Truths, Lies and Tennis Statistics / Matthew Walton / 29 August 2008 /

The straight sets victory isn't as common as you might think, says Matthew Walton.

It's all too easy to follow the crowd when placing your bets. To do the obvious and bet as the market tells you. Basically, to bet and trade in a conventional, non-questioning manner.

But does this always pay the best dividends? Not really. The whole purpose of our discussions is to illustrate alternative ways of thinking, different methods of research and, more than often, unpopular ways of betting in order to generate a better return from your use of Betfair.

And so during the early stages of the US Open, when we have a whole range of matches and potential bets placed before us, we naturally apply the same rationale. That is, to think a little deeper about our bets and to maybe act a little differently from others, in order to generate a better return.

Take the example of set betting.

How often do you see a match which has a favourite at, say, [1.4] and the underdog put in at something like [2.75] where the price of a 3-0 whitewash for the fancied player is hovering around [2.0]. That's pretty common, right?

And, it's logical you might think. These players might have met before, the favourite might hold the head-to-head advantage, he might well be in better current form etc and he should win quite easily. It all makes the 3-0 scoreline seem a perfectly acceptable outcome ... or does it?

Should this option really take up 50% of the market? Does it really offer the best value (and the best returns) on the set betting markets?

As we always endeavour to show in these features, popular perceived wisdom and actual solid fact are not always one and the same thing. If you're prepared to dig a little deeper (which we are!) then you can unearth some statistical anomalies and so better strategies for your betting.

Take a look at the data for the last four Grand Slams. This covers R1 matches and ably illustrates our discussion :-

The key point to take from these figures is that 31/64 matches in R1 at Flushing Meadows this year (48%) did result in a 3-0 scoreline. Go back to the French Open and it was 38/64 (59%) and then at both the Australian Open and Wimbledon it was 35/64 (54%).

An occurrence of a phenomenon 48% of the time would make its true price around [2.08] if you were to back it blindly at every opportunity. With the higher percentages at 54% and 59%, that would reduce the value price to around [1.70] to [1.85].

Which possibly makes [2.0] seem a shade of value. Well, no it doesn't. This data only tells half of the story.

In a five set match there are six possible results not three. For every 3-0 for the favourite, there's 3-0 for the underdog. For a 3-1 win, there's a 1-3 loss. For 3-2, there's 2-3. Remember, your bet isn't for the match to be over in three sets. It's for Player A to win in three sets. So, what about Player B? He might win 3-0 instead.

In order to justify the odds you'd have to call the winner of the match correctly EVERY single time - and that just isn't going to happen. All of a sudden the [2.0] about a 3-0 scoreline begins to look a little less appealing.

Of course, some prices for the 3-0 are much bigger than [2.0], mind you some are a lot shorter, but what we wish to draw to your attention is the fact that 3-0 results - whoever they're for - aren't necessarily the way to back a favourite in the set betting.

In those Grand Slams mentioned above we've seen four sets matches occur in 21/64 matches (32%) in the US Open, 22/64 (34%) at Wimbledon and a noteworthy 17/64 (26%) and 16/64 (25%) in Australia and Paris respectively.

Even the five set matches have cropped up 12/64 (18%) at both the Australian and US Open this year, just in R1.

And, remember, when it comes to matches settled in four sets (3-1 either way) and five sets (3-2 either way) we'll start to see the odds - and possibly the value - spiral upwards at a rapid rate.

There is a rather simplistic view that matches will be done and dusted in the minimum period of time when there are enough statistics on hand to show that a high percentage of matches have a longer duration. And this is only looking at matches in R1 of the Slams which should be, if anything, the shortest because we have such wide disparities in ability as the best players take on the worst. Later on in tournaments, the competitive nature of matches and the increase in respective abilities, can push the average number of sets even higher.

That's a discussion for another day but here we simply want to highlight the poor value which you could be taking about a 3-0 whitewash for a supposedly short-priced favourite. For sure he may well win the match but why not consider 3-1 or even 3-2?

Such lateral thinking is what you need to employ on Betfair ... don't be brainwashed into taking poor prices and even poorer bets. Search out the real value - because it is there!

'.$sign_up['title'].'

'; } } ?>

:

:

:

?

: