I've done ok on this one (Nadal v Tsitipas) but find in tennis trading generally I maybe holding on to positions for to long.
On today's match I laid Nadal when 2-0 up in sets. I did feel this was extremely speculative at the time as it felt like a fairly dominant display from Nadal to that point. But it was very low risk.
I then removed the liability on Nadal when Tsitsipas went ahead in the tie break at the end of set 3 and at that point I was sitting at break even on Nadal and a decent green on Tsitsipas (around 62% of the opening lay position).
I then moved some of the green to Nadal mid Set 4 when Tsitsipas had break points at 2-3 and then finally greened up when Tsitsipas made it 2 sets all. The final green was just over 20% of the original lay and about 3.5 times the initially risked amount if you want to look at it that way. I did nothing in the 5th set as I had to go on a work call.
It feels like a decent result but if I take a step back from it maybe not. To have laid someone at 1.06 and that player goes on to ultimately lose the match (and it was Nadal in a Grand Slam quarter final) it instinctively feels like once in a blue moon kind of stuff so I should have made more - Gamblers mentality here I guess.
Australian Open 2021
-
markyfletcher27
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2018 11:49 am
On the previous post I stated that I think generally I let positions run to long in tennis (although not specifically the one mentioned above).
As an explanation what I have found is that very often when I open a position at some point that position becomes profitable. However I tend to be waiting for fairly specific points to exit. So for example I may have opened in anticipation of a break of serve and may then have been in a positive position at say *0-30 but when the server ultimately comes back to hold that becomes a red book.
It's a difficult one as there is a temptation to "lock in" some profit pretty early although I try and stick to pre-set risk/reward ratios. I believe this is following the principal of "framing a trade" mentioned on of the guidance videos but maybe I need to be a bit more dynamic. I am running at a loss for the Aus Open overall (so I maybe just taking shit positions in fairness).
Not really much of a specific point to this but a few questions I guess for more experienced (and profitable) tennis traders.
- Are you generally looking for longer term moves (set to set) or more short term moves (game to game) or a combination of both?
- Are you generally determining positions pre match or more reacting to what you see in play (or in play stats)?
- Not sure how to term this one but are you looking for quality over quantity? What I mean by this is would you trade say 15 matches per day (quantity) relying mainly on stats or pure risk/reward maths and expect to profit on let's say 10 as you are confident in your strategies. Or would you "go bigger" on 1 or 2 matches per day and fully commit to physically watching the game (quality).
The last question is a dilemma for me as with "gambling" surely the only way to be confident you have an edge is over a large sample size. Trading 1 match per day doesn't really allow you to establish this fact. Additionally some of the strategies deployed might have say a 15% chance of success. If you adopted solely this strategy (and I realise that you would probably never be this mechanical) then you might be looking at 1 winner and 5 losers a week. Surely none of the full time traders on here would stomach that situation although going for high risk/reward strategies maybe they would?
Just wanted to share these thoughts and see if there are any more valuable nuggets out there from anyone, as reading through the posts it feels like a lot of guys are dong fantastically well on the tennis markets and I myself am more treading water at best.
As an explanation what I have found is that very often when I open a position at some point that position becomes profitable. However I tend to be waiting for fairly specific points to exit. So for example I may have opened in anticipation of a break of serve and may then have been in a positive position at say *0-30 but when the server ultimately comes back to hold that becomes a red book.
It's a difficult one as there is a temptation to "lock in" some profit pretty early although I try and stick to pre-set risk/reward ratios. I believe this is following the principal of "framing a trade" mentioned on of the guidance videos but maybe I need to be a bit more dynamic. I am running at a loss for the Aus Open overall (so I maybe just taking shit positions in fairness).
Not really much of a specific point to this but a few questions I guess for more experienced (and profitable) tennis traders.
- Are you generally looking for longer term moves (set to set) or more short term moves (game to game) or a combination of both?
- Are you generally determining positions pre match or more reacting to what you see in play (or in play stats)?
- Not sure how to term this one but are you looking for quality over quantity? What I mean by this is would you trade say 15 matches per day (quantity) relying mainly on stats or pure risk/reward maths and expect to profit on let's say 10 as you are confident in your strategies. Or would you "go bigger" on 1 or 2 matches per day and fully commit to physically watching the game (quality).
The last question is a dilemma for me as with "gambling" surely the only way to be confident you have an edge is over a large sample size. Trading 1 match per day doesn't really allow you to establish this fact. Additionally some of the strategies deployed might have say a 15% chance of success. If you adopted solely this strategy (and I realise that you would probably never be this mechanical) then you might be looking at 1 winner and 5 losers a week. Surely none of the full time traders on here would stomach that situation although going for high risk/reward strategies maybe they would?
Just wanted to share these thoughts and see if there are any more valuable nuggets out there from anyone, as reading through the posts it feels like a lot of guys are dong fantastically well on the tennis markets and I myself am more treading water at best.
I have an automated system for the reasons above. It doesn't really trade so much as bet at the end of each point if my system thinks there is an edge. This works out to be around 15,000 to 20,000 matches a year. And basically I do all of them (or potentially). Any one or several matches can be awful. Often when it comes down to a final set tiebreaker then I am a 50/50 chance of making a big win/loss. In February for matches that have come down to a final set tiebreaker where I have a decent amount of money on, I am 5 losses for 5. But with a lot of matches going, I am up significantly for February.markyfletcher27 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 3:04 pmOn the previous post I stated that I think generally I let positions run to long in tennis (although not specifically the one mentioned above).
As an explanation what I have found is that very often when I open a position at some point that position becomes profitable. However I tend to be waiting for fairly specific points to exit. So for example I may have opened in anticipation of a break of serve and may then have been in a positive position at say *0-30 but when the server ultimately comes back to hold that becomes a red book.
It's a difficult one as there is a temptation to "lock in" some profit pretty early although I try and stick to pre-set risk/reward ratios. I believe this is following the principal of "framing a trade" mentioned on of the guidance videos but maybe I need to be a bit more dynamic. I am running at a loss for the Aus Open overall (so I maybe just taking shit positions in fairness).
Not really much of a specific point to this but a few questions I guess for more experienced (and profitable) tennis traders.
- Are you generally looking for longer term moves (set to set) or more short term moves (game to game) or a combination of both?
- Are you generally determining positions pre match or more reacting to what you see in play (or in play stats)?
- Not sure how to term this one but are you looking for quality over quantity? What I mean by this is would you trade say 15 matches per day (quantity) relying mainly on stats or pure risk/reward maths and expect to profit on let's say 10 as you are confident in your strategies. Or would you "go bigger" on 1 or 2 matches per day and fully commit to physically watching the game (quality).
The last question is a dilemma for me as with "gambling" surely the only way to be confident you have an edge is over a large sample size. Trading 1 match per day doesn't really allow you to establish this fact. Additionally some of the strategies deployed might have say a 15% chance of success. If you adopted solely this strategy (and I realise that you would probably never be this mechanical) then you might be looking at 1 winner and 5 losers a week. Surely none of the full time traders on here would stomach that situation although going for high risk/reward strategies maybe they would?
Just wanted to share these thoughts and see if there are any more valuable nuggets out there from anyone, as reading through the posts it feels like a lot of guys are dong fantastically well on the tennis markets and I myself am more treading water at best.
While my system is different, the key is to do as many matches as possible to "smooth" your progression. Much harder if you manually have to do it.
Imagine sports betting combined with raw medical reports.
No more "I felt something tear" followed by three more sets of tennis and a five set win.
But all of the theatrics and illnesses (real and imagined) are simply part of the rich tapestry of life and sports betting.
Injuries and tiredness do seem to make a big difference in Tennis, because it's an individual sport and it's grueling. Djok is perhaps not as badly off as he makes out, but he clearly isn't playing the same way, even though he's still playing OK. I'd say he's clearly vulnerable and over-priced, both Medvedev and Tsitsipas are much younger, fitter, world-class players.gazuty wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 4:34 amImagine sports betting combined with raw medical reports.
No more "I felt something tear" followed by three more sets of tennis and a five set win.
But all of the theatrics and illnesses (real and imagined) are simply part of the rich tapestry of life and sports betting.
cant say low risk just because odds are low, all that means is that upside is higher if not trading out, if you used liability instead of level staking risk would be the samemarkyfletcher27 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 2:59 pm
On today's match I laid Nadal when 2-0 up in sets. I did feel this was extremely speculative at the time as it felt like a fairly dominant display from Nadal to that point. But it was very low risk.
It feels like a decent result but if I take a step back from it maybe not. To have laid someone at 1.06 and that player goes on to ultimately lose the match (and it was Nadal in a Grand Slam quarter final) it instinctively feels like once in a blue moon kind of stuff so I should have made more - Gamblers mentality here I guess.
if you break it down lay 1.06 is a back 17.66 so thats odds 3 / 2,6 / 2.3 for tsitsipas set 3,4,5 as guideline for your lay to be +EV youd have to price tsitsipas lower than that
think often people forget those low ticks are worth almost a percent in implied chance wheras 1,99 to 2,00 just a quarter, even its just 6 ticks it doesnt make it value even in tsitisipas case probably was once he found his game
