British Tennis Forum - Celebrating 20 Years!

Stircrazy wrote:

---

Sheddie wrote:

---

This means that Toby's now going to lose in the next round in straight sets

---

Not straight sets, but still a loss:

L16:  Jérôme Kym (SUI) WR 286 defeated (4) Toby Samuel WR 98 by 6-2 4-6 6-2  

---

And Jake quickly follows Toby out of the Porto II exit door:

L16:  (ALT) Iñaki Montes (ESP) WR 228 defeated (2) Jacob Fearnley WR 94 by 7-6(4) 3-0 retired  

I sincerely hope he's not badly injured.

Certainly could have been better 

We started the day with 5 of our top 7 ranked still in ATP 500s and Challengers and now none will get the Friday feeling.

Hope nothing too serious for Jake as we head into Shanghai.

brittak wrote:

---

Just wondering whether there has ever been an analysis/piece of work done on the quality of Tennis Abstracts predictions vs actual outcomes. . . .??

---

 They did their own a couple of years ago and it was well above any prediction that pure rankings would make in terms of accuracy. But I cant remember what the level of accuracy was. I think it is largely in line with bookies odds, from memory, which is probably what you would expect?  

JonH wrote:

---

brittak wrote:

---

Just wondering whether there has ever been an analysis/piece of work done on the quality of Tennis Abstracts predictions vs actual outcomes. . . .??

---

 They did their own a couple of years ago and it was well above any prediction that pure rankings would make in terms of accuracy. But I cant remember what the level of accuracy was. I think it is largely in line with bookies odds, from memory, which is probably what you would expect?  

---

I'd actually have expected the bookies' odds to be better predictors, given they can take everything into account though offsetting that a bit is the weight of money effecting them.

I personally don't really see the Tennis Abstract percentages as strictly predictors but percentages based on the algorithm and its inherent limitations in not allowing for everything. But fair enough if others call them as such.

Anyway, well above pure rankings and largely in line with bookies' odds I would see as pretty impressive as a 'predictor'.

I'd like to know about any system that beats bookies' odds 

indiana wrote:

---

JonH wrote:

---

brittak wrote:

---

Just wondering whether there has ever been an analysis/piece of work done on the quality of Tennis Abstracts predictions vs actual outcomes. . . .??

---

 They did their own a couple of years ago and it was well above any prediction that pure rankings would make in terms of accuracy. But I cant remember what the level of accuracy was. I think it is largely in line with bookies odds, from memory, which is probably what you would expect?  

---

I'd actually have expected the bookies' odds to be better predictors, given they can take everything into account though offsetting that a bit is the weight of money effecting them.

I personally don't really see the Tennis Abstract percentages as strictly predictors but percentages based on the algorithm and its inherent limitations in not allowing for everything. But fair enough if others call them as such.

Anyway, well above pure rankings and largely in line with bookies' odds I would see as pretty impressive as a 'predictor'.

I'd like to know about any system that beats bookies' odds 

---

 I'm not sure if predictions and forecasts are the same thing, but they call them forecasts. And they are based purely on ELO and surface weighted ELO at that. 

https://www.tennisabstract.com/current/2026MouilleronleCaptifChallenger.html

they run several thousand simulations in the background of a match up and the outcome of those simulations is the forecast percentage. Not sure what those simulations do or how they work, are they called Monte Carlo simulations?