darko08

Read the ATP rules for the Lucky Losers cause you don't know how it works. Different rules are applied considering the moment of the vacancy. If it's produced when the last round of the qualifiaction has not finished it will be drawn. If it's produced after the last round of the qualification has finished it will be the better ranked player who will enter as a LL (if he has signed before the main draw matches start).

Harris suffered a back injury in his match against Ramos. I remember you posted a bet on Harris (vs De Minaur) so I made a post explaining the risks of backing Harris. Harris was bagelled in the first set and then he retired. It's been only 4 days since that and do not forget this is a small tournament. It seems your only reason to back Harris was that Taberner lost against Zapata. Taberner knew he was going to play as a LL (as it has already been said here). So, why he should deny to his friend a spot into the main draw? Taberner is a pure claycourter and what he did in Barcelona was impressive. He bagelled Korda and then he was close to beat FAA. I watched a little bit of that and I saw him more solid than ever. When you place a bet you have to consider all the possible factors. You can't place a bet only because of 1 match (especially when it's a qualification match and the player who has lost enters as a LL...). Don't feel offended, I'm just telling you this cause this match had plenty of factors to think that Harris was not going to play or just not win it in case he decided to play. The most fair thing he could do was to let his spot to a LL and take the half of the money. Anyway, I have not seen the match so don't take my last words too seriously.

Harris loses the first set 6-0 and then he retires. I know I already have said this before many times... but this is why is really important to watch the matches when you bet on tennis. The injury thing is something you can't find on flashcore, sofascore or any other stats site...

Harris suffered a back injury in his match against Ramos but he still managed to win the match (Ramos was awful). That back injury is the reason why he did not play the doubles match. It's impossible to know how he will be for the match. If he's OK he can beat De Minaur cause he's better. If he's not, he won't play the match or he will do in bad conditions..., and that's the worst scenario for those ones who decide to back him. De Minaur never has had success on this surface cause he doesn't feel good on the dirt.., but he will fight for every point as he always does. I guess this is the perfect situation for those punters who love to take risks.

Yes, that's what I believed at first. But then I saw he included players as Sabalenka or Muguruza in the same bracket than Pliskova. I have seen Sabalenka winning matches against good players despite doing almost 20 doubles faults per match. Do you know what does mean? It's like starting every single one of your service games (in 3 set match) with a 0-30. The conclusion that I got from this is that she can win matches despite serving incredibly bad. How? Well, her return stats are impressive and clearly better than Pliskova's (1st rtn pts %, 2nd rtn pts % & and rtn games %), and that allows her to not rely on her serve as much as Pliskova does on hers. I agree on Tauson and Kvitova. They can't afford serving bad at this moment if they want to win matches.

These are the best servers to you? From all the players you mentioned only Pliskova and Rybakina would be in the "Top 20". In normal conditions Sabalenka also would be in that top..., but there's something wrong with her right now. Kvitova also was a good server, but she has lost the fire and I think she will retire soon. All the others players you mentioned (Muguruza, Vondrousova and Tauson) are just too inconsistent on that aspect. I can make a long list of players who serve better than those 3 players (Barty, Serena, Krystina Pliskova, Osaka, Brady, Keys, Krejcikova, Swiatek, Badosa, Samsonova...). It shocks me how Badosa has improved her serve this year. Definitely, that's one of the reasons that explain her big success. She is the second player with more aces in 2022 (only Keys has did more aces than her), and her % of service games won and points won with 1st serves are also impressive. Both Görges and Bertens were also really good servers, as well as Venus, Lisicki, etc. Konta's serve was also something to be considered, but she has had too many injuries over the last years. From all the players you mentioned, the player who definitely has a big dependency on her serve is Pliskova. I have seen her losing against really weak players only because her serve didn't work. I wouldn't put her in the same category than Rybakina, Kvitova, Sabalenka, Tauson..., as you did. I have seen Sabalenka winning matches against good players despite doing like 20 double faults (I never have seen Pliskova doing such thing). Georgina Garcia Perez definitely can be on that list. She's not on the same level than Pliskova (of course), but she depends on her serve in the same way that Pliskova does on hers.

The only way Baez could win this match was doing it quickly, in straight sets. PBC is better player than Baez, so much better. I don't care about the surface. The problem for Pablo was that it was his first match of the european clay season. I have seen a lot of Pablo and I know him quite well. He always struggle to win matches when he starts a new season. It's not easy for him to acclimate to a new surface... I know all players do but Pablo struggles more than the others players. That's the reason why Baez needed to win it quickly. After losing the first set his chances of winning the match were really low. It meant that he should play 2 more sets to win the match and that was a lot of time for Pablo to acclimate to the surface. In the third set the superiority of PBC over Baez was clear. He played more aggressive and Baez was barely winning points even when he was playing with first serves. I think he even was under 50% of points won with 1st serves, which is not good at all. Pablo was dominating almost every single point and taking the right choice, always. He played so much better with his serve and did more winners. He also gave to Baez a master class of how to drop shot. He was already acclimated!

I will keep posting. I just won't post more bets, that's all.

Well, that has been my last bet/prediction. In terms of results, it has been a really good year, but I also have had to be dealing with a lot of punters "crowing" on my lost picks and I just got tired. The most annoying part is that all those punters are not even able to get good results here, so they just wait and appear in the right moment. Since the Q. of the US Open started I have posted 23 bets and I have won 16 (16-7), That can be checked easily as all the bets are there. Well, in more than half of those lost bets I have seen some punter crowing on them. In relation to the 16 won bets, I haven't seen a single post commenting the match or the bet itself. It seems it doesn't matter how good I am doing that if I lose a bet there will be a punter to crow on it. It doesn't take a genius to realize what's the main purpose of all these comments. I'm not leaving the forum, I just won't post more bets and I will reduce my contribution here. GL to Czech, fourleaf, foo fighter, robinho, money and all the rest of the good punters here!

Alexander Zverev to reach the Final of the ATP Indian Wells at 1.72 with bet365 The odds for Sascha to win the ATP Indian Wells have dropped to 2.05 and it has no value at this point... But the odds for him to reach the Final are at 1.72, so I will go with this one. He will play against Fritz in the QFs. Fritz has won all his matches here in straight sets (Nakashima, Berrettini and Sinner), but his form before coming here was really poor. Moreover, neither Berrettini nor Sinner were playing good. I think Fritz is a little bit underrated for this match but I expect Sascha win it in 3 or 2 tight sets. In the SFs, he will play against Basilashvili or Tsitsipas. Tsitsipas is not playing well. He could have lost against Fognini (2-6, 6-3, 6-4) in the 2nd round, and he could have lost against De Miñaur in the 3rd round (6-7, 7-6, 6-2). De Miñaur was in a really, really bad form and that reflects how poor Tsitsipas has been playing recently. It's also hard to forget how he did in the US Open... Having said that, I wouldn't be shocked if he loses against Basilashvili. I saw a big part of Niko against Ramos. Ramos was serving for the match but he lost his opportunity to close it in 2 sets and then he was destroyed by Basilashvili's winners. Since the Olympics, Sascha has lost only 1 match (20-1), and that was a 5 set match against Djokovic (SFs of the USO).

Actually, it's the 1st time I talk to you, mate. As I said, let's stop this and let's see how we do in our next bets.

@mark22 I completely agree with Czech here, this is getting ridiculous. Let's stop this and let's see how we both do in our next bets, right?

I think you missed this part, my friend: "Moreover, when Azarenka was leading the 2nd set (5-2), Sasnovich held her serve comfortably (to 15) in the next game, and then she broke Azarenka in the first chance she had (to 30) in the next game. In other words, Azarenka was never even close to win neither the 8th game (5-3) nor the 9th game (5-4). With that on mind, it's really, really unfair to say that it could easily have been 6-2". I repeat, regardless of all the wasted opportunities from Sasnovich before the 5-2, you can't say that she was lucky to end that 2nd set 6-4, cause Azarenka was never even close from winning the 5-3 nor the 5-4. Sasnovich held her serve to 15 in the 8th game (5-3) and then she broke Azarenka to 30 in the next game (5-4). What is so difficult to understand...? In case Sasnovich would have faced BPs on that 8th game or Azarenka had MPs on that 9th game then I would say: "Yeah. It could have been 5-2 or 5-3, but that was not the case. So, the +5.5 line was won deservedly. Break Points converted: Sasnovich 3-8 (5 BPs wasted), Azarenka 6-9 (3 BPs wasted). So, you're also wrong at saying that Azarenka wasted many chances. Sasnovich wasted more. I don't care about the Pegula match. I'm talking about the bets I posted myself. I know Sasnovich was far from winning that match, I'm talking about the GH and your comment about how lucky was Sasnovich to lose that 2nd set 6-4 and not 6-2. By the way. You liked Khachanov (-1.5 Sets) and Karatsev. Khachanov has lost in 2 sets and Karatsev only has won 4 games in the entire match. Are you going to make a review on those matches, too? I bet you won't. It's really easy to make these kind of posts once the match is over. I have never done that in my entire life. Sometimes I have made posts telling why I did not like a bet, but I always have done that before the match started, never when it was finished. It's not well seen, mate. Have you ever received a post commenting that your bet was not good after the match was over? I don't think so.

I forgot about this part. It's unfair to say that the 2nd set could "easily" have been 6-2. Let me explain why. First of all, Azarenka did not have a single comfortable service game on that set. She held her serve 3 times and she lost it 2 times. The 3 times she held her serve, she had to face a BP in one game and there were Deuces in the other 2 games. As you can see, she did not have a single comfortable service game. Sasnovich held her serve 2 times and she lost it 3 times. The 2 times she held her serve she did comfortably (there were neither Break Points nor Deuces). In relation to the 3 service games she lost, there were Deuces in 2 of them. Conclusion: unlike Vika, Sasnovich had at least 2 comfortable service games. That's why I said it was not fair to say that it could easily have been 6-2. Moreover, when Azarenka was leading the 2nd set (5-2), Sasnovich held her serve comfortably (to 15) in the next game, and then she broke Azarenka in the first chance she had (to 30) in the next game. In other words, Azarenka was never even close to win neither the 8th game (5-3) nor the 9th game (5-4). With that on mind, it's really, really unfair to say that it could easily have been 6-2. Azarenka did not play well against Kvitova, trust me. That match was horrible. Both players did a lot of errors and served really bad. Kvitova at least had an "excuse", as she had physical problems. At the beginning of the 1st set she received medical treatment on her thigh. After that, Kvitova was forced to play much more aggressive and that led her to do more errors. Imagine how bad was Azarenka, that she struggled to beat an injured Kvitova. I don't understand what are you trying to say with that. You have said that Azarenka played well against Sasnovich, but what that has to do with her previous matches?

That’s brutal. And the players he faced: Halep, Raducanu, MC Osorio, Rybakina, Keys, Mertens, Tsurenko, Rybakina,… 41-58% of points won with 2nd serve against all those players. 26% of points won with 2nd serve against Azarenka. That was frustrating.