февраля 2014 ~ Betting is life

четверг, 27 февраля 2014 г.

Does the market take age into account in WTA Tennis?

By Dan Weston Feb 27, 2014

Tennis bettors may not consider the age of a player when deciding to back them. This article assesses whether the age of players in the WTA has any influence, and if there is generally any tennis betting value backing younger players.

WTA Rising Stars offer value

In last week’s article which looked at the ‘choke’ factor – whether heavy underdogs choke when playing more illustrious opponents – we found that the WTA had a much better record for underdog wins than the ATP.

One possible reason given was that there is a bigger talent pool of young players in the WTA with nine players under 23 inside the top 50, and 29 inside the top 100. With the latest rankings this has changed to 10 inside the top 50, and 25 inside the top 100 – compared to just one ATP player in the top 50 and six in the top 100.

Simona Halep (current rank 7) leads the young WTA players, with Sloane Stephens (18) and Eugenie Bouchard (19) also having a top 20 ranking currently.

These young WTA players clearly are relatively more talented than their young ATP counterparts and when breaking through on the main tour, may well be underestimated by the betting markets. Therefore they may have the potential to cause an upset at a large price.

The following table shows the records of WTA players inside the top 100 in WTA matches in the last 12 months (data correct at 26th February 2014). Because of the potential for upset wins to come via retirement (hence there would be no relevant choke factor) only completed matches were assessed. All prices were Pinnacle Sports’ closing prices, and level 100 stakes were applied for all matches.

Player

Rank

Best Win (Opponent)

Best Win (Price)

WTA Matches

12 Month W/L

Win %

12 Month P/L

ROI

Halep

Agnieszka Radwanska

3.394

58-16

78.38

2265

32.4

Stephens

Maria Sharapova

5.023

32-20

61.54

0.2

Bouchard

Ana Ivanovic

4.859

40-21

65.57

373

6.2

Pavlyuchenkova

Maria Sharapova

5.289

35-21

62.50

602

11.4

Muguruza

Caroline Wozniacki

4.859

36-13

73.47

1076

22.4

Keys

Na Li

13.000

31-22

58.49

1010

19.8

Jovanovski

Andrea Petkovic

6.355

28-20

58.33

830

17.7

Svitolina

Romina Oprandi

4.077

23-25

47.92

0.8

Nara

Klara Zakopalova

3.945

23-12

65.71

829

25.1

Beck

Lucie Safarova

4.809

30-28

51.72

-252

-4.5

Karolina Pliskova

Nadia Petrova

4.859

23-27

46.00

-425

-8.5

Robson

Agnieszka Radwanska

7.025

15-19

44.12

-272

-8.2

Puig

Sara Errani

7.446

24-20

54.55

557

Davis

Svetlana Kuznetsova

4.489

25-22

53.19

690

Cepelova

Sam Stosur

6.386

17-19

47.22

2.7

Torro Flor

Marina Erakovic

3.178

19-23

45.24

-570

-14

McHale

Polona Hercog

2.538

20-20

50.00

-724

-18

Schmiedlova

Alize Cornet

4.322

27-18

60.00

308

Tomljanovic

Kseniz Pervak

4.165

21-24

60.00

651

19.1

Mladenovic

Simona Halep

6.068

15-28

34.88

-1264

-30

Ormaechea

Anna Schmiedlova

3.188

19-17

52.78

-673

-19

Giorgi

Caroline Wozniacki

6.402

20-14

58.82

671

20.3

Pfizenmaier

Nadia Petrova

2.855

17-13

56.67

355

12.3

Babos

Ana Ivanovic

8.634

12-19

38.71

-176

-5.9

Doi

Varvara Lepchenko

2.912

15-21

41.67

-972

-28

Overall

1117

625-492

55.95

5034

4.51

Halep undervalued by the market

We can see from the above table that overall there was a positive return blindly backing under 23 WTA players who are currently in the top 100 with a return of investment of 4.51% being generated.

Unsurprisingly, the top ranked player, Simona Halep, performed the best, with a stellar season seeing her with the highest win percentage (78.38%) and the highest ROI (32.4%) with Garbine Muguruza and Kurumi Nara also seeing high win percentages and return on investments.

What is also interesting to see is how many players won as a heavy underdog. 22 out of the 25 players (88%) had wins priced over 3.00, whilst 18 (72%) had wins priced over 4.00 and 10 (40%) had wins priced over 5.00. Only Madison Keys, with a win over Na Li (priced 13.000), had a win when priced over 9.00.

Interestingly, higher ranked players were victims several times – Agnieszka Radwanska, Maria Sharapova, Ana Ivanovic, Caroline Wozniacki and Nadia Petrova all suffered this ignominy.

It may not be initially obvious but another statistic is vital. Only Annika Beck (ranked 49) had a negative return on investment from the 10 players inside the top 50 and this return was very small – just -4.5%.

Do rankings have an influence?

Therefore it is logical to assess whether ranking have an influence on the sample, and the tables below illustrate this: -

Top 50 Rank

Matches

P/L

ROI

534

6781

12.70

Rank 51-100

Matches

P/L

ROI

583

1747

3.00

Clearly the top ranked players performed best here, although this is logical as they’ve almost certainly had a rise in ranking in the past 12 months. Therefore it’s natural that their results will be strong. As previously mentioned, Halep’s results were superb, but overall backers of Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova, Garbine Muguruza, Madison Keys, Bojana Jovanovski and Kurumi Nara in the past 12 months would have enjoyed double figure returns.

However, it’s certainly interesting to see that blindly backing young WTA players ranked between 51 and 100 did not have a horrific return on investment by any means, and with careful research there should be no reason why selective positive expectation betting opportunities could not exist amongst these players as well – certainly Monica Puig, Lauren Davis, Ajla Tomljanovic, Camila Giorgi and Dinah Pfizenmaier may be under-rated by the market currently.

Whilst the age of a player, particularly an underdog, may not be considered a viable option by many bettors, this article shows that it should be part of a tennis bettor’s pre-match research, along with many other factors.

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.

Are West Ham undervalued again against the Handicap?

By Michael Gales Feb 27, 2014

West Ham travel to play Everton on Saturday in the Premier League and handicap bettors should be aware that if the Hammers cover the +1 spread, they would have done so for the sixth EPL game in succession – an EPL record this season – while if the Toffees fail, they will have done so for a seventh straight game.

Can West Ham surprise the bookmakers again?

So far across the whole of this season West Ham have performed slightly under bookmaker expectations covering the spread in 44.4% of Premier League games. At home the Hammers have covered in just 35.7% of games, while their statistics improve on the road to 53.8%.

Handicap bettors should, however play close attention to the Hammers’ recent form as they have covered in five consecutive games. This is significant because the highest number of successive games any team has covered in the EPL this season is five – Arsenal, Chelsea, Everton and Southampton.

Given that the Irons failed to cover in seven consecutive EPL matches just two games prior to the start of their current streak, highlights that the bookmakers are having difficulty handicapping them.

Some mitigation for West Ham’s terrible run of failing to cover could be drawn from their drastic injury and suspension crisis with no less than 11 first team players out injured, including the majority of their recognised defenders.

West Ham’s success on the road has been based on their solid defence. The Hammers have conceded just 14 goals in 13 away games at an average of 0.86 goals per game, which is impressive. However if you take out the data during the crisis mentioned above – four successive away defeats – they have conceded just four in nine games, at an incredible average of just 0.4 goals per game.

Is West Ham’s recent handicap form – now the players have returned from suspension and injury – an indication they are regressing to their mean, which may be the reason the bookmaker has undervalued their relative strength in recent weeks?

With the handicap set at +1 goals (2.050*), and considering their excellent away performances this season – they have kept a clean sheet in 53.8% of games – bettors must decide if West Ham have once more been undervalued by the bookmakers?

Everton not great for a handicap bettor

Everton may have performed well in the Premier League so far this season, but it’s a different story on the Pinnacle Sports handicap table.

The Toffees are 18th in the EPL handicap table after covering just a mere 38.5% of the time. The Blues’ record at Goodison Park (41.7%) is slightly better than their cover percentage on the road (35.7%). These handicap statistics show that for handicap bettors Everton have offered little value.

Looking at their home form highlights the differential between Everton’s 1×2 performance and handicap results. The Toffees have won eight of their 12 EPL games but have only covered the spread in five.

Whilst West Ham have covered five games in a row, Everton are in the opposite run of form having failed to cover the handicap in their last five games. Manchester United hold the record for the longest streak this season without covering the spread, however their eight game run occurred at the start of the season, when bookmakers have less of a gauge on team strength.

With bookmakers currently struggling to correctly gauge both teams’ relative strength, bettors must decide whether Everton have been overvalued again at Goodison given their -1 (1.893*) handicap and West Ham’s current defensive form on the road. Either way one significant handicap streak will come to an end on Saturday.

Click here to see the latest Premier League 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.

среда, 26 февраля 2014 г.

How Fighters Respond to Championship Bout Hangover

By Gary Wise Feb 26, 2014

On March 8th, 2014, Alexander Gustafsson fights for the 1st time since his historic clash with Jon Jones for the Light Heavyweight title, as he takes on undefeated Jimi Manuwa at UFC Fight Night London. Curious about how fighters respond after losing a title fight, our research discovered some important trends for bettors.

The Theory

Given that a fighter has to be good to be granted a title shot, and that losing to a UFC champion almost certainly means a downgrade in caliber of competition for the following fight, title fight losers (TFLs) should perform well coming off title fight losses.

The counter argument is that damage taken in a loss can hurt a fighter psychologically, and the lack of a goal that transcends mere victory and money (like winning a championship), once experienced, can make it difficult to train and fight with the intensity to match a title run.

To this effect, we looked at the results of every fight fought in the UFC by immediate TFLs to see if there are patterns that should affect your MMA betting. Note that the below chart includes post-interim title fight losses as we’re more interested in the conditions and culture than the technicality; the interim title is a valuable commodity and inter-TFLs are till dealing with the pain of coming close. Note also that we did not know how the records would play out. This was as much a learning experience for us as it will be for you as you look at the results:

Weight Class (abbreviation – maximum weight)

Post-Title Fight Record

Champions

Challengers

Heavyweight (HW – 265 lbs)

16-15-1

5-9

11-6-1

Light Heavyweight (LHW – 205 lbs)

21-10-2

5-5

16-5-2

Middleweight (MW – 185 lbs)

11-7

2-2

9-5

Welterweight (WW – 170 lbs)

15-10-3

4-2

11-8-3

Lightweight (LW – 155 lbs)

10-6*

2-2**

8-4

Featherweight (FW – 145 lbs)

2-1

0-0

2-1

Bantamweight (BW – 135 lbs)

5-0-1

0-0

5-0-1

Flyweight (FLW – 125 lbs)

3-0

0-0

3-0

Women’s Bantamweight (WBW – 135 lbs)

2-0

0-0

2-0

Superfight Championship

3-0

1-0

2-0

Totals: 88-49-7 19-20 69-29-7

* Does not include the draw between BJ Penn and Caol Uno at UFC 41 for the vacant belt. For the record, Penn won his next match, while Uno lost his.

** Includes Gilbert Meledez, who held the Strikeforce title belt before that organization was taken over by the UFC, where he immediately fought Ben Henderson in an unofficial title unification match. Melendez won his next fight.

Divisional Notes

A few things worth noting about divisional records:

Heavyweight

No champion has defended more than 3 times, indicating the volatility of the class. Similarly, TFLs also couldn’t string together more then 3 consecutive rebound wins.

Light Heavyweight

Through UFC 43, LHW title contenders went 0-12 in title fights. They went 9-2 (with one fighter retiring after failing to claim the title) in their follow-ups. Note of interest; champions lost the next four title fights after that run.

Welterweight

Through UFC 69, TFLs went 11-2-3 in their follow-up fights. They’ve gone 3-7 since.

Lightweight

Through UFC 101, TFLs went 6-1 in their follow up fights. It was two LW title fights later when a LW champion lost their title in the ring for the first time.

Featherweight, Bantamweight, Flyweight, Women’s Bantamweight

These divisions are all new enough that no defending champion has ever lost a title fight. This clearly skews numbers, which we address below.

Superfight Championship

These headliner fights from the earliest UFCs (6, 8 and 9) have been included for completion’s sake, but have little in common with the modern UFC, as we know it.

Conclusions

Champions seem to have a very difficult time in their first fights after losing. This may be wear and tear, but it’s plausible that the accumulation of wealth and achievement of goals have left them without suitable motivation.

Weight class doesn’t seem to offer much of a variable, except for notable exceptions in numbers amongst defeated HW and LHW champions. It is likely not a coincidence that these fighters typically enjoy shorter careers than those in lighter weight classes. It is generally understood that the heavier the weight class, the greater the damage sustained from fight-to-fight.

In this article posted last week, we looked at outliers in the early development of divisions and concluded that they are to be expected. This research shows us that in addition to those outliers, we should expect a very steep curve in the upper echelons of those same developing competitions, even beyond those outliers. The UFC’s four lesser-developed divisions –Featherweight, Bantamweight, Flyweight and Women’s Bantamweight—have seen TFLs register a 12-1-1 record, with the only loser amongst the fourteen fights (Mark Hominick) retiring without winning another fight. The early stretches of success amongst losing title contenders in the LHW, WW and LW divisions also seem to support this notion.

Combine those early runs and undeveloped divisions and you’re looking at a 38-6-4 record for TFLs. Granted, there’s some cherry picking there, but not a lot; the resulting 50-43-3 record amongst TFLs (36-23-6 amongst losing challengers) in more established divisions coming off their championship loss is far less-compelling than the overall numbers.

How does this reflect on Gustafsson-Manuwa?

Gustafsson is a stud, the #1 contender in the LHW division fighting against #11 Manuwa (going by UFC rankings). That said there are a few factors working against him going into this fight as betting goes. He’s a massive favorite, the 36-23-6 record enjoyed by losing contenders in established divisions doesn’t justify those odds, and losing LHW contenders have gone just 7-6 in follow-up fights since Keith Jardine beat Chuck Liddell in May, 2007.

Manuwa brings a lot of what you want in an underdog; he’s undefeated, a striker by trade, and aggressive. The punchers chance is alive and well. If you believe it is, history tells us you might want to put a few dollars on the underdog. Whichever side you like, you can bet it here.

Click here to see the latest UFC Fight Night London Gustafsson vs. Manuwa Betting odds.

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

What you should consider before betting on F1

What you should consider before betting on F1

By Michael Gales Feb 25, 2014

This Formula One betting guide informs bettors what to consider before betting on F1. By researching key variables – driver value, grid position & track characteristics etc. – you can increase your chance of making an F1 betting profit.

Importance grid position varies from track to track

Driver position has varying importance depending on the track in question. For instance qualifying on pole at Monza has guaranteed a race win in 80% of races in the last decade, compared to the Canadian GP at Montreal where just 30% of drivers on pole went on to win.

For circuits where it’s difficult to overtake – Monaco – bettors should consider a drivers ability to qualify high on the grid – where starting on pole can be a huge advantage. In comparison circuits that are easier to overtake at – Montreal for instance – give the bettor more chance of finding value when not betting on pole sitters.

Understanding the value of track position is vital in Formula One betting, selecting a race winner before considering historical data should be avoided, instead, study the track history to gauge an understanding of what will likely happen.

This article looks at how reliable qualifying is as a race indicator? The data highlighted there was a good correlation between qualifying and final race positions in the 20 races of the 2012 Formula One season. However despite proving that there is a relationship between qualifying and finishing position, it is not, on its own, enough to generate an edge.

Understanding the affect of tyres is vital

Tyres are vitally important in Formula One. Understanding tyre characteristics, how they perform around specific tracks, and how the cars and drivers compliment the tyres is significant when selecting a race winner.

Formula One bettors should understand a teams’ strategy regarding tyres. Each driver is allowed a set number of tyres per race weekend. A team may save tyres for race day instead of using them during free practice and qualifying, which may make the difference between winning a race and not.

Driver style is also important. Knowing which drivers – Jenson Button – can conserve tyres while driving at a fast speed, and which – Lewis Hamilton – wear their tyres down with an aggressive style, should be considered.

Since returning to the sport as the tyre manufacturer two years ago, Pirelli have produced unpredictable tyres, which has created more excitement and overtaking opportunities, but ultimately made understanding tyre characteristics more vital for betting.

Last year the tyres came under heavy criticism for their lack of durability, however Pirelli motorsport director Paul Hembery stated in February ” Although the teams are still at a comparatively early point on the development curve with their new cars, testing data so far indicates that the 2014 tyres are more consistent and durable than their predecessors.”

Don’t underestimate Mother Nature (weather)

Formula One bettors should always check the weather forecast before and adjust their betting on qualifying and the race accordingly. When the conditions are fine and the track hot, weather has little impact. However, once the track temperatures drop and the rain arrives it can cause havoc with the result.

Researching weather history is important as most Grand Prix occur at a similar time in the schedule as previously. The Belgian GP for example is renowned for it’s variable weather conditions. Knowing the chance of rain before can help you select drivers who are known to perform well in the rain – Jenson Button and avoid drivers who are not – rookie drivers.

Recognize circuit characteristics

Understanding the circuit characteristics and matching them with driver and car capabilities is fundamental when betting on Formula One. Circuits with long straights and fewer turns suit cars with excellent top speed.

Each circuit is distinctive, and should be treated different as each offers new challenges. Take the Bahrain GP for instance; this Middle Eastern circuit has a number of key characteristics that will present a different challenge for the teams than at other circuits.

The track is made up of four long straights, all of which end in a high braking zone, offering clear overtaking opportunities. There are also a number of challenging medium-speed corners that require good car balance. Therefore the track suits a set-up that sees a compromise between straight-line speed and cornering grip.

With drivers at full throttle for just 50% of the lap during the race (and 57% in qualifying), the demands on the engine are less extensive than half of the courses on the calendar.

Although the throttle might not be an issue, high temperature and low humidity could provide major challenges for the engines, while the circuit’s stop-start nature places a premium on the brakes – managing brake-wear is key.

Once you understand the track characteristics bettors should check practice and qualifying times to see which drivers and teams have their car dialed-in, and who doesn’t. Once bettors have gauged the track diagnostics and understood who are best set-up to perform you can consider who to bet on.

Team Strategies

Team strategy is fundamental in F1 and bettors should be fully aware of who influences what happens on the track. Teams always look to gain an edge over their opposition through tyre tactics, car set-up or tactical pitstops. But they also implement team orders.

For instance if two drivers from the same team are close during a Grand Prix one can be ordered to allow their teammate to overtake – Felipe Massa was instructed to let Fernando Alonso pass at the 2010 German GP – or hold back and secure the position they are in rather than go for an overtake – Nico Rosberg was given team orders to not overtake Lewis Hamilton at the Malaysian GP last season despite being much quicker.

To prevent team orders affecting bettors they should play close attention to the standings for both the drivers’ and constructors’ championships. Understanding who are the number one drivers in each team will help you decide which number two drivers to avoid – knowing his teammate will be favoured.

Study the new Rule Changes

Keeping up-to-date and understanding the latest Formula One rules is paramount for successful betting. The FIA constantly make rule changes to keep the sport exciting. These rules can benefit or hurt specific teams and the same can be said for your betting, so bettors should keep track of the rule changes happening pre-season, and during the F1 calendar.

Remember knowledge is key to successful F1 betting

It is important to think of the bigger picture when betting on Formula One, a racing incident/ bad pitstop or technical failure may have undone your thorough research for that race, but it’s only one race. To be successful, F1 bettors must consider how they perform over five or more seasons.

With Formula One culpable to a number of outliers such as weather, track characteristics, race strategy, tyre degradation and racing incidents, bettors informed decision-making, rather than just picking a winner on gut feeling, should undoubtedly translate into a significantly higher winning percentage.

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

суббота, 22 февраля 2014 г.

Do Tennis players ‘choke’ more against top opponents

By Dan Weston Feb 21, 2014

Tennis bettors should be aware of the ‘Choke Factor’ associated with lower ranked players when competing against top opponents. This article highlights why bettors would be wise to consider the ranking of an underdog’s opponent before backing the outsider.

What is the Choke Factor?

Something that is written about a great deal, both in print media, and especially on forums and social networks, is the accusation that a player ‘choked’ a match, or a situation in a match.

Key situations might be serving for the set, a set point, or a match point. The inference is that the player did not have enough mental strength that they would, or could, win the point, or beat their opponent.

Previous trading research has shown that over a large sample, an average player does not have their serve broken more when serving for the set or match, than in any other service game. However, when they do, it is a more memorable event than if they routinely served out the game and won the set. Therefore, it is speculated about more on social media, and remembered more by bettors.

Having said this, it would be fairly logical to think that players may struggle with self-belief and mental strength when nearing a win over an illustrious player. For example, Nicha Lertpitaksinchai (ranked 347) beat Aleksandra Krunic (ranked 153) recently, priced 7.19. It would be likely that she would not consider this such a landmark victory as Luksika Kumkhum (ranked 88), who defeated Petra Kvitova (ranked 6) at the Australian Open, priced 11.15. Despite there being a bigger ranking gap between Lertpitaksinchai and Krunic than Kumkhum and Kvitova, it is much more likely Kumkhum would feel more pressure near the end of the match.

The next logical step would be to assess whether an opponent’s ranking affected the chances of a heavy underdog winning a match. All players priced over 5.00 in the 2014 were sampled, and backed for 100 level stakes at Pinnacle Sports’ closing prices.

ATP

Rank

Matches

Wins

Win %

P/L

ROI

1-20

11.69

-1420

-18.44

21+

17.14

1.43

Combined

112

13.39

-1370

-12.23

We can see that in the ATP, there was a fairly large difference between underdogs playing top 20 opponents, and those outside the top 20. Against top 20 opponents, the win percentage for underdogs was 5.45% less, and the -18.44% return on investment was horrific.

Of the nine wins against top 20 opponents, Roberto Bautista-Agut’s victory over Juan Martin Del Potro (priced 13.03) was the biggest priced win. It’s also worth mentioning that Stanislas Wawrinka (also ranked in the top 10) had two of the nine wins himself, against Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal, en route to his Australian Open title.

David Ferrer was victim of two upsets, against Daniel Brands (6.13) and Yen-Hsun Lu (5.66).

WTA

Rank

Matches

Wins

Win %

P/L

ROI

1-20

12.68

-216

-3.04

21+

20.00

615

20.50

Combined

101

14.85

399

3.95

The above table illustrates that this theme also continued in the WTA, although to a much lesser extent. Backing underdogs priced over 5.00 against top 20 opponents showed a slight negative result, whilst the small sample of underdogs against players ranked outside the top 20 was strongly positive.

Petra Kvitova was, as mentioned previously, a big priced victim of Luksika Kumkhum – the biggest of the WTA so far in 2014 – and also suffered a bad defeat to Tsvetana Pironkova in Sydney (6.83). Lertpitaksinchai’s win over Krunic was the biggest priced underdog win outside the top 20.

As with Wawrinka, there were several instances where a top 20 player won as an underdog against a fellow top 20 player. Ana Ivanovic (9.75) achieved this at the Australian Open against Serena Williams, and at the same event Agnieszka Radwanska defeated Victoria Azarenka when priced 5.16.

WTA young guns offer value

If the general betting public were surveyed was conducted about whether more upsets occur in the ATP or the WTA, opinion would probably be divided. It would be likely that some would say that the top WTA players don’t play to as consistently high level as the top ATP players, but conversely others may assert that the lower ranked WTA players would be more likely to choke when close to a big victory.

One factor not necessarily considered by many is the breakthrough of some very promising young players in the WTA, with there appearing to be much more new talent in the women’s game than on the ATP.

Currently there are just six ATP players in the top 100 aged under 23, with Grigor Dimitrov (20) leading the way – and the only player under 23 in the top 50. Dominic Thiem (99) made his debut in the top 100 this week. However there are 29 WTA players under 23 in the top 100 with Simona Halep the highest ranked at 9, and there are 9 WTA players inside the top 50.

What this can infer is that the WTA has much younger, and better talent, than the ATP. These young WTA players, when breaking through to the main tour, would logically be more able to cause a shock result than the young ATP players.

ATP/WTA Combined

Rank

Matches

Wins

Win %

P/L

ROI

1-20

148

12.16

-1636

-11.05

21+

18.46

665

10.23

Combined

213

14.08

-971

-4.56

This final table shows the combined ATP/WTA stats and again shows the huge discrepancy between underdogs facing top 20 opponents and those facing opponents ranked outside the top 20. Whilst the sample on opponents ranked over 20 still isn’t the biggest, it does show that bettors would be extremely wise to consider the ranking of an underdog’s opponent before backing the outsider.

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

четверг, 20 февраля 2014 г.

Spurs undervalued on the road this season

By Michael Gales Feb 20, 2014

Premier League handicap bettors might be surprised that Tottenham – considered inconsistent – have actually covered in 76.9% of games away from home on the handicap this season. So for Spurs’ game at Norwich on Sunday are the Lilywhites undervalued again as the -0.5 favourites?

Spurs massively undervalued on the road against the spread

Tottenham Hotspur are the third best performing team on the handicap this season covering the spread in 57.7% of games – covering 15, failing in 10 and pushing once (see our EPL Handicap table). However, a closer look at their handicap results shows a big difference between the Lilywhites’ performances at home and on the road.

At White Hart Lane Spurs have covered in just 38.5% of their games – seventh worst in the EPL – compared to an incredible 76.9% on the road – 7.7% more than Chelsea, who boast the second best home record covering the handicap.

Overall, away from home, Tottenham have won nine of their 13 EPL games and covered five of their last six. Since Tim Sherwood was appointed manager in December Tottenham have won four and drawn one of their five away EPL games. So what has changed?

Sherwood immediately changed Spurs’ formation to accommodate two strikers as a consequence of their trouble in front of goal under AVB – just 20 goals at an average of 1.25 per game. The tactical shift has appeared to work as Spurs under Sherwood average 2.1 goals per game. And on the road that goal average rises to 2.6.

Tottenham’s away handicap performance is a testament to their excellent defensive record on the road – conceding on average 1.07 goals per game. However by eradicating their dismal 6-0 defeat at Man City, that average drops to 0.6 per game.

With Tottenham scoring an average of 2.6 goals in their last five games on the road and conceding an average of one, bettors must decide if the -0.5 goal handicap at 2.140* is another underestimation?

Norwich stronger at home against the handicap

Norwich have struggled in the Premier league so far this season and sit 16th in the table just one point above the relegation zone.

Their poor form has been relayed in their performances against the handicap with the Canaries underperforming – covering in just 42.3% of games.

However a closer look at the stats – similar to Spurs – show a discrepancy between their handicap form at home compared to away. The pattern of handcap form is the opposite to Spurs, with Norwich performing much better at home than on the road.

Chris Houghton’s team have marginally exceeded bookmaker expectations at Carrow Road this season by covering in 53.8% of games compared to 30.8% in away games – currently covered twice and pushed once in their last three home matches.

Despite being underdogs in seven games on the handicap at home this season they have covered 57% of the time despite winning just one game straight up.

A major problem for Norwich this season has been their performance in front of goal at home – they are ranked last in the EPL for scoring and have failed to register in 38% of home EPL games – averaging just 0.85 goals per game.

So how have the Canaries performed so well on the spread at home? They may not score many (11), but they don’t concede many either (11) – conceding on average the same as they score per goal 0.85.

Their mean defence sees them ranked as the seventh best at home this season and they haven’t conceded in their last three games at Carrow Road in the Premier League.

With an average of 1.69 goals per game at Carrow road this season – the lowest in the EPL – bettors must decide whether Norwich are once more undervalued at home on the handicap, or if the +0.5 at 1.820* is not enough when they host free scoring Spurs on Sunday?

Click here to see the latest Premier League 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, 18 февраля 2014 г.

Why Ronda Rousey isn’t the outlier she appears to be

By Gary Wise Feb 18, 2014

On February 22nd, Ronda Rousey fights Sara McMann at UFC 170 in the latest installment of what’s been a meteoric and dominant run. Below, we look at similar cases throughout sports history and ask whether the outlier Rousey represents is really an outlier at all.

Rowdy Ronda

If you’re not familiar with Ronda Rousey, she’s the female face of MMA. An Olympic bronze medalist in judo, she’s parlayed that sport’s tosses into a phenomenal rise through women’s MMA ranks. She boasts a career mark of 8-0, with all eight of her victories coming by submission, seven of them in the first round. That run includes three title defenses.

Rousey is presently the 1.238* favorite at UFC 170 despite her opponent’s undefeated record. It’s easily arguable that she’s the UFC’s most dominant champion right now, in part because of the poor caliber of opposition in her division.

Women’s MMA and the PPV illusion

In 2012, Rousey appeared on the cover of ESPN Magazine’s ‘the body’ issue, an annual celebration of athletes in the world’s 24th most circulated magazine. That exposure, Rousey’s charm an exciting fighting style made Rousey an incredibly marketable asset, a fact many credit for the UFC’s decision to expand its ranks to include a women’s division (that this division happens to be in her 135lb weight class also supports the notion).

The result of this hurried product is a division that’s relatively lacking in technical expertise and depth; McMann, for example, is getting her title fight off the strength of a single UFC fight, a victory over an opponent who’d also never fought in the UFC previously. Most of their male counterparts would need to string together 3-4 or more wins in order to get a title shot. While Rousey-McMann is the main event on a PPV, that doesn’t mean the division is up to the standards of more-established male weight classes. Why is this important?

Early stars in undeveloped sports/leagues

Simply, the earlier the stage of development a sport or division is in, the more opportunity there is for a major outlier. The more developed a discipline is, the more education there is within that endeavor; with an increasingly educated community comes an increased opportunity to learn, and that flattens the learning curve. In short, the opportunity to gain an advantage by virtue of the opposition missing something in its education becomes lesser and lesser as a sport or division evolves.

Early men’s MMA gives us a blueprint to this effect. Royce Gracie, a specialist in positional grappling fighting in a field comprised mostly of pure strikers, dominated the earliest UFCs. Just 170 pounds, Gracie went 11-0 over the course of the first four cards in the organization’s history (fighting in tournaments that involved multiple fights in a given night) because, where his opponents came from more popular disciplines that only used striking and striking defense, Gracie came prepared for a wider variety of fighting styles. He defeated less-experienced/prepared men despite their ranging from 180-250 lbs.

The online poker world gives us another strong example. 15 years ago, anyone who’d read a poker book entered most tables at a huge advantage due to the majority of players taking a casual approach to the game. Now, educated by texts and television, the vast majority of online poker players come to the table with experience in hand. Today’s weaker players would likely have dominated those tables from 15 years ago; those who lacked basic survival tactics have either run out of money or moved on to other endeavors…there’s no navet left for professionals to exploit. While there are still standouts in poker, the deviation they enjoy from a standard level of play isn’t nearly so pronounced as that of yesteryear.

Ladies golf

It’s clear from these examples that this isn’t limited to women’s sports by any means, but we do see another example of this phenomenon in the early history of women’s golf majors.

The US Open was the first ladies major in golf, and immediately showcased three remarkable careers: Babe Zaharias won three times from 1948-1954, Betsy Rawls won four times from 1951-1960 and Mickey Wright four times from 1959-1964. Those three women each won the title three or more times in the event’s first 16 years; only three women have won three times in the 50 years since. Similarly, Wright won the LPGA Championship 4 times in the event’s first nine years. No one else has won it four times.

What does it all mean?

In short, Rousey has a legitimate claim as a true outlier. Bringing an unusual style (Judo isn’t widely applied as a primary discipline in MMA) at peak levels, she’s proven difficult to train for and the rest of the women’s MMA industry seems to have lagged behind in combating what she brings to the ring (granted, the fact her last fight was her first to go past the first round may suggest the pieces to the puzzle are finally – albeit slowly – starting to come together). Why does this matter? Because now you understand why the undefeated McMann is a 4.620* underdog. That’s not to say the challenger doesn’t have a chance; only that Rousey has probably earned the status that her odds reflect. She may for a while yet.

Click here to see the best UFC 170 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.

среда, 12 февраля 2014 г.

How to find value on the lucky loser concept in tennis

By Dan Weston Feb 12, 2014

Tennis bettors looking to find value in qualifying rounds should be aware of the lucky loser concept. This article looks at whether or not betting markets consider the top ranked player in qualifying’s potential for not necessarily giving their best as they know they will get a lucky loser spot in advance of their final qualifying match, and if there is value backing against them.

What is the lucky loser in tennis?

Wikipedia’s definition of a lucky loser is ‘a sports player who loses a match in the qualifying round of a knockout tournament, but who then enters the main draw when another player withdraws after the tournament has started because of illness, injury or other reason’. This is a very fair assessment of the situation.

The concept of lucky losers is very relevant in Tennis, with almost all events having qualifying matches to give tournament berths (usually at least four) to qualifying players, who do not have a high enough rank for direct entry, but a high enough rank to participate in qualifying.

It’s worth taking some time to note the specific rules for lucky losers in Tennis – in general ATP or WTA tournaments, the top ranked player eliminated in the final round of qualifying is the first player to enter the draw following a withdrawal, and should more than one player withdraw, the second highest ranked loser in the final round of qualifying gains entry.

This has led to some controversy, as well as speculation on Tennis forums and social media, because it is obvious that in some cases, players may well be aware that they will gain entry to the tournament as a lucky loser prior to their final qualifying match. Clearly, these players do not have the greatest incentive to perform to the best of their abilities, and are logically far less likely to fight for a match they don’t have to win.

The top ranked player only has an equal 25% chance of a lucky loser spot in Grand Slams

Because of this, Grand Slams changed their rules in 2006. Since then, the top four ranked players that lost in qualifying participate in a ballot for the available space following a withdrawal – so the top ranked player only has an equal 25% chance of a lucky loser spot in Grand Slams.

Considering the vast majority of these players start their final qualifying matches as favourite, this article focuses on whether the betting markets take account of the top ranked player in qualifying’s potential for not necessarily giving their best, or whether there may be some viable angles to oppose the highest ranked player (and favourite) in the final round of qualifying.

The following table illustrates the results of backing the highest ranked player in the final round of qualifying in 2013:-

Events

Wins

Win %

P/L based on 100 stake

ROI

ATP

66.1

-489

-8.29

WTA

-1190

-23.80

COMBINED

109

59.63

-1679

-15.40

We can see from the table that backing the highest ranked player in the final round of qualifying was not a lucrative proposition. A loss of -1679 from 109 bets at level 100 stakes was incurred from the sample, generating a horrific return on investment of -15.40%.

Interestingly, seven of the 25 WTA players that lost received lucky loser spots (28.00%) whilst in the ATP, an incredible 11 of the 20 players that lost made it into the main draw (55.00%). These included Daniel Brands, Steve Darcis and Kenny De Schepper, who all lost when priced at 1.40 or below. In the WTA, Elina Svitolina and Svetlana Kuznetsova also lost when priced under 1.40 and gained lucky loser spots.

Ryan Harrison was the top ranked player in qualifying four times, and won three of his matches. However, Michael Russell lost both of his matches when the highest ranked player, and he gained a lucky loser spot in Memphis last year.

The next logical step, therefore, is to assess some various starting price brackets to see whether opposing players in certain odds ranges is viable.

COMBINED

Matches

Wins

Win %

P/L based on 100 stake

ROI

<1.25

82.61

-68

-2.96

1.26-1.50

61.90

-626

-14.90

1.51-1.99

51.43

-524

-14.97

2.00+

22.22

-461

-51.22

We can see here that heavy favourites generally did win their matches, only suffering a very small loss from the sample. This is logically the case because these players are more likely to feel that they can get past their final qualifying opponent without overly exerting themselves.

It was the players that were favourites, but were available at bigger prices, that struggled badly.

These players faced opponents much closer in ability to themselves, and clearly from the above sample did not thrive. Returns of investment of -14% and below were horrific, and it is without doubt that in 2013, the prices on the top ranked players in qualifying were not justified.

With such a high proportion of players receiving lucky loser spots after losing their final qualifying matches, the above data would appear to support the theory that there are some instances where players know they will get a lucky loser spot in advance of their final qualifying match, and therefore do not put their best efforts in.

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

вторник, 11 февраля 2014 г.

Machida vs. Mousasi: What’s not in a win-loss record?

By Gary Wise Feb 11, 2014

On February 15th, 20-4 Lyoto Machida takes on 34-3-2 Gegard Mousasi in the main event of UFC Fight Night 36. Below, we take a look at some of the factors that you should be accounting for in all MMA betting, and why they are making Machida the favourite despite the story the records tell.

34-3-2 is an impressive record in any sport and at any level, and Gegard Mousasi has lost just once in his last 23 fights, so you may look at his 3.010* price and see an opportunity. You may also know him by reputation, as he was regarded as the top light-heavyweight prospect in the sport before Jon Jones came around. He is highly decorated, having held a number of championships and being named Fighter of the Year in 2008. The man has a resume, but a look at the following criteria shows them numbers may not be as good as they appear.

Where have they fought?

Simply, Machida 1.444* has spent the last 7 years in the UFC, piling up 39 rounds of ring time over 17 fights, many of those in championship contention. While there have been usurper organizations over the years, none of them have had the depth of the UFC, which guarantees a high floor as far as level of competition goes.

Mousasi’s record crumbles under inspection here when we see that it’s composed of mostly Strikeforce, Dream and independent circuit fights. While former Strikeforce fighters have acquitted themselves well since the UFC purchased its onetime competitor (No former-Strikeforce fighter has won a championship, but many in their number dot the UFC’s official rankings) even that organization’s depth was questionable.

Caliber of competition

Machida is just 4-4 in his last eight fights to Mousasi’s 6-1-1, but the caliber of the four fighters he’s defeated far outweighs that of Mousasi’s victims. While Mousasi’s wins include Keith Jardine (4-9-1 in his last 14 fights), Ilir Latifi (a late replacement who’d never fought in a major organization) and Mike Kyle (2-4-1 in his last 7), Machida ended Randy Couture’s career and defeated UFC main carders Ryan Bader, Dan Henderson and Mark Munoz. Three of Machida’s losses came to former/current UFC light-heavyweight champions, with the fourth coming at the hands of #4 ranked light heavyweight Phil Davis.

History in weight class

Machida’s win over Munoz showed he could be match ready after dropping in weight class from light heavyweight (205 lbs) to middleweight (185 lbs). It’s a cut Mousasi is making for the first time for this fight, which is noteworthy because we haven’t seen how he’s reacted to either the loss of muscle or the major weight cut he’ll be experiencing leading up to weigh-ins on February 14th, the day before the fight. A tough weight cut can have a very real effect on a fighter’s performance.

Frequency of fights

While Mousasi’s recent record is strong, inspection of the timeframe in which he earned those wins provides a strike against him. His win over Latifi on April 6th, 2013 was the last time he fought, after having no fights in 2012. Two fights against mediocre opponents in 26 months isn’t much of a barometer on current form.

Injury history

Simply, Mousasi has had knee issues. 2012 was missed due to surgery following a torn ACL, and further knee surgery sidelined him for the last half of 2013. Many fighters never fully recover from injuries of this nature. Sore knees can deprive a fighter of both effective kicks and explosive takedowns. This fight will be the first test of that surgically repaired knee, and even if it’s fight fit, Machida has the experience to know how to attack it.

In past MMA articles like this one, we’ve written about the tendency for markets to overvalue fighters with name recognition, and that could be at play here. To be fair to Mousasi’s chances, Machida is a former UFC champion, and the aforementioned 4-4 record in recent fights could be the start of a decline Mousasi could take advantage of. The reality though is that Mousasi has a number of factors stacked against him; the underdog tag is well deserved. Of course, if you disagree with the assessment, you’re welcome to put your money where your mouth is.

Click here to see the latest UFC Fight Night 36 Betting – Machida vs. Mousasi 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, 7 февраля 2014 г.

Will Nadal’s dominance at Roland Garros continue?

By Dan Weston Feb 7, 2014

Tennis bettor’s attention should start to focus on the second major of the year, the French Open. With ATP French Open betting odds now available this preview looks at the main contenders for the French Open title.

Statistics to discount and the importance of fitness

At Roland Garros last year, the men’s event had 77.3% service holds, which was slightly above the 75.9% ATP hard court average. In 2012 holds were 75.5%, so it’s difficult to infer that the courts are either fast or slow, and these stats should not have a significant bearing in betting decisions this year.

As we pointed out in the Australian Open preview, it’s worth taking some time to ensure readers are aware that Grand Slam matches are played over the best of five sets, with the finalists needing to play seven matches in a fortnight. The consequence of this is that fitness is an even more crucial facet of success for players in Grand Slam events, and getting through the early matches without playing long, five set matches is critical.

Fitness is an even more crucial facet of success for players in Grand Slam events

Nadal’s dominance

Whilst favourites tend to be dominant in Grand Slams, there has been no more dominant favourite historically than Rafael Nadal – currently priced at 1.617* – at the French Open. The Spaniard has won eight of the last nine tournaments, only failing to do so in 2009 when he lost to Robin Soderling, priced 1.033.

Not only this, he has a truly incredible 59-1 venue record and also has a 48-2 record in his last 50 matches on clay. These are stats that mean he should be very hard to beat as usual this year, although injury concerns stemming from the Australian Open mean that it might be worthwhile assessing him in some warm-up events prior to backing him.

Nadal’s victims in the final have all comprised of top five seeds except Mariano Puerta in 2005. After beating Nadal in 2009, Soderling got to the final as 23rd seed, losing to Roger Federer in straight sets. Just Soderling, Puerta and Gaston Gaudio (in 2004) have got to the final without being seeded in the top 5 – so 17 out of the 20 finalists in the last ten years have been seeded in the top five.

The statistics in the table below illustrates Nadal’s dominance on clay in the past 12 months.

Player

Rank

12 Month Clay W-L Record

12 Month Clay Service Hold %

12 Month Clay Break Opponent %

Combined %

Nadal

38-2

87.3

38.5

125.8

Djokovic

12-3

83.1

34.3

117.4

Wawrinka

24-7

85.5

27.5

113.0

Del Potro

2-2

75.5

29.2

104.7

Ferrer

21-6

77.9

39.5

117.4

Murray

3-3

70.8

21.9

92.7

Berdych

9-6

24.6

103.6

Federer

12-5

84.3

112.3

Gasquet

7-5

81.7

28.7

110.4

Tsonga

10-4

25.3

111.3

We can see from the above table that Nadal’s combined service hold and break opponent percentage is 8.4% above both Novak Djokovic 3.590* and David Ferrer 37.030*, who are equal second, and is in excess of 12% above the next best player, Australian Open champion Stanislas Wawrinka 31.370*.

Djokovic, Ferrer & Wawrinka

It’s worth noting that Djokovic’s stats may be a little unflattering on the Serb as he struggled with injury throughout the clay season last year, but he did beat Nadal on clay in the final of the Monte Carlo Masters before losing in consecutive weeks to Grigor Dimitrov and Tomas Berdych.

He lost in a 5-set epic to Nadal in the semi-final of last year’s French Open, but with these two players ranked in the top two this time, any potential meeting will be in the final. However, history is not on Djokovic’s side with just one final in his career here (a 4-set defeat to Nadal in 2012).

Ferrer has a strong win-loss record on his favoured clay surface and is available at a much bigger price than Djokovic – however that is due to several reasons. Firstly, he has a very poor 22-7 head to head deficit (17-1 on clay) against Nadal, who he would almost certainly have to beat at some point to win the tournament, and a very poor 20-37 record on clay against top ten opponents – he tends to have issues against his higher ranked peers.

Can Stanislas Wawrinka recreate his Australian Open magic and win a second consecutive Grand Slam? Interestingly, stats support clay being his best surface and he is definitely a threat to any player on his day. Having stopped the rot of 26 consecutive set losses against Nadal, perhaps the newly crowned Swiss number one can cause him difficulties again.

The table above also shows there are several players – Roger Federer and Jo-Wilfried Tsonga – who aren’t quite at the level of the players above, but are better than the rest in the top ten.

Can Federer or Tsonga cause an upset?

Federer 31.500* has a superb record at Roland Garros, winning 58 and losing 13 in his career. Despite clay not being his favourite surface, he has made the final five times in the last eight years and has to be respected on that basis. However, he suffered some ignominious defeats last season on the dirt, losing to Kei Nishikori, Daniel Brands and Federico Delbonis all when priced under 1.27, and his general decline should be a worry.

Tsonga is available at 56.360* with very similar stats to Federer. However, the Frenchman probably hasn’t been at his best since an injury lay-off and, as with Ferrer, tends to struggle to get wins against top ranked players on clay, with a 3-9 record against top ten players on the surface.

Murray & Del Potro

Andy Murray – third favourite at 23.200* – does not have the best clay record and with his back perhaps not at its best in the Australian Open, this will not help his movement on clay either. Clearly the above sample is small on the Scotsman having missed the event last season with back problems but overall he doesn’t have the best record on clay with a 60-41 career record, and against top 10 players on the surface he is another that has struggled – winning just one (against Nikolay Davydenko in 2009) match out of 12 in his career.

The final player to consider is Juan Martin Del Potro who is the 28.740* fourth favourite. The Argentinian’s fairly limited return game shows some improvement on the surface, but similarly to Murray, he didn’t play much on clay last season.

His record over the last two years is reasonable though, winning 16 and losing five on the surface, holding 83.1% and breaking 29.7%, so he clearly does deserve respect if he performs well in warm-up events.

It is very difficult to see a finalist coming from a player not discussed, with statistics and historical trends significantly counting against lower ranked players. Only Tomas Berdych – 72.940* – (who also has an awful career record against Nadal) is priced under the 166.86* price on Nicolas Almagro, who is, at the time of writing, about to make his comeback from a shoulder injury which has kept him out for three months at Vina Del Mar.

As always, it is worth stressing that betting in Grand Slams is a very different proposition to the normal 3 set ATP matches. It’s vital that bettors do their research and make the necessary adjustments if they are to profit in the French Open.

Click here for the latest ATP French Open 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.

Can Williams win at Roland Garros?

By Dan Weston Feb 7, 2014

With a number of WTA players currently priced below 50.000, the women’s French Open promises to be more open than the ATP. This preview looks at where the value may be and focuses on the main contenders to help bettors pick a WTA winner.

WTA French Open winner not a formality

As we mentioned in the Australian Open preview, is vital that bettors treat the WTA version (best of three sets) as a completely different betting proposition to the ATP version (best of five sets). Whilst the men’s competition is a supreme test of fitness, the women’s tournament is no different in match duration to normal events.

Historical trends support the assertion that the event will be quite open with Serena Williams winning the event just once (beating Maria Sharapova in last year’s final). Furthermore, 12 of the 20 finalists of the last ten years were seeded outside the top five and four finalists (including 2010 winner Francesca Schiavone) were seeded outside the top ten.

12 of the 20 finalists of the last ten years were seeded outside the top five

Even with a historically mediocre (for her) 30-7 tournament record, Williams is currently available as the 2.290* favourite, and based on her overall clay stats in the table below, this would appear very reasonable. She did not participate in 2011, but lost in the first round to Virginie Razzano, priced 1.010, in 2012, and Sam Stosur (priced 1.486) in the quarter-finals in 2010. A further worry for Williams backers would be her recent defeat to Ana Ivanovic in the Australian Open and it will be interesting to see how she performs in the warm-up events.

The table below illustrates the incredible statistical dominance of Williams on clay, and covers all players currently priced under 110.00 in the outright markets.

Player

Rank

12 Month Clay W-L Record

12 Month Clay Service Hold %

12 Month Clay Break Opponent %

Combined %

S. Williams

28-0

84.4

59.6

144.0

Azarenka

10-3

66.4

50.8

117.2

Li Na

5-4

62.9

44.4

107.3

Radwanska

5-3

63.2

46.7

109.9

Sharapova

17-2

76.5

43.9

120.4

Kvitova

10-5

67.1

41.6

108.7

Errani

20-5

65.3

52.3

117.6

Jankovic

21-6

71.9

46.2

118.1

Kerber

8-3

71.7

38.6

110.3

Halep

16-5

68.3

58.3

121.6

Ivanovic

9-4

70.8

43.1

113.9

Cibulkova

4-5

43.3

103.3

Stosur

6-5

70.1

40.6

110.7

Stephens

7-5

67.5

34.2

101.7

Bouchard

9-5

65.5

45.3

110.8

Williams’ combined hold/break stats are over 22% bigger than her nearest competitor – Simona Halep. Clearly given full fitness and motivation, she will definitely be the player to beat.

Victoria Azarenka 6.370*, Maria Sharapova 9.540* and Na Li 10.310* are the three players closest to Williams in the current markets and based on last year’s results and stats, Sharapova looks to be the player that can push the world number one the closest here. However, with Williams winning her last fourteen head to head matches, Sharapova will have to overcome significant mental scars to get past her.

Azarenka, Li & Radwanska

Azarenka’s status as second favourite is probably down to her world ranking and career record (several wins in the last two years) against Williams as opposed to her ability on clay – her stats over last season weren’t hugely impressive for the world number two.

Australian Open winner Na Li will be able to take confidence into Roland Garros but played just four clay court tournaments in 2013. In those she lost as strong favourite three times, to Madison Keys (1.04), Jelena Jankovic (1.479) and Bethanie Mattek-Sands (1.262). Having played just nine matches on clay in 2013, her sample is fairly small so going back to 2012 is useful. Since 2012 she won 16 and lost eight on clay, holding 71.7% and breaking 41.8%, thus generating a combined percentage of 113.5. This would still put her 7th in the top 10 on clay and it will be difficult for her to consolidate her Australian Open title when considering that.

As mentioned in our Australian Open preview, Agnieszka Radwanska – fifth favourite at 27.55 – has just one Grand Slam final in her career (a loss to Serena Williams in Wimbledon 2012), and as on hard court, the stats show her level to be below the other members of the top five. Only Petra Kvitova and Na Li had worse clay court stats than the Pole in 2013. Against top ten opponents on clay, she is a very poor 3-8, with victories over Ivanovic, Schiavone and Li (two as favourite).

There are five further players priced below 50.00 in the outright markets, and it’s worth focusing some attention on those as contenders.

Also worth considering

Simona Halep is the same price as Radwanska currently – 27.550* – and the stats support her claims. She had some impressive victories on clay last season, winning the events at Nurnburg and Budapest, and getting to the semi-finals of the Rome Premier tournament. However, her stats may be a little flattered by some dominant wins over poor opponents in low-level events, and with a 6-16 career record against top ten opponents, doubts persist about her ability to compete with the best.

Sloane Stephens and Sam Stosur are both available at 30.210* but the table above indicates that Stosur has much better clay stats than Stephens, holding 2.6% more and breaking 6.4% more on the surface last season. With Stephens still young, she has plenty of time to improve, but based on current stats it’s hard to make a case for her.

Both Sara Errani and Petra Kvitova are currently priced at 32.850* but they could not be further apart in their overall style – Errani has a weak serve but a superb return game, whereas Kvitova is the complete opposite. We mentioned in the Australian Open preview that Kvitova’s tendency to play three set matches hinders her in Grand Slam events as the accumulated fatigue this generates will mean she is less fresh than her opponents. Furthermore, this puts her at risk of elimination in what is effectively a ‘one-set shootout’ more than fellow top 10 players, as witnessed by her shock defeat by Luksika Kumkhum in the Australian Open.

Errani is also much more comfortable on her favoured clay surface, but unlike Kvitova, perhaps lacks the mental strength to beat higher ranked players. The Italian is a horrific 8-40 against top 10 players in her career.

Best of the rest

Angelique Kerber, Ana Ivanovic, Eugenie Bouchard (all priced currently at 54.050*). Australian Open runner-up Dominika Cibulkova (64.930*) and Jelena Jankovic (96.440*) are the five players priced between 50.00 and 100.00 in the outright markets and with historical trends supporting a lower ranked player making the final, these players cannot be ruled out.

The stats in the table above shows that Jankovic in particular is a threat, and with a 29-11 record in the event, as well as three previous semi-finals, her ability on clay is a given. It can be argued that clay is Ivanovic’s best surface, and she too can have a good run here.

Finally Eugenie Bouchard has progressed hugely since last season and cannot be written off by any means. When the tournament starts, she will be just 20-years-old and it’s perhaps this inexperience that will hamper her, but she is without doubt a player of high ability and potential and it will be interesting to see how she progresses.

Click here for the latest WTA French Open 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.

суббота, 1 февраля 2014 г.

Do statistics suggest previous award success presage an Oscar?

By Michael Gales Jan 31, 2014

Oscars betting is a popular market before the Academy polls close on February 25th. This article looks at historical data to see if it’s possible to predict the winner of these prestigious awards by looking at other key ceremonies?

As we approach the end of the film awards season, bettors turn their attention to the main attraction: The Oscars. The nominations for the prestigious accolades were announced on January 16th, and that same day odds for the winner of the Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor and Best Actress were posted at Pinnacle Sports.

Predicting the outcome of the Oscars

The key question for bettors is can you predict the winner of these prestigious awards by looking at other results? Three influential awards ceremonies – the Screen Actors Guild (SAG), Golden Globes and the Critics’ Choice – have already handed out prizes for these categories, this season. How reliable are these as predictors for Oscar glory? The table below highlights the 2013 winners for the four categories at these three award ceremonies.

2013 Winners in the Road to the Oscars

Golden Globes

Critics’ Choice

SAG

Best Picture

12 Years A Slave

American Hustle

Best Actor

Matthew McConaughey

Best Actress

Cate Blanchett

Best Director

Alfonso Cuarn

N/A

The diagram below shows how often these awards chose the same winner for the four categories as the Oscars. (For the Golden Globes the data is a combination of both drama and musical and comedy.)

Best Picture: Does American Hustle have an outside chance?

The stats suggest the Oscar for best picture will go to either 12 Years a Slave, or American Hustle. Only twice – Braveheart (1995) and Million Dollar Baby (2004) – since 1995 have all three-award ceremonies failed to pick the eventual winner.

The statistics show that the Golden Globes have predicted the Oscar winner for the Best Picture 66% of the time since 1960. Second are the Critics’ Choice with a prediction success rate of 61% since 1995, and finally the SAG (50%).

However, a look at the last decade suggests the Golden Globes powers of prediction are waning having predicted the winner just 40% of the time.

Furthermore, the Critics’ Choice awards have picked the same Best Picture winner as the Oscars for six out of the last seven years (the exception being The Social Network in 2010) and have been correct 70% of the time over the past ten years.

Either way both ceremonies chose 12 Years a Slave as the winner of the best Picture and the Pinnacle bookmakers have the film as the 1.333* favourites ahead of Gravity 3.790* and the American Hustle 4.230*.

Interestingly the American Hustle is third favourite despite being selected as the SAG winner – the SAG has picked the winner only twice before since 1995 when selecting a different film compared to both the Golden Globes and the Critics’ Choice – Crash (2005) and The King’s Speech (2010).

Best Actor & Actress: Are McConaughey & Blanchett a ‘shoe in’?

The Golden Globes and the SAG have been the most reliable ceremonies at predicting the Best Actor and Actress Oscar winners.

The statistics highlight that the Golden Globes have picked the same best actor as the Oscars 76% of the time since 1960, while the SAG have a 1% increase since 1995, including picking the same winners in the last nine years.

Since 1995 all three ceremonies have selected the same winner as the Oscars on nine (50%) occasions. This year they have selected Matthew McConaughey, and the bookies believe this is a pre-cursor with odds as short as 1.324*, which resembles an implied probability of 75.53%.

Only twice before in 2001 and 2002 – Denzel Washington and Adrien Brody respectively – have all three been wrong, which gives second favourite Chiwetel Ejiofor a chance at 4.100*.

The best Actress winner sees the Golden Globes have a better success rate than the other two awards at 70% including the past four winners, while the SAG are slightly behind on 68%. However, the Critics Choice have only picked the same winner as the Oscars 50% of the time.

Like the best Actor category all three ceremonies have selected the same actress prior to the Oscars – Cate Blanchett. In the eight years that all three have selected the same winner, the actress has gone on to win at the Oscars 87.5% of the time.

Pinnacle Sports have Blanchett as the massive 1.092* favourite, giving her an implied probability of 91.58%. History doesn’t look good for second favourite Amy Adams 8.770*, with Kate Winslet in 2008 being the only time since 1995 that either the Golden Globes or the SAG have not picked the eventual Oscar winner.

Best Director: Can Alfonso Cuarn clean up?

In comparison to the best Actor/Actress awards it is the Critics Choice winner instead of the Golden Globes selection that bettors should take more notice of when selecting the Oscar winner for Best Director.

The Critics’ Choice has picked the same Best Director as the Oscars on 77% of occasions compared to just 49% by the Golden Globes. In fact the Globes have failed to predict the winner for the last four years.

Gravity director Alfonso Cuarn won both the Golden Globe and the Critics’ Choice award and is the heavy 1.064* favourite with Pinnacle Sports. Nevertheless, both have been wrong on three occasions which gives Steve McQueen a chance of winning at 6.100*.

How influential are previous Oscar nominations?

We have highlighted trends for Oscar winners based on winners at three influential ceremonies leading up to the Oscars, but how significant are past Oscar nominations in predicting a winner?

The graph below looks at three Oscar categories – Best Actor, Best Actress and Best Director – in terms of:

Whether the winner had won an Oscar before

If they had been nominated before?

The average times a winner was nominated before winning?

How many winners had won at their first attempt?

Interestingly and somewhat surprisingly repeat Oscar winners are rare. Since 1960 Only 11% of Best Actor winners had claimed an Oscar previously, which is slightly worse than Best Director (17%) and Best Actress (19%).

Only The Wolf Of Wall Street director Martin Scorcese 50.350* has won an Oscar for Best Director from the current nominations, while Sandra Bullock (1) 9.930* and Meryl Streep (2) 37.010* have won three Oscars for Best Actress between them. None of the actors in for an award have won previously.

29 directors have won an Oscar on their first nomination and this trend is expected again this year, as Alfonso Cuarn, and Steve McQueen are the two favourites. A win for either would go against the trend that sees the winner of Best Director collect an Oscar on average after 2.02 nominations – Both David Owen Russell 14.060* and Alexander Payne 188.640* have been nominated twice before without success.

On average it takes 2.39 nominations to win the Best Actor Oscar, while 57% of winners had been nominated before. However only Leonardo Di Caprio 7.970* has been nominated before – twice – from the current crop of nominees. This leaves favourite Matthew McConaughey, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Bruce Dern 15.430*and Christian Bale 109.670* all vying to become the 24th first nominee winner.

45% of Best Actress winners have been nominated for the award before, this year only Amy Adams in the category hasn’t been nominated previously as she aims to become the 28th actress to win an Oscar after her first nomination.

Historically it has taken an average of 2.64 nominations before winning the award. Current favourite Cate Blanchett fits the trend having been nominated twice before without winning, while Judi Dench has been nominated five times without being successful, but is an outsider at 23.470*.

This article highlight that despite statistical anomalies throughout the years previous award winners in the same year can presage an Oscar, and with more research bettors can make educated predictions based on earlier key ceremony outcomes when betting on Oscar winners.

Click here for the latest 86th Academy Awards 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.

BetFair	BetFair online BetFair site
Pinnacle	Pinnacle Sports site
BWIN	Bwin site
Unibet	Unibet site

четверг, 27 февраля 2014 г.

среда, 26 февраля 2014 г.

суббота, 22 февраля 2014 г.

четверг, 20 февраля 2014 г.

вторник, 18 февраля 2014 г.

среда, 12 февраля 2014 г.

вторник, 11 февраля 2014 г.

пятница, 7 февраля 2014 г.

суббота, 1 февраля 2014 г.

четверг, 27 февраля 2014 г.

среда, 26 февраля 2014 г.

суббота, 22 февраля 2014 г.

четверг, 20 февраля 2014 г.

вторник, 18 февраля 2014 г.

среда, 12 февраля 2014 г.

вторник, 11 февраля 2014 г.

пятница, 7 февраля 2014 г.

суббота, 1 февраля 2014 г.