British Tennis Forum - Celebrating 20 Years!

Coup Droit wrote:

---

I bow absolutely to Pauldepstein's superior knowledge

Although he can't tell us why paul is so favoured by the general public's betting flows - the wonders of betting, or trying to understand the general public, or both 

The answer, though, I'm sure, is primarily the surface.

He is a clay player. He was playing last week on clay.

He's won a quali match twice on grass, but I think that's it. He never plays any other tournaments on grass - last year he played on clay the week before, played Wimbly qualis, and then went and played on clay the week after.

Paul on the other hand has a lof of grass under his belt.

And, although rankings matters, every year you see players at Wimbly qualis who just look rank awful on grass - and don't really care - they don't expect to win, they don't really care if they win, they've barely bought new grass tennis shoes - not worth the money. But they're getting £15.5k (and just possibly £26k if they get lucky) so worth turning out for.


Exactly like Indy, I bet a lot on tennis (as in a lot of bets) but in small (sometimes very small ) amounts

And come out each year in profit by about 5-10%

Which sounds great and would suggest ramping it up - but I know that if I ramped it up (a) I wouldn't enjoy it so much and (b) I probably wouldn't make the same profit, because you don't act the same when the amounts are bigger, it's common sense psychology

Now, I'm not betting on Paul's match but if I did so I probably would bet on Tirante - I think Paul will more likely win but the odds do seem a bit tight on him.

-- Edited by Coup Droit on Monday 23rd of June 2025 07:23:57 AM

---

         Interesting post -- thanks.  Just to clarify, I have never worked in tennis and know far far less about it than the regular posters here.  As noted before, I do have considerable expertise in

         gambling and bookmaking, having worked for a bookmaker for 5 years and a total of around 6 years in the industry generally.

         There seems to be a slight misconception in your post.  Bookmakers devote a huge amount of resources to banning customers who are seen as probable long-term winners.

         The first stage is simply applying the instant automated checks for each customer on a regular basis.  These will typically be red/amber/green. 

         Red means serious concerns -- the customer needs investigating as an urgent priority. Green -- fine to bet.  Amber -- somewhere in between. 

         No one will be barred purely on the basis of an automated check.  If the account is flagged, a team of professionals will apply more human criteria.

         Finally we get to what seems like a slight error in your perceptions.  Clearly team reviews cost a lot of time and money.  Therefore the code running the automated checks

         won't waste time and resources by flagging customers who are winning tiny amounts of money (for example, less than £500 a year).

         If your bets were ramped up, then you would probably just be banned. So ramping up is definitely not suggested, and the reason is that you would be banned.

         Being banned isn't an absolute prohibition to continuing a betting plan.  People can pay others to set up accounts or walk to the bookie instead of going online etc., but 

         banning works for the bookies as an essential part of the business model.

         Paul Epstein