Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006)

[Tulenos]

Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) Vaidisova is still a bit too young and gathering experience. Even two-three years older then her, MAuresmo was only gathering experience @ challengers;)

[1ted]

Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) Q. Do you think you have the mental toughness now to match up with a player like Sharapova. She's renowned for her mental toughness. NADIA PETROVA: Well, I think for myself I'm gaining that. I'm gaining that mental toughness. I can feel it. I mean, I can feel also the way I play, the way just I come on court, I feel I'm better than this girl, and it shows. It pays off. ___ I know it's just words but it's an attitude as well :)

[Mr Intensity]

Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) It was a good day:dude DAVYDENKO v Hrbaty @ 1.53 Paddy Power 4pts :D WON profit 2.12pts KIEFER v Chela @ 1.72 Paddy Power 4pts :D WON profit 2.88pts DAVYDENKO + KIEFER double @ 2.65 Paddy Power 2pts :D WON profit 3.3pts W/L = 24/21 Staked = 174pts Profit = -3.522pts Yield = -2.02%

[Tulenos]

Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) Well done on the day, Mr I;)

[jeffers]

Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) Federer was 2-0 up, just look at this ridiculous amounts on Betfair:

Odds	To back	To lay	Traded
1.01	£17,513		£1,069,049
1.02	£8,102		£316,475
1.03	£6,442		£501,166
1.04	£29,389		£241,434
1.05	£6,011		£443,635
1.06	£3,167		£468,759
1.07	£1,713		£832,900
1.08	£1,392		£340,323
1.09			£387,175
1.10	£1,570		£990,592
1.11	£43		£604,726
1.12	£7,025		£208,049
1.13	£69		£201,784

£1m @ 1.01 :rollin :eek

[davidmphill]

Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) Bet those on the 1.01 are bricking it right now!!

[Tulenos]

Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006)

£1m @ 1.01 :rollin :eek

Which actually means half the sum as they count both bets and lays, still some amount, agree - money-buyers' fest once again.

[davidmphill]

Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) Well Federer wins it in the 5th. A bit of a dodgy line call gives him the crucial break, don't normally feel sorry for Germans but you have to feel for Tommy Haas, a top performance coming from 2-0 down to force the decider.

[Mr Intensity]

Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006)

Well Federer wins it in the 5th. A bit of a dodgy line call gives him the crucial break, don't normally feel sorry for Germans but you have to feel for Tommy Haas, a top performance coming from 2-0 down to force the decider.

I thought it was a very clear call:unsure. It could be a pretty tough route for Fed to win this one. Can't see Davydenko taking a set but hopefully he'll play Kiefer in the semis and he could cause a lot of problems for Fed. Possible final may not be that straightforward, especially if it's against Nalbandian.

[edtkh]

Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006)

Bollocks? Roddick was 8/11 i guarantee you before the match in davis cup. Federer was 1/5 against safin' date=' thats not shorter than roddicks odds, also Safin went on to win the tournement and safin is not a no-name like bagdatis. if Bagdatis goes onto win, i shall eat my words. Same with nalbandian, he won the masters. Federer's really bad loss was against gasquaet and that was on clay.[/quote'] Stop talking bollocks and get a life, will you? Firstly, if you need any confirmation Nadal wasn't evens(which would have been the case at traditional bookies if Roddick had been 8/11), refer to this thread : http://punterslounge.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10355&highlight=davis+cup . Lest you think everyone who contributed to that discussion was talking drivel. Alternatively, feel free to check the 'Results' for Tennis on 3rd December 2004 at Hills and let me know what odds Nadal was on pre-match(if you've got some records to back your superfluous claims up, feel free to provide me with any other reputable bookies which keep archive results and betting payout rates that date that far back). Secondly, on to your point about Baghdatis going all the way, that's quite another matter. Taking what kev said earlier, just because Burton Albion held Man Utd to a draw the first time around doesn't bloody mean they'd go on to win the FA Cup, does it? So just what are you on about? You'd be lucky to get 1/5 for Federer anywhere pre-match against Safin at a sportsbook(not including exchanges in the equation) in the 2005 Aussie Open. He was 1/7 at most books with Safin going at 4/1 - so how that surpasses the 2/11 widely available for Roddick against Baghdatis is beyond me. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and discard such finite and minute details in the discussion and let's assume Federer was, on average, at the same odds against those 3(Safin, Bandy and Gasquet) as Roddick was against Baghdatis - so are you for a moment telling me your inspired mind has indoctrinated you with the belief Federer's a muppet as well? Maybe you would like to check out http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/4636334.stm because it's fairly obvious you haven't watched that match - if you had a half-decent mind, I don't think it's rocket science for you to figure it was clearly a game Baghdatis won through his sheer brilliance rather than Roddick being pants.

[edtkh]

Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006)

Roddick got knocked out and cost the backers. ManU didn't get knocked out and cost the backers as well. As this is not the fan but the betting forum, what's the difference then? Neither obliged @ a price which qualifies as money buying. Anyway, this doesn't mean anyone who lets you down is a muppet. It's always down to punters who think the price is right in these sorts of matches. Otherwise you would defo end up with all players and teams qualifying as muppets and would have to call betting a day as there would be no-one left to back. Even the mentioned Federer who loses from time to time as everyone else. Otherwise books would not exist, FootballTennis.

Couldn't agree more with your sentiments, Tulenos. Glad you could put things in perspective and educate a muppet on a thing or two. Evidently, some muppets are beginning to make me feel like Einstein... :lol

[Mr Intensity]

Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006)

Firstly, if you need any confirmation Nadal wasn't evens(which would have been the case at traditional bookies if Roddick had been 8/11), refer to this thread : http://punterslounge.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10355&highlight=davis+cup . Lest you think everyone who contributed to that discussion was talking drivel. Alternatively, feel free to check the 'Results' for Tennis on 3rd December 2004 at Hills and let me know what odds Nadal was on pre-match(if you've got some records to back your superfluous claims up, feel free to provide me with any other reputable bookies which keep archive results and betting payout rates that date that far back).

Mr I tipped Nadal at 2.25:nana :nana :nana To be fair that was top price for Nadal, so Roddick would have been 8/11 at some places. But it's best to try and ignore him ed, however hard it may be:unsure

[edtkh]

Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) Back to the tennis. I personally think Baghdatis is cracking value to beat Ljubicic - Baghdatis tore him apart at the same tourny last year and I see no reason why he can't do it again so long as he can produce 70% of his performance against Roddick. 3.00(most books) is terrific value for anyone who's interested - might be worth throwing Bandy in for a double as well... :tongue2

[edtkh]

Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006)

Mr I tipped Nadal at 2.25:nana :nana :nana To be fair that was top price for Nadal, so Roddick would have been 8/11 at some places. But it's best to try and ignore him ed, however hard it may be:unsure

No, Mr I - Nadal's odds dropped rapidly from the initial stages when the market was first priced up. 2.25 was the price widely available at the off(definitely not an exception) as Hills archived Nadal's price at 2.37. :tongue2 The reason why I remember that clearly stems from Matt alerting me to the prodigious talents of Nadal in that game(and needless to say, I've followed his progress ever since) and especially on clay. In fact, although I can't find the thread where we discussed that, I do recall Matt mentioning Nadal being available at a generous 7/4. :tongue2 Right, enough of the muppet and his bollocks - back to the tennis then...

[Mr Intensity]

Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) LJUBICIC v Baghdatis @ 1.441 Pinnacle 4pts I've opposed Ljubicic twice in the last two rounds and been punished accordingly. He has overcome his Grand Slam jinx and looks to go from strength to strength. To my surprise, he was able to control Johansson from the back of the court and his serve was an awesome as usual. I don't see any way Baghdatis can stop him if he performs - certainly he is in the top 3 or 4 in the world right now on hard courts which is certainly something I never thought I would say. A great win for Baghdatis over Roddick, however, I'm not sure he will be able to reproduce the same type of display and surely must be overrated due to beating Roddick. The two things that are stopping Ljubicic being 1.20 here are Baghdatis beating Roddick and Baghdatis beating Ljubicic here in the second round. Ljubicic is a different animal now, I'm sure he won't put in such a mediocre display. I think fair odds would be just over 1.30ish so this is very decent.

[FootballTennis]

Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) Sharapova win in straight sets @ evens with Williams Hill

[Tulenos]

Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006)

Sharapova win in straight sets @ evens with Williams Hill

A banker with no need of reasoning, I reckon then.

[FootballTennis]

Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006)

Stop talking bollocks and get a life, will you? Firstly, if you need any confirmation Nadal wasn't evens(which would have been the case at traditional bookies if Roddick had been 8/11), refer to this thread : http://punterslounge.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10355&highlight=davis+cup . Lest you think everyone who contributed to that discussion was talking drivel. Alternatively, feel free to check the 'Results' for Tennis on 3rd December 2004 at Hills and let me know what odds Nadal was on pre-match(if you've got some records to back your superfluous claims up, feel free to provide me with any other reputable bookies which keep archive results and betting payout rates that date that far back). Secondly, on to your point about Baghdatis going all the way, that's quite another matter. Taking what kev said earlier, just because Burton Albion held Man Utd to a draw the first time around doesn't bloody mean they'd go on to win the FA Cup, does it? So just what are you on about? You'd be lucky to get 1/5 for Federer anywhere pre-match against Safin at a sportsbook(not including exchanges in the equation) in the 2005 Aussie Open. He was 1/7 at most books with Safin going at 4/1 - so how that surpasses the 2/11 widely available for Roddick against Baghdatis is beyond me. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and discard such finite and minute details in the discussion and let's assume Federer was, on average, at the same odds against those 3(Safin, Bandy and Gasquet) as Roddick was against Baghdatis - so are you for a moment telling me your inspired mind has indoctrinated you with the belief Federer's a muppet as well? Maybe you would like to check out http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/4636334.stm because it's fairly obvious you haven't watched that match - if you had a half-decent mind, I don't think it's rocket science for you to figure it was clearly a game Baghdatis won through his sheer brilliance rather than Roddick being pants.

You can call yourself a muppet if you bet on United in that match. United are not muppets cos they qualified for next round. I call Roddick a muppet for LOSING to a no name. Roddick was pants in the match, he just double faulted on the important pts. Of course bagdatis also played a blinder. Don't argue with FACTS, Federer was 1/5 with Coral against Safin in AO semi's. Safin is a great player, so is nalbandian. Ok, the loss against gasquet was as bad as the loss roddick had against bagdatis. But thats his only REALLY bad loss oppssed to Roddick having MANY bad losses, last 2 slams for roddick was even worse than abysmal.

[FootballTennis]

Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006)

A banker with no need of reasoning' date=' I reckon then.[/quote'] Doesn't require reasoning cos its obvious why its a good bet. Petrova and Hantuchova are similar type players. Thats all you need to know.

[FootballTennis]

Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006)

No, Mr I - Nadal's odds dropped rapidly from the initial stages when the market was first priced up. 2.25 was the price widely available at the off(definitely not an exception) as Hills archived Nadal's price at 2.37. :tongue2 The reason why I remember that clearly stems from Matt alerting me to the prodigious talents of Nadal in that game(and needless to say, I've followed his progress ever since) and especially on clay. In fact, although I can't find the thread where we discussed that, I do recall Matt mentioning Nadal being available at a generous 7/4. :tongue2 Right, enough of the muppet and his bollocks - back to the tennis then...

Roddick was 8/11 thats a guarantee, that was with ladbrokes. stop arguing about FACTS, don't mind if you state your opinions.

[TheRat]

Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) There is NO definates in sport - moron

[FootballTennis]

Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006)

There is NO definates in sport - moron

Whho said there was? edtkh?

[Mr Intensity]

Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006)

Doesn't require reasoning cos its obvious why its a good bet. Petrova and Hantuchova are similar type players. Thats all you need to know.

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol Some people reading this may like a little more information, so I will oblige:

	Sharapova leads 3-1
Rnk/Seed	Year	Event	Surface	Rnd	Winner	Score	Rnk/Seed
56 / --	2003	LOS ANGELES	HARD (O)	R32	M. SHARAPOVA	6-2 2-6 7-5	23 / 14
2 / 2	2005	WIMBLEDON	GRASS (O)	Q	M. SHARAPOVA	7-6(6) 6-3	8 / 8
2 / 1	2005	US OPEN	HARD (O)	Q	M. SHARAPOVA	7-5 4-6 6-4	9 / 9
3 / --	2005	TOUR CHAMPIONSHIPS	HARD (O)	R1	N. PETROVA	6-1 6-2	10 / --

Petrova hasn't done bad in those matches:unsure

Rod Laver Arena - Women's Singles - 4th Round
Match Statistics Draws	Maria Sharapova RUS (4) 6 6 Daniela Hantuchova SVK (17) 4 4

Rod Laver Arena - Women's Singles - 3rd Round Match Statistics Maria Sharapova RUS (4) 6 6 Jelena Kostanic CRO 0 1

Rod Laver Arena - Women's Singles - 2nd Round Match Statistics Maria Sharapova RUS (4) 6 7 Ashley Harkleroad USA 1 5

Rod Laver Arena - Women's Singles - 1st Round Match Statistics Maria Sharapova RUS (4) 6 6 Sandra Kloesel GER 2 1

Yeah she's come through alright, but Daniela had a lot of chances in that second set and could easily have taken it to a third set.

Vodafone Arena - Women's Singles - 4th Round Match Statistics Draws Elena Vesnina RUS 3 1 Nadia Petrova RUS (6) 6 6

Show Court 3 - Women's Singles - 3rd Round Match Statistics Draws Maria Elena Camerin ITA 1 2 Nadia Petrova RUS (6) 6 6

Show Court 2 - Women's Singles - 2nd Round Match Statistics Draws Martina Muller GER 4 1 Nadia Petrova RUS (6) 6 6

Show Court 2 - Women's Singles - 1st Round Match Statistics Draws Sophie Ferguson AUS 2 1 Nadia Petrova RUS (6) 6 6

When has Petrova played this well in a slam? I've been very impressed but will it be good enough to take something off Maria? I'll let you make your own decisions;)

[FootballTennis]

Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) This is far from a guaranteed win of course but a huge match. Sharapova is heavy favourite but I feel the 2-0 @ evens is very generous. What do you guys think about Henin v Davenport? That is less certain.

[Sir Puntalot]

Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) FT, Try to be a bit less defensive, the enemy is the bookmaker not anyone on here. If someone tells you something and you don't agree then give your reasons why, but simply saying "it's obvious", is playground stuff and we're all big boys and girls here. ;) I've been betting for 15 years and at age 31 do I know it all? No I certainly do not. After 5 years of successive profit, last year my "recorded bets" made a loss and this year I am currently abysmal, but you never stop learning as long as you listen to everyone and not the selected people you'd rather listen to. :ok Take it easy, try to provide more reasoning and we'll all live happily ever after. ;)

[Mr Intensity]

Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006)

What do you guys think about Henin v Davenport? That is less certain.

Well I've got Henin on the outrights and have no intention of laying off or trading at the moment. The H2H is 5-4 to Davenport but Henin has won the last 4 meetings including 2 at the Australian Open. She was in good form before this tournament and has been very impressive thus far. The same can't be said for Davenport, who dropped a set to the lovely Maria and was poor against Kuznetsova. She strained a ligament in her ankle before that match and needed it treated in the second set - obviously that is a concern as Kuznetsova played an awful match which is the on;y reason she was able to get through. Justine for me.

[FootballTennis]

Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) Odds seem to be shortening for Henin, early odds at Willhill was 4/7 for Henin, but soon changed to 1/2 and now 4/9. Maybe change to 2/5 I think before the match. I hope Davenport wins though.

[Mr Intensity]

Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006)

I hope Davenport wins though.

Why?:unsure

[FootballTennis]

Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006)

Why?:unsure

Prefer her more as a player. Also I want Sharapova to win. If Sharapova plays Davenport she has 70% or more chance IMO of winning, whereas if she plays Henin, probably 50-50.

[Arkadios]

Re: Tennis : Australian Open (16th Jan 2006 - 29th Jan 2006) What time will Baghdatis play and will they show the game on Eurosport? And if they do will it be on Eurosport 1 or 2? cause i do not have 2.