defs hoping federer to win. my guess in 3 sets
you guys make this sound so much more complex than it needs to be; so you're willing to bet on someone who you honestly dont believe will win, but is a favourable choice of investment option due to probability/odds ratio? Why not just bet on the players with good odds when you actually think they have a good chance of winning? Is making profit thru probability satisfying or something..?
Yes, that is exactly right - the probability/odds ratio is absolutely critical in betting. Because if you think they have a good chance of winning, so will the bookies and hence your odds won't be good. It's like this, say Nadal vs. Random guy (ranked lowly) - the odds are usually $17 or $21 for the random guy, depending on how shit he is. But the truth is, that shit guy will probably win more than 1/17 or 1/21 times, as seen in the 2nd Round of Wimbledon - Nadal lost to Rosol - no one expected Nadal to lose, neither did anyone expect Rosol to have a chance, I would have never thought that Rosol would win (I didn't bet on that match because I was on holidays) - but the fact that whether something is a good bet or not actually has NOTHING to do with whether you think Rosol will win or not, it's the PROBABILITY of Rosol winning, not the fact that Rosol is FAVOURED over Nadal.
Look, you can bet for fun, but if you're in it to make serious money, you have to research it and place bets tactically, like I look at analysis on players, I have a spreadsheet and table all calculated to keep track of my bets and my winnings and where my revenue is coming from...etc.
I can see Paul is looooooooosinggggg his moneyyyyyyyyy
Edited: Paul did lose his money
No, I actually won, because I won two bets and lost two bets, with the winning two being good odds
- Lost $30 on Radwanska winning
- Won $22 on Men's Doubles
- Lost $10 on Women's Doubles
- Won $24 on Radwanska v Williams - Over 19.5 games