Truths, Lies and Tennis Statistics / Matthew Walton / 25 February 2009 /

Matthew Walton discusses tennis match betting patterns and why learning to spot such trends can set you on your way to boosting your Betfair balance.

When you study tennis, and tennis betting, on a long-term basis you begin to recognise all manner of patterns. Many of these, in outright betting, we have discussed previously - maiden winners, defending champions, players of a certain age, nationality or level of experience. All the usual areas of investigation which go into selecting a potential tournament winner.

And when we switch our studies to the topic of match betting there are similar trends which become apparent ... but only to the trained eye.

These can include, for example, looking at matches where you find players returning from long injury lay-offs, those running low on energy having played for the umpteen weeks in a row or players who won an event the week before and so mentally 'switch off' next time out. Then there are guys with either a little or a lot of form on one particular surface and those who either have very good or very bad head-to-head records compared to their respective opponent.

The players may be constantly changing within these games but the type of match itself remains constant. Learn to spot these types of contests and you're well on your way to boosting your Betfair balance.

Such an occurrence happened just recently on the ATP Tour, two weeks running in fact. And, just to make it even more obvious, one of the players was present in both matches - and won them both!

Even more bizarrely, having been the underdog for the first match, he was also the outsider for the second!!

Here's the story.

Last week, in Round 1 of the RMK Championships in Memphis, the Austrian Stefan Koubek played Guillermo Garcia-Lopez of Spain. Koubek, ranked No.306 in the world, compared to Garcia-Lopez at No.71, traded in excess of [2.0] prior to the match.

Garcia-Lopez was viewed as the favourite. Why? Maybe because of his ranking but Koubek had missed six months of 2008 due to a back injury and his world standing had plummeted as a result to a falsely low level. Perhaps it was on the grounds of his ability but Garcia-Lopez had never won a tournament before whilst Koubek was a three time ATP winner, all coming on hard courts. Possibly it was down to Koubek's injury but the Austrian had been back playing since October. He had played several times on the Challenger Tour and the main tour meaning the guy was by no means still 'feeling his way back to form' - he was, in fact, fully back to speed.

In isolation, the Austrian was a standout bet. Why some layers seemed happy to accommodate all manner of backers at decent odds-against prices it was difficult to tell.

Result: Stefan Koubek won 6-2 6-2 in 66 minutes.

Spin forward to this week's action in Delray Beach. Again we find Koubek as a Round 1 underdog, this time against the American Bobby Reynolds. Why? It's another impossible question to answer.

Just like before, Koubek had the better form on hard courts - Reynolds had never won an event in his career and at 26 (Garcia-Lopez was 25) that starts to become something of an issue. Neither player had done much so far in 2009 - Koubek, as it happens, lost his next match after the Garcia-Lopez win to Radek Stepanek.

And, just to add a little extra confusion as to why the Austrian was so readily dismissed, not only was Koubek a past champion here in Florida (2000) but these two had played once before, on a hard court in North America, and Koubek had won 6-4 6-3.

Maybe some layers fell for the old rankings trap (Bobby Reynolds was No.73 in the world, like Garcia-Lopez was No.71, and Koubek was still languishing down at No.266 even despite his Round 1 win in Memphis the week before) or that Koubek was the wrong side of 30 or that he was returning from an injury.

That's why, yet again, you could back the 32-year-old 'veteran' at bigger than [2.0] in a match where he was clearly no makeweight.

Result: Koubek won 6-4 6-3 in 60 minutes.

Another match which was a no-brainer in its own right but the fact that it came less than seven days after an identical situation and included the same player made it even more unmissable ... to the trained eye.

And this highlights the crucial point which we make time and again in these discussions, as backers we need to be able to spot these patterns because, when we do, they often provide us with an advantage over other Betfair users. They come in match betting just as often as they do in outright betting, we simply need to determine what form they take.

Koubek, in fact, highlights three different patterns. Firstly, don't read too much into world rankings as the higher ranked players shouldn't necessarily be the odds-on favourites for every match. Good players can have low rankings and there's plenty of bad players with high rankings.

Secondly, for every winner on tour there are 31, 63 or 127 losers. It's very easy to be a loser, you're often in good company, but it's a lot harder to be a winner. Serial bridesmaids against proven winners highlight the fact that it does count for a lot that a player can get the job done (however long ago) and that a winning mentality rarely disappears.

Thirdly, age. Following on from the above point, a guy who is 32 and has achieved something is still better than a guy who is 25 or 26 and hasn't won a thing. If he's 18 or 19 then maybe give the youngster the benefit of the doubt but by your mid-20's the dye is pretty well cast. Don't turn your back on these old stagers ... they're only 30-something after all!

So look out for these occurrences. They aren't freakish, one-off events. Very often they are a repeat of matches, or a type of match, which you've seen before - and possibly bet on.

This case we've highlighted here is extreme as it featured the same player twice in such quick succession but make no mistake, lightning can (and does) strike twice. The beauty of it is, with a little homework, you know exactly when and where that's going to be!

'.$sign_up['title'].'

'; } } ?>

:

:

:

?

: