

To top it off, this is only the second time Ferrer has ever reached the semis in a Slam. The last time was 3 years ago. This is info that any casual bettor can find let alone the stats I use.

Yes, this is 'David Ferrer'. The classic under achiever his whole career going up against Nadal. A man who has completely owned him to the point where even Ferrer said this was a shitty win. You know I love you but you need to be realistic here. Regardless, I'm not sure how I became the target for over excited Ferrer bettors but again, congrats.

[ApricotSinner32]

You didn't answer my question. If you are stating that ferrer had roughly a 5.6% chance to win, as a smart tennis gambler why wouldn't you take the 3.4% edge that was presented to you with nadal -1000?

I am not claiming to know more about tennis than you. Why don't the majority of hardcore tennis fans just gamble for a living instead of cleaning toilets and working at shitty desk jobs? Because there is more to tennis gambling/sports gambling than just knowing the players and the sport.

[shari91]

Shari you are destroying youself here. You state you believe ferrer had a 5.6% chance to win which is laughable but lets stay on that topic. Say a rough % is right around 5.6%.. You would have a 3.4% edge in backing nadal -1000. Break even is 91% on a -1000 and i'm pretty sure there were better prices than -1000. Why didn't you take the 3.4% edge?
So really you're outta your league here shari. Yes you can say i'm broke and I blew multiple huge bankrolls etc and thats fine, but what you're stating acontradictions.

Patty, I don't care about your blown bankrolls. I care about my own. And right now my gambling profits are ensuring Seth and I can still have a great quality of life even though I'm on mat leave. I know exactly what edge I would've had and I'll say it again - I'll never lay that chalk. I don't care if I had a 10% edge. I'm not a pro bettor, I'm a damn mother. My small bet sizes this past two weeks have been $200 a pop. I'm not going to lay that much friggin money to earn $200 no matter what numbers say. That's not my style. I get sick laying -200. Shit I was sick yesterday having several thousand on the line at a -110. I'm not living at home with my parents Patty. This is my life and I don't fukk around when I have a son to provide for. So yes, numbers wise I'd probably be up a lot more money but I've been doing this long enough to know what my comfort zone is and the unpredictability of an individual sport. There's no second string in tennis and there's no bench. Your player comes out mind fukked, gets injured or is more interested in going home to get laid, or even worse fixes a match, and you're fukked. Never going to happen with me and I'm fine with that.

[shari91]

You didn't answer my question. If you are stating that ferrer had roughly a 5.6% chance to win, as a smart tennis gambler why wouldn't you take the 3.4% edge that was presented to you with nadal -1000?
.

You asked this in between my posts and my 3G is blowing tonight. Just answered you.

But you didn't answer my question. What info did you use to believe Ferrer had a better than 12% chance of winning this match? There is a group of us who collate stats and have been doing so together for years. If we've missed something important please let me know.

[BobW]

Shari, I think I'll go big tonight on Na Li. Are you doing that too or do you think Wozniacki will stop her?

[shari91]

Shari, I think I'll go big tonight on Na Li. Are you doing that too or do you think Wozniacki will stop her?

I wouldn't go big on any match from this point on. It's not worth it at this point - players are too close in skill and the numbers are very sharp. For what it's worth - Li actually started out as the dog and was immediately hammered at Pinny. I have my future bet on Li and I'm not hedging yet. There has been no sign from Woz that she could win this one. The #s don't match up and I have a feeling if she wasn't the #1, her price would be higher. So many people picked her to smack Schiavone because of her long match prior, Franny really only loves clay, etc. Imstead she had to fight back in that one. Now she's coming up against someone more suited to hard, no fatigue/injury concerns and is a great player. If my future bet was on someone like Petkovic or Kvitova who have streaked into good form, then I would hedge. Li isn't streaking and Woz isn't as dominant as her ranking suggests. My only concern ever with Li was always mentally. I no longer have those concerns but I still wouldn't go big on her. It's tennis, and the WTA on top of it. Luck can carry you a long way.

[brandoc]

Li looks like a good play to me too - won´t go big as per your reasoning Shari but I do think she´s good value at her current price. Woz doesn´t have the game to take decent opposition apart, so lets just hope Li continues the form she´s been showing the past two/three weeks. It´s on her racquet to lose IMO.

[Mirar Baseball]

hey shari how much do you think recent H2H really matters?

zvonareva beat clijsters 3 times straight after kim gave birth, but one of those was on grass... and after that, vera got smashed in US Open finals (which in my mind is the setting that most closely resembles tonight's match)

I see you posting about players 'finally getting their shit together' - such as Djokovic and Na Li. I made money on both, essentially tailing you there. Do you think Vera falls into this category as well? I'm considering a +150 shot at her in this semi.

[shari91]

I see you posting about players 'finally getting their shit together' - such as Djokovic and Na Li. I made money on both, essentially tailing you there. Do you think Vera falls into this category as well? I'm considering a +150 shot at her in this semi.

Sorry I had to chop sone of your post but it's the only way I can reply on my phone.

To answer your question - Vera is a headcase. I posted on TI about the commentators saying that a woman player (honestly can't remember who) was putting her towel over her head during end changes this week because her half shrink/half coach advises his players to use that strategy. They panned to him in that chick's player box and then mentioned Vera employed him last year and that's why she does the same thing. I'm not sure if you watched the kvitova/Vera match but as soon as that lady tripped over the seat and was injured, they finally halted play and Vera went nutso. She then proceeded to let Kvitova back in the match a little bit but her natural talent prevailed.

I don't like Vera yet. She's exactly where Li and Djoko were for me mid last year but she doesn't seem to be mentally stronger. Clijsters isn't infallible though and allows those brain fades I talk about every second day. But a brain fade and a brain snap are two different things. Vera has a chance if she manages to force Kim into errors but I have no desire to bet on this one. It's like Stoner and Dumber here. Pretty sad considering they're two of the best in the world.

[kingsr]

Vera is a headcase too. If you noticed in her last game, when she's changing ends, she sits on her chair with a towel wrapped around her, to block out any distractions. But then again, Clijsters is a headcase too lol +150 may be attractive though, just remember Clijsters will have the crowd behind her.

[kingsr]

lmao we posted simlilar sh*t at the same time

[shari91]

Oh, I forgot to address this. I only think H2H matters when it's on the same surface. And even then I only consider it if it's a drastic differential. People focus on someone having a 5-2 record against another player but you need to dig deeper. Preferred surface? Coming off injury? Weird dumps of cash on the ML?

Sometimes I think it can be a mind fukk for certain players when they're coming up against someone who has consistently beaten them on that surface. But you'll find the random few who it means nothing to or the ones who literally roll over and play dead because they realise they have little chance.