Smiles Tennis

10 points on Havertz at 4.8
Took that earlier with a degree of a punt on him starting. Still a bet at 3.7 now or even the 12/5 with the bookies, though I'm happier at a bigger price in case he's not got a full game in him.

Thank you for coming back to me on this - much appreciated. Will get something on here this week in the form of a recap

I look in from time to time but as you say there's no full updates. I remember a post about how if the bank drops a certain amount it will be refilled from previous profits, but now I have no idea how many times if at all, that it's had to be reloaded. I glance at the latest post but then just move as I don't really know whats happening. 

I look in from time to time but as you say there's no full updates. I remember a post about how if the bank drops a certain amount it will be refilled from previous profits, but now I have no idea how many times if at all, that it's had to be reloaded. I glance at the latest post but then just move as I don't really know whats happening. 

That is generally the experience for long running and profitable threads in this section. I glance at yours but I’ve lost track of what you’re doing (had a recap now). The way you update could be more engaging and informative, there’s no context for anyone who looks in occasionally or is new to the thread, just selections, results and a bank update.
I’d suggest periodic updates along the lines of number of winners/bets, level stakes return and ROI. I tend to do something like that at least weekly.

Wrist injuries are the worst that can happen to a tennis player, ask Del Potro

Good luck, I currently don't do any tennis but still check back here to see how  your threads are going.  All the best. 

Good luck, I currently don't do any tennis but still check back here to see how  your threads are going.  All the best. 

Lots of selections for today were actually for matches due to play tomorrow. I have swapped a few on the spreadsheet and gone from livescore with selections now, instead of just working my way down the Betfair list. 
Just over 3pts profit today, hopefully this new method for picking selections can work. 
Tomorrows matches. 
 

Lots of selections for today were actually for matches due to play tomorrow. I have swapped a few on the spreadsheet and gone from livescore with selections now, instead of just working my way down the Betfair list. 
Just over 3pts profit today, hopefully this new method for picking selections can work. 
Tomorrows matches. 
 

Not when someone might see my search history!

"It would be a miracle if every player's results tallied with the expected odds"
Miracles happen. Google Susan Boyle if you don't know who she is.

Sounds like the majority of my systems! 
My head's spinning now (been playing chess) so I'll just see how it goes. I can see the logic I just can't tell if everything makes sense of there's a broken link in there somewhere. Obviously you will make a profit if you can identify prices that are bigger than they should be. I'm just not sure to what extent past performance at a given price point is an accurate guide to future results or if it will help you to identify selections that will shorten with Pinnacle. It would be a miracle if every player's results tallied with the expected odds even if the overall market is accurate. I guess if you do this long enough you will resolve the random v predictive conundrum. 
Good luck and thanks for taking the time to reply.

No. I have thought about it in the past but I think it will reduce the number of picks, and also take me twice as long to make selections which was taking long enough as it is in the past. 
I am hoping there's value, time will tell of course. I was thinking just now while I was out running, Pinnacle are the sharpest out there, so the players results should, over the long term, reflect their true odds. 
So a 1.82 opening odds player who wins at the rate of a 1.62, wouldn't you think that 1.62 would be their true odds? and Pinnacle odds, if they're efficient, which they apparently are, should move towards 1.62 as the money comes in and they get more information on the player? Pinnacle can get to the efficient price over time before the match starts, so it's kind of like (wishful thinking here) that by having the Pinnacle opening odds, and the players win % (or true odds), you have the two parts of the recipe that you need to grab value before it starts, thinking that a 1.82 shot who wins at a 1.62 rate *should* move closer to 1.62 the closer the match comes.
Or it's all just random and I will call it a day and start from scratch again lol

I take a list of matches using 15 ticks each side. So for 1.82 I check when he's started between 1.67 and 1.97. I did extend it to 20 ticks each side in the past and it gave similar results. You usually get 30 matches upwards in the results for a certain odds bracket. Seems a bit small to usually rely on but it's all I can get. And over the years of using this kind of research I have checked thousands and thousands of matches, I don't think I've ever had someone be miles out from the market prediction unless they've played about 11 matches at those odds. 
So Bonzi using 1.67-1.97 is 21-13 (61% wins). 
Using 1.62-2.02 so 20 ticks either side, he's 36-20 (64%)
You have extra wins but 2 of his last 4 wins in the second search were at odds of 1.64 and 1.66, so I went back to using 15 ticks and smaller sample as I hope this will be more accurate even with a smaller sample. Thinking about it all the extra matches in the second search (22 of them) will be where he is 1.62-1.67 or 1.97-2.02 so that's quite an amount too add in when they're at the extremes. 
 

Couple more Challenger matches, that looks like it for now. I had a bit of a eureka moment last night and it might prove to be better long term. Of course we all know that to win long term you need to bet at value odds, so beating the SP at the sharp bookies or Betfair (as that's pretty much efficient) is the only way. 
I realised that my software pulls in the odds from Pinnacle when the matches are released. I would often check the stats of how the players performs at certain odds but using the current Betfair odds. This could result in inaccurate stats being used. 
Last night I thought what if I check the matches very early, and see how the players perform using the opening price. If I can then beat the SP then long term that should work. 
For example. Bonzi v Brooksby, Bonzi's opening price was 1.82 (55%), when his average opening odds are 1.82, he's won 61% (1.64) of the matches. So using the opening odds I can see how he's performed and if I can get a value price on the results stat of winning like a 1.64 shot then hopefully it's all good. 
I "got on" (paper trading) at 1.75 last night, he's now 1.7, so if he does continue to drop then it's a value bet obviously. 
Molcan was 2.6 last night and is now 2.48, Cressy was 1.58 last night and is now in to 1.48. 
Some have stayed around the same odds, can't see any drifters yet. 
It means checking the matches early, which is also better than me sitting down multiple times in the day and checking the matches before they start. 
Anyway, couple more challenger ones I did this morning. 

To be fair to Yalwen it is important to understand the results to level stakes.
I am also sceptical about staking plans.
Your system does appear to be successful although it is difficult to verify this because you exclude commission from your calculations.
 

I don't really follow ATP so can't say. I focus on WTA, and haven't been following that since before covid too much so need to get caught up with things in that regards as well. 

WTA Berlin: Pliskova to beat Gauff @2.6 with Betfair
Pliskova not been in great form but has been serving well this week. Might be time for her to get in form just before Wimbledon. I will have a go at this price, I think it's slightly too high. Gauff has been on a great run, but has had two easy matches on grass where she was strong fave. This will be a bit trickier for her. 

I like this one but I'm on Gauff in a big acca I placed this morningwith a low stake. Might change my mind but I can't cash-out so will take Pliskova as a single.

WTA Berlin: Pliskova to beat Gauff @2.6 with Betfair
Pliskova not been in great form but has been serving well this week. Might be time for her to get in form just before Wimbledon. I will have a go at this price, I think it's slightly too high. Gauff has been on a great run, but has had two easy matches on grass where she was strong fave. This will be a bit trickier for her. 

OK, the original research and thinking even from before covid etc was mean regression. For example, player A is 1.5 but checking their stats and results shows they win 72% of the time at those odds. I thought they must regress to the mean towards 66%, and I would therefore bet against them. 
We always hear that the markets (mainly Pinnacle closing line and Betfair) are very efficient, the most efficient. After the other day with the losses and further research, I might have my doubts. 
I am always trying to do this in my spare time and throughout my workday (i have my own business so can jump on the computer whenever, this will be ending soon though as we've been taken over). So I spend most of the time making the selections rather than further research. 
Well I found a good Pinnacle article (they have some great ones for those that haven't read them) about the efficiency of tennis markets here: https://www.pinnacle.com/en/betting-articles/Tennis/how-efficient-is-the-tennis-betting-market/U522ZLSEPQJA8Q2N.
So this, coupled with further research makes me think mean regression might not happen with tennis. 
Seppi for eg, played the other day. I checked his career stats as he's been around since about 1925 playing tennis and he has consistently underperformed the odds throughout his career, winning 62% instead of 66% at 1.5 average odds. It's wins and defeats mixed about, not huge runs of wins that take it back to 66% then he drifts from this. 
I checked a few more players with long careers and lots of stats, and at different odds, Nadal (1.3 odds, wins more than expected by about 3%), Federer and others. 
I am now thinking that certain players will always under/overperform compared to the odds. With some overperforming and some underperforming, you can take the results from 10,000 tennis matches and overall it looks efficient (well, as it can be until Pinnacle article arrived in my thoughts). But if you dig down in those 10,000 matches then you have certain players above and some below. 
Now I will be backing/laying compared to if someone has overperformed or not. I will go back to paper trading but keep the same stakes and spreadsheet going. 
Other question I have is for lower ranked players. How many matches do they need to have played before we can see if they are over/underperforming? Do we have to wait until they're halfway through their career before trusting they're over performing? Something to think about. 

Yeah it's real money at the moment, and i expect the edge to be small. I can keep going with the £500 i started with, then paper trade if that runs out. 

It's just one day. You could be 90 points up at this point instead of down and it wouldn't make any difference. The chances are if this works then the edge is tiny and so that means you'll need thousands and thousands of bets for the edge to show and stick. Keep going - as long as you can afford to of course if you're staking real money. 

There was one more that I forgot to add to the spreadsheet, sorry guys! I only just saw it on the Betfair list with a bet matched and I checked to see who I had backed but couldn't find it. 
Backed Milojevic at 2.56 who is about to win the first set. I have attached a screenshot so I am not just after timing, i haven't forgotten to add it to the spreadsheet before and will double check going forward.