Wimbledon 2015 odds round-up

CDNguy87

Hall of Fame
Dear All,

Comment 4 - odds changes after first day
Novak impressed bookies in dealing with one of the top 15 grass players in the world, without any match practice, in straight sets. Stan impressed the bookies with his performance too. On the other hand, on today's evidence, Nishikori is not going to win Wimbledon - his odds drop by 25%. Jury's out on Dimitrov and Raonic - no change. Kyrgios wasn't expected to lose this early, or to threaten to win the whole thing - so no change despite the strong win today.

I can't understand that at all. Grass, particularly fresh grass, is a terrible surface for Nishikori, so I really can't see why him struggling in the first round would have such a big impact on his odds. In other words, the high probability of him struggling early on should have been factored into his initial odds.
 

falstaff78

Hall of Fame
I can't understand that at all. Grass, particularly fresh grass, is a terrible surface for Nishikori, so I really can't see why him struggling in the first round would have such a big impact on his odds.

Good point. One explanation could be that there's a difference between assuming that he'll play poorly, and seeing it for real when he fails to put Bolelli away in fewer than 5 sets, and looks for all the world as though he might lose.

So basically I am saying the markets may have been pricing in the very real chance that he would steamroll Bolelli 2, 2 & 4 or something.
 

falstaff78

Hall of Fame
The really interesting question is what the hell is going on with Murray's odds? They seem to rise no matter what he does, or doesn't do. He didn't even play today and his odds went up by more than Wawrinka's!

I conclude that today's increase is just "irrational exuberance" by British punters. "Wimbledon is starting, let's have a flutter on Andy" kind of thing?
 

CDNguy87

Hall of Fame
The really interesting question is what the hell is going on with Murray's odds? They seem to rise no matter what he does, or doesn't do. He didn't even play today and his odds went up by more than Wawrinka's!

I conclude that today's increase is just "irrational exuberance" by British punters. "Wimbledon is starting, let's have a flutter on Andy" kind of thing?

When the odds first came out, there was a consensus among most here (included myself) that he was greatly under-valued by the bookies. I suspect the bettors have agreed and so the market is just gradually correcting itself. He just took Djokovic to 5 sets on the surface where he's at the greatest comparative disadvantage against him, so I would honestly give Murray a > 50% chance of beating Djokovic at his home Slam and on the surface where he's at the greatest competitive advantage against him. In any event, there's no way his probability of winning Wimbledon is barely half of Djokovic's (as the initial 29%:16% probabilities suggested).
 

falstaff78

Hall of Fame
When the odds first came out, there was a consensus among most here (included myself) that he was greatly under-valued by the bookies. I suspect the bettors have agreed and so the market is just gradually correcting itself. He just took Djokovic to 5 sets on the surface where he's at the greatest comparative disadvantage against him, so I would honestly give Murray a > 50% chance of beating Djokovic at his home Slam and on the surface where he's at the greatest competitive advantage against him. In any event, there's no way his probability of winning Wimbledon is barely half of Djokovic's (as the initial 29%:16% probabilities suggested).

That's a great explanation.

Personally I'm not sure I'd make him outright favourite vs. Djokovic just yet. Simply because Murray has not yet actually displayed his pre-surgery form, but only shown the potential to do so. Further, he is on an 8 game losing streak to Djokovic, who is number 1 seed, defending champ, and looked good today.

But I agree that 16% vs. 29% was too big a differential in the other direction, and I like the gradual market correction explanation.
 
The really interesting question is what the hell is going on with Murray's odds? They seem to rise no matter what he does, or doesn't do. He didn't even play today and his odds went up by more than Wawrinka's!

I conclude that today's increase is just "irrational exuberance" by British punters. "Wimbledon is starting, let's have a flutter on Andy" kind of thing?
i call it storm before the lull
 

tennis_commentator

Hall of Fame
Djokovic has been favorite to win every slam since 2014 AO.
So that's SIX slam events, and he's only won TWO of them :D
We are supposed to be in the Djokovic era (if we forget 2013), yet he couldn't win more slams than Wawrinka in 2014, and again hasn't won more slams than Wawrinka in 2015 o_O
 

falstaff78

Hall of Fame
Sorry was traveling so skipped day 6. But it should be ok as it was just midway through the fourth round. And since today is a day off I got lazy.

Will update today shortly!!
 

vive le beau jeu !

Talk Tennis Guru
91jqu1.jpg
the nadal's odds appear to have dropped significantly after day 4... i demand an investigation !
 

kOaMaster

Hall of Fame
Still, compared to Murray & Djokovic, Federer's odds are still crazy low since the French Open, increased only by a tiny margin. How so? Is it his draw? His age? Murray in his half? He's last years finalist, almost won it. Hasn't dropped serve yet. Won Halle.
 

falstaff78

Hall of Fame
Still, compared to Murray & Djokovic, Federer's odds are still crazy low since the French Open, increased only by a tiny margin. How so? Is it his draw? His age? Murray in his half? He's last years finalist, almost won it. Hasn't dropped serve yet. Won Halle.

Hmm good question.

Fed is almost 34. Sure, he's redefining our idea of the limits of performance at this age. (Just as he redefined our idea of the limits of performance overall a decade ago.) But he is still old. And it shows.

In the last three years he's won zero majors compared to 3 and 2 for Djokovic and Murray. He's played 1 major final compared to 8 and 4.

Furthermore if I were a bookie I wouldn't let myself be AT ALL impressed by anything Federer did in the first three rounds of a major. Consider Federer's win loss numbers in majors, broken out by time below.

Rounds 1-3. 2004-07. 47-1 (98%)
Rounds 1-3. 2008-15. 89-2 (98%)

Round 4+QF. 2004-07. 28-0 (100%)
Round 4+QF. 2008-15. 45-8 (85%)

SF+F. 2004-07. 24-4 (86%)
SF+F. 2008-15. 16-15 (52%)

For some unfathomable reason Federer has always been just as automatic in early rounds as he was in the glory days. Since then his performances in middle rounds have fallen slightly. And his performances in semis and finals have fallen drastically.

All of which is to say that what we've seen in early rounds means very, very little for his chances to win the title! Because he's still as good vs lower ranked players as he was in 04-07!

So all things considered, I'd say the odds are about right!! If it weren't for the close runner up last year I'd rate his chances comfortably below 10%, despite what we've seen so far.

Hope that makes sense.
F
 
Last edited:

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
For some unfathomable reason Federer has always been just as automatic in early rounds as he was in the glory days. Since then his performances in middle rounds have fallen slightly. And his performances in semis and finals have fallen drastically.

All of which is to say that what we've seen in early rounds means very, very little for his chances to win the title! Because he's still as good vs lower ranked players as he was in 04-07!

So all things considered, I'd say the odds are about right!! If it weren't for the close runner up last year I'd rate his chances comfortably below 10%, despite what we've seen so far.

Hope that makes sense.
F
It definitely makes sense. ;)
 

kOaMaster

Hall of Fame
Okay, this definitely makes sense - also for Djokovic (how many QFs in a row now? 25?) who's odds relativly speaking didn't really change the first 3 rounds compare to others like murray, wawrinka or kyrgios. even less than Federer's.

by the way: 99-5 in grand slams over a 4-year-period...that's just crazy good. although Djokovic with 95-10 isn't much worse from 2011-2014. And Nadal 87-8 from 2008-2011 quite alright too (missing wimbledon 2009).
 

falstaff78

Hall of Fame
by the way: 99-5 in grand slams over a 4-year-period...that's just crazy good. although Djokovic with 95-10 isn't much worse from 2011-2014

interesting point. you are right on the surface it would seem 95-10 (90% win rate) is not a lot worse than 99-5 (95% win rate). until you think that each additional loss represents a major victory. so that difference of 5 losses, is 5 extra majors over 4 years. (indeed it was 11 majors for Roger vs. 6 majors for Novak.)

that puts a different perspective on it altogether...:)
 

kOaMaster

Hall of Fame
Of course this is true, but you still have to reach all those finals in order to lose then...go back in history and take a look at other players. Thats massive!
 

newpball

Legend
I see currently:

Djokovic 56%
Murray 24%
F 18%
Gasquet 2%

Using the betfair exchange and taking the average value between bid and ask.

:D
 

CDNguy87

Hall of Fame
I still think Murray is under-valued heading into the Semis, while Fed is really over-valued. The markets are really under-estimating the difficulty of a 34-year old getting through best-of-5 matches with Murray and (presumably) Djokovic within 48 hours of each other.
 
Last edited:

newpball

Legend
Fair enough. But aren't the odds on the other players the opposite side of the bet?
Indirectly, as the odds obviously must add up to 100%

But on an exchange you are able to back or lay a bet (effectively bet on an outcome or become "a bookie" and take the other side of that bet). Once any of the numbers go out of whack arbitrage is possible. It is like going long and short on the stock market.

The times where bookies came and gave you a take it offer are far behind us.

rzIL3S3IRTOumBnN4KfA_john_gotti.jpg


:D
 

CDNguy87

Hall of Fame
If Federer wins, would this be his first ever Slam victory after going into the Final as an official underdog?
 

falstaff78

Hall of Fame
^^^ooh. tbh I don't know. maybe wimbledon 2003? can't imagine he would have been underdog for any of his other major victories....
 
Top