THe bookies are laughing again
Why was clijsters favourite and a firming one at that
Davenport looked vulnerable when she lost the second set but then regrouped and WHAM,Game set match
Cheers

I said earlier in this thread that I thought Venus (providing her mind was on the job) had a chance in this tourney ...Well Ill take that back partially because I watched a bit more of her the other day and as usual the unforced errors were flowing like champagne and mostly because I think Pierce injury free (apparently ) and in her current form might just chew her up and spit her out . I know I went 0-2 the other night tipping .(I didnt back them)
Ive been backing favourites only lately and its been working well for me so should stick to the winning formula .....But Ive just seen 2.98 at betfair and Im thinking this might just be a good way to end a months punting .....
Im very open to any comment positive or negative

Bets 234; Won 144; Lost 90
Units Staked: 206.5 units; Won 15.96 units; ROI 7.7%


The poor run continues with Clijsters losing. I don't think there'll be too many more Wimbledon bets - I'll wait for the 'sanity' of the hardcourt season.

The 7.7% represents a solid 'losing streak' but these are inevitable. Though very disappointing, it's certainly not my worst and won't be the last (but winning streaks will also occur).

My strike rate is also very poor at the moment.

Moreover, this also represents my worst Grand Slam iresult in my 18 month history so I'll have to improve my grass game (might be my poor volley?!)

No excuses though.

Besides My normal win bet on Pierce I invested another $20 on her
Pierce to win the Title
$12.32- TO WIN $500(net of commission)
Pierce to win 2-0
$7.68(the remainderof$20)TO WIN $36.48

In saying all that Ive been well wrong before today

Good afternoon everyone. Davenport was obviously the best bet of last night. To win long-term you need to ignore the bookies, and think about "class" The result was not "insane" and if you truly are hoping for "sanity" on the hardcourts you may be disappointed Marco. Davenport is World number 1 and top seed. She has won three majors and was in the final in Melbourne only this year. At Wimbledon she has been champion, runner-up, twice semi-finalist and three times in the Quarters (first time 11 years ago!!!!!). Clijsters has NEVER won a major and only once made it into the last 4 at Wimbledon PLUS she has been injured for most of the past year and is carrying plenty of "emotional baggage". Seen like this there would be no way you could have her favourite over Davenport IN A MAJOR.
Until proven otherwise, players (just like racehorses) who perennially underperform, are to be avoided on ALL surfaces. I know this is WTA territory, but likewise, one-dimensional second stringers like Ancic,Karlovic etc etc are not to be trusted with OUR money. Sticking with class really does pay. Cheers and good luck.

There ya go well wrong again.
Didnt stay up to watch venus and mary but a quick look at the stats tells me why I did my dosh ...Venus 84% of first serves in thats hard to get on top of ........... and 14 only unforced errors ..about half her usual rate .....ah well back to the drawing board

Punter57 - thanks for your post.

Some people may disagree with me, but I found your post a tad amusing. I posted my bet some 36 hours before the game so I'm just wondering why you didn't post your very welcome opinion prior to the game being played. It certainly would have been helpful.

Perhaps you do most of your betting at Hindsight.com (tongue in cheek).

As I said, all opinions are valid but they're not much use to anybody and achieve very little if the race has already been run. We live in a democracy so you can do as you want but feel free to list pre-post selections as I'm sure we can all benefit from your skills.

Have you looked at the SFs? What percentage chance/odds do you give Davenport over Mauresmo? Or Sharapova v Williams? Any thoughts on who, at this stage, is going to win outright and what odds are reasonable?

If you would like me to post the method/statistical reasoning that underlies my betting on the Clijster's match I'll be more than happy to do so. As it involves a fair bit of detail it might be easier to do this off the thread. Feel free to email me (woof9898@yahoo.com.au).

On the day I was wrong and you were right. As I said I have no excuses.

Thanks once again.

Don't worry Marco, you weren't the only one that was a tad amused

Hello everyone. It's heartening that even when losing money you can STILL be amused. I don't bet (often) nor give advice on individual women's matches, but will have a bet if I think the bookies have it wrong. By this I don't mean having Davenport at $1.35 when she should be $1.25 against Mauresmo but waiting until they actually have it the wrong way round.
Since I agree with the bookies on the two women's semis there will be no bets. If Davenport comes up as underdog for the final then she MAY be a bet.
Marco, I feel like I've lead you to the water and now you want me to tell you WHEN to drink as well. Let's go back to my (hilarious) comments about underperformers ( a few posts earlier) and ask a bystander, Floydyboy, how he feels, knowing that Pierce is exactly the type of choker/ gonna-be I was talking about (to be avoided).
When I was but a student and needed to learn THE PRINCIPLES of my profession, I read and listened until I got it right. Subsequently I do not need to ring my old tutors/profs to get them to tell me EXACTLY what I should do or what THEY would do on every individual project or in every single instance, as I'm sure they would NOT be amused!!!. Would you Sparkus8 or Marco???
Anyway, talk to you again soon(see ATP thread). Good luck regardless, and glad to have brought some humour your way.P57