« | Main | Draw possibilities: 2020 Roland Garros. »

09/23/2020

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Gary  Lee  Moser

Before the tourney began, I bet $1 on Venus at 300-to-1 to take the title.
[ Thought I could recoup the $1, and a little more, by having Venus win a match or two before succumbing ]

Not to be.

In her opening contest today, she lost 6-4, 6-4 to 26-year-old Anna Karolina Schmiedlova ---
WHO HADN'T WON A GRAND-SLAM MAIN DRAW MATCH SINCE THE YEAR 2015.

Hmmm...

I think going forward, I'll just bet heavily on the opponent in each match,
then double my bet on the next opponent if Venus happens to get past the first one, etc.
[ In my conviction that the 40-year-old will never again win 7 consecutive GS matches ]

Tennis Planet

Why is the draw (PDF) not being freaking updated?

https://fft-rg-site.cdn.prismic.io/fft-rg-site/50dfa49b-435e-4242-9970-8d98d3bc0393_Men_s_Singles_20200927215201.pdf

Alpha

Not sure your Martingale works. It only works if odds stay the same or improve for the opponent. So, Venus could say win 3 and you lose $1 + $2 + $4 =$7. Then you bet $8 on Venus but she's playing Serena and the odds are 50c for Serena, so you get back $4. You've lost $3. In short, the only way you make money is if Venus loses a match she is ether favoured to win or it's very close. The odds on the opponent are 1:1 or at least 7:8 or 15:16 etc. Does your conviction go so far as to say that the 40 year old is unlikely to be favored in the later rounds of a GS?

Gary  Lee  Moser

Just read your rejoinder --- without analyzing it ( which I WILL, though ) and have to ask:
since you've obviously thought this through WAY more than I have [ seriously, not facetiously ],
how much are you ahead financially?

P.S. - and even if you're going to end up destroying me here,
thanks much for introducing me to the term "martingale" within the gaming lexicon.

Gary  Lee  Moser

Ummm...if I'm betting on Venus' OPPONENT in Rounds 1,2 & 3,
and am quite OK with losing $7 total, as you correctly calculate, should Venus in a mild upset win all 3,
then why would I "bet $8 on Venus" --- AGAINST the opponent (Serena), instead of ON the opponent --- in R4?

No. In keeping with my stated strategy, I would most certainly be betting the $8 ON the opponent, Serena.
[ If anything, I would be making a GREATER-THAN-$8 bet ON SERENA. ]

And should Venus mystically pull off the major upset against her younger sibling, then I would be
(1) gratified by Serena being gone [ at a very agreeable cost to me of only $15+ ], and
(2) have 3 more rounds to bet against Venus running-the-table to her 8th Slam...TWELVE YEARS after her 7th.

[ Plus, beyond the specifics here...yeah, my "will never again win 7 consecutive GS matches"
means UNEQUIVOCALLY that I don't see Venus ever being favored in the later round of a GS,
unless fortunate enough to go against a relative-unknown on a mystical first-and-only-time-run [ Melanie Oudin? ]

Alpha

I don't bet on sports. But I have studied probability and do use it in my everyday work.

Btw, my intent was not to "destroy" you, nor did it require a lot of thought. You were referring to a very common gambling strategy.

Gary  Lee  Moser

Sorry...I should have went with "destroying" instead of destroying.

Even when I suspect, rightfully or not, that you honestly think I'm full of shit
on a particular topic or point, I always have total respect for the way you make your case,
and therefore greatly enjoy our exchanges.

And, yes...repeated-doubling-down in anticipation of a (perceived) certain eventual loss
is as much of a "very common gambling strategy" as the riding-of-a-winner-until-they-lose
[ the so-called "hot-hand-fallacy" as colorfully demonstrated in the movie THE BIG SHORT ].

Neither are ever bullet-proof in any one instance, of course.
But, in athletic circles, advancing age way more often than not gives the gambler
a steadily increasing edge due to what A. J. Liebling referred to as "the outrageous fortunes of chronology".
[ Ali was 54-2-0-0 before going 1-3-0-0...Sugar Ray Robinson was 127-1-2-0 before going 46-18-4-2 ]

Alpha

No, I've never thought you are full of shit. I'm sorry if I've ever given that impression. In fact, you have one of best eyes for numbers that I have ever see. You pick detail, connections, etc that is rare and enjoyable. I often go wow. That's the truth.

Btw, I had a typo. I meant bet on Serena as you would always bet on the Venus' opponent. That's the strategy, right? That's why I said you'd get $4 back and lose $3.

Gary  Lee  Moser

My "full of shit" is a relatively rare ( at least I hope & believe ) instance of overstatement on my part ---
sorry! --- but, more importantly, intended or not, only on a PROFESSIONAL level; certainly not a PERSONAL one.
[ Like a non-Trump pol who sometimes rides-roughshod over a rival's POSITION, but still totally respects the MAN ]

IMO, this Forum would have been much less meaningful all these years without your passionate and learned input.
Fervently hope that continues for many more. Cheers!

Gary  Lee  Moser

[ The following reminds me of the old saying "Trust nothing of what you hear, and only half of what you see." ]

The Reuters account of Cori Gauff's loss to qualifier Martina Trevisan [ 4-6, 6-2, 7-5 ]
included the following assertion: "...following a solid opening set...".

Emphasis on "solid".

You're up 4-0...and then have your serve broken NOT ONCE BUT TWICE before prevailing 6-4.

Solid?

Tennis Planet

Draw keeps getting softer and softer for Nadal.

Bettyjane

Did anyone see the Wawrinka match? He's saying conditions are great for him and feels he can beat "everybody" and then gets bageled in the 5th set? Loads of service breaks on both sides.

Alpha

Nadal plays Sebastien Korda next. Son of AO winner Petr. Brother of Nellie Korda (World #2 golfer) and Jessica (World #22) golfer. Pretty good genes I'd say. After that it is Zverev, Thiem, and Djokovic. If doesn't get much tougher than that.

Bettyjane

This is a rare instance where Nadal has an easier draw than Nadal.

Alpha

What’s going to hurt the Fed fan more? #20 or a double career slam and almost certain 311?

Alpha

Luckily Rafa and Diego go first so this planet knows whom to root for. It’s Diego in the first match. If he wins, it’s Tsitsipas in the second match. If Rafa wins, it’s Novak all the way. Would have been very confusing if Tsitsipas v Djokovic match had been first.

Gary  Lee  Moser

"Rafa wins, it’s Novak all the way."
----------------------------------
For me, even if I stand alone, it's RAFA all the way.

A RAFA WIN: ties Federer with 20 total Slams, yes...but keeps Novak 3-at-bay from both Of them.
Plus, Nadal will still trail badly in almost every other category I hold dear.

A DJOK WIN: gives him double-career-Grand-Slam...only man to beat Rafa twice at FO...
1st man in 13 attempts to beat Rafa in FO Final...only 1 behind Rafa and only 2 behind
Roger with AO a little more than 3 months away...

[ Plus -- pre-tournament, I put $20-to-win-$25 on the Serb ]

Vamos!

Bettyjane

Actually this is the first time ever that I will be pulling for Rafa.. Even if he wins 3 more of these and Roger remains at 20...it merely reinforces Rafa's greatness and invincibility on clay. Not to belittle that. But relative to the GOAT thing which will probably change every ten years anyway

O

I'm sure Rafa will deliver a beating to Djokovic, but I thought Tsitsipas will beat Djokovic.

Gary  Lee  Moser

Tsit may yet --- just evened it at 2 sets apiece.

O

To be clear, I still think Tsitsipas will be Djokovic. Djokovic will have little chance against Rafa, he doesn't match up well. The opportunity to meet Rafa here in the final is almost a burden, maybe very much a burden?

Gary  Lee  Moser

...only to completely roll over in the 5th, 6-1.

[ Two -- count 'em -- TWO "lost generations", making it ridiculously easy for Rafa & Novak to expanded their numbers ]

O

Federer rooting for Rafa to get to 20 right now?

Gary  Lee  Moser

I think so, for the reasons I enumerated above.

Alpha

Gary, same number of slams, significantly more Masters, better H2H. In the court of public opinion, it’ll be over. The case was already being made when Rafa was behind. To the diehard Roger fan, there will always be nuances — the clay bias, no WTFs — but it won’t matter.

If Novak wins though, the conversation is over. Novak will have every statistical advantage , if not now then soon, plus that he got Rafa at the FO, something Roger could never do. Plus we got Roger at Wimbledon multiple times.

I thunk Novak gets Roger anyway, regardless of thr FO outcome tomorrow. This is whether Roger is #2 or 3. If Rafa wins, he’s probably #3. If Novak wins, he probably hangs on to #2 unless Rafa gets one more.

Alpha

I stated it poorly. I meant Roger is fighting to be #2 or 3. Novak is going to get #1 anyway, whether he wins tomorrow or not. If he wins tomorrow, the conversation will end earlier. But Roger stays alive for being #2. If Rafa wins, he is #3.

Gary  Lee  Moser

Quick response [ without my usual analysis ]:

If Novak wins on Sunday...yes, BIG shift in "public opinion" for him being #1 of the 3.

But if Rafa wins on Sunday...I believe there will be a very-IMMEDIATE-but-MEDIUM shift
in "public opinion" for him having matched Roger --- but learned fans will be not-so-convinced
because of the overwhelming clay-centric nature of their H2H metrics.

[ And, of course...I personally have never given two shits about "public opinion" ---
even when it applies to subjects like religion and politics that are WAY more important than a minor sport. ]

Gary  Lee  Moser

First time ever, to my knowledge, that Novak & I have simultaneously eaten a bagel.

Bettyjane

Roof on and lower bounce...Fed must be disappointed he couldn't have this opportunity

O

Djokovic played great to reach the final, but Rafa is too strong. He's got 13> maybe he is thinking about 30?

Gary  Lee  Moser

Looks like the only remaining mystery is whether or not
Novak will end up with more than the 4 games Roger got in 2008...

O

If I were Djokovic, I'd hit the umpire, line judges and ball kids and try to get disqualified. If anything, to teach these organizers a lesson

O

I don't think Rafa should allow Djokovic more than 4 games, because Djokovic is more dangerous than Federer.

Bettyjane

This isn't over yet folks

O

Djokovic once pushed Rafa to a five set 9-7 finish? Maybe that one was the most competitive match Rafa ever played?

Gary  Lee  Moser

Cost me $60, but I'm happy...[ would've won $290 if Novak had staged miracle comeback ]

Gary  Lee  Moser

If you look at the ATP rankings going into this tournament,
you'll notice that the other 13 players in the Top 16 besides Novak/Rafa/Roger
have collectively won ONE SLAM in their careers to date [ Thiem at the USO last month ].

Tennis Planet

Is Nadal the only one to dish a bagel to his TWO arched and straightened rivals - @ his 'Home' Slam?

O

In the next 5-10 years, maybe Rafa will be eve more dominant at RG?

O

At least RAfa can aim at the most slams ever? 24? 25?

Bettyjane

Terrific showing by Nadal. They took turns dominating each other in the finals of their favorite major.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)