Torque

Das stimmt wohl, selbst bei djokovic oder Federer würde ich nie auf einen 3-0 Sieg Wetten, weil es denen eben nichts bedeutet, wenn die mal einen Satz abgeben.

well, sinner is a much better player than lorenzi. anyways i don't like betting on straight-sets victories respectively minus games handicaps at all. 
in the end the players just need to win their matches to advance. they don't care about our bets. in germany we got a proverb that goes like this:
a good horse jumps only as high as it needs to.

Probably should expand a bit... First thing Evans has to do is get into a winning position which I don't think happens. Then, having got into a winning position he's got to close out and in a pressure cooker situation I don't think he's able to do it. I'm thinking back to Wimbledon and also a bit further back when he got to the Delray Beach final. 

Me neither. But Townsend was amazing today, her volleys were like good old Llodra or Stepanek, though she was helped by the fact that Halep apparently doesn't know what lobs are and what they are used for.

I watched her yesterday and she looked like she had cement shoes on. Definitely injured, and very lethargic.
Damn, my brother has 4 x $550  courtside stadium tickets for Tuesday next week at Arthur Ashe. Wish I was going. Lucky guy, but it's a full day trip up to NY from Philadelphia, but seriously worth it. 
One thing to check before betting is the weather. If you get a stinking hot day, go for the player who comes from a warm weather background. They are far more used to the heat, and won't fade. Today is 23 degrees.
Three  woman's macthes that I think are pretty solid. Petra Martic over Ana Bogdan, Karolina Muchova over Hseith and Mladenovic over Ferro.
 
 

Nice steady progress here Torque, keep up the good work! 

Reduce stakes and then go and get 5/6 at some juicy prices in typical fashion. Still a massive profit on the day although Spennymoor continue to frustrate, but having said that two late goals from Woking and Braintree were very welcome. 
Tipping at the sort of prices I usually tip at you are going to have ups and downs over a season and its important to judge things over a long period if following my tips because of that. Most football tipsters will be tipping up odds on shots or very close to odds on every week and we have had a month of the season and I've not put up one odds on shot yet (albeit I put two odds on shots in a double).

That really was atrocious from Berdych. He made Brooksby look like Djokovic. Incredible to think he's five years younger than Fed. He looks done to me - wouldn't be surprised if he calls it quits soon.

That really was atrocious from Berdych. He made Brooksby look like Djokovic. Incredible to think he's five years younger than Fed. He looks done to me - wouldn't be surprised if he calls it quits soon.

Not sure what is going on we are usually 3-0 down by now  
On a serious note this is a big improvement from us but will be amazed if this ends 0-0
Ohhhhhh Pepe you have to finish that 

Right, so it's apparently time for the last Grand Slam of the season. Usually, I'd be rather excited and thrilled for the event, but, somehow, I find it really hard to get my hopes up, as I've been a bit disappointed by this season so far. Not results-wise, not betting-wise, I don't know what it is, but I just found it really hard to like a lot of matches. Some of the finals were great and the Grand Slams were quite nice as well, but the smaller tournaments...meh. Anyway, we now have a full set of matches ahead of us on Monday and Tuesday, so I suppose that I should just shut up and get right to them, eh? On another note, good luck to everyone who participates and an even better luck to everyone who gets a few posts in!
Day One
Let's start with the obvious one here, which is Williams to beat Sharapova. I've been looking at that bet pretty much ever since the draw was published and I think that there's every chance we're going to see a quick win for the American here. She's not at her best, of course, but there's still a lot of bad blood between the two and Sharapova is in an even worse form, so Serena should just get the job done in what should be an exciting night session. Sharapova doesn't have enough power to compete with ball-bashing right now, it really is that simple.
The second bet that I like is Muchova to recover from her defeat against the in-form Linette with a good win over Rybakina, who just doesn't have enough experience at this level and who will probably need a year or two before becoming competitive in Grand Slams. Muchova is solid, did well in the tournament last time out, and has enough match practice under her belt.
In terms of upsets, I wouldn't be shocked to see Martincova being fairly competitive against Pliskova, who tends to have slow starts and who might not fancy trying really hard against a compatriot that she knows isn't particularly strong. Martincova is coming off the qualifiers and should get the 17.5 games line covered much more often than not imo.
Finally, on the acca side of things, I'm picking Berdych to beat the young American Brooksby, the in-form Nishioka to beat the very average Giron, and Kerber not to mess up against Mladenovic.
Serena Williams (-4.5) to beat Maria Sharapova at 1.87 with Pinnacle
Karolina Muchova (-2.5) to beat Elena Rybakina at 1.83 with Bet365
T.Martincova/K.Pliskova - Over 17.5 games at 1.72 with Bet365
Berdych + Nishioka + Kerber at 2.08 with Bet365
Day Two
On day two, I very much fancy Linette to continue her good form and beat Sharma, who hasn't been doing all that well recently and who doesn't have much Grand Slam experience either. The fact that Linette has an extra day off should be of a great help and she is a solid type that doesn't have too many letdowns.
Apart from that one, I also like two underdogs, Guillermo Garcia-Lopez and Andrey Rublev. The latter was naturally very good lately, while Tsitsipas is one of those players that blow hot and cold and who's blowing cold at the moment by the looks of everything. He's obviously somewhat better and more composed, but he's also sliding into some sort of a Zverev situation and could be ripe for a loss in what is a not particularly ideal first round draw. The outright price is juicy and appeals. Meanwhile, GGL seems to be going through a nice patch with a good run in the qualifiers, while Isner has been very disappointing recently. He would in an even poorer form without the serve to fall back on and this is the factor that isn't exactly making me love the outright option, but we're getting a nice price for four or more sets and that's what I'm going to go for.
Magda Linette (-2.5) to beat Astra Sharma at 1.88 with Pinnacle
Andrey Rublev to beat Stefanos Tsitsipas at 2.92 with Pinnacle
J.Isner/GGL - Over 3.5 sets at 1.83 with Unibet
Outrights
In terms of outrights, there are only a couple that I fancy. First, I like the odds for Nadal to win the entire thing, as he's been the most convincing of the bunch in the lead-up tournaments and as he still has what it takes to win. Second, Medvedev looks a juicy price to go further than Federer, as I think that the latter might suffer some sort of a Millman accident again after looking mentally beaten after Wimbledon. And, even if that doesn't happen, Medvedev's form might be good enough to carry him further on its own.
Rafael Nadal to win US Open 2019 at 4.00 with Bet365
Daniil Medvedev (vs. Roger Federer) at 3.00 with Bet365

To illustrate the point, on the exchanges right now you can back Spurs to win 3-0 @ 8.8 (which is about 8.4 taking into account 5% commission) and you can back Spurs to win 3-1 @ 13 (which is about 12.5 taking into account 5% commission) - that's better than the 7.5 and 11 that you've got about those two scores and the more you bet at prices like that where you aren't getting the best price the more you eat into any edge that this system might have. What I mean is that in the best case scenario where this approach has value, you're eating into your profits by taking inferior prices. In the worst case scenario where this approach doesn't have any value, you're increasing your losses by taking inferior prices.

I don't want to be a party-pooper @Xtc12 but in the long run I don't see how this can work. Correct score margins are enormously in favour of the bookies so if you bet with them it's like trying to win a race on one leg - it could work on the exchanges though where the prices are much fairer. Best of luck in any case 

Good little run Waggy, try not to chase and you should be able to keep it up  

I'd agree with backing Struff if he wins the first set, as I don't have Medvedev down as much of a fighter. He's fine if he's leading and he's generally sound at closing out but if he has to really fight my observation of him is that's not one of his strengths. If Struff does manage to win the first set and gets into a winning position in the second it's possible he could choke but that depends on Medvedev to a degree. Against Tsitsipas, Struff was always going to have to win every point as Tsitsipas isn't the type to give up and fights to the end whereas Medvedev, at least when I've watched him, sometimes looks like he's given up when he gets behind and that would make it easier for Struff to get over the line and get the win.

I'd agree with backing Struff if he wins the first set, as I don't have Medvedev down as much of a fighter. He's fine if he's leading and he's generally sound at closing out but if he has to really fight my observation of him is that's not one of his strengths. If Struff does manage to win the first set and gets into a winning position in the second it's possible he could choke but that depends on Medvedev to a degree. Against Tsitsipas, Struff was always going to have to win every point as Tsitsipas isn't the type to give up and fights to the end whereas Medvedev, at least when I've watched him, sometimes looks like he's given up when he gets behind and that would make it easier for Struff to get over the line and get the win.

I'd agree with backing Struff if he wins the first set, as I don't have Medvedev down as much of a fighter. He's fine if he's leading and he's generally sound at closing out but if he has to really fight my observation of him is that's not one of his strengths. If Struff does manage to win the first set and gets into a winning position in the second it's possible he could choke but that depends on Medvedev to a degree. Against Tsitsipas, Struff was always going to have to win every point as Tsitsipas isn't the type to give up and fights to the end whereas Medvedev, at least when I've watched him, sometimes looks like he's given up when he gets behind and that would make it easier for Struff to get over the line and get the win.

I wonder what the record is for double faults in a match. Sascha just served 20 

Cheers, I do currently try & keep the balances at a sensible level. I also record all my bets in a spreadsheet & the month end balances for each firm I use. All in all, it should be easy enough for the executors to trace, come the time. Assuming that I haven’t had an epiphany by then & kicked this gambling lark in the head!

There's no single right answer to this and it's even harder to give appropriate advice with so little detail. Even if we knew average odds, how long you've been doing it for, how many bets, strike rate and what the bank stands at now it would give us a bit more to go on.
You could just bet 1% of bank for every bet rather than a flat 1 point. You could, as suggested, increase to 2 points when the bank doubles or a more cautious 1.5 points if you prefer. It's a bit like investing where one is warned against trying to time the market. You could have a fantastic run right up to the point where you double your bank but only have been betting the original 1 point stake and then increase your stake just in time for a bad run of results.
For that reason I'd suggest just going with 1% of bank as the stake. If you're doing several bets a day you could reset the stake at the end of each day, i.e. all bets on any one day will be to the same stake. If you don't want to increase stakes right away you could stick with 1 point until the bank hits, say, 200 points then go with 1% of (Bank -100) as your stake (so 1.5% when bank is 250 points etc.)
A bit waffly but hopefully makes sense!

I think it is a very important topic.
Until one of the experienced guys will help us with the answer I will say my opinion.
 
I think that one of the mistake the player does is to increase the stake too early.  We have to understand that betting is a game of probabilities and the probability to lose all bets for the rest of our life is not 0. It is extremely small but is not 0. Of course this is an extreme example..
The most logical answer is to increase to 2 units when your bank is 200, in order to keep 1% from bank. Probably this would say most of the players.
The second logical answer would be to never increase the stake,  and to save every 100 you get. Probably this would say just a few.
 
I prefer a combination: I would keep the stake 1 until I have 300, then save 100 and increase the stake to 2. 
Now I have 200 and stake 2, still 1% but have 100 saved (my real pofit). A few comments here: Another mistake can be done is to think that the balance you see on your bookie, under your account are yours. No, the money are yours only when save them to your bank account.
 
Will keep it until I have 400, then save 100 and increase to 3...
And so on  
 
As I said, this is what I think in this Monday early morning, the worst hours for my brain in the entire week

Such a small selection 1 day keep trying to figure whether it's good long term.

Looking forward to this Torque, this has always been one of my favourite challenges and I hope you smash it this time! 

The Premier League returns on Friday and ahead of that I've made some decisions about how I'm going to approach this latest attempt. One of the things that makes doing something like this so difficult is temptation. There are so many opportunities each day which can lead to betting impulsively without thinking clearly about whether a bet is really worth taking, and so the first thing I'll be doing this time is adopting a portfolio approach similar to those used in investing. I have a list of bet types and any bets I place will come from this list, which will mean there's no chance of taking something at the last minute that isn't properly researched and considered. It will also help to cut through the noise of all the possible bets that are out there and provide a clear focus.
Secondly, I'm going to keep things very simple by betting on obvious things. I've found there's a tendency to second-guess when looking to back football teams or tennis players that are on good runs, thinking that those runs have got to end at some point - which they have, but at the same time that has to be a better approach than backing a team or player in poor form because they're due a good result. In my experience, and it ties in with Gambler's Fallacy, good or bad form is more likely to persist than change and I'd rather lose backing good form than bad.
Thirdly, to succeed in this I need winners and it's the best football teams and tennis players that win the most and that are in the habit of winning (or not losing) and that's where I want my money to go. I'll be backing match line only in tennis, as ultimately what counts is to win the match, and I'll be laying in football so that I've got draw cover as one point is always better than none.
Finally, as I've done before I'll continue to post my thoughts on the bets I might take. Having to justify each and every bet I place should make it less likely that I get involved in something I end up regretting. With that said though, I'm going to need a lot of luck to do this as I've never got much further than a quarter of the way 

I think he can. Over the last couple of years he's turned into something of an all-courter rather than just adept on clay. He's picked up some nice results on hard and even grass and he must be feeling confident about his game. Goffin on the other hand hasn't been a reliable pick for some time. He shows flashes of brilliance in matches, like against Nadal at the French, but he hasn't really been the same player since his eye injury. Pella beating him wouldn't be all that surprising IMHO.