Helen40 wrote:

---

DavidC wrote:

---

Anne 1.21 - 3.51
Bally 1.26 - 3.15
Hev 1.50 - 2.25
Naomi 2.37 - 1.45
Laura 2.52 - 1.40
JoKo 4.76 - 1.11

---

 Excuse my ignorance, but can someone please explain how this works. Is a high number good or bad?

---

 A higher number represents less chance of winning. That is bad for a player you want to win, but good if you want to place a bet as you get better odds!

 

The number represents how many times each player would have to play the match to expect to win once. For example Laura is expected to beat Schiavone once every 2.52 times (about 40%), whereas Heather will beat Besenova once ever 1.5 times (67% of the time).

 

Odds of 2 would mean a 50/50 chance

Ratty wrote:

---

I'm confused.

Bet365 seems to quote the "old-fashioned" way. So Heather is currently quoted at 3/10, which in percentage terms gives her a 23% chance of winning (3/13). Her opponent is 12/5, with a 70% chance (12/17). (The "missing" 7% being the bookie's profit margin.)

Where does your 1.36 (69%) come from?

An off course, bookie's odds are purely a function of the number of people betting on each outcome, and lots of people bet with their hearts rather their heads. So while lots of people betting on Heather will shorten her odds, it won't mean she's more likely to win.

And the philosophy of single-event probability is an interesting subject in itself ....  

---

 I know almost nothing about betting but yesterday the horse Black Caviar that always wins was 1/6 for her race at Ascot (as opposed to being 6/1) so I believe that Heather at 3/10 suggests that she is the strong favourite, if you give the bookmakers £10, they will give you back £3 + your original £10 if she wins. The 1.36 is the ratio of your return if successful, against your investment, in my example £13 (£3 + £10) divided by £10; which would be 1.30.

-- Edited by kundalini on Sunday 24th of June 2012 11:31:45 AM

Whilst we are talking about odds, they have changed quite a bit from yesterday:

Latest from Bet365

Anne 1.36 (69% chance of winning)
Bally 1.36
Hev 1.36
Laura 2.20 (42%)
Naomi 3.00 (31%)
Johanna 7.00 (14%)

Odds definitely shortening for Hev and Laura, but lengthening for Naomi and Johanna.

We should get on average 2.93 winners from eround 1. In reality, I think 3 wins would be excellent as the odds are clearly factoring in how well Hev and Laura are playing right now - for both a win would be an impressive achievement against a higher ranked opponent.

Ratty wrote:

---

I'm confused.

Bet365 seems to quote the "old-fashioned" way. So Heather is currently quoted at 3/10, which in percentage terms gives her a 23% chance of winning (3/13). Her opponent is 12/5, with a 70% chance (12/17). (The "missing" 7% being the bookie's profit margin.)

Where does your 1.36 (69%) come from?

An off course, bookie's odds are purely a function of the number of people betting on each outcome, and lots of people bet with their hearts rather their heads. So while lots of people betting on Heather will shorten her odds, it won't mean she's more likely to win.

And the philosophy of single-event probability is an interesting subject in itself ....  

---

You are confused... or ironic... which may be a delightful coincidence for you!

To illustrate simply, the odds 3/10 for Heather's match mean currently for every 13 times she plays Benesova she will lose 3 times and win 10.  If the second number is greater than the first the odds are more likely that the given player will win.  Benesova's odds are 12/5 which says for every 17 times they play she will lose 12 and win 5 of those matches.

If I'm wrong please delete this post!  I'll hang my head in shame.

Monday's oop is out

Naomi 3rd on court 16, JoKo 4th on 17 with Heather tba (ie Centre or No. 1 if the scheduled matches are quick)

tony_orient wrote:

---

Looks like an 11:30 start time for the outside courts - that's a bit of a change to tradition for Wimbledon

---

 A good change though, I also think they should maybe start at 12 for the two big courts and then look into putting 4 matches on but I doubt that will happen.