Results and analysis
section
This section is a depository for updates on performance,
analysis by members on how to best use the information
to maximise profits and other material of interest
to new members.
Latest analysis at the bottom.
A results spreadsheet with exact bets is available
upon request.
Please note that Nick's prices are conservative
and can be improved on by by shopping around for the
best price.
(Some services always claim the absolute best
price available, even though it would be impossible
to always get that price. Nick doesn't.)
POT stands for profit on turnover. If you make
a series of bets for amounts that total $100 and those
bets return you $110, (a $10 profit), that equates
to a 10% POT.
Click
here for insider's group thread on good and bad
bookies.
Current long term record
(Proofed record commenced January 2001)
Results as at
December 2004
Total bets staked
3,631
Profit
488.23 units
Return on investment
13.45%
End of season summary 2004
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, 16 December 2004 3:29 AM
To: tennis_members@ozmium.com.au
Subject: 2004 Tennis Review
Welcome to the review of the 2004 season. Although
I started with Ozmium in July this year, the review
is based on a full year of results and contains references
to previous years that I have been providing a tennis
service. I hope you find this a useful and enjoyable
read. If you have any comments, please don't hesitate
to contact me.
Percentage Return on Investment: 8.56% (14.91%
in 2003)
Number of Advised Bets: 320 (256 in 2003)
Number of winning bets: 162 or 51% (139 or
53% in 2003)
Total amount staked: 466.5 (542 in 2003)
Average stake per bet: 1.46 (2.06 in 2003)
Total points profit: +39.92 (+80.83 in 2003)
General Review:
The 2004 season can be split into 2 halves, very
much like 2003 when 6 great months were followed by
3 poor ones. 2004 was the other way around though,
with the French Open in May marking the end of a bad
5 months. Once the grass season started, results improved
massively almost overnight, and the good run continued
for the rest of the season, despite petering out a
little during the autumn.
Things started well enough with a good Australian
Open, but 8 of the following 13 weeks were losing
ones. The months of March and May saw the losing weeks
really stack up, and consequently both months produced
big losses. The clay season hit us particularly hard,
with substantial losses at major events in Rome, Hamburg,
and the French Open in Paris. The latter really hurt,
with almost 10 points lost and the end of our 100%
record in Grand Slam events.
However, it was onwards and upwards from there. The
grass season was extremely profitable, with Wimbledon
restoring order on the Grand Slam front. The winning
weeks continued to roll through the summer, and we
enjoyed a nicely profitable US Open. Things then fizzled
out a bit in the autumn, but we finished with 3 out
of 4 winning weeks, and are currently on a run of
6 consecutive winning months.
Average stakes:
2004 saw a continued trend of decreasing average stakes,
with an overall average of 1.46 down from 2.06 in
2003. This issue was brought up last year, and the
aim was to try and stop this decrease and have average
stakes stabilise this season. The reasons this hasn't
happened are that we have taken on more upsets and
outrights this year. Due to the higher prices involved,
stakes are consequently lower for these bets. The
bad start to the year also didn't help, as confidence
was dented somewhat with regards to keeping stakes
higher. It's hard to say what will happen in 2005,
although I would like to think stakes will stabilise
this time. As average stakes decrease, you may want
to increase your stake per point to compensate. Otherwise
the total amount you stake in a month or a year will
decrease, when it should really be staying the same
or increasing.
%ROI now the main stat:
All results are now principally recorded as %ROI as
oppose to points profit/loss. The main reason here
is simply that this stat is the best indicator of
performance and with stake sizes coming down, the
consequent lower profit totals in points are not representative
of overall performance. Although 2004 has been the
poorest of the 4 years we have been running, it was
only marginally worse than 2002 where we made over
100 points profit. Furthermore, 2003 was some way
better than 2002, despite only making 80 points profit.
%ROI is the rate of return on investment. So whereas
40 points profit is pretty meaningless, 10% ROI is
very useful. It simply tells you that on average,
you will receive back £10 clear profit for every £100
you stake. The 40 points figure is meaningless because
the %ROI could be anything from less than 1% upwards,
depending on how many points were staked to make that
40. Hopefully this makes sense, and will explain why
we have made this switch in the way we record results.
However, profit/loss in terms of points will still
be recorded for all our stats, as this is still the
best way to compare performance over more short-term
time-scales such as weeks and months.
Current form:
As already mentioned, 2004 has been the worst year
since we opened. (2001 - 16%, 2002 - 10%, 2003 - 15%,
2004 - 9%). However, as you can see, it was only marginally
worse than 2002, and the overall return is still very
impressive. Although the long-term trend is downwards,
much more positive news can be found from looking
at current form. In the last 5 months (since the French
Open), we have made just under 50 points profit from
just over 220 points staked. In %ROI, that equates
to just over 22%, which is significantly higher than
any annual figure we have attained since opening.
Therefore, current form would point to a prosperous
2005.
Honest proofing:
We have always prided ourselves on the fact that we
always proof at attainable prices, and not at standout
prices that may have stakes limited or aren't available
for very long. Although these figures can't be verified,
my personal betting records from backing all advised
bets in 2004 show a profit of just over 15 points
more than the proofed total, and a %ROI of just under
12%. I have the obvious advantage of being able to
grab any standout prices before bets are advised,
but subscribers really should be able to make better
than the proofed results, even if they can't always
be on hand when the bets are sent. Other services
continue to happily proof at unattainable prices,
which simply means their results aren't representative
of their service. We strongly disagree with this practice,
and will continue with our policy of fair proofing
throughout the 2005 season and on.
2004 doesn't follow trend of previous years:
An important lesson was learned this year about some
times of the year/tournaments being better than others.
In previous years, certain tournaments were always
profitable, whilst others were always loss-makers.
Likewise, there has been a marked trend of bigger
profits during the first 5 months of the year than
the remainder. These trends were almost completely
reversed in 2004, with the exception of the 3 profitable
Grand Slams. A few people wrote in expressing concern
that after a bad start to the year, they didn't believe
things would get better as we hadn't done so well
during the 2nd half of the year in previous years.
2004 has proved that it's perfectly possible to make
good profits at all tournaments and during all stages
of the season.
Category analysis:
Looking at the betting stats for the different categories,
there is more evidence of trends from previous years
being reversed. The most notable stats are for doubles,
and the extremely poor record on larger doubles, which
goes against previous years. Despite the significant
loss from 2.5+ point doubles, every other betting
category made a profit. Singles didn't perform well
over all 3 stake levels, which was disappointing after
they performed much better over recent years. 1-2
point doubles made up for the larger doubles with
a significant profit. Trebles were again profitable,
but far less was staked overall than in previous years.
This is part of our strategy to bring in more doubles
and singles in an attempt to secure better value for
bets. Outrights and Last 16 bets once again performed
exceptionally well, as they have done every season.
To try and tap into this success, we will be looking
at outright markets in a little more depth during
the 2005 season. The Last 16 bets are confined to
the Grand Slams, so expansion of these isn't possible.
Correct score bets also performed well for the third
year in 4.
Shortlist bets:
A rough calculation has been made, assuming set stakes
for price levels that were derived from a rough average
of stakes per price from our main bets. The shortlist
started back in early May, but early results were
poor. The results really started to pick up during
late summer and into the autumn, and from these calculations
a total profit of 25.98 points was made from 277 points
staked (singles proofing system adopted). That equates
to a healthy 9.38%. Although these figures are a rough
estimate, it's not in doubt that the shortlist section
has been very successful. I also feel it has helped
with the bet selection process for the main bets,
and we'll be continuing the shortlist in 2005.
Number of bets:
Like 2002, we hurtled above the 300 mark in terms
of number of bets this season. With the 2 most successful
seasons seeing only around 260 bets, it would suggest
that being more selective is the way forward. However,
the success of the shortlist bets would suggest otherwise.
158 extra bets managed to result in just over 9% ROI,
which is marginally above the season average. Certainly,
had these extra bets been proofed, they wouldn't have
had a detrimental effect on results.
Singles Proofing 2004:
We have experimented with proofing all advised bets
as singles this season. All multiples were broken
down into singles, and proofed with the same stake
as the multiple. This system returned almost 10 points
more in profit, but because total stakes were higher
by 260, %ROI was down at just under 7%. The idea of
this system is to attain better value by being able
to take the best price on every selection (something
which isn't always possible for multiples).
The flaw of this system comes when more than 1 selection
in an advised multiple loses, and despite that happening
on only 3 occasions out of 106 during the season,
the results from the singles proofing weren't significantly
better than the official proofing. The main reason
for this is that I am always looking to attain the
best value from all bets. Doubles permutations will
often be decided by available prices, and may even
be broken down into singles if there is significant
value loss from placing the bet as a double.
The further perceived benefit from singles proofing
of being able to place more bets on betting exchanges
also didn't really materialise. Best prices would
more than likely be available from a bookmaker somewhere,
and market moves on popular players almost always
start first on the exchanges and then move onto regular
bookmakers.
Some people may still prefer the singles method or
some permutation of it. The staking plan we have used
for the experiment is a very simple one, and there
could be other ways of doing it that people will find
to attain better value. However, at this time, the
experimental proofing hasn't been successful enough
to replace our standard methods. Therefore, the proofing
will stop in 2005, and we will continue advising bets
with the usual variety of singles and multiples.
Player/Tournament Stats: A record 168 different
players were involved in advised bets this year, reflecting
a greater willingness to take on 'unknown' players.
2002 had the previous record of 165, whilst last season
we only had 148 names on the selection list. In 4
seasons of betting on tennis, 248 different players
have been involved.
Best performer this year was Coria, who was personally
responsible for 5.98 points of profit. He was closely
followed by Schuettler with 5.81, and both players
were boosted by Coria's 3-0/Outright win over Schuettler
in the Monte Carlo final. Next up were Gonzalez (5.24),
Hernandez (4.66), and Sanchez (3.84).
Worst performer was Davydenko with 2.99 points lost,
followed by Horna (-2.7), Fish (-2.37), and Verkerk
(-2.35). Hernandez was the only player to be involved
in 10+ consecutive winners this year, thanks largely
to us opposing him! He is currently on 12, and boasts
a clean 12/0 record both for this year and lifetime.
Blanco and Robredo both completed runs of 10 wins
that started in previous seasons, whilst Rochus.C
and Heuberger did likewise and are still going with
current runs of 12 each. Heuberger also has a 12/0
lifetime record, but we have bet him in every season.
Most popular players in 2004 were Sanchez, Srichaphan,
and Soderling who were each involved in 15 bets. Gonzalez
and Coria were both involved in 14. Gonzalez is normally
known for his unpredictability, but he tops the winner's
list having been involved in 13 winning bets this
season. Sanchez and Hernandez are next with 12. Luis
Horna headed the loser's list, having been involved
in 7 losing bets. A little surprisingly, Hewitt and
Federer were right behind him with 6. Moya, Verkerk,
and Ferrer were also involved in 6 losers.
61% (102 of 168) of players we bet on during the
year returned a profit. We had no luck with Srichaphan
after 5 of his winners counted for nothing, having
been in losing accumulators. No other player had this
scenario more than twice. We made a profit from 31
of the 60 tournaments we bet on (52%). The best tournament
was Wimbledon which returned 10.7 points profit, whilst
the French Open was the worst with a loss of 9.29
points. Only 3 ATP Tour events failed to produce a
single bet (Casablanca, Bastad, and Metz).
Winning Run:
We had a tough time stringing the wins together this
year, with 5 being the longest consecutive run we
could manage. It happened on 3 occasions. The first
back in early February was probably the most interesting,
consisting of 3 upsets and 2 doubles. 5 straight happened
again in July and October. It's unlikely we'll ever
break the record of 12 straight winners, now that
we are taking on more and more higher priced selections.
Losing Run:
Sadly, we managed to break the record for this once
again. Last year we broke it from 5 to 7, and this
year we suffered a run of 8 consecutive losers during
the Rome/Hamburg Masters double-header. 5 losers in
Rome followed by 3 at the start of Hamburg. 4 singles
and 4 multi's. It's worth noting the multi's all lost
thanks to 1 selection, and in 3 cases that selection
went down in a final set. Meanwhile, all the winners
in those multi's were comfortable in straight sets.
Always nice to be lucky:
This year's good luck story can only be about 1 match
back in July, which thankfully there was no live TV
or point-by-point scoring for. Things were going really
well, and what happened in Schuettler's match with
Seppi really summed up the change in fortunes we were
experiencing. Schuettler was needed to complete a
double with Novak, but he looked out of it at 2-6
1-3 against Seppi in Kitzbuhel. He managed to break
back though, and continued to hold serve until the
tie-break where he took the match into a third set.
The game-by-game scoring that was available masked
the drama that had unfolded in that 2nd set though.
Schuettler had saved match points serving at 4-5 and
again at 5-6, and then again in an epic tie-break
which the German took 15-13. An incredible total of
10 match points were saved, and it was no surprise
that Seppi then collapsed 6-0 in the third.
It's worth noting that Seppi managed to gain revenge
a few weeks later in almost equally dramatic fashion.
Schuettler was 2 sets up and serving for the match
against him at the US Open, but Seppi grimly refused
to lay down, and came back to win a very tight 3rd
and 4th set before romping home 6-1 in the fifth.
Also worth a mention is Squillari's win over Dent
in the 1st round of the Houston clay event, where
at one point he was losing 6-0 4-1!
Biggest Choker:
Although there has been a lot to moan about this season,
nothing stands out in particular. Injury/illness cost
us some big stakes during the first half of the season
(Clement/Davydenko in Oz the worst when an upset stomach
cost Clement the match after he was up 2 sets but
played to the finish). There was also Soderling/Volandri
in Moscow recently, when our man squandered match
points in a 7-6 3rd set loss despite picking up an
eye problem, which by all accounts was responsible
for a shocking display of tennis. We had 3 tough losses
on predicted upsets, all losing 7-6 in the 3rd set
having squandered match points, 3rd set breaks or
both (Johansson.T/Kuerten in Barcelona, Beck/Rusedski
in LA, and Enqvist/Moya in Athens).
But the award goes to Ferrer/Corretja in Indian Wells.
We were having a really tough time back in March,
and could have done with a Ferrer win. He squandered
the 1st set on a tie-break having had chances to win
it. He took the 2nd set 6-3, and grabbed an early
lead in the third. He missed chances for a double-break,
and then missed match points at 15-40 on Corretja's
serve, and then fouled up serving for the match. Just
to stick the knife in, he then lost the match by losing
5 straight points on serve at 5-6 40-0!
Best Steal:
The total unknown Ryderstedt had been given a wild
card to his home event in Stockholm, and he was against
our friend Hernandez who had strangely opted to play
off his favoured clay for only the 4th time (and first
outside the glamour of the Slams). Bookies stayed
away for the most part, but those who came to the
table generally went 5/6 the pair. Expekt kindly opened
at Evens though on Ryderstedt, who although inexperienced
was quite comfortable in the fast indoor conditions.
Hernandez on the other hand, had struggled winning
games (let alone sets) on his previous 3 ventures
off the clay. Ryderstedt's price was nearer 1/2 at
close, and he duly came good by a 6-4 6-4 scoreline.
After the match, there were some reports suggesting
Hernandez had only flown in from Spain a few hours
before the match played!
Tie-breaks a 50/50 thing?:
Tie-break winners have averaged between 54-56% in
the last 3 years, but we were blessed in 2004 with
a hit rate of 61% from our chosen picks in tie-breaks.
116 of 189 were won, and it's hard to conclude anything
other than we were a little spoilt this year.
Going the distance:
Unfortunately, deciding sets produced the lowest hit
rate of the last 4 years in 2004. Arguably the more
important of the 2 stats, as although tie-breaks can
turn matches, deciding sets do exactly what they say
on the tin, and decide the outcome. In 2004, our picks
won 72 of 125 final sets, which is a healthy 58%.
However, the last 2 years both averaged 63%, whilst
2001 had a whopping 73%. 2001’s total can be explained
by the fact we were backing hardly any outsiders in
those days. We were particularly hurt in the Grand
Slams this year, with picks hitting just 43% of the
5th sets they played, well down on previous years.
Big Price:
Excluding outrights, the correct score tip on Hewitt
to beat Suzuki by 2-1 in Tokyo was the biggest price
of the year. Stanjames opened at 7/1, but 9/2 was
still available before the off. Hewitt was an off-putting
1/33 for the match, but he had already dropped a set
to Motomura and was up against a guy who has repeatedly
been able to raise his level at his home event in
Tokyo. Suzuki grabbed the first on a tie-break, but
as predicted, didn't then have enough to take out
the gritty Hewitt. 6-7 6-2 6-4 the sweet final scoreline.
Equally sweet was the 11/2 that was available for
Beck to beat Henman at Queen's. Probably the biggest
misjudgement the bookies made all year, as they thought
home turf was enough alone for the Brit. The reality
was that he'd just come from a semi-final run at the
French, which would have left him physically and mentally
wounded, not to mention ill-prepared for the grass.
Beck, on the other hand, was flying having won the
Surbiton challenger the previous week and had adjusted
to Queen's with a 1st round win. It went to the wire
with Beck saving a match point by drop-shotting Henman
before hitting a lob winner, but he came through 6-2
3-6 7-6!
Worst pick:
I don't think there were too many contenders for this,
not even during the first 5 months of the year when
I felt we were always a little unlucky with all the
big stake losing bets. Anyway, the award is a joint
one.
Firstly to picking Mardy Fish for a 4 point stake
double with Novak. Novak did the business, but the
way Fish handled the 5th set against Tabara showed
total inexperience and lack of ability to handle playing
at the US Open, something which has been seen in previous
years. Tabara was flying after qualy's, and playing
4 points on this was a little dumb.
Secondly, backing Mark Philippoussis against Johansson.J
in Hamburg. The idea was to play against Johansson's
lack of ability on clay, and go with the assumption
Philippoussis was motivated and able to produce. Of
course we didn't know what JJ would go on to do in
2004, but Philippoussis played like a horse, bottling
a 1st set tie-break by double-faulting and then tamely
going down 6-1 in the 2nd set. The Scud had been having
problems since the Oz Open and was on a losing streak,
so what possessed me to think he was worth a play
at odds on, I'm not sure!
The passion of playing for your country:
Few had anticipated what the Chilean team of Gonzalez
and Massu were going to achieve at the Olympics, but
once it started to unfold, it became clear that there
was enough evidence to suggest their heroics were
on the cards. Most pro's get a kick from playing at
home events or as part of a national team, but there
is something extra when it comes to the Chileans.
In 2002, Gonzalez won his home title in Vina Del Mar
as a rank outsider. Injury ruled him out in 2003,
but he was back winning the title again in 2004. Since
becoming Chile's first and second choice players in
Davis Cup this year, they have won every tie by 5-0
and consequently qualified for the World Group in
2005.
They have also teamed up for the World Team Cup in
Dusseldorf for the last 2 years, and on both occasions
swept to victory despite this event being seen more
as a French Open warm-up event than a serious team
competition. It became clear that the Olympics was
the main aim of 2004 for both players, and not just
because it was a chance to play for their country,
but because Chile had never before won an Olympic
gold medal. Anyway, both guys started easing through
the Olympics draw, in both singles and doubles. When
they beat the Bryan brothers in doubles, people really
started to take notice. We didn't miss out, by advising
Gonzalez to beat Roddick at 4/1, and then Grosjean
at 11/10. We also put Massu on the shortlist at 9/4
against Moya, and the Chileans just carried on winning.
Fatigue was the principal factor that deterred us
from any further bets, but although Gonzalez went
down to Fish in the semi's, he got back up to win
truly epic matches in the doubles semi-finals and
the bronze medal match against Dent. Massu produced
further heroics by taking the gold medal in singles,
and this awesome duo got together to take gold in
doubles too. We didn't stop profiting there either.
Sensing the massive effort these two had made to achieve
their goals in Athens, we then looked to back against
them during the remainder of the season, and in particular
at the upcoming US Open. We backed Soderling to beat
Gonzalez at 13/8 in the 1st round, and Sargsian to
beat Massu at 3/1 in the 2nd round.
Sensing Gonzalez' erratic game-style would be more
prone to breaking down when he wasn't 100% committed,
we preyed on him again towards the end of the season,
with the hope that he would be looking forward to
going back home to Chile with a feeling of 'job done'
for 2004. This time, we landed 11/8 on Koubek to beat
him in Madrid, and 8/13 on Mirnyi to do likewise in
Paris. All 4 bets were winners, making a total of
6 great bets all related to the passion of playing
for your country.
Consecutive winning multiples record:
We broke this record in 2004 by landing 14 consecutive
winning multiples. Clement and Hanescu both lost in
a double during Wimbledon, but that triggered this
fine run, with the highlight being the 4-fold accumulator
in July. The mid-summer clay events were throwing
up a number of hot favourites, and we liked enough
of them to feel grouping 4 together was the best plan.
The bet hinged on Gaudio to beat Armando, and it looked
doubtful as Armando served for the match at 5-4 in
the 3rd set. He had a 30-0 lead too, but Gaudio clawed
his way back and won on a tie-break.
The run ended in August when Henman lost to Novak
at the Olympics, but only after 31 winning selections
in those 14 bets. Interestingly, that Clement/Hanescu
double was the last time a multi lost with more than
1 selection going down. 39 multi's have avoided that
fate since, and you have to go back a further 39 to
find the last time it happened back in March. And
it's only happened 3 times this season.
That's the end of the review for 2004!
ATP Tour Package
Testimonials
ATP
Tour Calendar
Introduction
to tennis betting
Refund
policy and disclaimer
Home|FAQs|Disclaimer|Contact us
©2008 Ozmium
Pty Ltd. All rights reserved
