tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 26 Jan 2009 19:10:52
From: Dr. GroundAxe
Subject: Nadal now clear fave on betfair...
tough to argue with given current situation.




 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 19:45:04
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: Nadal now clear fave on betfair...
On Jan 26, 9:28=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Yes, but slams are different & Murray really doesn't like the heat so
> never going to be easy. =A0Plus bookies making him fave didn't help eithe=
r.

You are echoing Federer...


 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 14:16:21
From: xamigax@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Nadal now clear fave on betfair...
On 26 jan, 22:16, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> xami...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On 26 jan, 21:04, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >> xami...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On 26 jan, 20:10, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>> tough to argue with given current situation.
> >>> tough to argue?
> >>> must be joking.
> >>> as if bookmakers didn't prooved their own blindness lately with
> >>> Murray?
> >>> what kind of risk is that to pick #1 as favorite?
> >>> bunch of wankers out there.
> >>> all the murray's buzz started because of the bookmakers, I must admit
> >>> that all the "big mouths" match via medias between Federer/Djokovic &
> >>> Murray was kinda funny.
> >>> For few seconds I had a flashback from the 80's, when player used to
> >>> joke at each other... but in that golden era more respect was
> >>> involved...
> >>> Has the huge amount of money badly changed the general mood in the
> >>> locker room?
> >>> All this fuzz for a (pro) game... No wonder why the subprimes went
> >>> that bad.
> >>> Math models can't render reality.
> >>> Not even talking of the Panurge'sheeps behavior of traders, making
> >>> crisis worse than it was.
> >>> Share & Enjoy,
> >>> Manolo
> >>> NB:
> >>> last year I bet (!) the same idiots were picking Nadal over Tsonga &
> >>> Federer over Djokovic, basically because they have absolutely no idea
> >>> of what the game was at this particular moment. They couldn't imagine
> >>> anything but the "evident" ranking positions of the 4 players as "the
> >>> true" about them.
> >>> All blind to read the book Tsonga was writting, for exemple. The wave
> >>> he was riding.
> >>> All blind to see how good Djoker was playing...okay, even a 100%
> >>> maxlevel Djoker still won't be a favorite vs a 100% maxlevel Federer.
> >> I never jumped into Murray bandwagon. However for those who did...you
> >> can't say they were all absolutely wrong just because Murray lost.
> >> Murray still could be the best player on hc at the moment. he just run
> >> against a red hot player playing match of his life.
>
> >> --
> >> "Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
> >> singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"
>
> > I didn't say that Murray had played bad.
> > I didn't say either that "they were all absolutly wrong just because
> > Murray lost". Who the "they" you talk about?
> > RSTers? bookmakers? mass media?
> > I don't care, in fact. Anyone picking Murray over any of Federer/Nadal/
> > Djokovic has too few knowledge to be worth consideration.
> > You can't say that Verdasco "played the match of his life" as the only
> > explanation.
> > 1.let's see how Nando is playing in the weeks to come
> > 2.loosing vs a "red hot player" can happen to anyhone, at anytime,
> > especially at slam.
> > So it's what financial analysts are defining as "a risk", by
> > definition "a risk" can't be foreseen. You can only bet for it to
> > happen or not.
>
> > My point was on the total stupidity of bookmakers.
> > Bookmakers are the sport version of financial analysts, they use the
> > very same math modeling schemes...
> > For they have the same basic goal: making money out of nowhere.
> > See how good the first prooved to be (worse than useless: dangerous)
> > and guess what a lower version might be.
> > They rate people they've never met, and hardly seen (never in the
> > arena, few on tv)
> > It didn't take much wisdom to keep a eye over Verdasco, only to have
> > seen him at DC and after.
>
> > Share & Enjoy,
> > Manolo
>
> Do you realize that you're using Murray's loss the proof to your opinion
> that "they" were all wrong...while admitting that this kind of loss can
> happen to anyone and thus doesn't qualify as a proof...

??? Not at all. Murray's loss is nothing more than the most recent
exemple.
I am not "admitting" that this kind of loss can happen to anyone; it's
a point I made, there is not trace of such idea in the post I was
replying to.
So, unless "admitting" doesn't mean exactly the same as the french
word, I did not "admit", I said it.
I hope for you that you know it's a bit (!) different.

> Now that we got this "proof" out of equation this leaves "their" opinion
> against yours, with no proof. So how can you be certain that you're correct?
> :)
You failed to understand my point, I don't care even if the fave wins
the slam in the end: it has so remotly connexions (if any) with the
bet ranking system (establish before the event started), that I just
won't consider them.
Can't you understand that bookmakers don't have opinions?
Read Pascal, he did a good job describing "le pari"...

I'm correct because I don't buy such crap (bookmakers quotations).
Because I never claim that ANY player is THE MOST LIKELY to win a slam
(wich is the "language" tanslation of quotations). Never have, never
will.
Murray fave position came out of bookmakers, you remember?
Because unlike them, I can explain what my opinions (or bets, If I was
to bet) are based on.

What on earth do "they" had say to give you the "proof" you are
talking about?
You complain on my failure to give "proof" of my own opinion, did you
do alike with their?
Sorry if my post seemed to "generalized" the Murray exemple, blame my
english.

Share & Enjoy,
Manolo


 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 13:07:01
From: xamigax@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Nadal now clear fave on betfair...
On 26 jan, 21:04, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> xami...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On 26 jan, 20:10, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >> tough to argue with given current situation.
>
> > tough to argue?
> > must be joking.
> > as if bookmakers didn't prooved their own blindness lately with
> > Murray?
> > what kind of risk is that to pick #1 as favorite?
> > bunch of wankers out there.
> > all the murray's buzz started because of the bookmakers, I must admit
> > that all the "big mouths" match via medias between Federer/Djokovic &
> > Murray was kinda funny.
> > For few seconds I had a flashback from the 80's, when player used to
> > joke at each other... but in that golden era more respect was
> > involved...
> > Has the huge amount of money badly changed the general mood in the
> > locker room?
>
> > All this fuzz for a (pro) game... No wonder why the subprimes went
> > that bad.
> > Math models can't render reality.
> > Not even talking of the Panurge'sheeps behavior of traders, making
> > crisis worse than it was.
>
> > Share & Enjoy,
> > Manolo
>
> > NB:
> > last year I bet (!) the same idiots were picking Nadal over Tsonga &
> > Federer over Djokovic, basically because they have absolutely no idea
> > of what the game was at this particular moment. They couldn't imagine
> > anything but the "evident" ranking positions of the 4 players as "the
> > true" about them.
> > All blind to read the book Tsonga was writting, for exemple. The wave
> > he was riding.
> > All blind to see how good Djoker was playing...okay, even a 100%
> > maxlevel Djoker still won't be a favorite vs a 100% maxlevel Federer.
>
> I never jumped into Murray bandwagon. However for those who did...you
> can't say they were all absolutely wrong just because Murray lost.
> Murray still could be the best player on hc at the moment. he just run
> against a red hot player playing match of his life.
>
> --
> "Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
> singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"

I didn't say that Murray had played bad.
I didn't say either that "they were all absolutly wrong just because
Murray lost". Who the "they" you talk about?
RSTers? bookmakers? mass media?
I don't care, in fact. Anyone picking Murray over any of Federer/Nadal/
Djokovic has too few knowledge to be worth consideration.
You can't say that Verdasco "played the match of his life" as the only
explanation.
1.let's see how Nando is playing in the weeks to come
2.loosing vs a "red hot player" can happen to anyhone, at anytime,
especially at slam.
So it's what financial analysts are defining as "a risk", by
definition "a risk" can't be foreseen. You can only bet for it to
happen or not.

My point was on the total stupidity of bookmakers.
Bookmakers are the sport version of financial analysts, they use the
very same math modeling schemes...
For they have the same basic goal: making money out of nowhere.
See how good the first prooved to be (worse than useless: dangerous)
and guess what a lower version might be.
They rate people they've never met, and hardly seen (never in the
arena, few on tv)
It didn't take much wisdom to keep a eye over Verdasco, only to have
seen him at DC and after.

Share & Enjoy,
Manolo


  
Date: 26 Jan 2009 23:16:12
From: TT
Subject: Re: Nadal now clear fave on betfair...
xamigax@gmail.com wrote:
> On 26 jan, 21:04, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> xami...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On 26 jan, 20:10, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> tough to argue with given current situation.
>>> tough to argue?
>>> must be joking.
>>> as if bookmakers didn't prooved their own blindness lately with
>>> Murray?
>>> what kind of risk is that to pick #1 as favorite?
>>> bunch of wankers out there.
>>> all the murray's buzz started because of the bookmakers, I must admit
>>> that all the "big mouths" match via medias between Federer/Djokovic &
>>> Murray was kinda funny.
>>> For few seconds I had a flashback from the 80's, when player used to
>>> joke at each other... but in that golden era more respect was
>>> involved...
>>> Has the huge amount of money badly changed the general mood in the
>>> locker room?
>>> All this fuzz for a (pro) game... No wonder why the subprimes went
>>> that bad.
>>> Math models can't render reality.
>>> Not even talking of the Panurge'sheeps behavior of traders, making
>>> crisis worse than it was.
>>> Share & Enjoy,
>>> Manolo
>>> NB:
>>> last year I bet (!) the same idiots were picking Nadal over Tsonga &
>>> Federer over Djokovic, basically because they have absolutely no idea
>>> of what the game was at this particular moment. They couldn't imagine
>>> anything but the "evident" ranking positions of the 4 players as "the
>>> true" about them.
>>> All blind to read the book Tsonga was writting, for exemple. The wave
>>> he was riding.
>>> All blind to see how good Djoker was playing...okay, even a 100%
>>> maxlevel Djoker still won't be a favorite vs a 100% maxlevel Federer.
>> I never jumped into Murray bandwagon. However for those who did...you
>> can't say they were all absolutely wrong just because Murray lost.
>> Murray still could be the best player on hc at the moment. he just run
>> against a red hot player playing match of his life.
>>
>> --
>> "Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
>> singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"
>
> I didn't say that Murray had played bad.
> I didn't say either that "they were all absolutly wrong just because
> Murray lost". Who the "they" you talk about?
> RSTers? bookmakers? mass media?
> I don't care, in fact. Anyone picking Murray over any of Federer/Nadal/
> Djokovic has too few knowledge to be worth consideration.
> You can't say that Verdasco "played the match of his life" as the only
> explanation.
> 1.let's see how Nando is playing in the weeks to come
> 2.loosing vs a "red hot player" can happen to anyhone, at anytime,
> especially at slam.
> So it's what financial analysts are defining as "a risk", by
> definition "a risk" can't be foreseen. You can only bet for it to
> happen or not.
>
> My point was on the total stupidity of bookmakers.
> Bookmakers are the sport version of financial analysts, they use the
> very same math modeling schemes...
> For they have the same basic goal: making money out of nowhere.
> See how good the first prooved to be (worse than useless: dangerous)
> and guess what a lower version might be.
> They rate people they've never met, and hardly seen (never in the
> arena, few on tv)
> It didn't take much wisdom to keep a eye over Verdasco, only to have
> seen him at DC and after.
>
> Share & Enjoy,
> Manolo

Do you realize that you're using Murray's loss the proof to your opinion
that "they" were all wrong...while admitting that this kind of loss can
happen to anyone and thus doesn't qualify as a proof...

Now that we got this "proof" out of equation this leaves "their" opinion
against yours, with no proof. So how can you be certain that you're correct?
:)

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 12:43:44
From: Wayne
Subject: Re: Nadal now clear fave on betfair...
On 26 Jan, 19:39, stephenj <s...@cox.com > wrote:

> yes, looks good and has had luck with the draw opening up for him -
> clear path to the final.

Not so sure about that - think Tsonga could lay the smackdown once
again the SF. However Nadal is the favourite to come through on that
side of the draw.


 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 12:42:01
From: PeteWasLucky
Subject: Re: Nadal now clear fave on betfair...
On Jan 26, 2:10=A0pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
> tough to argue with given current situation.

Are those the same people that lost their money on Murray?


 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 12:28:40
From: arahim
Subject: Re: Nadal now clear fave on betfair...
On Jan 26, 11:45=A0am, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 21:44:31 +0200, Sakari Lund
>
> <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
> >On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:39:28 -0600, stephenj <s...@cox.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Dr. GroundAxe wrote:
> >>> tough to argue with given current situation.
>
> >>yes, looks good and has had luck with the draw opening up for him -
> >>clear path to the final.
>
> >If Federer had the opponents Nadal has had and will have in this
> >tournament, it would be called "a cakewalk draw" and there would be
> >about 100 threads about fixed draws. Not it is of course a very tough
> >draw.
>
> NOW it is of course a very tough draw...

Currently he edges Federer and Djokovic put together.


 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 11:48:24
From: xamigax@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Nadal now clear fave on betfair...
On 26 jan, 20:10, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
> tough to argue with given current situation.

tough to argue?
must be joking.
as if bookmakers didn't prooved their own blindness lately with
Murray?
what kind of risk is that to pick #1 as favorite?
bunch of wankers out there.
all the murray's buzz started because of the bookmakers, I must admit
that all the "big mouths" match via medias between Federer/Djokovic &
Murray was kinda funny.
For few seconds I had a flashback from the 80's, when player used to
joke at each other... but in that golden era more respect was
involved...
Has the huge amount of money badly changed the general mood in the
locker room?

All this fuzz for a (pro) game... No wonder why the subprimes went
that bad.
Math models can't render reality.
Not even talking of the Panurge'sheeps behavior of traders, making
crisis worse than it was.


Share & Enjoy,
Manolo

NB:
last year I bet (!) the same idiots were picking Nadal over Tsonga &
Federer over Djokovic, basically because they have absolutely no idea
of what the game was at this particular moment. They couldn't imagine
anything but the "evident" ranking positions of the 4 players as "the
true" about them.
All blind to read the book Tsonga was writting, for exemple. The wave
he was riding.
All blind to see how good Djoker was playing...okay, even a 100%
maxlevel Djoker still won't be a favorite vs a 100% maxlevel Federer.


  
Date: 26 Jan 2009 22:04:18
From: TT
Subject: Re: Nadal now clear fave on betfair...
xamigax@gmail.com wrote:
> On 26 jan, 20:10, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> tough to argue with given current situation.
>
> tough to argue?
> must be joking.
> as if bookmakers didn't prooved their own blindness lately with
> Murray?
> what kind of risk is that to pick #1 as favorite?
> bunch of wankers out there.
> all the murray's buzz started because of the bookmakers, I must admit
> that all the "big mouths" match via medias between Federer/Djokovic &
> Murray was kinda funny.
> For few seconds I had a flashback from the 80's, when player used to
> joke at each other... but in that golden era more respect was
> involved...
> Has the huge amount of money badly changed the general mood in the
> locker room?
>
> All this fuzz for a (pro) game... No wonder why the subprimes went
> that bad.
> Math models can't render reality.
> Not even talking of the Panurge'sheeps behavior of traders, making
> crisis worse than it was.
>
>
> Share & Enjoy,
> Manolo
>
> NB:
> last year I bet (!) the same idiots were picking Nadal over Tsonga &
> Federer over Djokovic, basically because they have absolutely no idea
> of what the game was at this particular moment. They couldn't imagine
> anything but the "evident" ranking positions of the 4 players as "the
> true" about them.
> All blind to read the book Tsonga was writting, for exemple. The wave
> he was riding.
> All blind to see how good Djoker was playing...okay, even a 100%
> maxlevel Djoker still won't be a favorite vs a 100% maxlevel Federer.

I never jumped into Murray bandwagon. However for those who did...you
can't say they were all absolutely wrong just because Murray lost.
Murray still could be the best player on hc at the moment. he just run
against a red hot player playing match of his life.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


   
Date: 27 Jan 2009 14:28:34
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Nadal now clear fave on betfair...
TT wrote:
>> last year I bet (!) the same idiots were picking Nadal over Tsonga &
>> Federer over Djokovic, basically because they have absolutely no idea
>> of what the game was at this particular moment. They couldn't imagine
>> anything but the "evident" ranking positions of the 4 players as "the
>> true" about them.
>> All blind to read the book Tsonga was writting, for exemple. The wave
>> he was riding.
>> All blind to see how good Djoker was playing...okay, even a 100%
>> maxlevel Djoker still won't be a favorite vs a 100% maxlevel Federer.
>
> I never jumped into Murray bandwagon. However for those who did...you
> can't say they were all absolutely wrong just because Murray lost.
> Murray still could be the best player on hc at the moment. he just run
> against a red hot player playing match of his life.
>



Yes, but slams are different & Murray really doesn't like the heat so
never going to be easy. Plus bookies making him fave didn't help either.


 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 13:39:28
From: stephenj
Subject: Re: Nadal now clear fave on betfair...
> Dr. GroundAxe wrote:
> tough to argue with given current situation.

yes, looks good and has had luck with the draw opening up for him -
clear path to the final.




--
"if federal judges have the final word over its meaning,
the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands
of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form
they please".

- Thomas Jefferson


  
Date: 26 Jan 2009 21:45:10
From: TT
Subject: Re: Nadal now clear fave on betfair...
stephenj wrote:
> > Dr. GroundAxe wrote:
>> tough to argue with given current situation.
>
> yes, looks good and has had luck with the draw opening up for him -
> clear path to the final.
>
>

Federer would be very happy playing Simon instead of Delpo?


--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


  
Date: 26 Jan 2009 21:44:31
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Nadal now clear fave on betfair...
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:39:28 -0600, stephenj <sjex@cox.com > wrote:

> > Dr. GroundAxe wrote:
>> tough to argue with given current situation.
>
>yes, looks good and has had luck with the draw opening up for him -
>clear path to the final.

If Federer had the opponents Nadal has had and will have in this
tournament, it would be called "a cakewalk draw" and there would be
about 100 threads about fixed draws. Not it is of course a very tough
draw.


   
Date: 26 Jan 2009 21:45:23
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Nadal now clear fave on betfair...
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 21:44:31 +0200, Sakari Lund
<sakari.lund@welho.com > wrote:

>On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:39:28 -0600, stephenj <sjex@cox.com> wrote:
>
>> > Dr. GroundAxe wrote:
>>> tough to argue with given current situation.
>>
>>yes, looks good and has had luck with the draw opening up for him -
>>clear path to the final.
>
>If Federer had the opponents Nadal has had and will have in this
>tournament, it would be called "a cakewalk draw" and there would be
>about 100 threads about fixed draws. Not it is of course a very tough
>draw.

NOW it is of course a very tough draw...


    
Date: 26 Jan 2009 21:48:51
From: TT
Subject: Re: Nadal now clear fave on betfair...
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 21:44:31 +0200, Sakari Lund
> <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:39:28 -0600, stephenj <sjex@cox.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Dr. GroundAxe wrote:
>>>> tough to argue with given current situation.
>>> yes, looks good and has had luck with the draw opening up for him -
>>> clear path to the final.
>> If Federer had the opponents Nadal has had and will have in this
>> tournament, it would be called "a cakewalk draw" and there would be
>> about 100 threads about fixed draws. Not it is of course a very tough
>> draw.
>
> NOW it is of course a very tough draw...

Who cares...

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"