AO - Odds as per Book Makers

[GameSetAndMath]

As of today, 22nd Dec. 2013, the following are the odds of winning for the players
mentioned below.

Djokovic - 3/2
Nadal - 5/2
Murray - 7
Del Potro - 14
Federer - 25

These are fractional odds. This means if you bet say $100 on Novak and if he
wins, you will get back your wager of $100 and in addition will be paid $150.
(100 * (3/2)). If he does not win, you will lose your $100.

If you bet $100 on Roger and if he wins, you will get $2600 paid back.
Any takers?

These odds will be dynamically changing based on the amount that has
been wagered on these players and also based on the activities and results
of these players in the coming weeks. I will update the odds once in a while.

 

[DarthFed]

Giving Nole 40% odds and Rafa about 29%. Either of those are actually pretty good bets as I see it more like Nole 50-60%, Rafa 30-35% and the rest of the tour about 10%. Murray is a wild card to both though, I'd wait to see whose side he is on and then bet on them because their odds will go down even though Murray likely isn't going to be a big threat to win it.

 

[Kieran]

Seems about right, the odds and the order. Novak deserves to be favourite for so many reasons and to win it, another player needs to drag the cup out of his cold dead hands...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

As of today, Jan 2nd the odds are as follows.


Novak Djokovic 13/10
Rafael Nadal 5/2
Andy Murray 15/2
Juan Martin del Potro 14
Roger Federer 22

Novak is getting close to a shoe in. Andy's loss did not affect his odds that much, but
helped RF's odds. Nadal's and JMDP's odd are stable.

 

[DarthFed]

Novak's odds are not close to a shoe in. He is getting less than 50% but his odds did go up from 3/2. Nole and Rafa are still the profitable bets here though if AO truly is as fast as they make it sound you might suddenly give Roger more than 1/22 chance.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Darth, I am afraid that your interpretation of the odds is not correct. Please see my
OP for correct interpretations.

However, I agree that it is not a shoe in. In this format, the odds should be 0 (or
close to 0) to call it a shoe in.

But, it is important to realize that betting odds of different players winning need not
add up to one (like in probabilities).

 

[DarthFed]

Darth, I am afraid that your interpretation of the odds is not correct. Please see my
OP for correct interpretations.

However, I agree that it is not a shoe in. In this format, the odds should be 0 (or
close to 0) to call it a shoe in.

But, it is important to realize that betting odds of different players winning need not
add up to one (like in probabilities).

My interpretation of the odds is betting $10 on Novak wins you $23, which equates to a little over 43%, ie if you feel he has more than 43% chance it is a good bet. I gamble frequently, pretty sure I can read the odds pal. And I'm well aware the odds aren't going to equal 1 as they are not going to have a betting line for most of the 128 player field.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Darth, I am afraid that your interpretation of the odds is not correct. Please see my
OP for correct interpretations.

However, I agree that it is not a shoe in. In this format, the odds should be 0 (or
close to 0) to call it a shoe in.

But, it is important to realize that betting odds of different players winning need not
add up to one (like in probabilities).

My interpretation of the odds is betting $10 on Novak wins you $23, which equates to a little over 43%, ie if you feel he has more than 43% chance it is a good bet. I gamble frequently, pretty sure I can read the odds pal. And I'm well aware the odds aren't going to equal 1 as they are not going to have a betting line for most of the 128 player field.

If you bet $10, you will be paid $23 if he wins (note that your gain is only $13 and
you are getting the wager back) and you will get nothing if he loses (your loss is $10).
This translates to the fact that if you think Novak will win with a chance of 30.30% or
more it is a good bet.

 

[DarthFed]

Darth, I am afraid that your interpretation of the odds is not correct. Please see my
OP for correct interpretations.

However, I agree that it is not a shoe in. In this format, the odds should be 0 (or
close to 0) to call it a shoe in.

But, it is important to realize that betting odds of different players winning need not
add up to one (like in probabilities).

My interpretation of the odds is betting $10 on Novak wins you $23, which equates to a little over 43%, ie if you feel he has more than 43% chance it is a good bet. I gamble frequently, pretty sure I can read the odds pal. And I'm well aware the odds aren't going to equal 1 as they are not going to have a betting line for most of the 128 player field.

If you bet $10, you will be paid $23 if he wins (note that your gain is only $13 and
you are getting the wager back) and you will get nothing if he loses (your loss is $10).
This translates to the fact that if you think Novak will win with a chance of 30.30% or
more it is a good bet.

Not sure where you are getting the 30.30% from, actually I do know, you are taking 10/33 for some reason. All you have to do is take 10/23 to figure out what odds the bookies are giving Nole right now.

 

[Kieran]

13-10 is very short odds for Nole, but I suppose it's based on the assumption that he'll roll through the field and is expected only to be challenged by Nadal, who he's beaten in straights the last two times they met.

Murray is probably not considered by the bookies to be at his best yet - rightly so, based on what we've seen - and Roger is a slightly unknown entity at this stage: will the new racket help, is he regenerated after his restful 2013, etc? It's kind of like Novak is considered by the bookmakers to be playing a slam like the old days - a challenge round where as champ he waits in the final to see who batters their way, bloodied and exhausted, to be sacrificed on the altar of the Rod Laver Arena, before the Shirt-Ripping ceremony takes place.

I fancy Rafa this year myself, but then what's new? Fortunately, I'm not a gambling man...

 

[brokenshoelace]

Djokovic should be a heavy favorite, to be honest. He's absolutely dominated this event for the past 3 years, the surface favors him, and he's riding a big winning streak. The AO is usually an "unknown slam" but it hasn't been the case for the past 2 years, and I don't think it's the case this year. I can't see past a Djokovic-Nadal final myself.

 

[DarthFed]

13/10 makes him the biggest favorite but that's still a pretty good line to bet on. I'd put his odds at about 50% if not more. That line makes it seem that they don't think it's anywhere near a given that he reaches the final. Nadal at 5/2 is also a good line to bet on as that is under 30% chance of winning.

IMO, they are giving the rest of the field (everyone but Djokovic and Nadal) way too good of odds at close to 30% especially considering Murray's injury. Del Po is a darkhorse, not a true contender, and you'd probably have to say the same about Roger for now until we see if he returns to decent form.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Darth, I am afraid that your interpretation of the odds is not correct. Please see my
OP for correct interpretations.

However, I agree that it is not a shoe in. In this format, the odds should be 0 (or
close to 0) to call it a shoe in.

But, it is important to realize that betting odds of different players winning need not
add up to one (like in probabilities).

My interpretation of the odds is betting $10 on Novak wins you $23, which equates to a little over 43%, ie if you feel he has more than 43% chance it is a good bet. I gamble frequently, pretty sure I can read the odds pal. And I'm well aware the odds aren't going to equal 1 as they are not going to have a betting line for most of the 128 player field.

If you bet $10, you will be paid $23 if he wins (note that your gain is only $13 and
you are getting the wager back) and you will get nothing if he loses (your loss is $10).
This translates to the fact that if you think Novak will win with a chance of 30.30% or
more it is a good bet.

Not sure where you are getting the 30.30% from, actually I do know, you are taking 10/33 for some reason. All you have to do is take 10/23 to figure out what odds the bookies are giving Nole right now.

Darth, I am wrong about the percentage as I made a silly error. You are completely
correct that the bookmakers are giving Novak 43% chance to win it. So, if someone
feels Novak has better than 43% chance of winning it, then it is a good bet for them.

I happen to be one such person who thinks that Novak has better than 43% chances
to win AO.

Now, somebody loan me money, so that I can take the bet.

 

[Front242]

Imo best way to make money at slams is accumulators with set betting. Outright bets are risky as anything can happen and your money is gone. Stick a decent amount on a few huge servers to win a set. They may not win the match but quite likely to have a good chance of taking a set. Either that or accumulators based on set betting has worked well for me, e.g. picking 4 or 5 matches and deciding if it'll be 3, 4 or 5 sets. Better odds naturally if you actually go for a winner with the score eg, Murray to win 3 sets to 1, Nadal to win in 3, Fed to win in 4, etc but just guessing the number of sets is safer than committing to a particular player as all it takes is the opponent to win a set for it to be a 4 set match and either guy can win in 4 that way. Made a fair bit myself like that anyway You can even start low with €50/$50 at the start of the slam and build from there. Good chance to have 10 or 12 times that or more if you place a few good bets.

Hedging bets is good too. A small bet on the lower probable result offset with a larger stake on the more likely one. Balance it out so you're still up money in the end since naturally they can't both win.

 

[Front242]

I was talking to a friend about the possibility of 2 people glued to different pcs doing live in play bets (which are very lucrative) which each backing different players. I reckon if you studied this hard you could make a mint out of it. Obviously you don't have time on one betting account to back both live in play so you'd need multiple accounts and if you think there's a good chance of a service break whack a bit of cash on the player you fancy to break, while the other person backs the other guy to hold.

Good chance of making a fortune if you do it wisely, balanced to a tee and logically. You often get odds like 11-2 for Fed or Nadal to drop serve against nobodies and they do drop serve obviously. They're human. But that's your meal ticket to big cash. Way more than outright bets.

 

[brokenshoelace]

You often get odds like 11-2 for Fed or Nadal to drop serve against nobodies and they do drop serve obviously.

Depends on the amount of lucky aces.

 

[zalvar]

If Nole wins Aussie again this year he'll be in a pretty good streak! We shall see

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Ok folks, there are many different betting companies and each one will offer its own
odds. The odds that I was quoting in this thread are the best odds (from the point of
view of the bettor) for each player.

So, for example when I say Novak's odds are 13/10, what is meant is that
the best odds for people who want to bet on Novak is that. In other words all
other betting companies will offer less pay off than this one.

So that you can see the complete set of odds offered by all the betting companies,
I am providing a link below.

http://www.oddschecker.com/tennis/australian-open/mens/mens-australian-open/winner

The best odds are in bold for each player.

Finally, you can see for any combination of player and company, whether the odds
are improving or worsening or stabilizing based on the color of the box.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

At the bottom of the web page, you can see a pie chart of popular bets. According to
it, 60% of the bets are placed on "others" winning AO, where other means
any one other than ND, RN, RF, AM, and SW. However, others include JMDP.

 

[isabelle]

The great Serbinator should win AO : he has the game, the motivation Jelena and Boris..what else ??