US Open Betting Odds (Men - Early Doors)

[britbox]

Here are the early odds (1 Aug/2013 for for the US Open):

Men:
Murray 2.5
Djokovic 2.62
Nadal 7.00
Federer 10.00
Del Potro 10.00
Berdych 34.00
Tsonga 34.00
Ferrer 41.00
Janowicz 41.00
Raonic 67.00
Dimitrov 67.00
Tomic 81.00
Gulbis 81.00
Isner 101.00
Haas 101.00
Nishikori 126.00
Gasquet 126.00
Cilic 126.00
Wawrinka 126.00
Tipsaveric 151.00
Querrey 151.00
Baghdatis 201.00
Dolgopolov 201.00
Almagro 201.00
Anderson 201.00
Fognini 301.00

<A href="http://imstore.bet365affiliates.com/Tracker.aspx?AffiliateId=60954&AffiliateCode=365_191494&CID=205&DID=275&TID=1&PID=149&LNG=1" target="_blank"><img src="http://imstore.bet365affiliates.com/?AffiliateCode=365_191494&CID=205&DID=275&TID=1&PID=149&LNG=1" border="0" /></A>

 

[Didi]

Have to say it's crazy to see a big fat 10 behind Roger's name these days, kind of unreal, although it's understandable and fitting at the moment. But the thing is I've been betting on slams for years and I remember the good old days when you barely got 1.10 for Roger at the peak of his powers at the U.S. Open during 2005-2007. From the semfinals onwards you often just got 1.01 and that's it, take it or get the hell out of here. He was so dominant on these courts. How times have changed, good lord. Nice to see Murray being the frontrunner at the moment. He deserves it.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Have to say it's crazy to see a big fat 10 behind Roger's name these days, kind of unreal, although it's understandable and fitting at the moment. But the thing is I've been betting on slams for years and I remember the good old days when you barely got 1.10 for Roger at the peak of his powers at the U.S. Open during 2005-2007. From the semfinals onwards you often just got 1.01 and that's it, take it or get the hell out of here. He was so dominant on these courts. How times have changed, good lord. Nice to see Murray being the frontrunner at the moment. He deserves it.

Actually, the odds can be even less than one. I have seen Federer's odds
when he was on top off his game and Nadal's odd in FO to be less than
1 several times.

If a player's odds is say 0.5, it means if you bet $1000 on that
player and if he wins, you will be paid $500; of course, if he loses
you will get nothing. Needless to say, no one would want to place
such a wager.

Now, you might be wondering as to what is the point of
such odds with less than 1 value. The point is that you can
take a bet, say $1000, that a player (whose winning odds are 0.5)
will lose and get paid $2000 if he loses the GS.

The losing odds are the reciprocal of the winning odds.

 

[britbox]

Have to say it's crazy to see a big fat 10 behind Roger's name these days, kind of unreal, although it's understandable and fitting at the moment. But the thing is I've been betting on slams for years and I remember the good old days when you barely got 1.10 for Roger at the peak of his powers at the U.S. Open during 2005-2007. From the semfinals onwards you often just got 1.01 and that's it, take it or get the hell out of here. He was so dominant on these courts. How times have changed, good lord. Nice to see Murray being the frontrunner at the moment. He deserves it.

Actually, the odds can be even less than one. I have seen Federer's odds
when he was on top off his game and Nadal's odd in FO to be less than
1 several times.

If a player's odds is say 0.5, it means if you bet $1000 on that
player and if he wins, you will be paid $500; of course, if he loses
you will get nothing. Needless to say, no one would want to place
such a wager.

Now, you might be wondering as to what is the point of
such odds with less than 1 value. The point is that you can
take a bet, say $1000, that a player (whose winning odds are 0.5)
will lose and get paid $2000 if he loses the GS.

The losing odds are the reciprocal of the winning odds.

You get your stake back as well when you win, so a $1000 bet at 0.5 gives you $1500 (gross) and $500 net. I've bet on those odds before if I think it's a dead cert to win. I'd take those odds on Usain Bolt before a major 100m track final, if offered.

 

[ClayDeath]

I have saying for 3 decades now that the great dunblane warrior has the inside track at the u.s. open.

he has nole on the run.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Have to say it's crazy to see a big fat 10 behind Roger's name these days, kind of unreal, although it's understandable and fitting at the moment. But the thing is I've been betting on slams for years and I remember the good old days when you barely got 1.10 for Roger at the peak of his powers at the U.S. Open during 2005-2007. From the semfinals onwards you often just got 1.01 and that's it, take it or get the hell out of here. He was so dominant on these courts. How times have changed, good lord. Nice to see Murray being the frontrunner at the moment. He deserves it.

Actually, the odds can be even less than one. I have seen Federer's odds
when he was on top off his game and Nadal's odd in FO to be less than
1 several times.

If a player's odds is say 0.5, it means if you bet $1000 on that
player and if he wins, you will be paid $500; of course, if he loses
you will get nothing. Needless to say, no one would want to place
such a wager.

Now, you might be wondering as to what is the point of
such odds with less than 1 value. The point is that you can
take a bet, say $1000, that a player (whose winning odds are 0.5)
will lose and get paid $2000 if he loses the GS.

The losing odds are the reciprocal of the winning odds.

You get your stake back as well when you win, so a $1000 bet at 0.5 gives you $1500 (gross) and $500 net. I've bet on those odds before if I think it's a dead cert to win. I'd take those odds on Usain Bolt before a major 100m track final, if offered.

The system I am referring to is called "decimal odds" (the odds are
expressed like 1.5, 2.37 etc in this system). It works in exactly the
way I said. This is used in many European countries.

The system you are referring to is called "fractional odds" (the odds
are usually expressed like 4/1, 3/2 etc in this system). It works in exactly
the way you said. This is used primarily in UK.

In the US it is crazier than either one of the above systems.
They use the so called money line bets. When say the moneyline is
+130 it means, if you bet $100 on the player or team, you will
win $130. When they say moneyline is -150, it means the team or
the player is favorite and you need to bet $150 bet to win
$100.

 

[britbox]

Have to say it's crazy to see a big fat 10 behind Roger's name these days, kind of unreal, although it's understandable and fitting at the moment. But the thing is I've been betting on slams for years and I remember the good old days when you barely got 1.10 for Roger at the peak of his powers at the U.S. Open during 2005-2007. From the semfinals onwards you often just got 1.01 and that's it, take it or get the hell out of here. He was so dominant on these courts. How times have changed, good lord. Nice to see Murray being the frontrunner at the moment. He deserves it.

Actually, the odds can be even less than one. I have seen Federer's odds
when he was on top off his game and Nadal's odd in FO to be less than
1 several times.

If a player's odds is say 0.5, it means if you bet $1000 on that
player and if he wins, you will be paid $500; of course, if he loses
you will get nothing. Needless to say, no one would want to place
such a wager.

Now, you might be wondering as to what is the point of
such odds with less than 1 value. The point is that you can
take a bet, say $1000, that a player (whose winning odds are 0.5)
will lose and get paid $2000 if he loses the GS.

The losing odds are the reciprocal of the winning odds.

You get your stake back as well when you win, so a $1000 bet at 0.5 gives you $1500 (gross) and $500 net. I've bet on those odds before if I think it's a dead cert to win. I'd take those odds on Usain Bolt before a major 100m track final, if offered.

The system I am referring to is called "decimal odds" (the odds are
expressed like 1.5, 2.37 etc in this system). It works in exactly the
way I said. This is used in many European countries.

The system you are referring to is called "fractional odds" (the odds
are usually expressed like 4/1, 3/2 etc in this system). It works in exactly
the way you said. This is used primarily in UK.

In the US it is crazier than either one of the above systems.
They use the so called money line bets. When say the moneyline is
+130 it means, if you bet $100 on the player or team, you will
get $130. When they say moneyline is -150, it means the team or
the player is favorite and you need to put in $150 bet to get back
$100. Of course, no one would want to bet on a team with a
negative moneyline.

Ok, my bad - I'm from the UK originally, so was working from that system.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The money line odds refers to winnings and so I have edited the last
paragraph of my previous post appropriately.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Here are the early odds (1 Aug/2013 for for the US Open):

Men:
Murray 2.5
Djokovic 2.62
Nadal 7.00
Federer 10.00
Del Potro 10.00
Berdych 34.00
Tsonga 34.00
Ferrer 41.00
Janowicz 41.00
Raonic 67.00
Dimitrov 67.00
Tomic 81.00
Gulbis 81.00
Isner 101.00
Haas 101.00
Nishikori 126.00
Gasquet 126.00
Cilic 126.00
Wawrinka 126.00
Tipsaveric 151.00
Querrey 151.00
Baghdatis 201.00
Dolgopolov 201.00
Almagro 201.00
Anderson 201.00
Fognini 301.00

<A href="http://imstore.bet365affiliates.com/Tracker.aspx?AffiliateId=60954&AffiliateCode=365_191494&CID=205&DID=275&TID=1&PID=149&LNG=1" target="_blank"><img src="http://imstore.bet365affiliates.com/?AffiliateCode=365_191494&CID=205&DID=275&TID=1&PID=149&LNG=1" border="0" /></A>

It looks like you got the odds from one particular betting house.
These odds vary from one house to another. So, for example if you
have made up your mind to bet on Murray winning, you are better off
selecting a betting house which gives Murray a high odd as your return
will be lot.

I am giving a link below which compares multiple betting houses.

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

The important observation is that I still see most betting houses
giving Djokovic lower odds than Murray, although the difference is
dwindling.

 

[britbox]

888 are giving 13s on Federer. Although, I still think the value is in Nadal, 7s and over.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

In the website that I gave earlier (odds checker), there is
a format selector which says, decimal, fractional and US style.
By toggling the format you will see how the different systems
work.

For example Murray is listed as 6/4 in the very first column
and as 2.5 if you toggle the format to decimal. This is because
6/4 = 1.5. The stake is 1 and so in decimal form, the odds are
2.5. When you use fractional format, you are talking about
winnings only and when you use decimal format, you are talking
about the gross return.

 

[britbox]

In the website that I gave earlier (odds checker), there is
a format selector which says, decimal, fractional and US style.
By toggling the format you will see how the different systems
work.

For example Murray is listed as 6/4 in the very first column
and as 2.5 if you toggle the format to decimal. This is because
6/4 = 1.5. The stake is 1 and so in decimal form, the odds are
2.5. When you use fractional format, you are talking about
winnings only and when you use decimal format, you are talking
about the gross return.

Very Useful site.

 

[Didi]

Oddschecker is very useful indeed and I do appreciate it in other sports like NFL and the English Premier League although in tennis I do not really make use of it as I bet primary on pinnaclesports which it doesn't feature unfortunately. Pinnacle currently lists Djokovic as the frontrunner with 2.73 above Murray 3.13, Nadal 9.70, DelPo 12.68 and Roger 13.45. Likewise you currently get 1.518 for Djoker and 1.418 for Andy for not winning the title. That's as good as you can get but of course it's subject to change depending on how they perform at the Canada and Cincinnati Masters.

We will see, this year I probably won't place a huge sum on the outright winner as it is too open a field this time in my opinion. The funny thing is I see equally convincing reasons for all of them to either go all the way and win it or have a total stinker. Instead I'm planning to stick to my system I created for slams where I spread sums on a distribution basis on some own designed categories of players (for example major contender, contender, challenger, rising talents, dark horses, sleeper, in-form veterans, my own wild cards etc.) on every single game in the main draw. So far it always helped me to get out of slams with a net win. It needs some further finetuning but it's a lot of fun and something to build on from. Though I have to say I passed on this year's Wimbledon due to holidays. It turned out to be a fantastic decision with hindsight.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

This is crazy. According to odds checker 44% of money wagered on
USO winner is NOT on RF, RN, AM, ND and JMDP.

AM, ND and JMDP each have about 14% share.

RN and RF have about 6% share.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Rafa's odds have gone down significantly across all betting houses. On the average,
it has gone down from 7 to 5.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The odds for DelPo winning are better than Fed winning in the betting houses right now.

Delpo's odds range from 9 to 11 depending on the specific company and Fed's odds
range from 11 to 15.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Nadal's odds are decreasing, currently at around 4.

Murray's odds are increasing, current at around 3.

Djoker's odd remaining stable at around 2.6

 

[Moxie]

Anyone got a fresh take on the odds? It seems to me they've changed.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Anyone got a fresh take on the odds? It seems to me they've changed.

Follow the link given earlier. It will always show the current odds.
Blue color indicates, the odds are going down, Pink indicates, the
odds are going up and white indicates, they are stable.

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

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The money talk:

25% of all money that is bet is bet of Rafa.
Fed got 5% of market share. Novak, Andy and Delpotro each have
about 10% of market share. Unbelievably, 40% of the money is
bet on other players (either specifically or generically).

I find the last point very surprising.