2 Mar

In case anyone was wondering, I decided to shut up shop last Tuesday. Both Florianopolis and KL were heavily rain-affected, and if you get involved in a rain-affected match you either have to unwind, possibly (usually) at poor odds, or leave the money tied up until the match resumes. Both options rather unpalatable. Also there was no streaming from Acapulco. So I decided to leave it until Indian Wells starts next week, and probably wait till the TV coverage of that starts next Saturday.

Very sad about the lack of coverage of Acapulco. Strange given there's cameras already there as the ATP event is being covered. Acapulco used to have good coverage up to and including 2010, but been nothing since then. I wonder if there's local coverage but no one can be bothered to stream it.

An acceptable tank?

There's been a lot of fuss over the years about match fixing, tanking, lack of best effort and the like in tennis. The 2008 report issued in the aftermath of the infamous Davydenko match is required reading for all tennis punters (see link in Useful Links section). It notes, quite rightly, that there are shades of grey. As punters we need to be aware that circumstances exist which means a player may not be at her best, or may not be about to give of her best. That's all part of the fun.

There is one sort of tank that I've come to believe warrants careful consideration among the betting community, and that is the lucky loser tank in qualifiers. It isn't mentioned in the 2008 report because markets were not offered on qualies at that time - it's only within the last year or two that markets have been offered.

If someone in the main draw withdraws then a so-called lucky loser is given the slot, and this is allocated based on the qualies ranking. So it is possible for a player in qualies to start a match knowing there's no need for her to win, as she already has a lucky loser spot in the main draw. This information is generally not available to anyone other than those at the tournament.

One of these occurred last night in Acapulco. Fichmann was the No1 seed for qualies and was odds on to beat Castano. She lost 6-1 6-2 in under an hour. Then the tournament updates the order of play and we see Fichmann down to play Bertens in an hour's time as a Lucky Loser. Pity the punters who backed Fichmann.

Dead rubber markets occur in many sports, but the major difference is the availability of information to punters before the event. A dead rubber in, say, a World Cup Group match is known to all, and people can decide whether to risk betting or not. But whether a tennis player in qualies has already got a lucky loser spot in the main draw, and hence does not need to win, is usually known only to very few at the tournament.

I believe there's a case to be made that there should not be markets for qualies for WTA tournaments. Slams are different, as lucky loser spots are allocated by ballot. Caveat emptor seems a thin defence in this case, as the lucky loser scenario isn't that well known, though once bitten by it I doubt anyone will fall in the same trap again, and give final round qualies involving the top seeds a wide berth.

25 Feb

With the strong possibility of non-stop tennis overnight and into tomorrow (weather permitting) it's not immediately obvious when one day ends and another begins. There is a bit of a pause in proceedings at the moment thanks to the second thunderstorm of the day wiping out Florianopolis, though it's only 7.30pm local there and they might get back on, and there's no liquidity for the Acapulco qualies. So I thought I'd call this the end of 25 Feb. Not too bad a day, though a bit of a shocker opposing Garcia.

24 Feb

I do like Petra Martic. Not only is she easy on the eye but she plays an attractive style of tennis. So I was sad to see she lost in qualies in Florianopolis today. It was her first match since Melbourne, and I believe she's had knee surgery since then too. Lets hope things are fine for Indian Wells in 10 days time. (It's still possible she'll get a lucky loser spot in Brasil).

I'm not entirely sure how I won so much on JJ today, looks like overstaking to me, as I shouldn't've managed to get that much at the odds on offer. It must've been a trade or two in running as well, but since it was pretty much a 1.01 train I'm not quite sure how that works either. Oh well.

Was gobsmacked to see Jana Cepelova 1.39 vs a local waitress in Florianopolis and piled in. It was quite a close first set, including the match being halted by a hole in the court and it had to be moved to another one. How embarrassing for the organisers.

( The derogatory phrase local waitress hails from the Betfair tennis forum, where it's applied to any low-ranked local girl who is only in the draw via a wildcard. By that definition there's lots of local Brit waitresses playing in Wimbledon every year!)

Not much going on in Acapulco or KL later so going for a good night's sleep in anticipation of a couple of days of round-the-clock WTA.