Mr J has summed up my thoughts on all this. I will not bet on statistical certainties unless there is an accompanying explaination of what CAUSES the certainty. And even then, NOT if they're favourites. This type of thing (identifying apparent "trends" after the event) is the whole basis of charlatan system sellers isn't it?? This is in no way to infer that anyone here is one of them!!!
My old aunt Gussy assures me that the Bowen Cup (where's that??) is ALWAYS won by a grey horse whose jockey wears a pink cap. Checking this out, let's say I discover it to be true for the past ten years. Question; should I take Grey Lightening at ANY ODDS since HIS hoop does indeed wear a pink cap? Maybe....
If it turns out that every horse is grey (ie it's GREYS ONLY) AND the best trainer has pink caps on his three entries VERY MAYBE!! Regardless, I will consider the others AND THE PRICES
Likewise, if Roddick has a 100% record against Ginepri (6-0; 5 in straight sets;the only set dropped IN THE VERY FIRST ENCOUNTER,5 years ago before Roddick became "a star"...he's unbeatable!!!!) Should I have taken the $12 available on Ginepri turning it around last week in the RCA Tourney. Or was $1.05 justified and just "money for jam" on Andy?? Well, I reckon the $1200 FEELS better than the lost $100 on THAT "statistical certainty". Of course,as with Sth Africa, if some bookie offerred reversed odds I would snap them up EVERY TIME.
When Australia 2 was 3-1 down in 1983 and no-one had rolled the yanks in 122 years should I have put my hundred on the Americans at 100-1 ON? Please advise me!!! Well? Or what about Thorpie at 500-1 ON to qualify in the trials of the 400m last year? OR (we won't mention $1.12 for Paris as the Olympic City) as Steven Bradbury rounds the bend in last place at the Winter Olympics should I have snapped up the 200-1 against EVERYONE FALLING OVER (except him, of course)..
Anyway, I hope everyone appreciates that I am not pooh-poohing the concept of some things being MUCH MORE PROBABLE than others but, rather, adding the "price" qualifier to "the stats".Cheers.
P.S. What did you do with Roddick, K909? Could Hewitt be the next Ginepri when he takes on Federer in New York???

If you read what I said, you would see that I'm looking for comparitive value. I'm not talking about idiotic prices like $1.01. I wouldn't have even thought of making any of those ridiculous losing bets you mentioned. Seriously, anybody that consistently takes less than $1.15-$1.20 about anything is taking a big risk. I usually look for a minimum of $1.40 about my bets, but I will go lower if I'm extremely confident. Like Federer against Hewitt at Wimbledon. Quite simply, Hewitt was no chance of winning that match. As for your example of Roddick, it sounds like it wasn't a very big tournament. I know we have some Tennis experts on here who bet every week of the year, but I prefer to wait for the real big stuff where the form is more reliable, so I wouldn't have even looked at that match anyway.

Sportz. If Hewitt had've been 1 million to one (imagine!) you still would've sat on your hands??? Do you believe Hewitt will never beat Federer again (or just never again on grass)? It appears that until Hewitt wins, HE CAN"T WIN. Hmmmmm. Let's go back to the good old days.
It's the second round at Wimbledon and one of the finest grass-courters ever, defending and two-time champion (very easily), only 19 and nothing but improvement ahead (the future of tennis,no less), $1.40 before the tournament (even shorter than Fedex), facing a journeyman Aussie, ranked about 150 in the world, who the carrot-top has already trashed a few times. This young Deutscher has NEVER lost on grass. Should I put my dough on Becker or Peter Doohan?? Is it a question of price, or of stats, or what?
Another thing. What you haven't let on about is, since you won't bet $1.35 on the certainty, WILL you then back the UNcertainty? Ever? Never? That is surely far more interesting and potentially much more profitable, if you/we can get it right,isn't it?. Cheers and hoping to hear more about this last. P57

Geez, that was way back in 1987 wasn't it? I wasn't even betting on sport way back then. In any case, I reckon that Becker would probably have been about $1.02 for that match or something like that. Again, anybody that backed him at those odds, got what they deserved.

No, I simply don't think Hewitt will beat Federer in any match of importance in the near future.

And if I think a certain player/team is 'unbeatable' but I don't like the odds, I ignore the event. I don't go looking for the outsider unless I genuinely think they can win.

I agree with Sportz and Why dont we start a new tipping thread with sporting certs? Would be a good thread and hopefully everyone can make some $'s.

Wouldn't want to put the moz on some of our bets though.

Glad you answered so promptly Sportz. And there our paths diverge.
Since the bookies only cheer when unfancied competitors/horses come in (the more unfancied the louder the cheer) because the favs are OVERRATED and OVERBET, then I much prefer to be one of the one's cheering too, by being ON the unfancied one's. After all, if the average bookie is driving his Jag home from the track or office while the average punters (ie fav supporters) are taking the bus, then the bookies must be doing something right. I suspect that "something" is in getting punters to back favs or, alternately, scaring us away completely by making us believe the fav is "unbeatable" (via the odds).
To counter this, I reckon you have to say "These odds are TOO SHORT" at some point and then accept the unmistakable implication that the non-fav is TOO LONG, no matter our "feeling" of discomfort. Whether the horses, sportsbetting, business,the real estate market or the stock exchange, going against the crowd has always been the secret to "extraordinary" profit and will ever be thus. You (or I) will have to be right 25 to 30 times (on favs at $1.40 or $1.50) to equal one Ginepri over Roddick and IF being a minor tourney WAS the key (as you suggest) then why not RUN WITH THAT??? Cheers
P.S. Sportz, we could discuss Sampras getting rolled by Krajicek,or Rafter by Ivanisevic if you prefer more recent. Or Sharapova by V. Williams three weeks ago, if you want MAJOR matches and MAJOR Upsets within "living memory".

I don't think Venus Williams was really such a big upset. I actually had a small bet on Williams in that match because on form I thought she in fact deserved to be a slight favourite.

It's not the case that I never bet on outsiders. I just have to genuinely think the outsider has a good chance of winning, not simply bet on them because they're a big price.

I don't think tennis is a good sport to bet "statistical certainties anyway. The result totally depends on the form of an individual, and no-one is 100% every match.

I would take the all blacks vs namibia in a world cup for $1.01 though, simply because the all blacks will never lose a match, unless they had several players redcarded. Too much skill and depth (if a couple of players have a bad day it won't make much of a difference). The price would be shorter for this game though.

"Statistical certainties" are one way bookies make their profit. Ok, sure, most of these bets are something silly like $1.05, but bookies use this reasoning to their advantage. They know the public will always overvalue these sorts of trends, and will fade these lines. If that bet is a good bet, it's definately not because of any super statistic. Your've got to look at why that statistic is the way it is, and not just blindly follow the statistic. Once you understand the causes behind a statistic and can judge their influence on the current match, then you can decide whether the bet is value or not.

This is the second time I'll be saying I agree with Mr J, on this thread. There is no such thing as a certainty, really, BUT it is all a question of price anyway. Roger Federer has a howling argument with his girl one morning and she storms out on him. Two hours later he's playing Hewitt and instead of concentrating 100% it's only 97%.Meanwhile Hewitt has been working on his game and that's the raging upset we've been waiting for (at $10 Hewitt)!! How to know any of this??? I know this CAN'T happen but let's imagine even Federer is human!!!!
Regardless of how or why the upset happens I still reckon that if you find the fav to be too short to bet you MUST bet the other side (in two team/player/horse battles) since the clear conclusion has to be that you are getting OVERS there. Anyone else thinking like this???