French Open Betting Odds

[Riotbeard]

Does anyone know whether betting on sports is actually legal in the USA.

Sometimes, it is possible that it is technically illegal but is never enforced.

Also, it is possible that it is legal only in some places such as Las Vegas.

During the NCAA bracket season, I heard that it is technically not legal in USA.

Pretty sure it's state by state. Where casinos are legal, I think sports betting is.

 

[Moxie]

Unless he gets Tsonga in R4, who will look for a revenge for his AO humiliation.

I would not call Fed's loss to Chardy a bad loss considering he had match point.
Actually, Fed's loss against Hewitt in Brisbane and Kei in Miami are bad losses for
Fed this year.

I meant bad in terms of it being in an early round and the stature of his opponent. I'd forgotten about Brisbane to be honest but you can kind of shrug off the early year 250 defeats to an extent. I wouldn't call the Nishikori loss that bad either, Kei has been in good form and would be a Masters winner by now if not for his back, not as bad as the ones mentioned that Stan has lost, at least.

I get the back-and-forth on the odds difference between Stan and Roger. (It's not like I understand betting at all, but I found Broken's explanation of p.1 of this thread useful.) But I'm kind of with TF7 on the difference between their odds being so exaggerated. If Rafa gets the shortest odds for having won it 8 times, which makes sense, why isn't there any taking into account that Federer knows how to win a Slam well enough to win 17 of them, whereas Wawrinka has the one, coming later in his career, and it isn't like he's taken the tennis world by storm since then? I get that Stan has the clay form to be considered the 3rd-most-likely, but we all are wondering (admit it) how he'll come into RG with the attention and pressure on him. Roger won't be bothered by that, because he's lived with it for 10 years, and if opportunity presents itself, he's far better than most at capitalizing. Stan could have a run to the final, even the win, (which would also likely take some opportunity) or he could hit a speed bump early and be out. It's hard to predict what Stan will bring. Some will say that Roger hits pot-holes more often now, too, but if we're just talking about consistency in Majors, you'd still have to say you'd see Roger later in the second week more likely than Stan, imo.

As I said, I think Roger may well be more likely to go deep but not win, but I think Stan has a better chance at winning. He has the punchers chance, that I am not sure Fed has anymore on slow surfaces against Novak and Rafa. It's all actuary style guessing... but the experts agree with me.

I do get the point you're making. If Stan is still standing in the final, I fancy his chances. If Roger is still facing Rafa and Nole…not so much. But if I were a betting woman, I'd bet Stan could go out before Roger. I think we're saying the same thing.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Does anyone know whether betting on sports is actually legal in the USA.

Sometimes, it is possible that it is technically illegal but is never enforced.

Also, it is possible that it is legal only in some places such as Las Vegas.

During the NCAA bracket season, I heard that it is technically not legal in USA.

Pretty sure it's state by state. Where casinos are legal, I think sports betting is.

The tricky aspect is when betting is done via internet using international betting houses.
In states where casinos are not legal, one will not be allowed to run a betting house in
that state and operate the business. But, does it also mean it is illegal for an INDIVIDUAL
to indulge in sports betting via Internet.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I would not call Fed's loss to Chardy a bad loss considering he had match point.
Actually, Fed's loss against Hewitt in Brisbane and Kei in Miami are bad losses for
Fed this year.

I meant bad in terms of it being in an early round and the stature of his opponent. I'd forgotten about Brisbane to be honest but you can kind of shrug off the early year 250 defeats to an extent. I wouldn't call the Nishikori loss that bad either, Kei has been in good form and would be a Masters winner by now if not for his back, not as bad as the ones mentioned that Stan has lost, at least.

I get the back-and-forth on the odds difference between Stan and Roger. (It's not like I understand betting at all, but I found Broken's explanation of p.1 of this thread useful.) But I'm kind of with TF7 on the difference between their odds being so exaggerated. If Rafa gets the shortest odds for having won it 8 times, which makes sense, why isn't there any taking into account that Federer knows how to win a Slam well enough to win 17 of them, whereas Wawrinka has the one, coming later in his career, and it isn't like he's taken the tennis world by storm since then? I get that Stan has the clay form to be considered the 3rd-most-likely, but we all are wondering (admit it) how he'll come into RG with the attention and pressure on him. Roger won't be bothered by that, because he's lived with it for 10 years, and if opportunity presents itself, he's far better than most at capitalizing. Stan could have a run to the final, even the win, (which would also likely take some opportunity) or he could hit a speed bump early and be out. It's hard to predict what Stan will bring. Some will say that Roger hits pot-holes more often now, too, but if we're just talking about consistency in Majors, you'd still have to say you'd see Roger later in the second week more likely than Stan, imo.

As I said, I think Roger may well be more likely to go deep but not win, but I think Stan has a better chance at winning. He has the punchers chance, that I am not sure Fed has anymore on slow surfaces against Novak and Rafa. It's all actuary style guessing... but the experts agree with me.

I do get the point you're making. If Stan is still standing in the final, I fancy his chances. If Roger is still facing Rafa and Nole…not so much. But if I were a betting woman, I'd bet Stan could go out before Roger. I think we're saying the same thing.

I don't see why you are not getting the point of RB. According to RB roger has much less
chance of winning RG outright as he feels Fed does not have what it takes to beat one or
more big guns (without beating whom it would be impossible to win RG). RB believes that
Stan can actually stand up to other big guns. SO, RB would prefer to bet on Stan than Fed
as far as outright winning is concerned.

On the other hand when it comes to going deep at RG, as Fed has a long history of
doing so, RB would prefer to bet on Fed than Stan. RB feels that there are greater chances
that Stan may flame out early in the tourney than Fed.

 

[Moxie]

^I thought that's exactly what I said.

 

[DarthFed]

Unless he gets Tsonga in R4, who will look for a revenge for his AO humiliation.

I would not call Fed's loss to Chardy a bad loss considering he had match point.
Actually, Fed's loss against Hewitt in Brisbane and Kei in Miami are bad losses for
Fed this year.

I meant bad in terms of it being in an early round and the stature of his opponent. I'd forgotten about Brisbane to be honest but you can kind of shrug off the early year 250 defeats to an extent. I wouldn't call the Nishikori loss that bad either, Kei has been in good form and would be a Masters winner by now if not for his back, not as bad as the ones mentioned that Stan has lost, at least.

I get the back-and-forth on the odds difference between Stan and Roger. (It's not like I understand betting at all, but I found Broken's explanation of p.1 of this thread useful.) But I'm kind of with TF7 on the difference between their odds being so exaggerated. If Rafa gets the shortest odds for having won it 8 times, which makes sense, why isn't there any taking into account that Federer knows how to win a Slam well enough to win 17 of them, whereas Wawrinka has the one, coming later in his career, and it isn't like he's taken the tennis world by storm since then? I get that Stan has the clay form to be considered the 3rd-most-likely, but we all are wondering (admit it) how he'll come into RG with the attention and pressure on him. Roger won't be bothered by that, because he's lived with it for 10 years, and if opportunity presents itself, he's far better than most at capitalizing. Stan could have a run to the final, even the win, (which would also likely take some opportunity) or he could hit a speed bump early and be out. It's hard to predict what Stan will bring. Some will say that Roger hits pot-holes more often now, too, but if we're just talking about consistency in Majors, you'd still have to say you'd see Roger later in the second week more likely than Stan, imo.

As I said, I think Roger may well be more likely to go deep but not win, but I think Stan has a better chance at winning. He has the punchers chance, that I am not sure Fed has anymore on slow surfaces against Novak and Rafa. It's all actuary style guessing... but the experts agree with me.

Probably the best way to look at it. Stan has had the really big highs and really bad lows that Roger hasn't had this year (at least not until Rome anyways).

 

[tented]

Does anyone know whether betting on sports is actually legal in the USA.

Sometimes, it is possible that it is technically illegal but is never enforced.

Also, it is possible that it is legal only in some places such as Las Vegas.

During the NCAA bracket season, I heard that it is technically not legal in USA.

Pretty sure it's state by state. Where casinos are legal, I think sports betting is.

The tricky aspect is when betting is done via internet using international betting houses.
In states where casinos are not legal, one will not be allowed to run a betting house in
that state and operate the business. But, does it also mean it is illegal for an INDIVIDUAL
to indulge in sports betting via Internet.

Good question. Does anyone know the answer?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I checked the odds for one last time before the draw comes out and here is the info.

Rafael Nadal 6/4
Novak Djokovic 13/8
Stan Wawrinka 10
Roger Federer 22
David Ferrer 25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basically, Rafa's odds remain the same. Novak's came down a notch. The odds of
other three have increased considerably.

I will check again a few hours after the draw to give them some time to stabilize
after the initial chaos that is bound to be there as soon as draw comes out.

 

[Moxie]

Here are the odds for outright winning by the top 5 contenders after the fall of Rafa in Rome.

Rafael Nadal 6/4
Novak Djokovic 7/4
Stan Wawrinka 8
Roger Federer 20
David Ferrer 22

I checked the odds for one last time before the draw comes out and here is the info.

Rafael Nadal 6/4
Novak Djokovic 13/8
Stan Wawrinka 10
Roger Federer 22
David Ferrer 25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basically, Rafa's odds remain the same. Novak's came down a notch. The odds of
other three have increased considerably.

I will check again a few hours after the draw to give them some time to stabilize
after the initial chaos that is bound to be there as soon as draw comes out.

I guess Djokovic's numbers go down because folks are betting him? Also, you say the others remain the same, but it doesn't seem they do. Wawrinka, Ferrer and Federer all go down, do they not? Personally, I really don't care much about the betting odds, because they're about very different things than assessing the tennis. It certainly doesn't predict how the tournament will go.

 

[Kieran]

Well, the bookies are usually close in these things. Not always, but it's a good rule of thumb. Novak's odd went down because people are betting on him - yes - but they're betting on him because of Rome and beating Rafa.

So there's logic to it, as well. It's not a science, however...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Here are the odds for outright winning by the top 5 contenders after the fall of Rafa in Rome.

Rafael Nadal 6/4
Novak Djokovic 7/4
Stan Wawrinka 8
Roger Federer 20
David Ferrer 22

I checked the odds for one last time before the draw comes out and here is the info.

Rafael Nadal 6/4
Novak Djokovic 13/8
Stan Wawrinka 10
Roger Federer 22
David Ferrer 25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basically, Rafa's odds remain the same. Novak's came down a notch. The odds of
other three have increased considerably.

I will check again a few hours after the draw to give them some time to stabilize
after the initial chaos that is bound to be there as soon as draw comes out.

I guess Djokovic's numbers go down because folks are betting him? Also, you say the others remain the same, but it doesn't seem they do. Wawrinka, Ferrer and Federer all go down, do they not? Personally, I really don't care much about the betting odds, because they're about very different things than assessing the tennis. It certainly doesn't predict how the tournament will go.

Where do I say so? (the bolded part)

Odds of Wawrinka, Ferrer and Federer went up. (the italicized part)

Hope you are fine.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

BREAKING NEWS: Rafa has larger odds than Novak after the draw came out.

Novak Djokovic 31/20

Rafael Nadal 15/8

Stan Wawrinka 12

Roger Federer 25

David Ferrer 28

 

[TennisFanatic7]

Bet365 have Ferrer with shorter odds than Fed. Last I checked it was 16/1 David, 18/1 Roger, 22/1 Andy, 25/1 Kei

 

[Front242]

The weather should impact the odds too. Crap forecast for week one.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

For each player, the different betting houses present different odds. If you want to bet on
a player, you want to select the betting house which gives highest odds for that player in
comparison to other betting houses. The odds that I am posting in this thread are such odds.
In fact, they don't even come from the same betting house.

 

[Front242]

Imo outright bets are dodgy as hell and it's much safer, not to mention infinitely more profitable to bet match to match or even an accumulator with 4 or 5 matches, doubles, trebles, etc. Murray to win 3 sets to 1 is often a big money maker too

 

[GameSetAndMath]

For the first time in 10 years, we have Rafa having larger odds than somebody else
at RG. People are putting the money where the mouth is. It is not empty talk by fan boys.

 

[Kieran]

For the first time in 10 years, we have Rafa having larger odds than somebody else
at RG. People are putting the money where the mouth is. It is not empty talk by fan boys.

You mean, a bet on the 8 time champ and best on clay is "empty talk by fan boys?" :huh:

 

[herios]

Bet365 have Ferrer with shorter odds than Fed. Last I checked it was 16/1 David, 18/1 Roger, 22/1 Andy, 25/1 Kei

There is a webpage, where you can see 24 betting houses odds. I looked it up and on 6 of them Ferrer has shorter odds than Ferederer and on 3 of them they are dead even. The rest give Roger the better odds.

 

[jhar26]

Making Rafa the favorite is strange. The guy is nowhere near his normal level.

That's what you get when you've won the thing eight times. And although he's nowhere near his normal level, he's slowly but surely been improving from one tournament to the next. If he can continue that progress as he works himself through the draw at the FO he may be at his peak (or close) at just the right time. Having said that, personally I would make Djokovic the favorite this time. Even more so since Rafa has got a very tricky draw with matches that can easily be lost if he's below par.

If I was a betting man I would put my money on Federer. Those are great odds for a guy as good as him.