Australian Open 2021

[Trader Pat]

At the risk of sounding like a really annoying football commentator when a player scores a penalty, that was never really in doubt after the break in play. Gave Djokovic the chance to regroup and more importantly time for the meds to kick in.

how much did you make since it was never in doubt?

Actually not much more than I would have made if the break in play never happened, I'd already layed Fritz before that so it wasn't like I started smashing the lay button when they went off court.

2 points worth remembering, this is Djokovic we're talking about, nobody on the tour has milked injuries more than he has over the years. How many times in the big tournaments has he looked on the verge of collapse or retirement only to come back and win? And the 2nd point tennis markets always massively overreact to perceived injuries, especially when the commentators start giving the last rites

Before anybody says otherwise I'm not saying he's feigning injury, just saying he's the master at managing them in play.

[eightbo]

This match presented an excellent opportunity there in the fifth set.

you mind sharing at what point you got on djokovic?
i assume you waited for first signs of him coping better in the fifth set, before the price caught on?

I wondered as well, looking back at the recording heres what I found, ~2.40 on offer before the set or after each Fritz service game.
Big upside given djoko service had remained solid even despite injury, could dump for low risk if Fritz got break potential

there was a time were fritz was noticeably rattled and lost his composure although I'm not gonna sift through and find the exact time,
could have used that as a signal to get in if not already on for a trade

Thought back at ~1.23 post-break seemed a bit high as well but not as much value as above


...
What reasons do they turn XM off in tennis mkts — was it at all related to the Victoria covid announcement when play paused for 10m?

[Trader Pat]

Djokovic available at >1.60 against Raonic.

Worth a nibble for me

[rik]

2 points worth remembering, this is Djokovic we're talking about, nobody on the tour has milked injuries more than he has over the years. How many times in the big tournaments has he looked on the verge of collapse or retirement only to come back and win? And the 2nd point tennis markets always massively overreact to perceived injuries, especially when the commentators start giving the last rites

Before anybody says otherwise I'm not saying he's feigning injury, just saying he's the master at managing them in play.

you think federer or nadal would have been 40/60 break down in the fourth, in pain not moving properly similiar pre match odds
thats like backing overs on manchester city because they score a lot

[Trader Pat]

2 points worth remembering, this is Djokovic we're talking about, nobody on the tour has milked injuries more than he has over the years. How many times in the big tournaments has he looked on the verge of collapse or retirement only to come back and win? And the 2nd point tennis markets always massively overreact to perceived injuries, especially when the commentators start giving the last rites

Before anybody says otherwise I'm not saying he's feigning injury, just saying he's the master at managing them in play.

you think federer or nadal would have been 40/60 break down in the fourth, in pain not moving properly similiar pre match odds
thats like backing overs on manchester city because they score a lot

Sorry Rik I don't understand your point?

[rik]

i meant nadal would have been odds 10 in that situation as he doesnt have a history of exaggerating injuries
i was just mad i got it wrong anyway

[mishac]

you can always hope something like that pays off but the result doesn't matter much come the end of the quarter

Would be interesting to hear how people approach identifying when a model breaks e.g. if you are sleeping with the bots running
...do you set some criteria to check for a big deviation then not fire if deviation = 1 ?
...or perhaps just manage the liability and let it run 24/7 ?

If you have a successful automated model in any sport, it will lose, frequently. A successful model just returns more in wins than you lose. To answer your question above, based on that, I would let it run 24/7 and manage the liability. I do the same. Some mornings I get up I win. Some mornings I get up I lose. One match means nothing as a validation of a model. At a bare minimum, a month of tennis is required (1000+ matches) to validate anything

[eightbo]

you can always hope something like that pays off but the result doesn't matter much come the end of the quarter

Would be interesting to hear how people approach identifying when a model breaks e.g. if you are sleeping with the bots running
...do you set some criteria to check for a big deviation then not fire if deviation = 1 ?
...or perhaps just manage the liability and let it run 24/7 ?

If you have a successful automated model in any sport, it will lose, frequently. A successful model just returns more in wins than you lose. To answer your question above, based on that, I would let it run 24/7 and manage the liability. I do the same. Some mornings I get up I win. Some mornings I get up I lose. One match means nothing as a validation of a model. At a bare minimum, a month of tennis is required (1000+ matches) to validate anything

Thanks for the reply.  If your model is profitable because you have modelled how the price will move using statistics e.g. ATP/WTA last 52 week stats but something on an individual match breaks that in a big way (like the djoko injury) then surely the model is now void in that case and the bets are too high risk of being -EV therefore lowering the long-term profitability of the model overall if you were to continue placing bets ?

[mishac]

you can always hope something like that pays off but the result doesn't matter much come the end of the quarter

Would be interesting to hear how people approach identifying when a model breaks e.g. if you are sleeping with the bots running
...do you set some criteria to check for a big deviation then not fire if deviation = 1 ?
...or perhaps just manage the liability and let it run 24/7 ?

If you have a successful automated model in any sport, it will lose, frequently. A successful model just returns more in wins than you lose. To answer your question above, based on that, I would let it run 24/7 and manage the liability. I do the same. Some mornings I get up I win. Some mornings I get up I lose. One match means nothing as a validation of a model. At a bare minimum, a month of tennis is required (1000+ matches) to validate anything

Thanks for the reply.  If your model is profitable because you have modelled how the price will move using statistics e.g. ATP/WTA last 52 week stats but something on an individual match breaks that in a big way (like the djoko injury) then surely the model is now void in that case and the bets are too high risk of being -EV therefore lowering the long-term profitability of the model overall if you were to continue placing bets ?

My model is a little different in that it generates a probability at each point for the match. But my point is really that if something works, you use it over the matches that it should work, and let it run. I have an "averaging" model (based on historical data) that works over all matches, but may or may not work for any one match. Yes, an injury may "invalidate" the model, and cause poor bets in one match (which is why you limit liability). But a really odd thing I have discovered is that after an injury, often the prices are rubbish, firmly against the person injured, and the so-called "injured" player may now actually be good value. In the Zverev/Medvedev match in an ATP lead-up tournament to the Australian Open, Zverev injured his back when leading one set to love. He lost the second set, but in the third it was on serve till 5-5, at which time I had averaged 3.3 on Zverev the whole of the third set. He lost, but at one set all, 5-5, I stood to win 2.5 times what I stood to lose. So in reality a good position for an almost 50/50 match at that point

[NickH]

Is it just me wondering in fognini matches if 1.55 at 2-0 is value or a great opportunity for him to once again go for the great fognini 2-3 loss show?

[eightbo]

...
My model is a little different in that it generates a probability at each point for the match. But my point is really that if something works, you use it over the matches that it should work, and let it run. I have an "averaging" model (based on historical data) that works over all matches, but may or may not work for any one match. Yes, an injury may "invalidate" the model, and cause poor bets in one match (which is why you limit liability). But a really odd thing I have discovered is that after an injury, often the prices are rubbish, firmly against the person injured, and the so-called "injured" player may now actually be good value. In the Zverev/Medvedev match in an ATP lead-up tournament to the Australian Open, Zverev injured his back when leading one set to love. He lost the second set, but in the third it was on serve till 5-5, at which time I had averaged 3.3 on Zverev the whole of the third set. He lost, but at one set all, 5-5, I stood to win 2.5 times what I stood to lose. So in reality a good position for an almost 50/50 match at that point

Very well.
thanks again, I appreciate your sharing.

[NickH]

Did anyone else see that bot mailfunctioning on 1.18 and 1.19 on the Halep match?

[gazuty]

Did anyone else see that bot mailfunctioning on 1.18 and 1.19 on the Halep match?

I always quiver when I hear of malfunctioning bots.

[LeTiss]

Make note.......when Djokovic claims he's injured, remember Djokovic is a lying bastard!

2 days ago he had a stomach tear

[Trader Pat]

Make note.......when Djokovic claims he's injured, remember Djokovic is a lying bastard!

2 days ago he had a stomach tear

Novak Lazarus marches on!

Even the comms said if it was a tear it would be practically impossible for him to move.

I'm not complaining though, I got on him to beat Raonic at 1.66 on Friday. I better take that back before I'm accused of after timing again