Week 34 - US Open men's qualifying - Hard

stevemcqueen · Futures qualifying

RE: Week 34 - US Open men's qualifying - Hard

RJA · Hall of fame

stevemcqueen wrote:
Dan just 5% chance of qualifying??!! I'd take those odds if they were offered by a betting site! In old money, this would be 20:1! Still it is easy to criticise, and you can argue that the ATP rankings system is not that great. What would be really interesting would be an analysis of Jeff's algorithm against historical data: Are there some circumstances where it will beat the bookie?
Steve

Any system based on such an algorithm will throw up some odds that based on current form don't feel right. Prior to Evo's runs at Vancouver and Aptos those figures would have looked perfectly reasonable.

British_is_Best · County player

Picked the right moment to join the match as JW has 15-40...

And converts! *5-3

-- Edited by British_is_Best on Tuesday 20th of August 2013 05:11:24 PM

British_is_Best · County player

And breaks! JW leads 6-3, *2-1

-- Edited by British_is_Best on Tuesday 20th of August 2013 05:24:01 PM

Tennisnow · Lower Club Player

GSM Ward. He will play winner of Diez v Bachinger which is currently 1-6 2-3*

-- Edited by Tennisnow on Tuesday 20th of August 2013 05:41:24 PM

Miriambee · Futures level

james is 2nd on court 16 (11am local start = 4pm British time start).

Tennisnow · Lower Club Player

QR1: James Ward WR 175 beat Jonathan Eysseric (FRA) WR 243 by 3 & 1

QR2: James Ward WR 175 v (27) Matthias Bachinger (GER) WR 145 (CH 85 in Aug 2011)

H2H 0-2 Both on Hard, First in Mexican Challeger '09 by 2 & 2. Second in Loughborough in 2010 by 4 & 1.

In terms of age, less than two months seperate them.

-- Edited by Tennisnow on Tuesday 20th of August 2013 06:38:04 PM

philwrig · Hall of fame

steven wrote:
Jeff at TennisAbstract has a system that works out full probabilities for all draws based on past results, surface and so on. It always appears to me to give slightly too high a chance of upsets, but he's the kind of person who would keep testing it, so the figures probably mean something.

Anyway, the chances he gives James are 69.3% to reach QR2, 35.9% to make the FQR and 16.8% to qualify.

As for Dan, 45.0% to reach QR2, 13.6% to make the FQR and 5.3% to qualify.

Wardy is roughly a 77% chance ro reach QR2 with the bookies.

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

steven wrote:
Jeff at TennisAbstract has a system that works out full probabilities for all draws based on past results, surface and so on. It always appears to me to give slightly too high a chance of upsets, but he's the kind of person who would keep testing it, so the figures probably mean something.

Anyway, the chances he gives James are 69.3% to reach QR2, 35.9% to make the FQR and 16.8% to qualify.

As for Dan, 45.0% to reach QR2, 13.6% to make the FQR and 5.3% to qualify.

I am not a betting man at all and would be first to admit that I don't fully understand the stats.

Having said that, the figure that jumped out at me here was Dan's QR2 %age. To drop from 45% (QR1) to 13% (QR2) suggests he is more than twice as likely to lose as to win. (I am working on the assumption that if his chance was 50/50, the %age rate would halve).

Given his 2nd round opponent is seeded to be Bobby Reynolds, whom he beat convincingly just a couple of weeks ago on the same surface, I find this hard to understand.

Miriambee · Futures level

Bob in Spain wrote:
steven wrote:
Jeff at TennisAbstract has a system that works out full probabilities for all draws based on past results, surface and so on. It always appears to me to give slightly too high a chance of upsets, but he's the kind of person who would keep testing it, so the figures probably mean something.

Anyway, the chances he gives James are 69.3% to reach QR2, 35.9% to make the FQR and 16.8% to qualify.

As for Dan, 45.0% to reach QR2, 13.6% to make the FQR and 5.3% to qualify.

I am not a betting man at all and would be first to admit that I don't fully understand the stats.
Having said that, the figure that jumped out at me here was Dan's QR2 %age. To drop from 45% (QR1) to 13% (QR2) suggests he is more than twice as likely to lose as to win. (I am working on the assumption that if his chance was 50/50, the %age rate would halve).
Given his 2nd round opponent is seeded to be Bobby Reynolds, whom he beat convincingly just a couple of weeks ago on the same surface, I find this hard to understand.

From what little I've seen/heard of Dan, he's more likely to win the bigger the stage he's given and the more higher ranked the opponent!

philwrig · Hall of fame

Bob in Spain wrote:
steven wrote:
Jeff at TennisAbstract has a system that works out full probabilities for all draws based on past results, surface and so on. It always appears to me to give slightly too high a chance of upsets, but he's the kind of person who would keep testing it, so the figures probably mean something.

Anyway, the chances he gives James are 69.3% to reach QR2, 35.9% to make the FQR and 16.8% to qualify.

As for Dan, 45.0% to reach QR2, 13.6% to make the FQR and 5.3% to qualify.

I am not a betting man at all and would be first to admit that I don't fully understand the stats.
Having said that, the figure that jumped out at me here was Dan's QR2 %age. To drop from 45% (QR1) to 13% (QR2) suggests he is more than twice as likely to lose as to win. (I am working on the assumption that if his chance was 50/50, the %age rate would halve).
Given his 2nd round opponent is seeded to be Bobby Reynolds, whom he beat convincingly just a couple of weeks ago on the same surface, I find this hard to understand.

There's no doubt about it! and of course I'm not a betting man either !

For me if Evo is impressive in his first match, his odds should be substantially lower to win QR2 and the FQR if he gets that far.

FloProAct · Newbie

Long time reader here, figuring now might be as good a time as any to join in given that I am also a (far too regular) visitor to TennisAbstract...

I think the TennisAbstract forecasts are mainly done through the Jrank rankings also on the site, with a few other factors thrown in (surface and possibly home advantage?). I believe the two principles that mark Jrank out as substantially different from the standard rankings are:
1) The inclusion of form (which I think is weighted on a week-by-week basis though can't be sure as I don't think a proper methodology has ever been posted) and
2) One player will be given a higher number of points than another in the same round of the same competition if they beat a better player (i.e. beating a seed will usually be worth more than beating a wild-card)

5% for Dan to qualify does appear a little low, but many of Dan's points are still from futures, results from which I don't think are factored (they're certainly not included in the results section on individual players pages - Dan's only two mentioned tournaments in the last year before the 2013 grass season are Loughborough and Davis Cup v Russia). If they're not, Dan may not have enough results yet for his jrank to be as high as it perhaps should be...

Hope this helps, though most of it is guesswork gleaned from looking at most of the simulations posted in the last few months...

Tennisnow · Lower Club Player

Game on before James has just finished. He should be on shortly.

British_is_Best · County player

Didn't realise James was on so soon. On serve at 4-3*. No breaks as yet.

British_is_Best · County player

Ward serves out to 15 to take the first set 6-3. Good start!