Tournament Betting

[andy28]

Let's say in Women's Tennis you want to bet on a player to win the tournament for $100 at 4.0. Would it be more profitable to back the player outright or to bet on them round by round and compound the winnings?

I’ve been thinking about this, especially if you also consider in-play betting. For instance, a player might start a match at low odds, say 1.10, and never drift but in the next round they might trade at 1.30 or higher at some point, which is entirely possible, if your lucky they might drift in all of them

By betting round by round and compounding the winnings, you might be able to take advantage of better odds across multiple matches, especially if the player has tight matches or if their odds fluctuate during in play.

I have no data to support any of this but my gut says there is something there.

This could apply to any sport, particularly when players or teams reach the quarterfinals. So the question is whether compounding round by round will beat the outright odds in the long run. Thoughts?

[sionascaig]

Let's say in Women's Tennis you want to bet on a player to win the tournament for $100 at 4.0. Would it be more profitable to back the player outright or to bet on them round by round and compound the winnings?

I’ve been thinking about this, especially if you also consider in-play betting. For instance, a player might start a match at low odds, say 1.10, and never drift but in the next round they might trade at 1.30 or higher at some point, which is entirely possible, if your lucky they might drift in all of them

By betting round by round and compounding the winnings, you might be able to take advantage of better odds across multiple matches, especially if the player has tight matches or if their odds fluctuate during in play.

I have no data to support any of this but my gut says there is something there.

This could apply to any sport, particularly when players or teams reach the quarterfinals. So the question is whether compounding round by round will beat the outright odds in the long run. Thoughts?

The obvious thought is why not collect some data and see?

By betting round by round do you mean in the individual match market or in the tournament market?

Also, if the odds are in general a true reflection of the probability of winning and in tennis this is very likely then where will the "back" value come from even if there is a drift?

But if you think a drift (at some stage) is much more likely than a contraction then you have hit on a lay strategy rather than a back strategy (from a trading point of view).

Either way could be worth a look into as you never know what else may pop up )

[Anbell]

Let's say in Women's Tennis you want to bet on a player to win the tournament for $100 at 4.0. Would it be more profitable to back the player outright or to bet on them round by round and compound the winnings?

I’ve been thinking about this, especially if you also consider in-play betting. For instance, a player might start a match at low odds, say 1.10, and never drift but in the next round they might trade at 1.30 or higher at some point, which is entirely possible, if your lucky they might drift in all of them

By betting round by round and compounding the winnings, you might be able to take advantage of better odds across multiple matches, especially if the player has tight matches or if their odds fluctuate during in play.

I have no data to support any of this but my gut says there is something there.

This could apply to any sport, particularly when players or teams reach the quarterfinals. So the question is whether compounding round by round will beat the outright odds in the long run. Thoughts?

The short answer is: No. In theory, in general, there should be no difference between backing a tournament winner or individual matches.

IF you think a player might be mispriced inplay, that's a separate matter that should probably be dealt with in isolation. There's no obvious reason why you'd conflate the two issues.

[henbet22]

In theory it has legs.
Swiatek is under the cosh second round french open this year. Osaka freewheeling and crowding her. 3rd set 1-4 down and serving BP down. 2-5 down serving 0-30. Because the price for the tournament is so gappy the value you can get is better on the match odds. Also you would be more reactive to injuries /form or any other known or unknown unknowns!
Another advantage of leaving the outrights alone is its always a fresh market on the match odds with no open position carried over which can effect manual entries etc

[andy28]

Yes I meant back the player in each of their 7 matches, if they open at 1.20 then I was simply going to place a back bet at 1.30 (just a guess) in their first match, if their odds move out and it gets taken then all good. If it gets taken and they lose then I lose my money however I would lose the same stake on the outrights. If they win then all that money carries over (minus com) to the next match.

It is just an idea as I stated I have no data but thought I would ask just incase I was missing something obvious or if mathematically it would make no difference then that would save me a lot of time gathering data.

[henbet22]

You could be greedier than 10 ticks though!!

[jtrader]

Yes I meant back the player in each of their 7 matches, if they open at 1.20 then I was simply going to place a back bet at 1.30 (just a guess) in their first match, if their odds move out and it gets taken then all good. If it gets taken and they lose then I lose my money however I would lose the same stake on the outrights. If they win then all that money carries over (minus com) to the next match.

It is just an idea as I stated I have no data but thought I would ask just incase I was missing something obvious or if mathematically it would make no difference then that would save me a lot of time gathering data.

And how could you now the odds for that given player in his next match if he won at previous?

Is there a method to calculate that?

As you said for example of his 7 matches if you bet on 1.3 ^ 7 = 6.27 and if odds are 7 he/she to win the tournament before its start which is better?

[weemac]

Let's say in Women's Tennis you want to bet on a player to win the tournament for $100 at 4.0. Would it be more profitable to back the player outright or to bet on them round by round and compound the winnings?

Impossible to know pre-tourney since you don't know if her prospective toughest opponents will progress to face her or get knocked out. You only know after the event which would have been more profitable.

[andy28]

All valid points, I think one issue is at least 1 match the player wouldn't get matched at 1.3, so 1.3 ^ 6 is 4.83 which is getting close to no value. Also as pointed out if some of the top players get knocked out early the odds for up coming matches might only be 1.15. The flip side to that is if they don't then as the competition gets stronger the odds will increase.

So there are plenty of pro's and con's so will gets sum stats and see what happens, no harm paper trading