3k on federer to win 3450. good idea?

[FeltBelt]

Post deleted by Performify

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it common for a lot of sports bettors to have such high testosterone levels and a pentient for trash talking?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Penchant," and yes.

[Thremp]

All,

Feltbelt was expecting to post this bet and have everyone suck his nuts. He's now trying to impress us with the vast amount of monies he makes.

Feltbelt,

I'm glad you make lots of money at your job, cause you aren't at sports.

[Oatmeal]

Post deleted by Performify

[Thremp]

Oatmeal,

Best I've seen in months.

[TheRover]

lol @ thread

[Mediocre_Player]

I had 2k on Feds -622. I guess I'm a square, b/c I thought that it was really good value. The fact that he won in straight sets without even playing well re-affirmed my thinking.

[Thremp]

He's 50/50 to win in straight sets or so it seemed.

[Lori]

[ QUOTE ]
I had 2k on Feds -622. I guess I'm a square, b/c I thought that it was really good value. The fact that he won in straight sets without even playing well re-affirmed my thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not trying to defend my stance as I'm pretty sure that Fed is often good value at short odds and this may or may not have been one of those occasions, but it's entirely likely that Fed could lose once in seven because he just plays bad and/or Gonzo plays brilliantly.

This isn't a bet where you can really judge the value after the event because a lot of the time he'd have steamrolled Gonzo even more than he did.
If you were happy that the bet was value, I can live with that, but on very short priced favorites, other things have to be used to judge the quality of bet than the final result.
For an example, if you had to lay 100000-1 about him beating me (I would likely be evens to win a point in a 3-setter) and he didn't get injured, you can't really say after the match that it was a good bet because he didn't get injured. (It could still have been a good bet though considering he could beat me by walking)

The other problem with betting those prices, even if they give you an edge, is that it's very easy to overbet your roll. (I'm not implying that you did this, but some people - including some who know lots about tennis and gambling - will have done).
As a rule of thumb in these scenarios I think that you should either bet the underdog or pass unless you're very happy with your bankroll management skills.

Lori

[freewheeler]

[ 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?