General / Paul Krishnamurty / 02 June 2009 /

In an insightful blog posting Paul Krishnamurty considers the importance of recent form when betting on golf. All those piling into Paul Casey at the moment take note!

When the likes of Shane Lowry and Christian Cevear win golf tournaments within the same month, those of us dedicated to study golf's formbook feel like tearing our hair out. At times like this, it can seem like all that research is pointless and the game a lottery, though a longer-term perspective helps eases the frustration. After all, it was only a week earlier that Paul Casey was justifying favouritism at Wentworth.

Nevertheless, there is an ongoing debate about how much credence the market should pay to very recent form, as opposed to taking a longer-term view. For instance, could anyone seriously fancy Cevear at an eighth of last week's odds to become a very rare back-to-back winner?

Of course all recent form matters to some extent. A player seriously struggling with one aspect of his game; especially if its off the tee; will not win anywhere. Hence why Michael Campbell, a former US Open and World Matchplay champion currently going through the mother of all slumps, can be backed at [500.0] in Wales this week.

However, while it's easy to make confident statements about the very best and the very worst, most golfers are harder to form concrete conclusions about. Anyone in the top-150 is capable of winning a tournament, and tend to do so in their turn. The key for punters is to work out when that turn is due, or more likely than usual, along with solving the ongoing conundrum about what represents 'value'.

Consider 'man of the moment' Paul Casey. Right now, he thoroughly deserves his newly attained world no.3 status, and looks a strong candidate every time he tees it up. However, that hasn't happened overnight. Since the middle of last summer, Casey has shown marked improvement, particularly with regard to long game consistency. But because it's always hard to get your head in front in golf tournaments against 150-odd opponents, he took some time converting that into titles. Consequently, his odds barely shortened until he'd won a title, and even then it took two or three victories before layers began to run for cover.

If memory serves, Casey was available at [30.0] for his Abu Dhabi triumph, [60.0] in the Houston Open and [50.0] when runner-up in the World Matchplay. After justifying favouritism at Wentworth a fortnight ago, and following up with another top-5 in the States, Casey starts second favourite behind Woods this week at the Memorial Tournament at just [17.0].

But at what point do these odds become too short? I have massive respect for Casey, and am holding strong positions on him for both the money list and US Open, so am hardly going to put anyone off backing him. Ultimately though, he is just one of a dozen world-class players vying for position below Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson. There are only so many events he can realistically win and it may just be that he's had his winning turn for now.

This is rather like Geoff Ogilvy, who was flavour of the month going into the Masters after winning three titles in four months. Ogilvy's weekly odds duly collapsed, but he hasn't won or looked like winning since. Now he's slipped back into the pack for a few weeks, (without completely losing his form), the Aussie might be beginning to represent good value again, with [30.0] for this week's Memorial Tournament taking the eye.

Another useful example, this time representing the complete reverse argument, is Sergio Garcia. Back at the start of the year, Garcia was being widely acclaimed as an imminent major winner, and potential challenger to Woods' no.1 spot. He was trading well under [20.0] for the US Open, a tournament that suits him perfectly. Now, after a miserable few months, the Spaniard's odds for the forthcoming major have doubled to [34.0]. Now obviously it would be impossible to make a strong case on recent form, but equally nobody is suggesting that Garcia is finished. He remains one of the very best and will be back at some stage, so these odds still make some appeal.

I've long held to the theory that, besides the odd genius like Woods or Mickelson, there is very little to choose between the top 50 or so players, and they take turns winning their share of tournaments. If a player starts at an average of [40.0], then he only need win one tournament every year to reward his loyal backers. Likewise, there is little to choose between those ranked from 50 to 150, and they win in their turn too, albeit at bigger prices.

There are many previous winners who start [100.0] or more every week, but who will probably win again at some stage to reward their loyal backers. And because of those huge odds, the backer only needs one win every couple of years at worst. By that line of reasoning, somebody, somewhere, backed Cevear at 870.0 last week. After all he'd won once and contended several times at Euro Tour level previously. No doubt, Cevear had his followers, who reasoned he would win again at some stage in his career. Not me though, I'm sad to say!

'.$sign_up['title'].'

'; } } ?>

:

:

:

?

: