Truths, Lies and Tennis Statistics / Matthew Walton / 03 October 2008 / 2

"Magical" Matthew Walton looks at a case study from last week's Moselle Open to illustrate how occasionally tennis matches are priced up wrongly, why this happens and what we need to do about it.

There was a match this week in the second round of the Moselle Open which highlighted a very good way of making money for the sharp-eyed backer - and in these columns, as keen followers of the form, we like to think we fall into that category.

Potentially this is a very lucrative way of betting, provided you do your homework and are able to sniff out the right opportunities, something which experience will teach you over time.

To set the scene, this run-of-the-mill indoor event in France had attracted a fairly useful field which included the likes of Ivo Karlovic, Mario Ancic, Gilles Simon, Dmitry Tursunov and Nicolas Almagro as the main seeds. For the time of year a pretty decent line-up.

However, in the first round the No.2 seed Gilles Simon (enjoying his best season to date on tour with three tournament wins, moving him into the world's top twenty for the first time) was beaten by fellow Frenchman, Nicolas Mahut.

It was a three-setter but Mahut won it well enough 6-1 in the decider. This 26 year old had caught the eye before, making the final at Queens in 2007 (as well as three weeks later in Newport) and had recently won an indoor, challenger event in Orleans.

In the second round he was due to play Marc Gicquel. This 31 year old, also from France, was having a moderate season and entered this event with a 50% win-loss record. A steady player but nothing out of the ordinary.

Prior to their match, Mahut was the favourite. He traded as low as [1.59] as high as [1.92] but was generally around the [1.78] mark prior to the game. As for Gicquel, a clear underdog in the eyes of the market. As big as [2.44] on occasions, as low as [2.00], he was hovering around [2.22] as the match approached.

Gicquel was a standout bet to win this match and he duly won 6-3 7-6. Want to know why?

Well, here's where you need to have a vague familiarity with the players. Just enough to give the hint of a mistake in the market, then you can go investigating.

Current form. Results on tour in 2008, Gicquel W19 L20 (48%), Mahut W15 L23 (39%) - resulting in a current ranking of Gicquel 41, Mahut 75.

Career form. Throughout their entire time playing on the ATP Tour, Gicquel W62 L62 (50%), Mahut W56 L90 (38%). Another clear advantage for the underdog.

Indoor form. This is an environment which requires special ability, not everybody likes to play indoors - a point worth noting. Career form indoors, Gicquel W21 L16 (56%), Mahut W17 L26 (39%). More evidence of Gicquel's chance of success.

And here's the clincher ... head-to-head form. These two players had met five times previously, over the space of seven years. Four meetings on hard courts (today's surface) and once on clay. The earliest in 2001 and the most recent in 2007. The record read 4:1 in favour of Gicquel, including a record of 3:1 on hard and, what's more, he'd won their last four meetings. Mahut had won the first of their encounter in 2001 but he hadn't won a single match since!

On the basis of that evidence what possible reason could there be for making Mahut the favourite? The over-riding reason has to be the fact he beat the No.2 seed, Gilles Simon, in the first round.

Time and again we see players win what are viewed as big matches. They upset a seed, defeat a top name, come back from the brink of defeat to land a great win. As a result they get an inflated status in the minds of backers (and in this case layers) who see them as better players than they really are.

Now for everyone who tells you that a great win represents good form, boosts confidence and propels someone onto even greater heights there are those who will say that having achieved such unexpected greatness once, many players find it hard to lift themselves next time out. Whether against another good opponent or a lesser one. It's the theory of 'mental let-down'. There's nothing left in the physical or, more importantly, mental tank.

But in this case we don't even have to rely upon the views of psychologists ... it's the formbook which tells us all we need to know. There was simply no way that Gicquel should have been the underdog save that many exchange users (and odds compilers - let's not forget Mahut was odds-on right across the board with all the conventional firms) were going off reputation and not results.

These 'exchange errors' don't come along often. Quite clearly, most favourites are favourites for the exact reason that the form, records, head-to-heads and all other available data point to their success ... but not always.

What you need to do as a sharp-eyed Betfair user - and experience will improve your spotting abilities - is to notice these occasions. Often your research will lead to a dead-end and a you'll have to resist the bet (or take the plunge more on instinct than information) but every now and then you will come across a bet such as Gicquel. Where the popular perception says one thing but the statistics suggest a different course of action.

The best way to make long-term profits is to bet with the head and not the heart. On the basis of records not reputations and those who layed Gicquel (and those of us who gratefully backed him) should now understand this lesson better than ever!

'.$sign_up['title'].'

'; } } ?>

(2)

1. Stitch | 03 October 2008

   On this week in wta was match Petrova-Li. Same. Petrova leads head to head, Li win Serena (1) and odds on Petrova was 1.8

2. snippy | 08 October 2008

   Those who can: do. Those who cant: write articles for betfair tennis

:

:

:

?

: