пятница, 31 января 2014 г.

Does the market over-react following a retirement?

Does the market over-react following a retirement?

By Dan Weston Jan 31, 2014

Tweet

ATP and WTA Tennis bettors should be aware of player retirements and the affect they have on the following markets. These are often a source of great frustration amongst Tennis bettors with much debate on social media about the ethics of a player retiring from one event, and then playing the next week. This article looks at the effects of retirements in tennis betting and whether or not the market over-reacts following a retirement?

Are the players injured so badly they have to retire?

The speculation that has been heightened by recent events this season, particularly in the Australian Open, which featured far more retirements than average, as the players struggled with the intense heat in the first week.

Some players seem to retire more often than others – Mikhail Youzhny, for example, retired four times since the start of the 2013 season and has done so three times in 12 matches since October, whilst Michael Russell has done so six times since the start of the 2013 season.

Obviously there are many instances where a player has little option but to retire, but are there instances where a player retires without being, and may therefore be under-rated by the market the next week?

Certainly there are many examples of players having much bigger prices than may normally be expected after they retired the previous week.  Some examples that I noted from my research were the following:-

Andy Murray was 1.14 against Nicolas Mahut at Queens, 3 weeks after retiring against Marcel Granollers with a back injury.

Jarkko Nieminen was 1.56 against Bjorn Phau in Sydney (winning 6-0 6-1) after he retired the previous week with a migraine.

Horacio Zeballos beat Martin Fischer in Kitzbuhel priced 2.59 after retiring with a stomach muscle problem the previous week, and then retired when losing 6-0 2-0 in the next round.

Alex Bogomolov Jr beat Neil Pauffley (World Rank 438 at the time) in qualifying at Eastbourne priced 1.24 after retiring with a chest infection the previous week.

Michael Russell beat Hiroki Moriya when priced 2.17 in qualifying for Tokyo after retiring the previous week with a knee injury.

Sorana Cirstea beat Sharon Fichman when priced 1.36 after retiring the week before.

The problem with these prices is that they might be considered ‘too good to be true’ on occasion, and certainly the market is very wary about players that have injury doubts or have retired in their last match.

I decided to analyse whether prices on a previously injured player were indeed justified, or whether there was an over-reaction to the previous retirement by the markets.

To clarify, I researched all current top 100 players in the ATP and WTA between the start of the 2013 season and the 28th January 2014.  The rank used for analysis was the player’s rank at the time of the relevant match.  All prices used were Pinnacle Sports’ closing prices.

The following tables illustrate how the ATP players fared following a retirement in their previous match.

By Rank:-

Rank

Matches

Wins

Win%

P/L to level (100 stakes)

ROI

Top 10

6

4

66.67

-30

-5.00

11-20

10

10

100.00

913

91.30

21-50

30

18

60.00

541

18.03

51-100

41

23

56.10

592

14.44

Overall

87

56

64.37

2016

23.17

By Price:-

Price

Matches

Wins

Win%

P/L to level (100 stakes)

ROI

<1.20

8

8

100.00

99

12.38

1.20-1.49

24

21

87.50

472

19.67

1.50-1.99

20

13

65.00

211

10.55

2.00-2.99

17

10

58.82

754

44.35

3.00-5.99

12

2

16.67

-425

-35.42

6.00+

6

2

33.33

905

150.83

Overall

87

56

64.37

2016

23.17

By Length of Absence:-

Absence

Matches

Wins

Win%

P/L to level (100 stakes)

ROI

1 Week

30

21

70.00

1457

48.57

2 Weeks

27

22

81.48

1030

38.15

3-4 Weeks

21

9

42.86

-194

-9.24

>1 Month

9

4

44.44

-277

-30.78

Overall

87

56

64.37

2016

23.17

What we can analyse from the above tables is that whilst the ATP sample is relatively small, it showed an excellent overall return of investment of 23.17% when backing a player that has retired in their previous match.  That would indicate the market’s scepticism of a player’s fitness in this situation is not necessarily justified.

The most telling table is the length of absence table, which shows a clear disparity between short and long absences from action.

Returns for players returning after one or two weeks were huge, with 43 wins from 57 matches returning a profit of 2487 from level 100 stakes, and generating a magnificent return on investment of 43.63%.  I’d be very surprised if this huge ROI was sustainable over a larger sample but it would be highly unlikely that it would not be strongly positive.

The only conclusion I can draw from this is that ATP players that retire and then play the week later only had a minor injury or illness which after treatment or rest causes them little issues the following week.

However, based on the data, longer absences seem more genuine and clearly take longer for a player to recover from, and backing ATP players after a three week or longer absence should be done in very select circumstances.

Vice-Versa in the WTA

The following tables illustrate how WTA players fared following a retirement in their previous match, and show exactly why the two Tours need to be treated very differently…

By Rank:-

Rank

Matches

Wins

Win%

P/L to level (100 stakes)

ROI

Top 10

1

1

100.00

38

38.00

11-20

4

2

50.00

-119

-29.75

21-50

33

16

48.48

-609

-18.45

51-100

25

13

52.00

-340

-13.60

Overall

63

32

50.79

-1030

-16.35

By Price:-

Price

Matches

Wins

Win%

P/L to level (100 stakes)

ROI

<1.20

4

2

50.00

-160

-40.00

1.20-1.49

22

15

68.18

-166

-7.55

1.50-1.99

15

10

66.67

161

10.73

2.00-2.99

14

5

35.71

-65

-4.64

3.00-5.99

6

0

0.00

-600

100

6.00+

2

0

0.00

-200

100.00

Overall

63

32

50.79

-1030

-16.35

By Length of Absence:-

Absence

Matches

Wins

Win%

P/L to level (100 stakes)

ROI

1 Week

30

11

36.67

-1171

-39.03

2 Weeks

11

8

72.73

155

14.09

3-4 Weeks

12

9

75.00

35

2.92

>1 Month

10

4

40.00

-49

-4.90

Overall

63

32

50.79

-1030

-16.35

Whilst there were less matches in the sample it is clear that the WTA results were in complete contrast to the ATP.  There was a huge negative return of -16.35% from the 63 matches sampled in the WTA.

The worst area by far in the WTA was when a player returned immediately to action the following week – the polar opposite to the ATP.  Whilst it is impossible to draw a concrete conclusion to why this may be the case, my feeling is that it is due to financial reasons – the lower levels of the ATP are probably more lucrative to the players than the comparable levels of the WTA.  Therefore the WTA players, on this basis, need to participate when not fully fit, as they need the prize money more, and cannot afford to pay fines for late withdrawals.

We can use the information in this article to our advantage, looking to selectively back ATP players when having retired in the previous match, and looking to oppose WTA players on the same basis.

The statistics in this article show that the key to successful Tennis betting is treating the ATP and WTA Tours as completely separate entities, using relevant analysis for each tour.

Pinnacle Sports’ rules on tennis retirements

When betting on tennis it is vital to understand Pinnacle Sports’ rules on retirements. Click here to see Pinnacle Sports’ comprehensive rules regarding Tennis retirement or disqualification.

Dan Weston is a freelance tennis writer who, along with producing expert content for Pinnacle Sports, also produces his own tennis rating system, and trading analysis, which can be found at www.tennisratings.co.uk.

If you have feedback, comments or questions regarding this article, please email the author or send us a tweet on Twitter.

среда, 29 января 2014 г.

Head of Sportsbook Q&A Transcript

Head of Sportsbook Q&A Transcript

By Gary Wise Jan 29, 2014

Tweet

The second Pinnacle Sports Head of Sportsbook Q&A, hosted on @PinnacleSports on January 28th, proved to be hugely successful. We revealed $1,000,000 limits for the World Cup final, reiterated why we Welcome Winners and underlined improvements to NHL live to name but a few responses. Read on for the full transcript.

Firstly Pinnacle Sports – and the Head of Sportsbook (HoS) – would like to thank everyone for posting their thought-provoking questions and allowing us the opportunity to interact with our customers. Given the level of interest we received a huge number of questions, in advance and during the actual QA session, so our HoS was only able to answer a fraction. We intend to respond to all questions in time.

Below is the actual Twitter Q&A Transcript for the duration of the hour-long session (Click here to read the transcript of the first HoS transcript in August 2013).

The Twitter Q&A 2 Transcript

Q1. From an email: I am an Affiliate. Why you do not offer live betting products for hockey? #Pinnacle

HoS: We’re offering live NHL intermission hockey now and if the interest is there, we’ll offer it for the top European Leagues #Pinnacle

We’re offering live NHL intermission hockey now

Q2. From @PhantomPunter: Are there plans to increase in play soccer content? The only area I consider you to be behind your rivals. #Pinnacle

HoS: We’ve made big strides in our soccer live product, but realise we’re behind where we want to be and will continue to improve the depth of the product. We’ll continue to improve in the next year. #Pinnacle

 

Q3. From @allin1sbr: Is #pinnacle concerned about clients choosing matchbook because of the better odds? #SBRreview

HoS: No, we’re not worried about them. We offer the knowledge you’ll get the best odds as well as guaranteed liquidity. #Pinnacle

 

Q4. From @loving_the_punt: Are you looking at expanding both limits & markets available for the Australian Football League this year? #Pinnacle

HoS: We’re having internal discussions right now about Australian sports – AFL and rugby. We’re hopeful, but can’t commit to them yet. #Pinnacle

 

Q5. From @JSchouwerwou: As sabermetrics/analytics become more mainstream in sports, have there been increases in market efficiencies? #Pinnacle

Hos: Clearly, market’s become more efficient over the last 25 years. Still enough for the educated punter to take advantage of though. #Pinnacle

You can bet what you want at any time. We’re built around volume

Q6. From @RichardMrNice: Is it good or bad for business if someone keeps re-betting the limits on the same line. Like a Syndicate, who can bet up to a million? #Pinnacle

HoS: Anyone can bet whatever they like at any time. We’re built around volume, so volume is good. #Pinnacle

 

Q7. From @tenzing312: Do you foresee a time when you will accept deposits and make payments in bitcoins? #SBRreview

HoS: I am a close follower of Bitcoin, but we won’t accept BTC until legal aspects of the currency have been clarified. #Pinnacle

Q8. From @h103efa: Why do you not care about people that arb, and why do other bookies not like it? #Pinnacle

HoS: Our model is based on accepting bets whatever the motivation; our competitors are more focused on what’s most profitable. #Pinnacle

We will offer a limit of $1,000,000 for the World Cup final

Q9. From GreekWay_: What are your plans for the coming World Cup? #AskPinnacle

HoS: We will offer a straight up betting limit of $1,000,000 for the final. Of course, if that is not enough you can re-bet. I predict that it will be the biggest betting event we have yet had. #Pinnacle

 

Q10. From @TheJobber: If there was to be a movie made about @pinnaclesports which actor would you want to play you and why? #Pinnacle

HoS: Can only be the @TheRock, if you smell what the HoS is cooking. #Pinnacle

 

Q11. From @JMackie4: Hi HoS. How big would you say your tennis product is in terms of liquidity and in sports betting? i.e. is it 2nd behind soccer?

HoS: We are the no.1 tennis sportsbook. Having said that our tennis volume is still growing extremely fast, especially live. Challenger, future events & qualifiers have proved particularly popular. We’re very excited about Challengers.  #Pinnacle

 

Q12. From GreekWay_: Have you thought of making lay betting available in order to tackle Betfair’s monopoly and attract traders? #AskPinnacle

HoS: Betfair’s monopoly? Aren’t they tackling that themselves?

Gary: Here’s a little something our graphics guys whipped up:

 

Gary: And for those who haven’t heard about Betfair commission changes, you should give this a look: http://forum.sbrforum.com/sportsbooks-industry/2783440-betfair-increasing-rates.html 

 

Q13. From @basiljh: Will mobile site more closely resemble the site? Right now there seem to be no/few bets on mobile compared to website.

HoS: I’m not the Internet guy. I’m the sportsbook guy. #pinnacle

Q14. From @Terrell_7: What differentiates Pinnacle from other bookies, by them never cutting a punters account, limiting all betting? #askpinnacle

HoS: “Volume is good” #Pinnacle

Q15. From @Terrell_7: how do you ensure the removal of bias from your compiler’s odds? #askpinnacle

HoS: When the Rock is looking over your shoulder, it removes the danger of bias. #Pinnacle

Q16. From @MrRoyalW: Why do Pinnacle Sports open the handicap lines options before Moneyline?

HoS: In soccer, it’s because the Handicap markets are much more meaningful. Volume on Handicap far exceeds volume of Moneylines. #Pinnacle

 

Q17. From @JeffreyHahn1: How relevant is market size when considering accuracy of the market?

HoS: Very correlated #Pinnacle

 

Q18. From @Loving_the_punt: Why do you offer less juice on parlay lines then standard lines? #pinnacle

HoS: Risk management on parlays is tough. Still, our parlay odds still offer better value than our competition’s #Pinnacle

 

Q19. From @JMackie4: Do you have many bettors making a living from this game, many making legendary incomes? Yet you still want them to play?

HoS: Yes we do but we stand by our credo of Winners Welcome. I mentioned last time that we have bettors making > $300K/month. Our credo of Winners Welcome is not just a sound-bite, we have many customers that are significant long-term winners. #Pinnacle

 

Q20. From @MrRoyalW: Do Pinnacle Sports has your own Traders to have their own lines on all American sports or they all comes from Vegas?

HoS: Vegas… wasn’t that the place where people placed wagers before the Internet? #Pinnacle

Niche markets are more likely to be under-developed than popular markets

Q21. From @RyanC9999: What markets would you suggest someone with a limited bankroll focus on? #Pinnacle

HoS: Niche markets are more likely to be under-developed than popular markets. You could probably start there. #pinnacle

Q22. From @CJH248: Your lines seem to come down about 5 minutes prior to tip-off (football, basketball). Any plans to extend the odds being up?

HoS: We try our best to keep markets up as long as possible. Recommend you not wait for very last second to place your wager. #Pinnacle

 

Q23. From @heavyZ63: Is there a reason that limits are much lower on Tennis Set betting than handicaps and match odds? #pinnacle

HoS: Market size is much smaller. If more people bet it, we increase it. We had 50k on several #AusOpen matches. #Pinnacle

 

Q24. From @JMackie4: How important is it to get your lines out early or first in the industry? Does this matter to the trading team?

HoS: The traders really try to give the best service to our customers, so getting lines up early is very important to us. #Pinnacle

 

Q25. From @dmmdhamer: What’s the bigger event for #Pinnacle, Superbowl or Champions League Final?

HoS: It is no secret, our limits indicate how big events are for us. We had #UCL games up for $500k USD this season. #Pinnacle

 

Q26. From @mkasslatter: Will you offer more skiing and cycling the future? #Pinnacle

HoS: It all depends on interest. If cycling and skiing become more popular we offer more events with higher limits. #Pinnacle

 

Q27. From @bookierating: Can bettors earn money for long time by betting on sport if relying only on analysis and luck (no arbitrage, etc.)?

HoS: It all depends on the punter. Discipline, focus and our odds are the key to winning #BestOdds #Pinnacle

Q28. From @coolmarker18:  Are you planning to offer game handicaps and totals for tennis Challenger earlier rounds in future?

HoS: It all comes down to product popularity. We’re excited about #Challengers, hope tennis bettors are too. #Pinnacle

Q29. From @PokerCollectif: If I want to take your job in future, what should I do? What are the requirements? #pinnacle

Gary: Careful… #Pinnacle pic.twitter.com/Zn4lUtJLCv

 

Q30. From @Terrell_7: What’s your line on tweets I need to send to earn a coveted pinnacle hoodie? 5.5? #Pinnacle

HoS: Opened at 5.5 but now more like 6.5…I love that number. #Pinnacle #Betfair

 

We will let @u_joshua have the final say “We put our marketing money into our odds” Got to love @PinnacleSports, trailblazing in the 21st century, humiliating UK bookmakers

If you have feedback, comments or questions regarding this article, please email the author or send us a tweet on Twitter.

понедельник, 27 января 2014 г.

How does Villa’s style of play affect their home handicap performance?

How does Villa’s style of play affect their home handicap performance?

By Michael Gales Jan 27, 2014

Tweet

Aston Villa have covered just 18.7% of games at home, compared to 81.82% of away games. Ahead of their game with West Brom on Wednesday we look at how Villa’s counter attacking style may be responsible for this disparity, while considering if their recent form has led the bookmakers to underestimate them against the Baggies?

Is Villa’s home handicap form a consequence of their playing style? 

Aston Villa’s youthful squad are a Premier League enigma; capable of beating Arsenal and Man City one week then losing to Fulham and Crystal Palace the following. Bettors must ask themselves why Villa are so inconsistent?

In addition to their average squad age of just 24 – by far the youngest in the Premier League – understanding their style of play could unlock the riddle.

Manager Paul Lambert doesn’t appear to play a default formation switching from 4-3-3, 3-5-2 and 4-4-2. How much does this lack of tactical consistency affect his young team, does it have an affect?

Another factor is Villa’s counter-attacking style of play. Villa drop deep to become compact, conserving energy levels and allowing their opponents possession of the ball, once they regain possession they attack with the purpose of getting the ball to the forwards as quickly as possible – which is why they have poor possession (39.8% – 3rd worst in the EPL) and pass completion rates (71.3% – 2nd worst in the EPL).

Aston Villa have covered just 18.7% of games at home

This tactic has been working on the road for Villa who have picked up 16 points on the road and covered the handicap in 81.82% of away games.

However, at home when the onus is on Villa to take the game to the opposition, rather than sitting back waiting to counter, they have struggled – they have the worst record at home in the Premier League claiming just eight points.

On the handicap the Villans have covered in just two home games (18.7%) showcasing they have been seriously overvalued at home this season. A look at their scoring records show they average just 0.73 goals and concede 1.45 per game at Villa Park.

Aston Villa are the 1.847* home favourites on the 0 goal handicap when they play West Brom on Wednesday. Given that Villa have failed to cover at home in their last five Premier League home games and they have played five of the EPL top 6 at home, bettors must decide if the oddsmakers have now underestimated Villa on the handicap as a direct influence of their previous home handicap form?

Bookmakers expected WBA Poor away form

Under new manager Pepe Mel West Brom will be expected to improve on their away form that has seen them win just one away Premier League game all season.

However, despite performing poorly on the road, they have covered in 45.45% of away matches – evidence they have performed pretty much as expected. Away from home The Baggies score an average of one goal per game and concede 1.45 goals.

Their cover percentage is reasonable – despite their 1×2 record – because they have drawn six of their 11 games and had the handicap in their favour in all but three games – West Ham, Stoke City and Cardiff City. Interestingly they have failed to cover in any of the three games the handicap has been set at 0 goals.

With the handicap set at 0 and West Brom as the 2.100* underdogs bettors must decide if WBA have the strength to beat Villa or if the home team have been undervalued as a result of their previous home handicap form?

Click here to see the latest Premier League handicap odds.

*Odds subject to change

If you have feedback, comments or questions regarding this article, please email the author or send us a tweet on Twitter.

How good is Renan Barao?

How good is Renan Barao?

By Gary Wise Jan 27, 2014

Tweet

On February 2nd, Renan Barao defends his UFC Bantamweight belt for the first time, against Urijah Faber at UFC 169. Below, we look at how the odds see him faring and whether they give him enough credit or underestimate his skill.

Background and lines

Renan Barao is on a run of 30 wins without a loss (one no contest), a streak that’s seen him to the WEC, then the UFC, then the UFC Interim Bantamweight Championship, and now the UFC Bantamweight Championship. His wins have been varied (7 knockouts, 15 submissions, 10 decision) and dominant, with no split decisions in the last 6 years. Since entering the UFC in 2011, he has dominated his division, cleaning out all challengers. His fight against Faber is a rematch of their UFC 149 bout, where Barao won convincingly 49-46, 50-45, 49-46.

Barao is favoured at 1.369*, good for a 73.5% chance at victory according to Pinnacle Sports’ markets. Despite being a clear favourite, the odds are not reflective of those seen with similarly dominant champions of late; Jon Jones closed at 1.14 vs. Alexander Gustaffson, 1.12 vs. Chael Sonnen and 1.12 vs. Vitor Belfort in his last 3 fights. Jose Aldo closed at 1.11 vs. Chan Sung Jung; Anderson Silva closed at 1.11 vs. Stephan Bonnar; Georges St. Pierre closed at 1.22 vs. Nick Diaz. These examples go to show that odds can reach those extremes, in turn forcing us to ask why Barao’s has not.

Striking

In their first fight, Barao controlled the tempo, using length and volume striking to keep Faber from feeling comfortable. While he only earned a significant strike advantage of 85-62, the feeling amongst observers was that Barao was in complete control. Faber did land the occasional, more powerful blow, but Barao was never in danger whilst standing, dominating early, and then cruising late. With the first fight and historical records as indicators, Faber should want to take the fight to the ground.

Grappling

The problem for Faber 3.400* will be getting the fight to the mat. Six times in their first fight, Faber went for takedowns and Barao punished him, nullifying the takedowns and landing strikes on his exposed opponent. Barao, comfortable with the fight staying standing, never went for a takedown.

Barao has never been taken down in the UFC, and only from 5% of attempts throughout his career. Faber’s takedowns aren’t the sharpest Barao has faced either; the Californian has landed just 36% of attempts over his career. Even if Faber does get Barao to the ground, there are issues; Barao, a black belt in Brazilian jiu-jitsu, has won more fights by submission than by knockout or decision.

So why not Barao?

Ultimately, the shorter odds on Barao than those of his similarly dominant colleagues may come down to perception issues. His name isn’t as established as Jones’, Aldo’s et. al., while opponent Faber’s star is massive (to wit; despite being the champion and Brazilian fight fans being Twitter crazy, Barao had just 47,518 Twitter followers on January 26th. Faber had 329,345). Additionally, the 26-year-old Brazilian inherited his title when original opponent Dominick Cruz was forced to withdraw from their fight to unify the belt, hardly a glamorous victory. Throw in a language barrier that doesn’t make for a killer interview and you have a very quiet superstar.

Faber certainly has a punchers chance, but it’s much in the same way that the long shots mentioned earlier did. He’s fighting a superior striker who has already proved able to control Faber on the feet, with virtually no hope of getting him to the ground. Still, name recognition may be resonating with bettors as hope; if you decide that’s the case and like a +EV bet, it’s time to get money down on Barao.

Click here to see the latest UFC 169 odds.

*Odds subject to change

If you have feedback, comments or questions regarding this article, please email the author or send us a tweet on Twitter.

пятница, 24 января 2014 г.

Streamlining the process of placing bets & updating odds

Streamlining the process of placing bets & updating odds

By Jack Ratcliffe Jan 20, 2014

Tweet

Betting with the best online bookmaker just got easier, as Pinnacle Sports has streamlined the betting process for when odds change between selecting and placing a bet. This much-requested feature means that it’s now even quicker to place a bet, with less to get in the way of you and your wager.

Faster betting, less worries

A recent update to Pinnacle Sports’ website means that bets on moneylines (1x2s), spreads (handicaps) and Over/Unders will now allow customers to accept odds changes without needing to return to the odds page.

In the past, if there were updates to the odds after a bet had been selected, the customer would have to return to the odds page and re-select their bet with the updated odds.

With this improvement, however, you’ll never have to go back to the odds when there is a change. You’ll immediately see the updated odds on the Bet Confirmation page, and be able to proceed to place your wager (this only applies if the odds remain open, however) from the Confirmation page.

Furthermore, a ticket that contains multiple bets can now be partially accepted. Therefore if bet 1 passes validation but bet 2 has a line change, then we will still accept bet 1.

The screen will show you that bet 1 has been accepted, but bet 2 will be displayed as “pending for resubmission” with the updated odds.

This notification will only appear if the odds have changed negatively for the customer. If the odds have moved in your favour, the bet will be placed automatically using the new updated odds.

You then simply click the 'Confirm Bets' button again to accept the changes to the odds or your stake.

There are a number of new notification messages to improve the bet placement process, but those relating to the way changes in odds are handled, are the most significant.

The changes have been implemented in response to feedback from our customers, and they should massively speed up the betting process – especially for customers submitting many bets at once, and those betting live.

An interface update

Alongside the faster betting update, a small interface update introduces a “Settings” section, which features the following options:

Auto Refresh: This feature enables the customer to be able to turn the refresh timer on the Dynamic Lines ON or OFF.

Accept Better Odds: This feature will automatically accept a better line, instead of giving users an error notification that the line was changed.

There will also be a new Max Risk Tool-tip, which displays a tool-tip to notify the customer what the maximum risk amount is. Please note that this tool-tip is only applicable using Decimal Odds.

If you have feedback, comments or questions regarding this article, please email the author or send us a tweet on Twitter.

четверг, 23 января 2014 г.

Does good or bad form impact a player’s chance of winning a match?

Does good or bad form impact a player’s chance of winning a match?

By Dan Weston Jan 23, 2014

Tweet

Throughout their careers players will experience periods of good and bad form. This article investigates the effects of form on WTA tennis betting and considers whether or not a player’s run of good or bad form impacts their chance of winning a match?

What is form?

According to the Oxford dictionary it is “the state of a sports player or team with regard to their current standard of play”.

This is a very reasonable description – although it’s worth mentioning the difference between an individual player and a team. A team, in a sport like cricket, or football, can win a number of matches in a row without firing on all cylinders – the cricket team might have several players making centuries and then the majority of wickets being taken by two main bowlers, whilst a football team might be indebted to a goalkeeper playing superbly or their star striker converting more chances than average. However, a tennis player does not have the luxury of relying on their teammates.

My previous view on the subject of form was that it is “an expression of positive variance”. This, I felt, was particularly the case in tennis, where several key points often decide the outcome of matches, and points are frequently decided by minute margins. However, there are certain cases where players have gone through terrible runs – Arantxa Rus failed to win 18 WTA matches in a row between August 2012 and July 2013, winning just several times on the lower ITF tour during that period.

Therefore, I decided to analyse the effect of what I perceived to be good and bad form from the current WTA top 100, from January 2013 until 22nd January 2014, to see if the markets takes either into account too much, or not enough.

For the purposes of this article, I deemed the following to be indicators of good form:-

A top 5 player winning 6 or more matches in a row.

A 6-10 rank player winning 5 or more matches in a row.

An 11-20 rank player winning 4 or more matches in a row.

A 21-100 rank player winning 3 or more matches in a row (split into 21-50 and 51-100 ranking brackets).

I then deemed the following to be indicators of bad form:-

A top 5 player losing 2 or more matches in a row.

A 6-50 rank player losing 3 or more matches in a row (split into 6-10, 11-20 and 21-50 ranking brackets).

A 51-100 rank player losing 4 or more matches in a row.

Betting on WTA players in good form

To clarify further, the rank used in the sample was the rank of the player at the point of the match. Qualifying and ITF matches were counted as indicators of form, but only the results of WTA Main Tour & Federation Cup matches were included in the profit and loss statistics. I also made the decision to clear all form at the end of the season, as almost all players took at least two months off from competitive tennis. A match was deemed void should a set not be completed, and all prices used were Pinnacle Sports’ closing prices.

The following table illustrates my findings for players indicating good form, sorted by rank:-

Rank

Matches

Wins

Win%

P&L (100)

ROI

Top 5

104

93

89.42

192

1.85

6-10

17

10

58.82

-44

-2.59

11-20

51

29

56.86

1049

20.57

21-50

162

82

50.62

2341

14.45

51-100

187

80

42.78

-2941

-15.73

Overall

521

294

56.43

597

1.15

The table shows that overall there was negligible benefit backing players indicating good form on a general basis. However, it’s clear to see that the ranking bracket 51-100 had the lowest win percentage (unsurprisingly considering they are a lower calibre of player). Furthermore, and more importantly, backing these players for level 100 stakes showed a huge loss recorded, with a shocking return on investment of -15.73%.

Many of the matches sampled in this area followed a certain trend – a player would either win two qualifying matches, win their first round main draw match (often as a favourite) and then lose their second round match, or win three qualifying matches and lose their first round main draw match.

It can also be seen that backing higher ranked players in form showed strong returns. Whilst the top 5 players showed a small return, it’s not that surprising – they were often priced as very heavy favourite. The sample for players ranked 6-10 was tiny, but it was the 11-50 bracket where returns were stellar.

With the brackets combined, the players ranked 11-50 played 213 matches when in good form, winning 111 (52.11% win rate), generating profits of 3,390 from level 100 stakes – equating to a superb return on investment of 15.92%.

The next table shows the results of players in good form, when sorted by starting price: -

Price

Matches

Wins

Win%

P&L (100)

ROI

<1.20

105

98

93.33

116

1.10

1.20-1.49

72

58

80.56

530

7.36

1.50-1.99

96

65

67.71

1237

12.89

2.00-2.99

115

50

43.48

206

1.79

3.00-5.99

81

20

24.69

-640

-7.90

6.00+

52

3

5.77

-852

-16.38

Overall

521

294

56.43

597

1.15

Here we can see a clear bias towards the shorter priced players showing in good form. This is particularly the case in the 1.20-1.49 and 1.50 to 1.99 odds ranges, with both producing strong returns of investments. Combining the two brackets resulted in 123 wins from 168 matches (73.21% win rate) with profits of 1767 from a level 100 stake (return on investment of 10.52%).

Heavy underdogs showed horrific results. Just three players from 52 won when priced over 6.00, and curiously these were all against Serena Williams. Sloane Stephens beat the world number one when priced 19.27 at the Australian Open in 2013, Ana Ivanovic defeated her at this year’s Australian Open when 9.75 and in the famous Wimbledon match last year, Sabine Lisicki did so at 10.46.

Even when taking into account the huge returns from these three matches that a level stake bet at these odds produced, the odds range performed atrociously from the fairly small 52 match sample.

Having seen the effects of good form, I wanted to assess the effects of bad form.

Does the market undervalue players in bad form?

Firstly, I want to make clear that from my research, a long run of defeats similar to that endured by Rus is very rare indeed. The longest in the top 100 was eight in a row last season by several players, and that is also Caroline Garcia’s run currently. Su Wei Hsieh was an interesting player to analyse – she lost three matches in a row twice, plus four and five matches in a row once each. Therefore she won when ‘out of form’ four times, at prices of 2.19, 1.72, 3.60 and 1.65.

It would seem that the market is well aware of the fact the player is out of form and prices the player more generously than they might usually be – some examples of this I picked out from my research are the following:-

Mona Barthel started 1.61 against Vesna Dolonc having lost three matches in a row (two as favourite).

Venus Williams started 1.37 against Jana Cepelova having lost three times priced between 1.57 and 2.05.

Francesca Schiavone started 1.67 against Sharon Fichman on her favoured clay surface after five defeats in a row. Channelle Scheepers started 1.34 against Adriana Perez (world rank 263) after four defeats in a row.

We can see here that all four players started at a bigger price than would usually be expected (and all four won) against limited opponents.

It is hard to draw many conclusions from the tables below showing the results of players in bad form by rank and price range – the sample size isn’t huge.

Rank

Matches

Wins

Win%

P&L (100)

ROI

Top 5

9

5

55.56

-337

-37.44

6-10

8

6

75.00

230

28.75

11-20

6

3

50.00

-88

21-50

86

48

55.81

479

5.57

51-100

43

21

48.84

-288

-6.70

Overall

152

83

54.61

-4

-0.03

Price

Matches

Wins

Win%

P&L (100)

ROI

<1.20

11

8

72.73

-202

-18.36

1.20-1.49

34

28

82.35

352

10.35

1.50-1.99

45

25

55.56

-312

-6.93

2.00-2.99

35

16

45.71

250

7.14

3.00-5.99

21

5

23.81

-99

-4.71

6.00+

6

1

16.67

7

1.17

Overall

152

83

54.61

-4

-0.03

What may surprise many is that backing players in bad form did not generate a significant positive or negative return overall – the market overall seems to have taken this into account very well.

Having said this, it’s definitely keeping an eye on players ranked 21-50 after three defeats especially when priced in the region of 1.20 to 1.49 – from the small sample it would appear that they are priced too generously against very weak opposition.

Dan Weston is a freelance tennis writer who, along with producing expert content for Pinnacle Sports, also produces his own tennis rating system, and trading analysis which can be found at www.tennisratings.co.uk

If you have feedback, comments or questions regarding this article, please email the author or send us a tweet on Twitter.

Is Henderson overvalued based on his name alone?

Is Henderson overvalued based on his name alone?

By Gary Wise Jan 23, 2014

Tweet

On Saturday, January 25th, former UFC lightweight champion Benson Henderson will fight Josh Thomson in the main event at UFC on Fox 10. Henderson opened as the big favourite, we’re asking whether that’s based on skill or hype.

Name recognition bias

Before suffering his second loss to Lightweight champion Anthony Pettis, Henderson 1.364* was making his way up the pound-for-pound lists throughout the MMA world. He’d won 17 of 18 fights overall and seven consecutive fights in the UFC, the last three of them title defenses against big names: Frankie Edgar, Nate Diaz and Gilbert Melendez.

His last four fights had all been UFC main events, meaning he was central to marketing the cards he appeared on. Throw in a distinctive look and plenty of winner interviews with Joe Rogan and you see why he’s now one of the most-recognizable fighters in the UFC.

For all that gloss and success though, Henderson’s record isn’t quite as pristine as first glances suggest. While his first win against Edgar was a unanimous decision victory, many insiders disagreed with that verdict. His win against Edgar in their return bout came by split decision, as did the win over Melendez, with both victories coming with loud complaints from observers.

In fact, Henderson hasn’t managed to win a single UFC fight by knockout or submission…that’s 7 victories via scorecard. Keep in mind, many judges feel a challenger needs to overwhelm for a decision victory, a fact that may have been decisive in the aforementioned split decisions; Henderson doesn’t have that edge on his side any more.

For experienced MMA bettors, Thomson 3.440* is a familiar entity, but for casual bettors he may be something of a mystery. Most of his success came in the lightweight championship in Strikeforce before that organization was purchased by UFC parent company Zuffa. In the time since the purchase, Strikeforce fighters have at least broken even with their better-known UFC counterparts.

Injury forced a 17-month layoff on Thomson before he made his UFC debut with a unanimous judges decision over KJ Noons. He then lost a split decision to old nemesis Melendez before winning knockout of the Night honors against Diaz.

It was the first knockout loss of Diaz’ career. Thomson’s resume may not be quite as flashy as Henderson’s, but they’re far more similar than one would think in a fight whose odds list Henderson as having an 73.3% chance to win.

Striking

Thomson and Henderson bring similar striking profiles to their fight. Henderson lands 2.89 significant strikes per minute to Thomson’s 2.5, while Thomson has a slight edge in accuracy, landing 48% to Henderson’s 44%. Thomson has the edge in power with 5 career knockouts to Henderson’s 2, but in doing so is more-easily struck, absorbing 1.83 strikes per minute to Henderson’s 1.57.

Henderson’s lack of knockout record should really play here, allowing Thomson to use the same aggression that saw him knock out Diaz. Henderson will likely try to dance and use his kicks to maintain a distance in the fight, and his ability to do so may be the difference maker if he’s playing for a scorecard win. As we’ll see in a moment, he probably should be.

Grappling

Before submitting to a first round armbar in losing the title to Pettis, Henderson had developed a reputation as one of the best submission defenders in the sport, with incredible balance that made him tough to take down (65% takedown defense) and harder to keep down. A strong wrestler, it should be noted that Henderson had 3 submission wins in 5 wins while with WEC, his last employer prior to UFC, and with 8 such wins, so submissions are a real weapon for him.

However, Tomson has never been submitted. In 26 fights, he has 5 losses; 4 by decision, one by knockout. His takedown defense of 55% isn’t pretty, but a similar wrestling background’s to Henderson’s helps him acquit himself if off his feat. 9 times, Thomas has managed to win by submission, his preferred method of victory.

With very similar skill sets seemingly cancelling one another out, expect to see some takedowns for points, but not to see the fight end there.

Wrap it all up

Looking at their striking, grappling and style, these are two similar fighters. Henderson’s edge comes in the form of Thomson’s age (35), which seems to have been a non-factor since his return from injury, and Henderson’s experience in 5-round fights.

That’s why one might expect to see the most aggressive Thomson we’ve seen since his UFC debut, and while it does add up to Henderson coming in the favourite, when you point out the Championship-loss hangover and the lack of a discernable edge, those big disparities in their odds might make a Thomson bet a worthwhile pick, especially in a division where everybody seemingly beats everybody. Of course, if you love Henderson and can’t see him possibly losing 2 straight? You know what to do.

Click here to see the latest UFC on Fox 10 Henderson vs. Thomson betting.

*Odds subject to change

If you have feedback, comments or questions regarding this article, please email the author or send us a tweet on Twitter.

среда, 22 января 2014 г.

The answer is hugely relevant to your predictive abilities

The answer is hugely relevant to your predictive abilities

By Mirio Mella Jan 22, 2014

Tweet

It’s unlikely that you have ever wondered whether you are more like Fox or a Hedgehog. Important scholars stretching back to the Grecians have, however, used this animal analogy to characterise important traits that illustrate the way we think and impact our ability to successfully predict. One man’s crusade to measure predictive ability and relate to the Fox-Hedgehog dichotomy led him to insights that gamblers should find eye-opening.

Honing your betting skills is essentially the pursuit of more accurate predictions. This is a challenge that transcends gambling, and has huge implications for spheres such as finance, civic planning and politics, and essentially relates to how we think.

The Greek poet Archilochus suggested that ‘foxes know many things and the hedgehog one big thing’. Several important thinkers since have expanded on this concept to suggest that the way people think can generally be characterised as being Fox or Hedgehog like.

“Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?” — H. M. Warner, Warner Brothers, 1927.

One of the great difficulties in measuring predictive ability is that those same fields where the implications of the accuracy of predictions are so profound – think poor Intelligence and the Iraq war – accountability is rare, or very difficult to pin down. One man however, has tracked predictions for over two decades, exploring what constitutes good judgement and utilising the Hedgehog vs. Fox distinction. His insights make fascinating and hugely pertinent reading for gamblers.

Philip Tetlock spent 20 years recording the predictions of government officials, professors, journalists and politicians, and discovered that from over 28,000 predictions they were only slightly more accurate than chance. His work and approach are summarised in his 2005 book: ‘Expert Political Judgement? How good is it? How can we know?’

Tetlock developed an array of calibrations and adjustments in order to be fair to those making predictions, and his results were shocking, effectively suggesting that (as a whole) experts were only marginally better than chance.

Rather than writing off all forecasters, Tetlock was able to distinguish characteristics that identify someone as being better suited to making more accurate predictions, and these are equally valuable whether you are trying to make a complex policy decision or trying to consistently predict sporting outcomes.

Tetlock’s approach was to avoid looking at specific successes: how many times have you seen tipsters and talking-heads trying to live off the glory of rare headline grabbing predictions? Instead, he gave more credit to consistent predictive success over time and in differing contexts.

Success wasn’t reduced to a yes or no assessment, because prediction is as much about correctly predicting future events as it is the speed with which you recognise you have got things wrong and subsequently adjust your belief.

It does Tetlock a disservice to summarise his work in a few words, but for the purposes of aspiring gamblers the key take away is to focus on thinking the right way.

Nate Silver provided a useful summary table that outlines the important character traits that Tetlock’s work discovered:

Fox-like characteristics

Hedgehog-like characteristics

Multidisciplinary – Incorporates ideas from a range of disciplines

Specialised – Often dedicated themselves to one or two big problems & are sceptical of outsiders

Adaptable – Try several approaches in parallel, or find a new one if things aren’t working

Unshakable – New data is used to refine an original model

Self-critical - Willing to accept mistakes and adapt or even replace a model based on new data

Stubborn – Mistakes are blamed on poor luck

Tolerant of complexity – Accept the world is complex, and that certain things cannot be reduced to a null hypothesis

Order seeking – Once patterns are detected, assume relationships are relatively uniform

Cautious – Predictions are probabilistic, and qualified

Confident – Rarely change or hedge their position

Empirical – Observable data is always preferred over theory or anecdote

Ideological – Approach to predictive problems fits within a similar view of the wider world

The Fox-like approach is an agile one, incorporating changing circumstances to refine and adjust your predictions. Anyone who applies Bayesian analysis will quickly recognise the connection.

Bayesian theorem uses an iterative process of assessing what you know about the probability of a future event, then tests the impact of new evidence as it becomes available. Bayes was an 18th century English Presbyterian Minister, but almost certainly a fox.

Of course a Fox-like approach doesn’t imply infallibility. Getting things wrong is inevitable, the key thing to use an approach that maximises your chances of getting things right

Which animal characterises your way of thinking about uncertainty? It may help you improve your betting.

If you have feedback, comments or questions regarding this article, please email the author or send us a tweet on Twitter.

вторник, 21 января 2014 г.

Understanding HFA for Six Nations Rugby Union betting

Understanding HFA for Six Nations Rugby Union betting

By Michael Gales Jan 21, 2014

Tweet

It shouldn’t be a surprise to hear that Rugby teams in the Six Nations, just like in other sports, play better at home. However, how much does home field advantage affect each side? Knowing this could make a big difference to your Six Nations rugby betting, so read on to discover HFA values since the start of the six nations tournament.

An analysis of the Six Nations competition since its inception in 2000 showed that teams playing at home won 59.32% of games over 14 seasons, proving a distinct home advantage.

-This figure increases to an even more impressive 72.14% when we remove the two teams who have yet to win the Six Nations (Italy, and Scotland). While this information proves the widely held belief that home teams perform better, it gets more interesting when comparing the HFA of individual teams.

HFA for individual teams in Six Nations betting

To calculate the Home Field Advantage, take the number of points scored at home per season (HF) and minus the number of points conceded at home (HA).

Then divide by the number of home games played in a season (2 or 3 – three teams play at home twice one year, and three the following).

For the table below, we calculated each nations’ results for the past six seasons and their average for the entire Six Nations tournament.

Nation

6 Nations Titles

Home Point Differential (since start of the 6 Nations)

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

England

4

17.94

12.3

7

20

4.5

21

8

Scotland

0

-4.4

6

-6.5

2.67

-4.5

0

-7.5

Ireland

1

10.51

-3

24

6.5

10

5

7.33

Wales

4

4.66

6.33

21

-0.5

8

3

23.67

France

5

11.31

-1.5

8

16

17

7

2

Italy

0

-12.97

-1.66

1.55

-3

-0.5

-25.33

-0.5

It is no coincidence that the two most successful nations in the Six Nations tournament France (five championships) and England (four championships) have the highest average home points differentials, scoring (on average) 11.31 and 17.94 more points than they concede at home.

What is interesting is that despite being the joint second most successful nation with four championships, Wales (4.66) actually have a lower average home points differential than Ireland (10.51). Even after eliminating Wales’ disastrous 2003 wooden spoon campaign, their average home points differential only works out at (5.06). It is important to look at recent form however. Wales won in both 2012 and 2013 and their subsequent HFA increased to 13.66 for the two most recent Six Nations tournaments.

Italy and Scotland have performed the worst in the Six Nations, holding 12 of the 14 wooden spoons between them – Italy (9) and Scotland (3) – and it comes as no surprise to see them both have a negative average home points differential of -12.97 and -4.40 respectively.

However, to understand each nations HFA better we need to compare each nations home points differential with their away differential to note just how much better they play under the influence of a home crowd and in familiar surroundings.

Home vs. Away Points Differential

Unsurprisingly, England top the list for teams who perform better at home, gaining an average of 13.29 points more at home than they do on the road. Ireland and Wales aren’t too far from this number, with the Irish gaining 10.83 and the Welsh at 9.09 more points at home than away.

Nation

Home

Away

Home Benefit (Difference)

England

17.94

4.66

13.29

Scotland

-4.40

-12.74

8.34

Ireland

10.51

-0.31

10.83

Wales

4.66

-4.43

9.09

France

11.31

6.49

4.83

Italy

-12.97

-20.71

7.74

Scotland, Italy and France all have notably smaller differences between their home and away results, scoring 8.34, 7.74 and 4.83 more points at home respectively.

What causes these big differences is unknown, but there are numerous factors that could have a major influence. Discovering these factors – and noting when they are in play – could go a long way to improving your Six Nations betting results.

Possible Influences of HFA?

While the stats suggest each team performs better at home than away, it’s almost impossible to quantify this to a specific home-field advantage handicap. This is due to a number of external influences, whereby each influence affects the other.

One major reason is that each nation’s mean HFA changes year-on-year. Another is that no one has managed to objectively define the factors that influence HFA, which could range from form, to weather, to crowds, referees, to future intentions and a feel-good factor that winning breeds.

Handicap betting & HFA

It isn’t surprising that England beat Italy at home, but by understanding how much better England are at home should interest handicap bettors. Below is a table showcasing the Six Nation teams performances against the spread last year.

2013 Six Nations Handicap Form

Nation

Covered

Home

Away

Wales

80%

50%

100%

England

60%

66%

50%

Italy

60%

66%

50%

Scotland

60%

66%

50%

Ireland

40%

50%

33%

France

0%

0%

0%

Wales – who won the Six Nations in 2013 – covered the spread in an impressive 80% of games including a 100% record away from the Millennium Stadium. Interestingly France failed to cover the handicap once, showcasing they were completely overvalued by the traders on their way to the Wooden Spoon.

The table below highlights each nations combined handicap performance over the last four Six Nations tournaments – each team has played five games at home and five away.

Wales lead the way by covering 60% of their matches, however more surprisingly Italy are joint favourites. By recording historical handicap data savvy bettors would be aware that Italy have been seriously undervalued against the handicap at home, covering in an impressive 90% of games. Is this a sign that traders have underestimated the Italians HFA? In comparison France have been overvalued in the past four tournaments covering in just 25% of their games.

2013 Six Nations Handicap Form – Last Four Years

Nation

Covered

Home

Away

Wales

60%

50%

70%

Italy

60%

90%

30%

England

55%

60%

50%

Scotland

55%

60%

40%

Ireland

40%

50%

30%

France

25%

30%

20%

Further work and analysis needs to be done, however there may be an opportunity to make a Six Nations rugby betting profit by working out a nations HFA more accurately than the bookmaker.

Click here for the Outright Six Nations odds.

If you have feedback, comments or questions regarding this article, please email the author or send us a tweet on Twitter.

Find the best Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics odds with Pinnacle Sports

Find the best Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics odds with Pinnacle Sports

By Michael Gales Jan 20, 2014

Tweet

With the start of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi less than a month away, we give you an insight into the main Winter Olympics betting markets available at Pinnacle Sports, how to bet on them and a reminder that they offer unbeatable value.

How many medals will each nation win?

Pinnacle Sports are offering you the chance to bet on the number of gold medals each nation will win at Sochi 2014.

Norway are expected to do well at the Games and their gold medal benchmark is set at 11.5 gold’s with the OVER offered at 1.617*.  After underperforming in the last two Winter Olympics where they won a combined 11 Gold medals, they are expected to return to the top of the gold medal chart like they did in 2002 when they secured 13.

Behind the Norwegians the USA, hosts Russia and Germany all have their OVER/UNDER set at 10.5 gold medals, while Canada’s yardstick is at 9.5 gold’s.

Four years ago Canada topped the gold medal table with 14. However, no nation in the last five Winter Olympics has ever topped the gold medal table in two successive Winter Olympics.

Ice Hockey

Ice Hockey is amongst the most popular sports bet on at the Winter Olympics. Since 1996 the event has been competitive, with Sweden (2006), Canada (2002 & 2010) and the Czech Republic (1998) all winning gold after years of dominance from Russia in the 60s, 70s and 80s.

Early betting markets have Canada as the slight 3.170* favourites, while Russia are priced at 3.300* despite having the significance of home advantage. However, the last time Canada claimed gold outside of North America was way back in 1952, when they beat the Americans in Norway.

Elsewhere Sweden have been in fantastic form in recent months and are priced as third favourites at 5.200*, while the USA can be backed at 8.110*. The NHL will be suspended during the Olympics, read here to see what impact will an Olympic year have?

Cross-Country Skiing

A number of medals are up for grabs in this ferocious sport, which is regarded as one of the toughest in the world. At the Nordic Ski World Championship’s last year Norway led the way winning seven of the ten medals on offer – which may explain their high Over/Under in the overall medals market.

Norwegian Petter Northug is the main attraction and is the current favourite to win gold in the 30km Skiatahlon 2.110*, 50km Mass Start Free 3.650* and the Olympic Sprint Free 4.330*.

In the men’s team Cross-Country Skiing events Norway also lead the way in the 4x10km relay 1.741*, while they are slightly behind Russia 2.890* in the team sprint classical 3.840*.

Curling

Ten nations will compete for the gold across both men and women’s Curling.  In the men’s team event Canada are the 1.585* favourites ahead of Sweden who can be backed at 5.490*.

Great Britain women have an excellent chance of a medal after Scotland’s women claimed gold at last year’s World Championships and they are at 3.870* to take the gold, while favourites Canada are priced at 2.120*.

Will the weather have an affect?

The role that the weather will play on outdoor events in Sochi continues to draw substantial attention. Last February Sochi saw temperatures reach as high as 63 degrees Fahrenheit, and rarely dipped into the low 30s.

The prospect of warm weather disrupting ski events and the possibility of flooding and even avalanches could influence the outcome of the outdoor events.

On the potential lack of snow, the 2006 Olympian Jenn Heil stated “In Sochi the snow conditions will be challenging because they will be changing all the time. But the snow will be there.”

Understanding how these changeable snow conditions will affect the competitors could give you an edge on 2014 Winter Olympics Betting.

2014 Winter Olympics Betting Markets

Below is a table with links to the 2014 Winter Olympics betting markets currently on offer by Pinnacle Sports:

Event

Market

Olympic Medal Count

Total Gold Medals

Biathlon

20km Individual – Men

Biathlon

10km Sprint – Men

Biathlon

12.5km Pursuit – Men

Biathlon

15km Mass Start – Men

Biathlon

4×7.5km Relay – Men

Biathlon

15km Individual – Women

Biathlon

10km Pursuit – Women

Biathlon

12.5km Mass Start – Women

Biathlon

4x6km Relay – Women

Biathlon

4x6km/7.5km Relay – Mixed

Cross Country Skiing

15km Classical – Men

Cross Country Skiing

30km Skiathlon – Men

Cross Country Skiing

50km Mass Start Free – Men

Cross Country Skiing

4x10km Relay – Men

Cross Country Skiing

Sprint Free – Men

Cross Country Skiing

Team Sprint Classical – Men

Cross Country Skiing

10km Classical – Women

Cross Country Skiing

15km Skiathlon – Women

Cross Country Skiing

30km Mass Start Free – Women

Cross Country Skiing

4x5km Relay – Women

Cross Country Skiing

Sprint Free – Women

Curling

Futures – Men

Curling

Futures – Women

Figure Skating

Singles – Men

Figure Skating

Singles – Women

Figure Skating

Pair Skating

Figure Skating

Ice Dance

Ice Hockey

Futures – Men

Ice Hockey

Futures – Women

Luge

Singles – Men

Luge

Doubles – Men

Luge

Singles – Women

Skeleton

Singles – Men

Skeleton

Singles – Women

Ski Jumping

Individual Large Hill – Men

Speed Skating

500m – Men

Speed Skating

1000m – Men

Speed Skating

1500m – Men

Speed Skating

5000m – Men

Speed Skating

10000m – Men

Speed Skating

500m – Women

Speed Skating

1000m – Women

Speed Skating

1500m – Women

Speed Skating

3000m – Women

Speed Skating

5000m – Women

*Odds subject to change

If you have feedback, comments or questions regarding this article, please email the author or send us a tweet on Twitter.

пятница, 17 января 2014 г.

Do favourites thrive at the business end of Grand Slam Tournaments?

Do favourites thrive at the business end of Grand Slam Tournaments?

By Dan Weston Jan 17, 2014

Tweet

With the Australian Open in full swing and the second week approaching, we have assessed the record of favourites in the latter stages of Grand Slams, with a view to see if there is a potential betting edge.

Previous articles have mentioned the accumulated fatigue that it is vital for ATP players to avoid in the five-set format, and it is also my belief that one of the main areas where top players thrive over their lower-ranked competition is their superior level of fitness.  This is even more pertinent in the current Australian Open, with temperatures exceeding 40 degrees due to a general heat wave across Southern Australia..

Therefore, logic should dictate that the ‘better’ player – the market favourite – will have a strong record in the latter stages of Grand Slams.  For clarity, we considered this to be the 4th round – round of 16 – or later in the events, and the sample we used was all Grand Slams between 2010-2013.  All prices used were Pinnacle Sports’ closing prices.

However, would the market take this into account enough, or even too much? We decided to find out…

Between 2010 and 2013 there were 16 Grand Slam events and each event had 15 matches from the round of 16 onwards, so a possible sample of 240 matches was obtained.  This was reduced by three matches – two were walkovers (Fognini vs Djokovic in the French Open in 2011, and Fish vs Federer in the US Open in 2012) and in the French Open in 2010, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga and Mikhail Youzhny were equal favourites at 1.98, so this match was discounted.

Event

P/L

Matches

ROI%

Australian Open

543

60

9.05

French Open

589

58

10.16

Wimbledon

207

60

3.45

US Open

123

59

2.08

Overall

1462

237

6.17

We can see from the above table that all events showed a positive return backing favourites to a level 100 stake from the 4th round of a Grand Slam onwards – indeed, the first two Grand Slams of the season, the Australian and the French Opens, had stellar returns of over 9%.  Overall, the return was 6.17% across all events from 237 matches – very solid figures indeed.

100 stake backing favourite

Price Range

P/L

Matches

ROI%

<1.20

159

93

1.71

1.20-1.49

748

86

8.7

1.50-1.99

555

60

9.25

1.20-1.99

1303

146

8.92

The second table shows the profit generated from the same sample filtered by price range.

We can see that the returns were low when the favourite’s starting price was below 1.20 – just a 1.71% return on investment.  It’s not entirely a surprise though, because with prices so low there clearly isn’t as much scope for high percentage returns, and also the market is probably fairly efficient in this price range.

However, returns were superb when the favourite was priced over 1.20 – with both separate price ranges returning 8.70% and 9.25% respectively.  Returns of 1303 from 146 matches (8.92%) when the price ranges were combined is a very strong return on investment.

It was also interesting to note that just 41 favourites from the 237 matches lost.  This gave favourites a win rate of 82.7%, which is higher than the win percentage for favourites in any individual tournament in the ATP calendar, so this also supports the fact that favourites dominate these latter stages of Grand Slams.

The final area to assess is looking at the four players featured as favourite more often than others – the four players considered the elite for a number of years – Novak Djokovic, Roger Federer, Andy Murray and Rafael Nadal – June 10th 2013 was the last time these four players were all in the top 4 of the ATP rankings.

Player

Favourite Matches

Wins

Win%

P/L

ROI%

Djokovic

48

41

85.42

339

7.06

Federer

34

25

73.53

-420

-12.35

Murray

32

30

93.75

560

17.5

Nadal

40

38

95

644

16.1

This table illustrates the difference between the current top three players in the world, Djokovic, Murray and Nadal, and Federer.

Federer’s results were very poor in all areas.  His win percentage in the latter stages of Grand Slams between 2010 and 2013 was just over 9% below the overall sample average, and he was the only player out of these four players to have a negative return – losing 420 from his 34 matches for a return on investment of -12.35%.  Whilst there is little doubt he is in some decline, these figures show he has been over-rated by the market in 5-set matches for a long time.

Djokovic, Murray and Nadal had an above-average win percentage and very strong returns, particularly Murray and Nadal.  With these three players, as mentioned above, arguably the top three players in the world, it can be seen that these elite players have a huge recent edge in the late stages of Grand Slam events and it would require very strong evidence to want to oppose Djokovic, Murray and Nadal in the latter stages of Grand Slams.

Bettors should consider these angles when betting on the second week of the Australian Open, and consider the 5-set format of men’s Grand Slams make this a totally different betting proposition to normal 3-set ATP events.

Click here for the latest Australian Open odds.

If you have feedback, comments or questions regarding this article, please email the author or send us a tweet on Twitter.

среда, 15 января 2014 г.

Handicap analysis for Chelsea vs. Manchester United

Handicap analysis for Chelsea vs. Manchester United

By Michael Gales Jan 15, 2014

Tweet

Chelsea may have gone 70 Premier League games unbeaten under Jose Mourinho but are they as formidable against the spread? Manchester United maybe struggling under Moyes but their away handicap form is surprisingly strong. Read on for more Chelsea vs. Handicap betting analysis.

Chelsea don’t lose at home, but they don’t always cover the handicap 

Under the management of Jose Mourinho – across two spells – Chelsea are undefeated in 70 Premier League games – winning 55 and drawing 15. Finding value on the 1×2 market is difficult with the Blues marked as heavy favourites most weeks at Stamford Bridge, however on the handicap there is more value to be found.

Chelsea have covered the spread in 66.7% of Premier League games this season – joint best in the EPL. Despite winning 90% of their home games this season, they have covered the handicap in 70% of those games – surprising given Mourinho’s pragmatic reputation.

In their last five EPL games at Stamford Bridge Chelsea have failed to cover in three – WBA, Swansea and Crystal Palace – showcasing they have been overvalued by bookmakers against weaker opposition. Against tougher opposition – Liverpool and Man City – the opposite appears to be true, as Chelsea have covered the -0.25 handicap on both occasions.

This season the Blues have scored at least once in every game at home and score an average of 2.20 goals and concede 0.80 per game. Defensively the Blues have not been at their best in their ten home games – keeping a clean sheet in just three. By covering in 70% of home games oddsmakers have underestimated their offensive strength at Stamford Bridge, which has compensated for a leaky defence.

United average 2.10 goals per game away compared to just 1.27 at home

With Chelsea set as the -0.5 favourites against United at 1.833* bettors must decide if the Blues have been underestimated again given they have failed just once this season to win by more than one goal.

United better away from home on the handicap

Manchester United have underperformed this season and currently sit seventh in the Premier League – 11-points adrift of Arsenal at the top.

Even taking the appointment of David Moyes – after Sir Alex Ferguson retired – into consideration, United have still not performed as well as expected, covering 38.1% of their games – fourth worst in the EPL

Despite struggling for form at home and in the domestic cups, United are unbeaten in their last seven away Premier League games. They have covered in 50% of their away games, including their last three – Aston Villa, Hull and Norwich. Is this a sign that they are feeling less pressure playing away from home, and are therefore playing with more freedom?

The stats suggest this is true given they average 2.10 goals per game away compared to just 1.27 at home – despite conceding 1.40 on the road compared to just 0.91 at Old Trafford.

Given United are +0.5 underdogs at 2.120* – the biggest handicap set against them this season – have the bookmakers started to undervalue United on the road again?

Historically Chelsea have been undervalued at home against United

Normally historical head-to-head data can be ignored due to differing squads and big handicap margins, however the handicap for Chelsea vs. Manchester United is so tight the result is more relevant – the winner usually covers.

In the last ten Premier League games at Stamford Bridge Chelsea have won six and subsequently covered, while United won twice and covered twice. The remaining two games were draws with the handicap set at 0, resulting in a push.

Interestingly the -0.5 handicap, set in favour of Chelsea is the joint-biggest, reflecting the power shift this season; the two games before the Blues were set as -0.5 favourites and won both 1-0.

Considering their recent handicap form on the road bettors must decide if United are more or less than 0.5 goals weaker than Chelsea or if the Blues have been undervalued again given they have failed just once to win by more than one goal this season?

Click here to see the latest Chelsea vs. Manchester United handicap betting odds.

*Odds subject to change

If you have feedback, comments or questions regarding this article, please email the author or send us a tweet on Twitter.

вторник, 14 января 2014 г.

How the Champions League last 16 have performed on the handicap?

How the Champions League last 16 have performed on the handicap?

By Charlie Rowing Jan 14, 2014

Tweet

This article looks at the remaining Champions League teams’ handicap form ahead of the first leg ties in February. Among the interesting trends we discovered that despite having a fantastic home record Zenit have failed to cover the spread, while both Real and Atletico Madrid have 100% records against the handicap this season.

Champions League handicap records

The Champions League handicap table below shows how well the remaining 16 teams have performed against expectations so far this season in Europe’s elite domestic competition. Instead of looking at the win-loss-draw performance of each team, the table highlights the teams that have exceeded expectation or under-performed – a vital tool for Champions League soccer betting. It is worth noting that the data is based on just six Champions League games.

Team

Cover %

Home Cover %

Away Cover %

Atletico Madrid

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Real Madrid

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Manchester United

83.3%

100.0%

66.7%

Olympiacos

83.3%

66.7%

100.0%

Arsenal

66.7%

66.7%

66.7%

Bayern Munich

66.7%

66.7%

66.7%

Manchester City

66.7%

33.3%

100.0%

Galatasaray

50.0%

66.7%

33.3%

AC Milan

50.0%

66.7%

33.3%

Borussia Dortmund

50.0%

66.7%

33.3%

Schalke 04

50.0%

66.7%

33.3%

Bayer Leverkusen

50.0%

33.3%

66.7%

Chelsea

50.0%

33.3%

66.7%

Paris Saint Germain

50.0%

33.3%

66.7%

Barcelona

33.3%

66.7%

0.0%

Zenit St. Petersburg

16.7%

0.0%

33.3%

Zenit handicap form offers surprise

Public consensus is that Zenit St. Petersburg are a strong team at home both domestically and in European competition. The statistics back up the assumption with Zenit losing just 7 Russian Premier League games at the Petrovsky Stadium in five seasons, while in Europe, they have won 15, drawn five and lost just one game on home soil in the last four seasons.

Despite their excellent home record in recent years they have struggled against the handicap this season – failing to cover the handicap in any of their three home Champions League games.

Bettors must decide if the +0.5 handicap for their first leg against Dortmund is another overestimation, or if they have been undervalued – as a result of being overvalued – given they are at home against a team who have struggled for form recently.

The Madrid handicap machines

Both Madrid teams have been a handicap bettors dream so far in the Champions League this season – both covering in a 100% of their games.

Real stormed their group – Galatasaray, Juventus and Copenhagen – with five wins and a draw, while Atletico matched their City rivals despite having an easier group – Zenit, Porto and Marseille.

Atletico are the 0 and -0.5 favourites when they play struggling AC Milan who sacked manager Massimiliano Allegri on January 13th after a disastrous start to their domestic season. Are they undervalued again given the situation at the San Siro?

Barcelona & Olympiacos: Upsetting bookmakers’ expectations

Bettors should gather their own handicap data, and set their own handicap strength for each team per game based on their data. So far in this season’s Champions League, Barcelona and Olympiacos are the perfect examples of finding unexpected value on a team.

Barcelona have covered in just 33.3% of their Champions League games this season –obviously underperforming on the handicap this season. A closer look however highlights they have failed to cover in their three away games. The handicap is set at 0 for their first leg against Manchester City who have been in devastating form at home domestically.

Olympiacos in comparison have covered in 83.3% of their games including 100% at home. With the Greek side as the 0 & 0.5 underdogs on home soil against Manchester United in their first leg, are the bookmakers underestimating them again at home?

Want to understand more about soccer handicap betting? Click here to learn the basics.

See the latest Champions League handicap betting odds now.

If you have feedback, comments or questions regarding this article, please email the author or send us a tweet on Twitter.

пятница, 10 января 2014 г.

Are big servers handicapped in Grand Slam Tournaments?

Are big servers handicapped in Grand Slam Tournaments?

By Dan Weston Jan 10, 2014

Tweet

Ahead of the 2013-14 Australian Open this article looks at the lack of success for ‘big servers’ in the men’s five-set Grand Slam format by focusing on their recent records and why this may be. We also analyse the players ranked 11-25 with a view to using statistics to create viable betting opportunities in the forthcoming Grand Slam.

It’s worth mentioning that the table below illustrates that only one player currently ranked 11-25 – Jerzy Janowicz – has reached the 6th round (semi-final) of a Grand Slam and this gives further weight to the general consensus that Grand Slams strongly favour the top players.

The ATP service hold average for the previous 12 months is currently 78.5% at the time of writing, and in the table below showing the data for the players ranked 11-25, we can see there is a large discrepancy between the players, with six players holding serve 79.5% or below, and nine players holding serve 82.7% or above (no player held serve between 79.5% and 82.7%).

When taking into account service breaks of opponent, clearly the average is 21.5% (100-78.5) and there are five players who break their opponent’s serve less than 20% and hold over 82.7% – Milos Raonic (15.5%), John Isner (12.2%), Kevin Anderson (17.7%), Jerzy Janowicz (17.4%) and Philipp Kohlschreiber (19.8%).  Bearing this in mind, it is clear that these five players are the big servers ranked 11-25.

What the stats suggest on big servers

Between 2011 & 2013, these five players had the following Grand Slam records (when ranked within the top 40):

For clarity, only matches where at least one set is completed are included, and all prices used are Pinnacle Sports closing prices.

Player

Matches

Wins

Best Win/Odds

Worst Defeat/Odds

Profit/Loss (based on level 100)

Milos Raonic

27

18

P. Kohlschreiber (1.677)

M. Berrer (1.181)

-534 (-20.54% ROI)

John Isner

25

16

R. Stepanek (2.462)

A. Falla (1.135)

-161 (-6.44% ROI)

Kevin Anderson

28

17

M. Raonic (2.337)

M. Baghdatis (1.404)

-486 (-17.36% ROI)

Jerzy Janowicz

13

9

R. Stepanek (1.837)

M. Gonzalez (1.084)

2 (0.08% ROI)

Philipp Kohlschreiber

25

16

J. Isner (4.603)

D. Istomin (1.274)

215 (8.60% ROI)*

* Kohlschreiber’s two biggest wins were both against Isner (4.603 and 3.600) and without these matches against a fellow ‘big server’ his record would have showed a loss.  Furthermore, it can be seen that Raonic, Anderson and Kohlschreiber’s best wins were against one of these five players.

These figures illustrate how poorly big servers perform in Grand Slam events.  Only Phillip Kohlschreiber (notably the player with the best break of opponent percentage) recorded a win when priced over 2.50 between 2011 and 2013, and the combined records are as follows:

Player

Matches

Wins

Profit/Loss (based on level 100)

Combined Player Stats

118

76

-964 (-8.17% ROI)

Why is this the case?  The table below provides some answers…

Player

Service Hold %

Opponent Break %

Match Win %

Sets per match*

Games per set*

Games per match*

7-5+ set per match %

5 Set Match %

Best Finish (Round)

Round Eliminated*

Raonic

91.3

15.5

18

3.52

10.17

35.78

30.53

10.71

4

2.80

Haas

83.4

23.7

9

3.57

10.36

37.00

36.00

21.43

5

2.80

Almagro

84.9

24.7

26

3.76

10.29

37.63

28.78

21.05

5

3.17

Isner

90

12.2

16

4.08

10.89

42.73

40.20

34.62

5

2.60

Youzhny

79.5

24.9

24

3.78

9.59

36.22

23.53

25.00

5

3.00

Fognini

72.6

30.5

3

3.43

9.71

33.39

33.33

0.00

3

1.75

Nishikori

78.7

29.2

16

3.48

9.10

31.65

17.50

13.04

5

3.29

Robredo

78.7

26.8

10

3.57

9.44

33.71

22.00

21.43

5

3.50

Simon

73.9

27

20

4.10

9.77

40.10

27.73

36.67

4

3.00

Anderson

85.6

17.7

17

3.64

9.90

36.07

27.45

17.86

4

2.55

Janowicz

82.9

17.4

9

3.58

10.14

36.33

27.91

15.38

6

3.25

Kohlschreiber

84.4

19.8

16

3.71

10.04

37.25

33.71

20.83

5

2.89

Dimitrov

83.7

21.4

3

3.80

9.84

37.40

21.05

33.33

3

2.00

Gulbis

82.7

25.8

3

3.50

10.24

35.83

33.33

14.29

3

1.75

Seppi

76.7

23.1

14

4.14

10.14

41.95

36.26

47.83

4

2.56

11-25 Mean

81.93

22.65

64.15

3.65

9.99

36.45

29.31

23.58

4.4

2.73

Big Servers Mean

86.84

16.52

63.33

3.72

10.25

37.75

32.48

20.00

4.8

2.82

* Stats based on the player average

The first area to look at is the amount of sets per match.  The data from this was inconclusive, with Isner playing more sets per match than all but two players (Gilles Simon and Andreas Seppi) but only Fabio Fognini, Kei Nishikori and Ernests Gulbis playing less sets per match than Milos Raonic.  When the five players were grouped together, they averaged 3.72 sets per match, marginally above the 3.65 set average for this 11-25 ranked bracket of players.

However, it can be seen that there is a very clear bias for big servers in the games per set area.  Only Kevin Anderson (9.90) was below the 11-25 mean of 9.99, with Isner’s games per set the highest at an incredible 10.89.  The five ‘big servers’ averaged 10.25 games per set on average, which is a fair bit above the 9.99 mean.

The effect of this is fairly obvious – as ‘big servers’ play more games per set, their sets are tighter. Tight sets mean that even smaller margins than usual decide the winner of a set (such as a tiebreak) and require more mental strength and concentration than straightforward sets.

We can see that Raonic, Kohlschreiber and especially Isner all play tighter sets (7-5 or bigger) more often than the 11-25 rank average of 29.31%.  Isner’s 40.20% is considerably higher than any other player.  The five ‘big servers’ grouped together have an average of 32.48%, 3.17% higher than the 11-25 rank average.

Looking at sets per match, the data somewhat surprisingly highlights that the ‘big servers’ do not play significantly more games per match than the 11-25 rank average.  The five players combined played 37.75 games per match, compared to the 11-25 rank average of 36.45 games per match.  Indeed, Raonic, Anderson and Janowicz actually played fewer games per match than the average.

Evidence shows big servers struggle in Grand Slams

On that basis it can be concluded that the tight nature of a ‘big servers’ match may hinder them from succeeding in Grand Slams, and because these players require more intense concentration and mental strength for longer than other types of player, the fatigue that this generates may affect them in the rounds following a victory.

There can be no doubt that Isner is an extreme example – he played the most games per set and the most games per match by a considerable distance in the 11-25 ranking bracket, as well as the tightest sets by some margin. The accumulated fatigue for Isner as well as the tight nature of his matches, explains why the giant American has failed to go further than a Grand Slam quarter-final.

Finally some other players are worth considering – it is clear from the stats that both Tommy Haas and Andreas Seppi have tendencies to play tight, and in the case of Seppi especially, long Grand Slam matches.

The opposite can definitely be said for Kei Nishikori (9.10 games per set and 31.65 games per match), Tommy Robredo and Fabio Fognini.  It can be no coincidence that these three players broke their opponents more than any other analysed.

As with any form of betting, detailed analysis of a player and their historical tendencies are vital to achieve success.  Men’s Grand Slam tennis tournaments are a much different betting proposition to normal ATP events and must be treated as such.

Click here for the latest Australian Open odds.

Dan Weston is a freelance tennis writer who, along with producing expert content for Pinnacle Sports, also produces his own tennis rating system, and trading analysis which can be found at www.tennisratings.co.uk

If you have feedback, comments or questions regarding this article, please email the author or send us a tweet on Twitter.

пятница, 3 января 2014 г.

2013/14 Bundesliga handicap performance review

Could Hendricks be GSP’s greatest challenge at UFC 167?

By Michael Gales Nov 7, 2013

Tweet

George St. Pierre has dominated the welterweight division since 2007 but in #1 contender Johny Hendricks, he is potentially facing the greatest threat to his crown. The article looks at factors to consider when betting the UFC 167 main event on November 16th.

How tough a challenger is Hendricks?

Generally, because of the caliber of bettors who make up our markets, we believe the markets tell the story. If you subscribe to that theory, Hendricks (15-1) is the toughest opponent St. Pierre has faced since BJ Penn in January of 2009. Since that time, GSP has defended his title 6 times, with none of the markets suggesting bettors had nearly the faith in those opponents as they do in Hendricks.

With that said, GSP is still the heavy favourite; His championship run has been a dominant one and he showed in his last match (Vs. Nick Diaz) that his surgically-repaired knee is back to health.

Hendricks is still relatively new to the upper echelons of the division, but that may work in his favour. With his one loss coming by decision, he’s never been knocked out or submitted, and he’s not as battle-worn as some of the fighters GSP has faced. He also brings a combination of elite wrestling and remarkable one-strike knockout power that is unique amongst the men St. Pierre has faced.

Striking: Accuracy vs. Power

Should this fight stay on the feet, it will be a study in contrasting styles. St. Pierre generally uses his striking for scoring points and controlling range, landing more strikes than his opponents in each of his last 11 fights. His strikes landed count has increased dramatically over time, averaging 93 landed strikes per fight over his last four encounters. By contrast, his opponents have averaged 43 per fight, a number that would be lower if Jake Shields hadn’t landed 49 of his 73 strikes landed against GSP after the champion temporarily lost sight in one eye in the third round of the their 5-round fight.

Three of Hendricks’ last six matches have ended with first-round knockouts

Hendricks doesn’t have St. Pierre’s striking volume or accuracy, but what he does have is a left hand that’s made him one of the most-feared single-punch knockout artists in the sport. Three of Hendricks’ last six matches have ended with first-round knockouts, which may make up for the lower volume of strikes landed he produces.

St. Pierre may have the advantage standing because his 7 reach benefit makes it difficult for his opponents to connect. Those rivals have only landed one of every four strikes, while Hendricks has been connected with 42% of the time. Of course, Hendricks may only need to land once, and he’s shown a remarkable chin in his time in the octagon.

Wrestling: Tough task taking GSP down

Hendricks’ knockout power is daunting in large part because he constantly offers the threat of taking down his opponents. In his last fight against Carlos Condit (also a former GSP challenger), Hendricks scored a remarkable 12 takedowns in earning the unanimous decision. That number skews his averages to an extent, but throughout his career he has scored a takedown in every two attempts, and there have been a lot of attempts (5.52 per 15 minutes).

The problem Hendricks faces is that GSP is no Condit. St. Pierre has successfully defended 6/7 takedown attempts against him for his career (Condit just 2/5) and has only been taken down once in his last 6 fights. Even against fellow wrestlers Josh Koscheck (4-1), Jon Fitch (7-0) and Hughes (3-0), he’s dominated takedowns for/against, though none of those men offered the threat of Hendricks’ left hand to distract from the wrestling.

Both fighters tend to prefer ground control to submissions. Hendricks hasn’t attempted a submission in any of his UFC decision victories and has only scored one submission in his career. His defense against submissions was tested to a degree against Condit, but not from his back.

GSP hasn’t made many submission attempts during his championship reign, but he went for 6 of them against Dan Hardy, whose jiu-jitsu was similarly untested. If GSP gets Hendricks on his back, he may attempt the finish.

Experience could be key for GSP

With victories over Condit, Koscheck and Fitch Hendricks has done a good job of duplicating GSP’s feats as they’ve been put in front of him, but he can’t match St. Pierre’s experience. This may factor in a couple of ways.

First, Hendricks has never gone 5 rounds. Part of the reason St. Pierre has moved to a more controlled striking game is because of the endurance test a 5-round fight represents. In fact, he’s so enamored by the endurance test that he’s seen his last 6 fights go the duration, winning all 6 by unanimous decision. Hendricks trying too hard for the first round knockout could prove dangerous because of the duration of the fallout if he fails.

Secondly, Hendricks has never fought on this kind of stage. Hendricks has never gone 5 rounds because he’s never fought in a main event. That means he’s never carried the media duties of fight week and never been the centre of attention for a card, a completely different kind of pressure than fighters are otherwise accustomed to.

Will that pressure get to Hendricks? Or will one well-placed strike see St. Pierre’s reign come to an end?

Get the best UFC St-Pierre vs. Hendricks 167 odds here.

*Odds subject to change

If you have feedback, comments or questions regarding this article, please email the author or send us a tweet on Twitter.