PDA

View Full Version : fed will be 3.40 odds against rafa in final

Halba
05-28-2010, 04:44 PM
assuming rafa/fed make it and both in good form he will be 3.40 odds

rafa will be around 1.30, lower if he shows spectacular form/

OKUSA
05-28-2010, 04:47 PM

slicefox
05-28-2010, 04:53 PM
and... who are these noobs to call out the odds?

05-28-2010, 05:41 PM
and... who are these noobs to call out the odds?

Professional odds makers. Just face it, your idol sucks on clay.

abraxas21
05-28-2010, 06:11 PM
assuming rafa/fed make it and both in good form he will be 3.40 odds

rafa will be around 1.30, lower if he shows spectacular form/

That's not possible. It would generate arbitrage oportunities (winning with no risk at all).

Suppose you bet 100 on Rafa and then bet 100 on Roger. By those odds, you'd win (130-100)=30 if Rafa wins and win (340-100)=240 if Roger wins. You'd win in any case and that's not possible.

That unless i'm interpreting the betting payoffs the wrong way.

Cup8489
05-28-2010, 07:29 PM
Professional odds makers. Just face it, your idol sucks on clay.

http://masterprocrastinator.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/roger_federer_wins_b08f.jpg

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/x-0FBhz936A/0.jpg

Yeah, Federer's terrible on clay.

jigar
05-28-2010, 07:33 PM
^^ LoL....

OKUSA
05-28-2010, 07:47 PM
That's not possible. It would generate arbitrage oportunities (winning with no risk at all).

Suppose you bet 100 on Rafa and then bet 100 on Roger. By those odds, you'd win (130-100)=30 if Rafa wins and win (340-100)=240 if Roger wins. You'd win in any case and that's not possible.

That unless i'm interpreting the betting payoffs the wrong way.

i'm guessing these are the odds of straight set victories

Strateon
05-28-2010, 08:32 PM
That's not possible. It would generate arbitrage oportunities (winning with no risk at all).

Suppose you bet 100 on Rafa and then bet 100 on Roger. By those odds, you'd win (130-100)=30 if Rafa wins and win (340-100)=240 if Roger wins. You'd win in any case and that's not possible.

That unless i'm interpreting the betting payoffs the wrong way.

I'm not getting you.

If you bet 100 on both, means you spend 200 in total right?

First case scenario, if rafa wins, you spend 200 to gain 130 bucks. So 130-200= -70. Not exactly a profit right?

Second case, if fed wins, you spend 200 to gain 340, so u earn 340-200=140 right?

OddJack
05-28-2010, 08:37 PM
bookies set the odds based on previous performances. There are other variables that they dont know about, or dont care. e.g. Nadal injuries in last year's FO. Nobody knew he was injured till he lost.
Its the same for this year.

Ray Mercer
05-28-2010, 08:44 PM
Federer's the greatest but I wouldn't take him over Nadal in a 5 set match on clay at 5 to 1 odds.

05-28-2010, 09:06 PM
I should reiterate - Federer sucks on clay compared to Nadal.

sh@de
05-28-2010, 09:11 PM
I should reiterate - Federer sucks on clay compared to Nadal.

You mean correct yourself? You never said Fed sucks on clay compared to Nadal, you just said Fed sucks on clay. So you can't have been reiterating anything.

KingOfTennis
05-28-2010, 09:16 PM
Professional odds makers. Just face it, your idol sucks on clay.

bahahahaha *********. anyone is good on clay if they can reach atleast the quarters consistently

[osu]ilovecows
05-28-2010, 09:17 PM
That's not possible. It would generate arbitrage oportunities (winning with no risk at all).

Suppose you bet 100 on Rafa and then bet 100 on Roger. By those odds, you'd win (130-100)=30 if Rafa wins and win (340-100)=240 if Roger wins. You'd win in any case and that's not possible.

That unless i'm interpreting the betting payoffs the wrong way.

Apparently you forgot that it actually cost \$200 to bet on both players? How is that so hard to understand?

zagor
05-29-2010, 02:39 AM
Professional odds makers. Just face it, your idol sucks on clay.

I guess all those Nadal's RG and clay masters titles don't mean much then given that he beat such a crappy claycourter in the final most of the time? Thank you for opening our eyes to how overrated claycourter Nadal is and how this is such a weak claycourt era to have guy who sucks on clay reach 4finals in a row and win a title.

angiebaby
05-29-2010, 02:44 AM
I guess all those Nadal's RG and clay masters titles don't mean much then given that he beat such a crappy claycourter in the final most of the time? Thank you for opening our eyes to how overrated claycourter Nadal is and how this is such a weak claycourt era to have guy who sucks on clay reach 4finals in a row and win a title.

Wait, you didn't know that already?

:twisted:

In all seriousness, Fed isn't a bad clay courter by any stretch of the imagination. He's just not as good as Rafa. But is anybody really?

zagor
05-29-2010, 02:49 AM
Wait, you didn't know that already?

:twisted:

In all seriousness, Fed isn't a bad clay courter by any stretch of the imagination. He's just not as good as Rafa. But is anybody really?

Of course Nadal is a much better claycourter than Fed but Fed is still a pretty damn good one.Saying that a guy who has FO title,reached 4 FO finals in a row and has 5 masters on clay "sucks" on that surface is completely clueless.