[Cappinpicks]

Can't seem to find an answer online but are bets over -3000 a lock and undefeated in tennis history?

[shari91]

Yes. Search the forum and look for a thread started by a chap with the name Crazy_Lou. When you find it, bump the thread to the top. I heard he likes that.

[Cappinpicks]

can't find the thread, what is the biggest favorite to ever lose and what were they?

[yisman]

I don't know the biggest favorite, but Nadal last year losing to Soderling was pretty huge.

Nadal was like 1/60 or something.

[Cappinpicks]

wow, whoever had nadal must have killed himself

[JNic]

i saw maria jose martinez sanchez lost to amanmuradova in the first round here, she was like -2000 if im not mistaken

[Tsonga]

many many many have lost

[ROYAJA8]

It can be done. A tennis player just has to bet on other player and win big money haha.

[tailmypicks]

dont be fooled by how safe the locks look

[Ryangene]

Ya many huge favorites have lost. Thats why vegas is so big... Idiots put $2000 just to try win a few bucks.

[Stacocakes]

1.01 bets lose all of the time. Usually they are players that have a huge lead in the match and blow it. 1.01's for those that don't decimal bet are a person betting $1000 to win $10. Lots of people have done it and there are a couple a week that lose.

[iceminers26]

Yes several favs greater than (2000) have lost in the past and it will continue to happen because unlike the NFL, tennis is an individual sport and if that individual is off his or her game, it can happen, plus there is no injury report in tennis like the NFL so some of these players come out in bandages and you never know it until it is to late. I stay away from anything over (135) and feel if anyone plays something in the (2000) range they deserve to lose.

[nulldah]

a lot, not just in grand slam. if you want to look few big upset that involves big names at grand slam, French Open 2009, nadal/soderling, US Open 2009 federer/delpotro, Australia Open 2010 "forget the name"/clijster.

And like Stacocakes say, in live betting, even 1.01 is not safe, most recent example, gasquet/verdasco atp nice final last week, in this french open, ball did it to perschner (spelt wrongly, germany name too difficult to remember), japanese guy did it to giraldo (both are underdogs with 0-2 set down, come back n win 3-2) this is why i always hedge the bet (lay in betfair terms) when the odds are already < 1.05.

Tennis is always one to one match. Momentum can shift quickly or injury can happen suddenly with no replacement player, see benneteau vs gulbis match recently in this French Open?

[iceminers26]

a lot, not just in grand slam. if you want to look few big upset that involves big names at grand slam, French Open 2009, nadal/soderling, US Open 2009 federer/delpotro, Australia Open 2010 "forget the name"/clijster. And like Stacocakes say, in live betting, even 1.01 is not safe, most recent example, gasquet/verdasco atp nice final last week, in this french open, ball did it to perschner (spelt wrongly, germany name too difficult to remember), japanese guy did it to giraldo (both are underdogs with 0-2 set down, come back n win 3-2) this is why i always hedge the bet (lay in BetFair terms) when the odds are already < 1.05. Tennis is always one to one match. Momentum can shift quickly or injury can happen suddenly with no replacement player, see benneteau vs gulbis match recently in this French Open?

good recent examples, Ball was one of my first ATP plays all year and I was kicking myself early on that I didn't stick to my word that I was only going to play WTA this year and not ATP but he made a great comeback and was able to finish it off in the 5th, solid effort by the Aussie

[michalis]

yeah huge favorites lose all the time

[actionaddict86]

i need a +1000 up dog to win...find one now

[Fred Showpan]

The way I look at it is that if you bet 3000 to win 100, you would have to believe that your favorite will win at least 29/30 matches, or more than 97% of the time. In most cases I believe the chances of an upset are probably far greater than this and would not be comfortable taking the risk.

[shari91]

The way I look at it is that if you bet 3000 to win 100, you would have to believe that your favorite will win at least 29/30 matches, or more than 97% of the time. In most cases I believe the chances of an upset are probably far greater than this and would not be comfortable taking the risk.

I honestly can't believe someone would do that. Not in tennis anyway. Too many factors involved both on and off the court.

[yisman]

I think anyone who lays this kind of chalk deserves to lose.

[Cappinpicks]

I laid -5500 on Ferrer and -2800 on Verdasco topped with a -400 roddick play all to win 100$ and cashed

[Tsonga]

I laid -5500 on Ferrer and -2800 on Verdasco topped with a -400 roddick play all to win 100$ and cashed

not exactly an example of a smart play - roddick hadn't played a clay court match this season...and i'm sure you put in quite a large amount of $$$ to win 100

[revnecro1273]

had lisa raymond over venus williams the other year...think i had +2000..so williams was up -2000....also when hewitt was defending his wimbledon championship he was like -5000 against ivo karlovic and lost

[EaglesPhan36]

You get what you pay for on these types of play, easy money more often than not - but one loss and you wipe out a month or two of profit. Not worth it in my book in any sport. As was mentioned, betting Nadal last year against Soderling probably killed some bankrolls. And I know there are a lot of people who bet blind on tennis for action and bet the big names and have probably lost good amounts on Roger Federer in non-Slams in the past two years. Personally I think if you want to lay $1,000 to win $100 ... you'd be better off taking that $100 from your $1,000 and going to a casino.

[revnecro1273]

a lot, not just in grand slam. if you want to look few big upset that involves big names at grand slam, French Open 2009, nadal/soderling, US Open 2009 federer/delpotro, Australia Open 2010 "forget the name"/clijster.

And like Stacocakes say, in live betting, even 1.01 is not safe, most recent example, gasquet/verdasco atp nice final last week, in this french open, ball did it to perschner (spelt wrongly, germany name too difficult to remember), japanese guy did it to giraldo (both are underdogs with 0-2 set down, come back n win 3-2) this is why i always hedge the bet (lay in betfair terms) when the odds are already < 1.05.

Tennis is always one to one match. Momentum can shift quickly or injury can happen suddenly with no replacement player, see benneteau vs gulbis match recently in this French Open?

federer/del potro 2009 us open? federer wasn't that big of a fave

[mihaita666]

nadal should have had a similar odd last year to soederling.

[mihaita666]

And of course there are many small tourneys, fixed by the bookie, where you can lose on odds of 1.01.. the fav has 5-1 and serves for the set and he suddenly losses his mind, and eventually fails in tie-break.

[Jrod124]

Federer was like -2500 to Julien Benneteau last year Paris. BLEW up my parlay

[Jrod124]

I don't know the biggest favorite, but Nadal last year losing to Soderling was pretty huge.

Nadal was like 1/60 or something.

Gus Hansen claimed to have 600K on this.

[yisman]

federer/del potro 2009 us open? federer wasn't that big of a fave

yeah, that was nothing. It was what, maybe fed -350?

only notable because it was an upset in a final, but Del Potro was emerging as a top player.

The real huge odds are in the early rounds of majors, where you can have a top 5 player (especially Nadal in the French Open, where he's so dominant) facing some scrub who hasn't really played in the ATP yet. You had that today.

Also, Federer played some 18 year old kid making his debut (he was like a junior winner) last year. I think his name was Devin Britton. That was a first round matchup and Federer was like -13.5 (like Nadal today vs. an 18 year old).

I remember the kid won a few games and did cover the huge spread.

[maritime]

the only real use I have for favorites of that much are to occasionally circumvent limits.
Like last night I wanted to put more on the Suns than I could so I parlayed Suns with Nadal.

[Fthenorm]

Delpo was around plus 350 in the US Open match if I recall...I believe Nadal was -3400 against Soderling in the French last year...price obviously varied by book

[nulldah]

federer/del potro 2009 us open? federer wasn't that big of a fave

if you consider opening odds. but when fed led 2-1 n going into fourth set tie break, the odds was pretty huge with people believe it's over.

anyway my point is not whether the odds is huge or very huge. my point is I can type that post without much thinking and remembering, I'm not expert tennis capper either which remember every single details. So if you think you can make money in roland garros or tennis in general by huge fav ML, try to rethink it again. As Fred has posted, -3000 ML means 29/30 must be win, but I can pretty much say it's a LOCK in 30 consecutive of such plays, there will be more than one upset...

[Cappinpicks]

I'm betting 100 grand on Federer tomorrow -10000

[noober]

Federer losing to Volandri at his peak must be the biggest upset ever in tennis.

[psv777ua]

Federer losing Montanies -1000