3k on federer to win 3450. good idea?

[1C5]

Nick rainey thinks he can beat Fed if Nick gets the baseball glove. I give him 0% chance of winning that one.

[Thremp]

1C5,

I'd think about taking it. Go out and try to return the ball when someone throws it.

[PartyGirlUK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would likely be evens to win a point in a 3-setter

[/ QUOTE ]
ROFLMAO

So it's 50/50 that Roger has at least one double fault per match?

[/ QUOTE ]

If was playing an average joe then no way Roger would go full pelt on either serve - he could just knock out a gentle 100mpher which would be way too much for almost anyone.

[1C5]

[ QUOTE ]
1C5,

I'd think about taking it. Go out and try to return the ball when someone throws it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, I tried it quite a bit this summer. It is a fun game. I was the guy with the glove and I tried being the guy with the racquet. I could beat pretty good tennis players but Fed would smoke me and I was getting pretty decent with the glove after a few times. So you think Nick would have a chance vs Fed?

[Thremp]

1C5,

I don't know. But he probably has as good a chance as Nadal or Gonzo does. I'd say his edge would decrease as the match would go on. Especially if he practices and becomes a relative expert at this. I would imagine Fed would not even practice.

If Nick was a minor league shortstop or something with some tennis background as well, then I could see it being more even money. This is discussed in another thread. With a glove he'd likely have a decent edge over anyone not in the top 2k in the world.

[mike l.]

"it's entirely likely that Fed could lose once in seven because he just plays bad and/or Gonzo plays brilliantly."

that's absolutely not true. gonzo will win that match at best 1 in 12 times. there was solid value in -600 and i took it.

[Mediocre_Player]

[ QUOTE ]
"it's entirely likely that Fed could lose once in seven because he just plays bad and/or Gonzo plays brilliantly."

that's absolutely not true. gonzo will win that match at best 1 in 12 times. there was solid value in -600 and i took it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad someone else had the same analysis, b/c Lori's post had me feeling like a total dolt ... props to Lori for being one of the best posters here, I'm a noob trying to learn.

My feeling is that Roger already is the greatest ever, and that he is undervalued (even given the bridge jumping lines) in semi-final and finals matches, especially when he is facing someone who hasn't played in the final of a Slam. I feel that Roger has a total sense of history and he is on a mission to destroy the record books when it comes to winning Slams. His record in big matches is disgusting, well above an 86% win clip, and his average opponent in a final is better than Gonzo (granted Gonzo was on a hot streak). I estimated Rogers probability of winning the match at 90-95%.


I still remember his last loss to Roddick, since it was the Canadian open. Pretty much everything had to go Andy's way - Roger tilted !?!?!?, Andy was serving unconscious, Andy won a fluke tiebreak, Andy was on a heater all summer hardcourt season (Roger wasn't yet a dominant force on hardcourts, it was Andy, Leyton and Marat), the crowd was way on Andy's side (he was banging Mandy Moore at the time who was in the attendance). All of these things had to come together and Andy barely barely won that match ... since that time Roger has improved immensely, and their head to head record the past 4 years reflects it.

I'm not sure how to handle the rest of the season, but for a guy who basically has a 99% winrate vs the world not counting Nadal, I think needing him to win 84% of the time in the final of a Major is great value.


I would be much more worried betting on Roger 10 years ago laying these odds, since there were a handful of players (Sampras, Ivo, Phillipoussis, Krajiceck) who could have an unconscious day serving and each set would go to a tiebreak. All court or baseline players match up so poorly with him.

[Lori]

Just to add that although I'm an experienced gambler, I have very few specialist subjects and that any time you disagree, especially if you know the subject well, then you're likely to be correct. (I would imagine this is also true for most regular posters. Edit: Having few specialist subjects that is)

Not only that, but I'd like to hear it, because judging 85% shots is (in my opinion) far more difficult than judging 50-50 ones.

Don't be intimdated because you're new and I'm not or any of that stuff. Firstly it's an anonymous forum, and secondly if you have a reasoned argument, you're never going to look like an idiot whether it's right or wrong. If we all agreed there would be no point in the forum as there would be no betting.

If you read any of my NFL tips from 2 years ago you'll see that I'm happy to post opinions even when I really really suck [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]

Edit2: I feel The points I made about not overbetting your roll and about methods used to analyse after the event still stand. However your above post makes some very compelling arguments that I will take on board for future slams. The part about his sense of history I feel is particuarly important.

Lori

[Thremp]

Tennis is an exception to most sports IIRC when someone gave one of those hard and fast summaries. Faves are usually where the value is.


Like in the first round, especially with some of the injury/withdraw rules. Some of these nobodies don't win the needed 1 in 1000 times against top pros to make it +EV.

[1C5]

Nick did play baseball, but the toughest part with the glove is trying to serve.

I bet that Fed could hit almost all his returns for a winner.

And even trying to catch the serves with a glove is not at all easy if the server can serve fast and hit the lines. Obviously Fed can do both.

I was having trouble catching serves this summer vs a 6.0 local player. Everytime he would hit a flat serve (prob 100 mph or so) on or near the line, he would ace me.

And I have been a goalie in hockey for basically my whole life so I am not that bad at catching tennis balls.

I would put my bankroll of Fed vs Nick on this bet.