Speaker 1: Check it down, man, now down man. It's the Beating
Speaker 1: of the Book podcast. Kill Alex stand there. Hope you well,
Speaker 1: hope you're staying safe. Hope you're enjoying your life despite
Speaker 1: the strings in surreal time. This is and really hope
Speaker 1: you're enjoying all the content here on the Beating of
Speaker 1: the Book podcast during the pandemic today. Tennis not for everybody.
Speaker 1: But if you don't like it, if you don't like
Speaker 1: betting it, you may not like money. Uh. This is
Speaker 1: Dan Weston for those who are listeners to a numbers
Speaker 1: game at V City's very familiar. I haven't had him
Speaker 1: on the podcast before, but I often say, uh, this
Speaker 1: is probably the guy with the best record over the
Speaker 1: longest period of time in any sport on my shows.
Speaker 1: It's about as simple as that. And what better time
Speaker 1: to use to go through a masterclass series betting tennis
Speaker 1: one oh one really not just the one on one,
Speaker 1: the masterclass series Dan Weston his general approach to handicapping tennis,
Speaker 1: where you can get the data for it, and what
Speaker 1: are some of the myths that he wanted to bust
Speaker 1: or that I at least wanted him to address one
Speaker 1: Betting the Sport of Tennis, Dan Weston on today's Tennis
Speaker 1: Master Class series on the Beating the Book podcast. Enjoy
Speaker 1: It's a numbers game with your host Jil Alexander on
Speaker 1: those us to believe in analytics. It is the numbers
Speaker 1: game right here at Vista, the Vegas s tastt Information Network,
Speaker 1: the sports Betting Network, Serious x and Channel two oh four,
Speaker 1: Visa dot Com, the Visa A foobost link a Game Plus.
Speaker 1: It is Gil Alexander live from Bay Live from San Francisco.
Speaker 1: This is where sports betting, analytics, actionable sports betting information
Speaker 1: lives on the show today. We don't get the opportunity
Speaker 1: during the hamster wheel that we're on during the normal
Speaker 1: sports cycle to stop, reset at and get into handicapping basics,
Speaker 1: especially on sports that we've made hay On specifically here
Speaker 1: on a numbers game like the sport of tennis UH.
Speaker 1: And so we want to do that for a little
Speaker 1: while today because I think this is what there's a
Speaker 1: subset who was like, I really like to get into
Speaker 1: the weeds of tennis. So we'll do this here at
Speaker 1: the top of the show. And for that, of course,
Speaker 1: we bring in our longest tenured UH tennis expert here
Speaker 1: on the show and really the guy that we go
Speaker 1: to for all the nuts and bolts. If you could
Speaker 1: only bet one sporting event across the gamute and had
Speaker 1: only one shot at one event, who would be the
Speaker 1: guy you'd go to and what sport would it be?
Speaker 1: Here's my answer. Everybody's Dan Weston from the UK there
Speaker 1: in England right now, Dan, good afternoon to you. How
Speaker 1: you doing, man, Yeah, I'm good, very condoms, thank you.
Speaker 1: How how first of all, before we get into the
Speaker 1: nuts and bolts here, how has give us a snapshot
Speaker 1: of how folks in England have dealt with the pandemic?
Speaker 1: Is it's similar from your understanding of how we have
Speaker 1: sort of chappy? How has it gone over there? Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's a bit of a strange time really because you've
Speaker 1: got the lockdown has happened, as it has with most
Speaker 1: most countries really, but the government used it off about
Speaker 1: a week and a half of that little bit so
Speaker 1: you can you can see one person who's not in
Speaker 1: your family at any one time as long as it's
Speaker 1: outside and social distancing of two meters away, so there's
Speaker 1: there's a little bit of more scopes sort of do
Speaker 1: stuff you know, and shops are starting to open again,
Speaker 1: like a few few know that sort of burger change,
Speaker 1: like McDonald's, KFC, stuff like that are all starting to
Speaker 1: open again. So it's a little bit of going back
Speaker 1: to some fort normality. But it's so really strange time.
Speaker 1: And obviously no sport as well, which is which is
Speaker 1: strange for everybody, strange for everybody. I'm gonna start telling
Speaker 1: people here when if they get within two ms of me,
Speaker 1: because we use six feet obviously here did I'm gonna
Speaker 1: start telling two meters, buddy, and see if they even
Speaker 1: have any idea what I'm talking about. Said you're doing.
Speaker 1: You write for Pinnacle, you write for bet Fair, you
Speaker 1: did for bet Fair here um Dancy Dance getting calls
Speaker 1: during the show. It's the very popular man Dan you
Speaker 1: for for bet Fair. You've written this Masterclass Tennis betting series,
Speaker 1: and master Class has become very popular on Facebook in
Speaker 1: all different arenas, whether it's writing with Malcolm Gladwell, poker,
Speaker 1: I think, Daniel and Grano, there's all kinds of things
Speaker 1: that people are doing. Master classes. You do one for
Speaker 1: tennis and you linked to it by the way on
Speaker 1: your Twitter. Everybody should know at tennis ratings. So after
Speaker 1: this discussion, if they want to go deeper, uh, they
Speaker 1: can find the links there. But it's in three parts,
Speaker 1: and I want to do the first two parts here
Speaker 1: before the break, and then the third part after the
Speaker 1: first of which is really the nuts and bolts of
Speaker 1: what you do. It has to do with service, hold
Speaker 1: and break opponent percentages or service and return points one percentages.
Speaker 1: This is the crux of what you do because as
Speaker 1: you put it, it really does give sort of a
Speaker 1: fair Bay East line of the skill level of players.
Speaker 1: Now that's exactly it. So there's there's a really strong
Speaker 1: relationship between the combined hold break percentages of a player
Speaker 1: and their win percentage, and likewise with the service and
Speaker 1: return points one percentage for each players the same thing.
Speaker 1: That's both of them really drive win percentages of players.
Speaker 1: And if you if you look at the charts that
Speaker 1: I put in their first article, you can see that
Speaker 1: the top three players by the combined service and return
Speaker 1: points one percentage, feder At, Djokovic, and Nadal all had
Speaker 1: the three highest win percentages as well. So there's the
Speaker 1: elite three are just still still out there. Is the
Speaker 1: best as the best players on tour, and yeah, it's
Speaker 1: it's really useful to start compare and contrast those those
Speaker 1: players and and and what I do as well as
Speaker 1: I use those those numbers surface related hugely, probably twelve
Speaker 1: months sample size, I would try to try to do
Speaker 1: on the whole. And I would then use those service
Speaker 1: return points one percentages and whole break percentages for two
Speaker 1: players on the surface to generate kind of model price
Speaker 1: and just as sort of a guideline. And you and
Speaker 1: I have referred to this on the show before, in
Speaker 1: our in our many times together, when you combine service
Speaker 1: and return points, you just add them together. One fifteen
Speaker 1: is elite, you drop down a few percentage points from
Speaker 1: there you're talking just below the elite level. And then
Speaker 1: one hundred is what top fifty is that kind of
Speaker 1: the very top fifty in the ranking. Yeah, the average
Speaker 1: player on tour kind of thing. If you're a hundred,
Speaker 1: then then about forty five fifty I find to be
Speaker 1: to be about the mark for those type of players.
Speaker 1: And yeah, they're on the whole. Players inside the top
Speaker 1: fifty will have over a hundred percent mark. You know,
Speaker 1: they're winning more points than they're they're losing. But obviously
Speaker 1: that's a bit of a sliding scale. Um. But then
Speaker 1: obviously players outside the top five in terms of ranking
Speaker 1: unless they have long term injury players, you know, the
Speaker 1: guys like Andy Murray, dal Pot etcetera, that they're going
Speaker 1: to have on the whole below for those metrics as well.
Speaker 1: So UM, and it's important obviously, is well kind of
Speaker 1: putting go on and talk about to look at that
Speaker 1: opponent quality and stuff as well. So that's that's that's
Speaker 1: also that's sort of something to discuss as well. Yeah,
Speaker 1: just just to give people some tangible examples. You already
Speaker 1: mentioned Djokovic, Nadalin, Feder at least pre pandemic. We don't
Speaker 1: know any different after the pandemic. But it is amazing
Speaker 1: how those three guys are just completely off the charts
Speaker 1: outlier you were in terms of their just elite status,
Speaker 1: but in terms of that top fifty mark. I think
Speaker 1: one of the things that I found fascinating was, and
Speaker 1: this makes sense intuitively, when we watch the sport of tennis,
Speaker 1: there aren't many examples, you say, of being below a
Speaker 1: hundred percent combined in these categories and being consistently ranked
Speaker 1: inside the ranked inside the top fifty, UM. But there
Speaker 1: are there are some guys that sort of buck that,
Speaker 1: and they tend to be the guys we think of
Speaker 1: as very in Lehman's violence heavy cases, if you will.
Speaker 1: Who are those guys? Yeah, well, I think we were
Speaker 1: kind of enigmatic. It would be a diplomatic word, maybe, teach.
Speaker 1: But benoir Pere was someone we've spoken about quite a
Speaker 1: few times ourselves, haven't we on this on the show.
Speaker 1: And he's this guy who's got a really high ability ceiling.
Speaker 1: I remember watching him play del Potro in Rome maybe
Speaker 1: like I want to say, but it might have been
Speaker 1: a year either side of that, and he wiped the
Speaker 1: fullward del Potro that day. That was That was a
Speaker 1: real tough one for me to take because I was
Speaker 1: I was favoring del Potro that day, and yeah, he's
Speaker 1: got such a high ceiling, but he can just throw
Speaker 1: in really bad performances as well. And and guys like
Speaker 1: Fabio Fannini and Nick Kirios are also also you know,
Speaker 1: fit the bill in that respect as well. I would say, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I find the outliers fascinating in general, because you were
Speaker 1: talking about guys they're tend to win matches more than
Speaker 1: those underlying analytics would suggest, and guys who tend to
Speaker 1: lose more than their underlying analytics suggests give examples of
Speaker 1: those categories. Yes, so for sure. I mean someone like
Speaker 1: Stefano sits it passes, is someone who's a real outlier
Speaker 1: in terms of how much they win compared to their
Speaker 1: underlying data. So so there, his underlying data isn't fantastic.
Speaker 1: His decent, don't get me wrong, but it's not not
Speaker 1: Stelen certainly not like top five level, which is kind
Speaker 1: of on the class of right now in terms of
Speaker 1: a ranking position um and and his return data is
Speaker 1: what tends to hold him back. And I think that
Speaker 1: that the unless he can address that, then it's going
Speaker 1: to be probably quite a big problem in terms of
Speaker 1: you know, looking at Grand Slams in the future on
Speaker 1: the whole. But the vast, last, last majority of the
Speaker 1: last ten fifteen years for men's Grand Slam winners have
Speaker 1: all had above average percentages and considerably about average percentages
Speaker 1: of breaking up oponents. And and that's pretty quite logical
Speaker 1: as well, because you've you don't if you play best
Speaker 1: of five steps, you don't want to play a long
Speaker 1: long point. You don't want to play long matches, long
Speaker 1: set sold matches that cumulating fatigue is just something to
Speaker 1: you've really got to try and avoid as a player.
Speaker 1: And the server orientated players like Sits the past and
Speaker 1: going down the rankings a little bit, someone like Curios
Speaker 1: as well. John is no sport likewise that really holds
Speaker 1: them back in these big tournaments because the one they're
Speaker 1: relying on variants a lot with the big serves and
Speaker 1: tie breaks and stuff like that, key points winning key points,
Speaker 1: but they're also going to get more tired because they're
Speaker 1: playing longer matches on the whole one. And if you
Speaker 1: look at like the winners of Grand Slams compared to
Speaker 1: those guys who are about out in the courses and
Speaker 1: any finals by that stage, a lot of the time
Speaker 1: the winners have played like two three hours less court
Speaker 1: time by the quarterfinals, and it's it's it makes a massive,
Speaker 1: massive difference. On on the flip side, that's someone like
Speaker 1: Mills around it should great or dematrop who have got
Speaker 1: got higher high reputations in the past have underwhelmed from
Speaker 1: a win percentage, but their underland dates is actually a
Speaker 1: little bit better than what you might expect from from
Speaker 1: their win percentage. So then perhaps guys to look at
Speaker 1: next season in terms of favorable conditions as well. Both
Speaker 1: both not quite a fast course petulity demetrol and loves
Speaker 1: the fast core finding finding some value on those guys
Speaker 1: probably underrated a little bit by the market right now.
Speaker 1: Talking to Dan Weston at Tennis Ratings is where you
Speaker 1: can find him on Twitter, Tennis Ratings, dot CEO dot
Speaker 1: UK his website. We won't give away every name and
Speaker 1: every piece of your piece because we want people to
Speaker 1: actually read through them. But in part two and you
Speaker 1: alluded it to it, you alluded to it earlier, Dan,
Speaker 1: opposition quality is such a key component of this, and
Speaker 1: while that may sound obvious to some, you really dive
Speaker 1: into that deeply. Yeah, Yeah, for sure. I mean, I
Speaker 1: mean the fact that I mean, even my eyes I
Speaker 1: will open studying this. To be honest with you, the
Speaker 1: fact that the top top ten player has played like
Speaker 1: three times as many matches against opten opposition as as
Speaker 1: guys who rank forty fifty is just mind blowing, to
Speaker 1: be honest with you, and it really shows how tough
Speaker 1: the top guys have it in terms of having to
Speaker 1: play a high quality opposition on a regular basis. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and and the example of Novak Djokovic is such an
Speaker 1: interesting one for people who ever had any doubts about
Speaker 1: his dominance and just the nature of his dominance. You
Speaker 1: make the point that once you get out of top
Speaker 1: ten opponents, for Novak Djokovic, the dominance level is off
Speaker 1: the charts, like it is breathtaking. Yeah, exactly that. So
Speaker 1: he's boasting like isner service numbers for when he's not
Speaker 1: playing top ten opposition, and obviously but he doesn't have
Speaker 1: that reputation of being such a big server. But then
Speaker 1: he's also like breaking like thirty five percent of the
Speaker 1: time as well. So when you're when you're holding and
Speaker 1: breaking thirty against an opponent ranking bracket that's so tough
Speaker 1: to be in, is it's not surprising he's prohibitively short
Speaker 1: priced by the market in most of those instances as well.
Speaker 1: So here's the money question, then, Dan, Because it occurs
Speaker 1: to me that people are listening to this and those
Speaker 1: that are because those that have listened to this show
Speaker 1: a numbers game on Visa. This is the sport that
Speaker 1: we this in baseball are the two sports that we
Speaker 1: kill the most. And what we've just described about tennis
Speaker 1: really just trying to ascertain what, you know, the difference
Speaker 1: between true skill set and what the stats are, what
Speaker 1: performance shows, right, And it's very similar to pitching in baseball.
Speaker 1: But the money question for those listening and who are interested,
Speaker 1: are okay, baseball, I know where to get all those numbers.
Speaker 1: I go to these specific websites like fan graphs that
Speaker 1: the volume of information is just boundless. Where do they
Speaker 1: go for service hold and break opponent percentages or service
Speaker 1: and return points one percentages? In tennis? Where does one
Speaker 1: get that data? Yeah, that's a very good question. I
Speaker 1: think there's a number of good resources online for that.
Speaker 1: So the ATP website is actually not too bad for it,
Speaker 1: and it goes back quite historically as well in terms
Speaker 1: of the year's current so you can live and look
Speaker 1: at like you know, previous years and stuff like that.
Speaker 1: Um also you can buy all means you can anyone
Speaker 1: can build their own database of data from the match
Speaker 1: stats as well. That I mean, there's so many websites
Speaker 1: which have matched stats for for the individual matches. So
Speaker 1: for example, websites like flash scores, so for scores, there's
Speaker 1: there's plenty of others who are sort of will run
Speaker 1: off the same engine. They look like they run off
Speaker 1: the same engine. Um do the match stats that you
Speaker 1: can then put into your own database and create your
Speaker 1: own database of every single player. Alternatively, there's some subscription
Speaker 1: sites that also cover that type of information as well.
Speaker 1: So there's there's websites such as on Court and Tennis
Speaker 1: Insight as well. They charge the subscription, but they have
Speaker 1: a lot of information as well. So so a few
Speaker 1: a few sites for people to have a look at. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and then every once in a blue moon, we should
Speaker 1: say when you're feeling generous, you come on this show
Speaker 1: and you're like, hey, I'll give this to you black.
Speaker 1: We usually do it for Slams right where you're like, oh,
Speaker 1: I'll give you this up, so you'll you may. I
Speaker 1: don't want to put you on the spot, but maybe
Speaker 1: once or twice in the future you'll do that as well.
Speaker 1: I guess I'm so we will. Yeah. Well, it was
Speaker 1: capped up in Slams and sometimes Masters tournaments as well. Yeah. Yeah, Well,
Speaker 1: let's hope. Let's hope tennis is sooner than later, Dan,
Speaker 1: because you know, as we remember here in this country,
Speaker 1: the night that the NBA shut down and the mornings
Speaker 1: when college basketball tournaments UH conference tournaments shut down. But
Speaker 1: really it was tennis that was the first UH sport
Speaker 1: to have a cancelation. And it was tennis is de
Speaker 1: facto fifth major at Indian Wells the Sunday before the
Speaker 1: NBA shut down where they were, and remember they were
Speaker 1: ridiculed when they did it. But Riverside County, you know,
Speaker 1: which is a very old population, UH predominantly older population.
Speaker 1: They really made a great move there. And tennis has
Speaker 1: been the first sport to really be vigilant about this
Speaker 1: and and UH and shut down sport. But we, like
Speaker 1: every other sport, hope it comes back um sooner than later,
Speaker 1: that's for sure. After the Breakdan, let's get into the
Speaker 1: three biggest myths of tennis handicapping. We'll do that coming
Speaker 1: back on a numbers game with Dan Weston right here
Speaker 1: at Visa these Sports betting them. Welcome back to a
Speaker 1: numbers game with Jill Alexander. Numbers game brought you by
Speaker 1: man escaped dot com. Manscape dot com has the tools
Speaker 1: for your family jewels. You can get off let's free
Speaker 1: shipping with the code visa in at manscape dot com.
Speaker 1: That's at manscaped dot Com with promo code v S
Speaker 1: I n Gil Alexander in San Francisco, Dan Weston in
Speaker 1: England joining us by video Skype, Dan Great question off Twitter. Uh,
Speaker 1: this is the thing I always bring up when it
Speaker 1: comes to tennis data, Jamie Samuel Great Minds or a
Speaker 1: great question? Does Dan fine? Spreads can be quote unquote
Speaker 1: wonky in tennis because players win differently. Some get up
Speaker 1: a break and they are happy to just maintain that break,
Speaker 1: maybe to conserve energy. Fed on grass comes to mind.
Speaker 1: He says, others tend to put their foot down and
Speaker 1: don no matter the score. I would sort of add
Speaker 1: to that. There is this notion of people people always
Speaker 1: the brains always goes to fit, they go to fixing matches.
Speaker 1: I'm not talking about fixing matches. What about the dirty
Speaker 1: data also of guys who they're down a break in
Speaker 1: a set. Let's say they're up two to one, and
Speaker 1: let's say a five setter, they're down a break in
Speaker 1: a fourth set, and they just kind of decide, yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna let this set go and play the
Speaker 1: fifth set. So there is that notion of of dirty
Speaker 1: data in tennis. Is that a problem for you? Yeah?
Speaker 1: I know what you're saying here. I'm I think that
Speaker 1: it's quite a rare circumstance. That's say, a player will
Speaker 1: tanker set when they're a set down just to break
Speaker 1: downstars saying a set when they're leading, so te one
Speaker 1: up in in the fourth set in a Glands slamming
Speaker 1: the breakdown. I don't think. I don't see that as
Speaker 1: being a major major issue. Um. It probably does happen sometimes,
Speaker 1: but I think the effect on overall data is like
Speaker 1: a very very negligible. Obviously, in the best of three
Speaker 1: set of matches, it's even less likely that someone's going
Speaker 1: to want to tank a set just just you know,
Speaker 1: I think that's you could you can say that there's
Speaker 1: as much likelihood of that happening from the kind of
Speaker 1: fatigue mentality kind of perspective as as a player just
Speaker 1: kind of like imploding anyway and mentally and you know,
Speaker 1: just just completely like losing the pullot mentally because they's
Speaker 1: stressed or whatever. And I don't see it's a major
Speaker 1: issue um at all, really, to be honest. And and
Speaker 1: as far as what Jamie was saying, where certain players
Speaker 1: might have different behaviors, I guess it all falls under
Speaker 1: the same category where you're saying is you're you're just
Speaker 1: going to look at the raw data. The more you
Speaker 1: overthink it, the more you're polluting it. Basically, you don't
Speaker 1: want to get into that game. Yeah, I mean with
Speaker 1: with with the kind of the raw data and looking
Speaker 1: at player ability to come back or or retain retain leads,
Speaker 1: will come back from deficits stuff. That's that's very very important.
Speaker 1: I have a database with that as well, which I
Speaker 1: think is quite useful, particularly if you're maybe taking taking
Speaker 1: prices in running as well, if you can do that. Um,
Speaker 1: but there is a kind of a trend really, so
Speaker 1: what yours find is that the serve orientated players they
Speaker 1: win sets by much more narrow margins, but there are
Speaker 1: also a lot better at retaining leads because they've got
Speaker 1: that powerful serves to back them up when when times
Speaker 1: get tough, then a breakpoint down or fifteen fifteen forty down,
Speaker 1: a lot of the time they can serve their way
Speaker 1: out of that whole. And whereas whereas a more return
Speaker 1: arounentated player and perhaps a typical clay quarter doesn't have
Speaker 1: the serve to to bail them out when when when necessary,
Speaker 1: And so generally you find that there's this trend where
Speaker 1: the lower the hold percentage or the small smaller the
Speaker 1: gap between whole percentage and break percentage, the more likely
Speaker 1: a player is to to lose leads and to have
Speaker 1: more more of a a match which is quite topsy
Speaker 1: turvy with a lot of breaks, or perhaps some some
Speaker 1: dominant sets as well, like a double break leader for
Speaker 1: set like say six to as opposed to the server
Speaker 1: orientated guys, you know that is a curiosity and federer
Speaker 1: who with a lot of sets sort of six four seven,
Speaker 1: five seven six type things. All right, Dan, we got
Speaker 1: ninety seconds, So I'm going to shout out the three
Speaker 1: big myths in tennis handicapping, and you give me a
Speaker 1: few words on them. One the fallacy of head to
Speaker 1: head records. Yeah, so head to head records. This is
Speaker 1: the sample size is just not big enough to to
Speaker 1: to warrant much investigation into this um what what what
Speaker 1: I would say is that it's got to really have
Speaker 1: a lot of context with it. So recently, the recent
Speaker 1: data two to three years at least the three Neil
Speaker 1: lead would be would be recommended. Also, the surface did
Speaker 1: they play on the surface, which was favoring one particular player,
Speaker 1: and also like looking at the career trajectories of of
Speaker 1: the different players as well, because sometimes you see like
Speaker 1: a guy like three down in head to head, but
Speaker 1: all them three defeats were like when he was like
Speaker 1: a young player and now he's a lot better. So
Speaker 1: how can you really give any credence to that head
Speaker 1: to head? He can't really um and and understanding the
Speaker 1: context of the matchup as well. So I talked about
Speaker 1: my my my friend who was top ten player at
Speaker 1: one point, he had eight nill head to head the
Speaker 1: deficit against one player, but he he lost like tire
Speaker 1: breaks and blue match points and blue serving for the
Speaker 1: match and stuff like that. So he said to me
Speaker 1: he's never he would never felt beat before he went
Speaker 1: on the went on court, you know against that guy,
Speaker 1: even though it's like miles down in the head to head.
Speaker 1: Tell you what, we'll come back after the break. You
Speaker 1: don't mind, do you mind stoking around one, because we'll
Speaker 1: get we'll get to the other two myths addition to
Speaker 1: to the fails you have head to head matches, because
Speaker 1: there's two others that I think are key, the second
Speaker 1: of which is really fascinating Dan Weston talking tennis since
Speaker 1: we've got the chance during these strange times, was taken
Speaker 1: to get to the nuts and balls of tennis. Handycamping
Speaker 1: on the way. Christopher Leek has still become Bill Crackerburger
Speaker 1: as well on the Numbers Game and Visa Vista spending
Speaker 1: them Welcome back to a numbers game with Jill Alexander.
Speaker 1: It is a numbers game right here at Visit Serious
Speaker 1: XM Channel two of four, Gil Alexander, Dan Weston at
Speaker 1: Tennis Ratings by the way again where you can find
Speaker 1: him on Twitter if you want to dive deeper into
Speaker 1: this for all the UH tennis heads who want to
Speaker 1: handicap tennis and win, I mean, I guess if you
Speaker 1: if you don't like money, you may not want to
Speaker 1: do it. But you know, if you like money, might
Speaker 1: be something you might want to dive into. Just just
Speaker 1: a suggestion, but here are the three biggest myths we
Speaker 1: just talked about the fallacy of of when they throw
Speaker 1: up head to head stats, it's generally meaningless. As Dan said,
Speaker 1: there might be a rare circumstance um that fits all
Speaker 1: these criteria enough of a sample size, the proper surface,
Speaker 1: on and on but generally speaking it's all uh nonsense,
Speaker 1: quite frankly. Number two, Um, this one's interesting because you'll
Speaker 1: see this every once in a while, the notion of
Speaker 1: a home advantage in a tennis match lay in it. Yes,
Speaker 1: so obviously in a lot of sports, and I don't
Speaker 1: know what it's like an American sports so much, but
Speaker 1: in soccer in England, the concept of home advantages is
Speaker 1: massive and team teams routine you have a considerably high
Speaker 1: wind percentage at home than they do when they're when
Speaker 1: they're away. Um. And I think some people think that
Speaker 1: this kind of applies with with tennis as well. You know,
Speaker 1: for a players playing in front of a passion at
Speaker 1: home crowd in a big, big tournament, maybe they might
Speaker 1: get an extra five ten percent out of it. That's
Speaker 1: I guess some people's theory. But mathematically, if you're looking
Speaker 1: at like closing prices, that that that wasn't really a
Speaker 1: major factor at all. And I think that a lot
Speaker 1: of the time when you're comparing those comclosing prices to
Speaker 1: to the actual winds that the players as a group recorded,
Speaker 1: the more of a more of a case is the
Speaker 1: fact that they're actually getting conditions to their liking at
Speaker 1: home a lot more so. For example, you look at
Speaker 1: English players, for example, a lot of them played a
Speaker 1: lot of grass when they're younger, so they're better and
Speaker 1: go out us than they are than they are on
Speaker 1: other surfaces, perhaps particularly clay notably, and therefore therefore they
Speaker 1: might have performed better on cross but that's that's expected
Speaker 1: because there they're at home at wimbled and Queens tournaments
Speaker 1: and on glass in England. But then also the fact
Speaker 1: that sa If as a Spanish or an Argentinean player,
Speaker 1: a lot of the time their clay court specialists, real
Speaker 1: return orientated players. They're not necessarily performing better because they're
Speaker 1: in their home country. They're just they're just performing better
Speaker 1: because the conditions of their home country's tournaments tend to
Speaker 1: be sort of very slow clay courts, for example, in
Speaker 1: those instances, and there's quite there's quite a few few
Speaker 1: other examples. So for example, looking at flip side of hardcourt,
Speaker 1: going back in time a little bit, Bernard Tomics, who
Speaker 1: those careers imploded a little bit at the moment he
Speaker 1: had a superb record and fast hard courts in Australia
Speaker 1: and in curiosity as well as similar cyber player as well,
Speaker 1: but that's completely expected the serve orientated players. So it's
Speaker 1: kind of looking at horses and courses rather than actual
Speaker 1: specific countries, looking at the conditions, looking at which tournaments
Speaker 1: of a slow slower conditions than than faster conditions, et cetera.
Speaker 1: Courses for courses. I hope that one is pretty straightforward
Speaker 1: with people for people. This is the third and final one,
Speaker 1: and I find this one the most interesting because I
Speaker 1: remember distinctly Dan, you and I during Wimbledon last year,
Speaker 1: during the last Australian Open, having this circumstance come up,
Speaker 1: and it's the notion of incredible overreactions within tournaments um
Speaker 1: explain how two different markets can be doing to two
Speaker 1: different things at the same time. It was funny enough
Speaker 1: as I thought of our conversations about Sophia Kennan before
Speaker 1: and then it started in Australia in January, and how
Speaker 1: it was completely absurd that that she was actually a
Speaker 1: bigger place to win the tournament uh compare paired to
Speaker 1: cored Golf, despite the fact that she was a favorite
Speaker 1: for their individual match. I think it was in the
Speaker 1: fourth round of that particular tournament. And there's there's a
Speaker 1: few instances of that. So golf again in Winwood and
Speaker 1: last season was quite similar. And Lucas Russell, notably in
Speaker 1: Winwood and twelve after he beat Ralph Nadal end up
Speaker 1: being fifth favorite on Betfair outright for the tournament, but
Speaker 1: he was a heavy underdog in the next round against
Speaker 1: Philip Cobbles Driver. So how does that work exactly? I mean,
Speaker 1: there's some massive flaws in those outright markets from that perspective,
Speaker 1: and and generally speaking, there was a slight under performance
Speaker 1: from heavy underdog winners in against notable players, players who
Speaker 1: have priced over five point zero zero in decimal, decimal terms,
Speaker 1: how they performed in their next match backing up a
Speaker 1: big win, if you like, and they slightly underperformed um
Speaker 1: based on closing price value and so so kind of
Speaker 1: my mentality is that in England they might call it
Speaker 1: there's something that after the Lord Mayors Show where a
Speaker 1: player kind of disappoints after after a big win, Whereas
Speaker 1: I think a lot of people kind of try and
Speaker 1: ride the players perceived form when actually it's not really form,
Speaker 1: and a lot of it's kind of variant or the
Speaker 1: big name player under performing as well. So there's a
Speaker 1: lot of other factors that go into it rather than
Speaker 1: one player being on like a complete role. What was
Speaker 1: the term you used after a disappointing match? What was
Speaker 1: the term you just used? Disappointee match? After a big win,
Speaker 1: we would be called after the Lord Mayors Show, after
Speaker 1: the Lord Mayor's Show up. I'll ask you affair exactly
Speaker 1: the origins of that, um, But I think and I
Speaker 1: don't mean to offend it all, but whenever you're on,
Speaker 1: we always joke that there's a bit of an English
Speaker 1: to English translation here for the predominantly American audience. But essentially,
Speaker 1: if you missed that, what Dan is getting at is
Speaker 1: uh the example of Wimbledon when Coco Golf beat Venus
Speaker 1: Williams I believe it was, or when she had an upset,
Speaker 1: I think even a starker upset in Australia. I think
Speaker 1: she she'd beat the number three seat if I'm not mistaken. Um,
Speaker 1: but you'll see, yeah, you'll see the futures market where
Speaker 1: Cocoa Goff's number will just create and it will be
Speaker 1: just she'll be like the third or fourth shot to
Speaker 1: win the tournament all of a sudden. But in her
Speaker 1: next match she's much more appropriately priced. And what Dan
Speaker 1: is getting at is that match price is more often
Speaker 1: than not the much more accurate one. Is that well said,
Speaker 1: Yeah very much so so I much more favored Kennan
Speaker 1: than Golf in that Australian match in January. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 1: obviously that the outright market was was was not favorable
Speaker 1: and at all. Yeah, Dan, I can't thank you enough.
Speaker 1: We we don't get a chance to do this when
Speaker 1: we're handicapping matches, um, but this was a great time
Speaker 1: to do it. And again for those who want to
Speaker 1: delve into it, because we just really scratched the surface.
Speaker 1: At Tennis Ratings is where Dan has posted his three
Speaker 1: Masterclass Tennis Betting Series pieces over their bedfair and the
Speaker 1: last thing in thirty seconds, Dan, when do you think
Speaker 1: we're coming back? What's your best guess? Yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: I'd like to think we're going to get some decent
Speaker 1: action this year. I mean I think maybe like August
Speaker 1: might be a yeah, an optimistic I'll take that to Yeah, absolutely,
Speaker 1: we'll come back. Thank you, Dan, I really appreciate it, man,
Speaker 1: and really, uh, stay safe and we hope to talk
Speaker 1: to you soon. Yeah. Likewise, ty tego Dan Weston the
Speaker 1: Great Dan Western doesn't get better than that in any
Speaker 1: specific sports on planet Earth.