Tennis - French Open - almost a lock?

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
have you ever heard of an underdog?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no law saying you have to bet on underdogs. Maybe, for example, he thinks that clay-court tennis lines tend to give too little credit to favorites, in which case it would make sense to be betting all minus numbers.

[WaimanaloSlim]

[ QUOTE ]
anyone else like lubijic (sp?) at +900 on friday.

[/ QUOTE ]

9 to 1 is great value here, IMO.

[smbruin22]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
anyone else like lubijic (sp?) at +900 on friday.

[/ QUOTE ]

9 to 1 is great value here, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

don't have the numbers in front of me, but nadal winning 3-1 sets was paying +325 (approx.)..... of course, you don't get any other outcome. but the nadal 3-0 outcome was only +140...

of course, lubijic has shaky majors record (i guess he's blown thru that), was horrible in last tune-up for french (does it matter now?), played great last match (bag of potatoes opponent)..... not sure of lubijic record on clay though... but he's looked great when i've watched (and very consistent, although pmac says that's not how to beat nadal, but lub has weapons too).

[Rick305]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
have you ever heard of an underdog?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no law saying you have to bet on underdogs. Maybe, for example, he thinks that clay-court tennis lines tend to give too little credit to favorites, in which case it would make sense to be betting all minus numbers.

[/ QUOTE ]

If anything, clay court tennis is more of a crap shoot.

[Thremp]

Maybe I feel like a jerk for thinking that this whole "Fezzere vs. Nads" final was gonna happen.

[Rick305]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I feel like a jerk for thinking that this whole "Fezzere vs. Nads" final was gonna happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

they were favored.

Im not saying anything about particular bets, but to bet all favorites doesnt seem good imo.

[faithdrool]

Who will win?

Nadal -132 (Tradesports)
Federer +136 (Matchbook)

Yes, these numbers can be arbed, but I don't want to. So, who should I bet on?

[Ortho]

I think that's a generous price on Nadal. At 150 I wouldn't know who to bet.

[llabb]

Final results: 54-10, +6.4u

Sorry for updating this old thread so late. Just wanted to update the final record so it's here if I look for it in the future. It turned out to be an easy French, with everything in the OP correct.

All of the anti-favorites crowd and haters need to understand that tennis plays out differently than major US team spots. The anti-favorite/anti-public stance that works in many US team sports does not apply imo, particularly when on specialized surfaces. All of the straight favorites that I took in the early rounds, even including the heavy favorites at insane lines like -8000, resulted in 51-3, +4.4u. That is without counting the results on Nadal to win the tournament, but simply individual matches at an average of around -700.

Also, we don't just have favorites in front of us, we have two "once in a generation" players who are perhaps the best of all time. These players, although strong favorites, are still undervalued imo.

To apply this forward, Federer at near -200 to win Wimbledon is a good wager imo.

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
have you ever heard of an underdog?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no law saying you have to bet on underdogs. Maybe, for example, he thinks that clay-court tennis lines tend to give too little credit to favorites, in which case it would make sense to be betting all minus numbers.

[/ QUOTE ]

If anything, clay court tennis is more of a crap shoot.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be true (though I think if it is, it would already be factored into the lines anyway), but it wasn't the point. The point was that if you think the bets are mistakes, you should explain why. You shouldn't just declare that there is no value in favorites, because that is obviously false.