The tennis injury rule.

[CraigF]

I know some bookies do 1 point, 1 set, full match etc. What in your opinion is best for the punter? I guess if someone is injured they re more likely to lose so that has to be taken into account, I just hate doing me conkers because of an injury. I like a full refund if match ends without a true winner, but could I be looking at it wrong, and the injury rule is good for the punter? Any ideas appreciated. Regards, Craig Fowler

[A-Team]

Re: The tennis injury rule. The best approach is to have an account with several different bookies so that you can exploit the different rules to your advantage. Sometimes it's obvious that a particular player is carrying an injury so if you plan on fading him it's best to do it with a 1-ball book in case he retires early in the match. If however you suspect his injury is nothing serious and feel he's a value bet then obviously it's best to take the precaution of backing him somewhere that will void your bet if he is forced to retire. I don't think either set of rules offers an advantage in itself although for in-play betting I'm sure the traders on betfair with the fastest satellite pictures make an absolute killing every time there's a sudden injury after the first set. Personally I prefer the rule that voids all incomplete matches. It just seems the fairest approach. There's nothing more sickeneing than losing a bet because your player picked up a freak injury, especially if he was winning comfortably at the time.