Spurs undervalued on the road this season

Spurs undervalued on the road this season

By Michael Gales Feb 20, 2014

Tweet

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.

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

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

By Gary Wise Feb 18, 2014

Tweet

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.

How to find value on the lucky loser concept in tennis

How to find value on the lucky loser concept in tennis

By Dan Weston Feb 12, 2014

Tweet

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

59

39

66.1

-489

-8.29

WTA

50

26

52

-1190

-23.80

COMBINED

109

65

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

23

19

82.61

-68

-2.96

1.26-1.50

42

26

61.90

-626

-14.90

1.51-1.99

35

18

51.43

-524

-14.97

2.00+

9

2

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.

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.

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

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

By Gary Wise Feb 11, 2014

Tweet

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.

Will Nadal’s dominance at Roland Garros continue?

Will Nadal’s dominance at Roland Garros continue?

By Dan Weston Feb 7, 2014

Tweet

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

1

38-2

87.3

38.5

125.8

Djokovic

2

12-3

83.1

34.3

117.4

Wawrinka

3

24-7

85.5

27.5

113.0

Del Potro

4

2-2

75.5

29.2

104.7

Ferrer

5

21-6

77.9

39.5

117.4

Murray

6

3-3

70.8

21.9

92.7

Berdych

7

9-6

79

24.6

103.6

Federer

8

12-5

84.3

28

112.3

Gasquet

9

7-5

81.7

28.7

110.4

Tsonga

10

10-4

86

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.

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.

*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?

Can Williams win at Roland Garros?

By Dan Weston Feb 7, 2014

Tweet

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

1

28-0

84.4

59.6

144.0

Azarenka

2

10-3

66.4

50.8

117.2

Li Na

3

5-4

62.9

44.4

107.3

Radwanska

4

5-3

63.2

46.7

109.9

Sharapova

5

17-2

76.5

43.9

120.4

Kvitova

6

10-5

67.1

41.6

108.7

Errani

7

20-5

65.3

52.3

117.6

Jankovic

8

21-6

71.9

46.2

118.1

Kerber

9

8-3

71.7

38.6

110.3

Halep

10

16-5

68.3

58.3

121.6

Ivanovic

12

9-4

70.8

43.1

113.9

Cibulkova

13

4-5

60

43.3

103.3

Stosur

16

6-5

70.1

40.6

110.7

Stephens

18

7-5

67.5

34.2

101.7

Bouchard

19

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.

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.

*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.

Do statistics suggest previous award success presage an Oscar?

Do statistics suggest previous award success presage an Oscar?

By Michael Gales Jan 31, 2014

Tweet

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

12 Years A Slave

American Hustle

Best Actor

Matthew McConaughey

Matthew McConaughey

Matthew McConaughey

Best Actress

Cate Blanchett

Cate Blanchett

Cate Blanchett

Best Director

Alfonso Cuarn

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.