Announcements
*** New Last Man Standing Competition - Win up to £1500 Annually - See Competitions Forum ***
*** October Competition Winners: Well done to Roland Cooper (NAPS), BillyHills (KO Cup), Theodore007 (Football Tipster Competition), Bagzi (Last Man Standing Comp) & Demios (Poker) ***

liquidglass

Regular Members
  • Content Count

    288
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

liquidglass last won the day on August 27 2018

liquidglass had the most liked content!

2 Followers

About liquidglass

  • Rank
    Newbie Punter
  • Birthday 09/11/1990

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thank you Senking. I very much appreciate your input. This was the position that Paddy Power was holding until I decided to test it against their own interpretion of the law. Now let us revisit their rule and see what it says. First it says that for match betting market, if a player retires in a WTA or ATP match as described there, the player progressing to the next round or winning the tournament(if that was a final) will be deemed the winner unless the player retires before the conclusion of the first set in which circumstance match betting shall be void. Now here is the crunch bit that affects my bet; the rule continues like this; "Bets on all other tournaments or matches and bets on other markets i.e other than match betting markets (that this bet is a part of) will be voided where a player retires(regardless of whether the retirement occurs during or following the first set UNLESS, in the case of other markets the outcome of the bet had been unequivocally determined prior to the time of the retirement. My bet clearly falls into the red zone above. Firstly, what does the statement in red imply? It implies in lame man's terms that there is still a possibility of my bet being a winning bet despite the retirement of one player if it can be proven that my player(Kalinina) could have won the match 2-1 as set out in the terms of my bet slip. The word "unequivocal" means beyond doubt. Now this portion in red would not have been invented by Paddy Power if it was not possible to win a bet like mine despite retirement. So I put it to the Manager to give me any example off the back of his head where there can be a possibility of paying out a selection like mine as a winner despite retirement. If they have it in their rule then it automatically follows that the practical possibility must exist. The manager said he could not think of one.So I proceeded to explain what the rule clearly meant. Before the match started there existed 4 possible result as outcomes namely 2-0 0-2 2-1 1-2. Before Von Deichman withdrew the score was 1-1 so ther were only two possibilities left. When she withdrew, she forefeited her right to win the third set or puting it bluntly, she lost the third set by default by giving up. The left only one possibilty of a result, 2-1 Kalinina. If say the score was 1-0 to either player at the time of retirement, then it would have been right to void the selection as there were still other possibilities of a result like 2-0 0-2 or 2-1 1-2. The manager later tried to argue from embarrassment that at the time of retirement it was still possible for Von Deichman to come back from 2-5 down and so the result was not unequivocal. I told him that that line of thought was inadmissible in this case. When a player retires, there is a consequence. They lose either the set or the match depending on which is most applicable. If therefore Von Deichmann lost the set as a result of the default, then Kalinina wins the match 2-1. Let us look back and apply this school of thought to the match betting rule. When a player retires after one set has been completed, the other player is considered the winner. Or were they not aware that the defaulting player can still come back in that case? I will conclude my case with what I deem the cruncher as I highlight on the portion of the bet rules that explains what happens when a player defaults which is covered in rule 2. It states that When a player retires, the one who wins for all intents and purposes will be deemed to have won all points/games/sets which would have followed the disqualification. So the surviving player of a disqualification does so by inherting games, sets and match depending on how applicable. Hence Kalinina wins 2-1.
  2. Thanks Losing Punter for your contribution. The selection on total games had no problem as the total by the time of retirement was already over 21.5games. They were forced to remove the void and paid me. The real problem is whether they were right not to pay for Kalinina to win 2 sets to 1 considering that Kalinina was already up 5-2 in the third set. Rule 1 covers that particular situation and clearly states what should happen. My question is does everybody see it the way I see it?
  3. Dear Fellow Members, I am in an ongoing dispute with Paddy Power Bookies over an accumulator bet that I took some days ago with them. they paid me half of the bet and voided 2 selections relating to the bet causing a drastic decrease in my winnings. My arguement has gone on with them for over three days now where it has now been escalated to the highest level management with no fruitful result. I told the last supervisor after today's phone call that I was going to tender this case on a tennis forum for the members to be the judge. If a great number of you guys agree with me after I have tendered my case before you, then I will certainly go on to the ombudsman to continue fighting for justice. here is a summary of what happened. I played Heather watson to beat Makarova 6/4 - loser Heather watson to win a set vs Makarova 4/7 - Win Vania King +4.5 games over vikhlyantseva 8/11-Win Anhelina Kalinina to beat Kathinka Von deichmann by 2sets to one 3/1 Void Anhelina vs Kathinka Von Deichmann over 21.5 total games 8/11 Void Ryan Harrison vs Kevin Anderson over 36.5 games 4/5 Win Camila Giorgi Vs Whitney Osuigwe +7.5 handicap 2/9 Win five fold x 4 bets @£15 = £60 staked The problem begins when Von Deichmann withdraws at 2-5 down third set (6-1 6-7 2-5) resulting in paddy power voiding those 2 lines and making me almost £160 out of pocket. First I argued that they had no right to void the over 21.5games total as I had already gone past 21.5 before the default. They tried to hold on to a flimsy point before realising that they were stuck and agreed to pay out. Let me point out that I have called them over 15 times in the past to correct this same problem where they have always paid out over this same issue after similar long and hard verbal exchanges. However over the years they have never fully updated their systems to recognize and payout whenever this situation occurs which in my opinion is criminal. So for those customers who do not know better, they simply lose their money in ignorance. Here is where I need the opinion of our humble members and tipsters. Paddy Power has refused to payout fully on the bet on the grounds that the selection in question remains void according to their rules displayed at the link that I will paste below.. I really would appreciate opinions from anyone who would be kind enough to read the rule 1 and 2 and see whether or not it applies to my bet and whether Paddy Power is right in their translation of the rule. The big question is what does the word unequivocal mean in the way that they have used it. I will state my case to you once I have heard enough opinions. thanks everyone! https://support.paddypower.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/73/~/tennis-rules
  4. Zvonareva Vs Sabalenka Sabalenka clearly running on reserves should not be able to give the veteran Zvonareva a 5.5 start. I see Zvonareva pushing her well enough to go over the total 19.5 games barrier as well. Verdict over 19.5 games
  5. Borna Coric vs Carballes Baena Coric 15/7 on hard courts this year and 2/4 recently would seem way way overpriced against a claycourter like Baena who is really no mug on hard courts. He is 3/4 this year and most importantly 3/4 in current form. Coric has no major weapons and thrives on consistency during rallies. I really think Baena can hold his own comfortably against him. Coric 1/14 is a clear depiction of a piss-take. And just like they heard me, a price slash happens this minute, now Coric 1/12. This match really has the potential to drag for some considerable length considering that their only meeting many years ago ended in a tight 3 setter on clay. Verdict. over 30games in total 10/10
  6. This is an indication that your knowledge in the sport is somewhat suspect. What then is your idea of a world class tennis player? Will you restrictively confine it to the top 2 or 3 in the world. I would say certainly not. One described as such is one who can hold their own certainly among the very best in the world. Goerges is that player. One who more than often maintains her consistency in winning matches she is supposed to win. Goerges is that player. One who no one will bat an eylid wondering what went wrong with the others if she suddenly won a slam. Goerges is that player. I am somewhat baffled by your unsubstantiated and pointless arguement in reference to her playing bad against a 17year old and being almost defeated by another 17year old. What has age got to do with the price of milk my friend? Playing badly is not synonymous with results. In the end she won. Ask Mr Morinho, he will brief you better. Even after all is said and done, if you know your tennis well should't those 17year olds and alikes like the ones you mentioned be the most feared in the sport today? If a player is going to be really progressive everyone expects to see those signs by 17years old. It is the reason whywe do not refer to talents such as Anisimova as mere 17year olds. Players are human and have rigorous and hectic schedules. They are also by default always certain to run into a bad patch at some point. The length of this bad patch could vary from player to player. If your idea of a world class player is "one who always wins when I bet on them" then may I suggest you reboot your thought process!
  7. Really like the Dimitrov choice. Real balls i'd say against one of the most popular first round choice of public opinion.
  8. Simona halep Vs Kaya Kanepi This one here is a product of market force where the possible outcome of this match is clearly determined by the digital movement of the odds. Those who understand the dynamics of market forces will know that in most situations odd movements are a more dependable tool for pointing to the outcome of any match than any stats will dare to do. That also will depend on the interpreter of these movements. It is true to say that they do not always turn out to be 100% accurate but in most cases if the trace factor is dependable, should return over 80% accuracy. This has worked for me with over an 80% success rate using my own statistical analysis on the price movement. the conclusion clearly says Kanepi is a very strong positive in this match up. the question is to what extent? This is where judgemental wisdom is applied. In my opinion Kanepi is positive even to the stage of calling a mild upset alert. Kanepi to win a set is also good at 7/10 still. However, I am going to make what should be a brilliant investment call @ Kanepi over 6.5 total games
  9. Shapopalov vs Aliassime I clearly recall Shapovalov's interview after beating Edmund in the first round of queens Club where he was praised for his very high work rate that had brought the dramatic increase in his play. He said, if you think I work hard you really need to meet my friend and mentor Auger Aliassime. "He is what I call an endless workhorse, an epitome of perfection. I look up to him because I want to be like him. He will certainly govern the world one day" From that day I kept looking for this raw talent borne out of Africa whose name the interviewer was having a torrid time pronouncing. The head to head stands at 1-0 Shapovalov. I guess that was then; this is now where the most anticipated match of the FA cup of tennis lies a few hours away. It has to be said that Shapovalov has currently lost his shine but is still there as the favorite and deservedly so. They are best of friends and double partners and I just hope that the last revelation does not delete the competitive edge of this great match up. Aliassime played his qualifying rounds perfectly despatching everything in sight in straights and conserving energy for the main event. This should be really good first round match. verdict: Aliassime to win; over 38.5 games.
  10. In my humble opinion, it would be a sweeping statement to say "she threw" the match. The girl has not even grown up enough to work for enough food for herself talk less of throwing away. In a big tourney such as New Haven she would only have been trying her hardest best to arrive at victory. Not even the best of players can afford to throw matches away in a tournament of that magnitude. Goerges in recent times has been nothing short of world class material. You really have to earn victory from those sort of players even if they are at their tiredest low. Gritt is the difference between the old Goerges and the new one. It is from a similar fabric that the new Sabalenka has emerged from - doggedly and annoyingly clutch. This brings me to my second observation; To be successful in this indulgence, you must be pokerfaced at all times devoid of emotion. People sometimes get emotional when a player clearly lets them down and they now somehow find themselves chosing a pick which is more from a payback to the offending player. All players will always be guilty of coniving against us at one point or another. Fact. The only person that can disappoint you is you who made a bad pick. She would not have be seen to throw the match away had you been on Goerges. I also think it is the same case with Stephens. Surely she has to be allowed a flop here or there especially judging from the alarming consistency by which she now appears at the business end of these big tournaments. Going against her at home in the first round with a player of no repute would seem a disastrous call just even pondering over the potential matchup. Sloane has a lazy style that has effectively lands most opponents in handcuffs bar a few. I just do not think Rodina has the credentials to get over that bar. Time will tell if she is able to shut my big mouth.
  11. While I think you may be right in the pick, I think that they are players of equal potential especially with Muchova leading the h2h 1-0 and very much in form. Well.....maybe Yastremska just looks a bit more polished at this level and has despatched better opposition recently especially if the goerges match is a true reflection of her current ability level. Good luck!
  12. Osuigwe Whitney vs Giorgi This should be a very easy game for Giorgi or a cake walk as someone has once before described on this forum. Giorgi has had some good workouts on hardcourts recently and has maintained a good winning ratio beating people that she should normally beat but perhaps getting to no milestone of importance in all those victories. Giorgi in my opinion is an intresting vibrant and engaging player with her heavy groundstrokes and quickplay. She is also very regressive (A Player in orbit on a destination to nowhere) Lost recently to Bencic 6-4 6-4, prior to that, brushed aside by a mundane and insipid Keys and lost in a three setter to Kuzmova who really in my opinion is a player for the future. Whitney Osuigwe represents hope for the future of American tennis. She is the reigning ITF junior world champion and a former no1 junior in the world. Osuigwe also won the 2017 French Open to become the first American to win the girls' singles event in 28 years. She is currently 16yrs old and has been playing well recently to be worthy of mention. I expect her to improve a lot from her recent defeat to Bencic and play with more confidence and freedom against a clueless Giorgi. I will not go overboard here with anxiety. Verdict: over 19.5 total games. Good luck all!!
  13. Hard match to call here which I really believe is better not calling as I see it as a match of potential distress. In my opinion Bertens pulling out will seem to be the favorite call. I really do not think Kontaveit will beat Bertens neither will Bertens allow herself get beat for free. It just will not happen. There is the confidence factor to defend if anything. The second best call which is not beyond the realms of possibility is Kiki the Beast Bertens continuing her winning streak
  14. Tennis Black Friday Hello Everyone, Well....you guessed it right. I am the pioneer of Tennis Black Friday perhaps borne out of a lack of something better to do....or maybe just easily coined out of pure undiluted thought and imagination. However, it is what it is. Black Friday come early. I came up with this idea just pondering over the numerous rain delays that have plagued tournaments in the last week or so causing stress and hectic schedules to players and most of all creating huge opportunities for punters. The effect of matches being stopped and started ultimately leads to inconsistent and uncertain outcomes in various permutations of expectations. Players become frustrated and confused from not knowing when they are playing or from suddenly being faced with the prospect of playing two long matches in one day. The bookies on the other hand lose track of their pricing methodology and do not really know how to price up certain players. Out of the resulting confusion bookies like Paddy Power already reknowned for their dodgy behaviour of manipulating numbers, blank their inplay screens as their once dependable faculties begin to buffer. Collectively in enjoying the fun of Black Friday, we can all come together as one potent unit (lol) to open our eyes like hawks looking for bargains and possible power failures. My idea of a power failure is something like this; Sabalenka vs Keys with the amount of games and three set matches and narrow escapes that Sabalenka has already had, despite her scintillating form, she should experience power failure against a very fresh Maidison Keys. I also think Anisimova will benefit from the continuous mayhem with a bit of confidence drawn from the combination of beating Martic, an extra day's rest and home advantage. Anisimova should win a set and possibly more. Finally to enjoy the best of both worlds, I have decided to quickly take the day trip to New Haven to wholly benefit from the experience and come back in enough time to join play at Cincinatti. This is where I find my bargain of the day with Maria Mateas standing a more than decent chance of flooring a waning Kristina Pliskova. Okay, lets not be greedy guys. we can take the Mateas 5,5 head start for a confident win. I will look to a big shout from bullish tennis hawks like Czech and Four Leaves (lol) for some more spice. Good Luck everyone and happy Black Friday!!!
  15. Good tip in my opinion with a slight worry about who the weak link really is. It seems like if Pliskova wins bet is won. I tend to disagree. I would say if Barty wins, bet will be safe. I really think Vondrousova stands a brilliant chance despite coming in from the clay.