PDA

View Full Version : Oddsmakers Give Davenport Distant Shot To Win U.S. Open


tennisIlove09
Aug 27th, 2005, 02:51 AM
Oddsmakers Give Davenport Distant Shot To Win U.S. Open
http://www.sportsmediainc.net/tennisweek/DavenportUSOpenSMullane.jpg
Photo by Susan Mullane By Tennis Week
08/27/2005

She's played in two of the three Grand Slam finals this season and may well enter New York as the world's No. 1 player, but Lindsay Davenport is a distant choice among oddsmakers to captured her first major championship since the 2000 Australian Open.




Online betting site Sportsbook.com (http://www.sportsbook.com/) lists Davenport as a 12-1 shot to claim her fourth career Grand Slam championship at Flushing Meadows.

U.S. Open Series winner Kim Clijsters, who fell to Davenport in the fourth round of Roland Garros and Wimbledon, is a 2-1 favorite to collect her first career Grand Slam title at the U.S. Open.

Reigning Roland Garros champion Justine Henin-Hardenne, who beat Clijsters to win the 2003 U.S. Open, is the second favorite at 11-5 followed by current No. 1 Maria Sharapova, who is a 4-1 shot. Though they reside in the same quarter of the draw, the Williams sisters are among the top five favorites at the Open, according to Sportsbook.com (http://www.sportsbook.com/). Wimbledon winner Venus Williams is a 6-1 shot and Serena, who has been limited to one match since suffering an upset loss to Jill Craybas in the third round of Wimbledon, is listed at 7-1.

Seeking her first career major, Amelie Mauresmo joins Davenport at 12-1 to take home the title.

On the men's side, world No. 1 Roger Federer is listed at 1-2 to successfully defend his U.S. Open crown. French Open champion Rafael Nadal, who has beaten Federer in two of their three meetings is 3-1, followed by 2003 U.S. Open champion Andy Roddick (5-1) and two-time champion Andre Agassi (10-1).

Though Federer has lifted four of the last seven Grand Slam title trophies, men's tennis generally draws more betting action that women's tennis, according to Sportsbook.com (http://www.sportsbook.com/) marketing director Alex Czajkowski.

"Mens tennis is generally more competitive and any men's player can win at any time," Czajkowski told Tennis Week. "The women's game has a few more dominant players, so the chances of picking and winning on a longshot in tennis are a bit better. We usually get a lot more bets on men's tennis."

Tennis does not come close to generating the dollars spent gambling on major sports, but the Grand Slam tournaments generally cause a significant spike in the amount of money bet on the sport.

"During Slams, the volume increases, but during non-Slams the volume ranks low compared to major USA sports such as the NFL, NBA and MLBN," Czajkowski told Tennis Week. "Generally, (visitors to our site) are recreational bettors, especially during Grand Slam tournaments where the volume picks up."


U.S. Open Men's Odds
Roger Federer (Switzerland) 1-2
Rafael Nadal (Spain) 3-1
Andy Roddick (United States) 5-1
Andre Agassi (United States) 10-1
Lleyton Hewitt (Australia) 12-1
Marat Safin (Russia) 12-1
David Nalbandian (Argentina) 25-1
Guillermo Coria (Argentina) 60-1
Juan Carlos Ferrero (Spain) 60-1
Ivan Ljubicic (Croatia) 60-1
Carlos Moya (Spain) 60-1
Andrew Murray (England) 60-1
Nicolas Kiefer (Germany) 75-1
Greg Rusedski (England) 75-1
Taylor Dent (United States) 80-1
Tommy Haas (Germany) 80-1
Tim Henman (England) 80-1
Thomas Johansson (Sweden) 80-1
Mario Ancic (Croatia) 100-1
Sebastien Grosjean (France) 100-1
Field (any other player) 5-1
U.S. Open Women's Odds
Kim Clijsters (Belgium) 2-1
Justine Henin-Hardenne (Belgium) 11-5
Maria Sharapova (Russia) 4-1
Venus Williams (United States) 6-1
Serena Williams (United States) 7-1
Lindsay Davenport (United States) 12-1
Amelie Mauresmo (France) 12-1
Svetlana Kuznetsova (Russia) 20-1
Mary Pierce (France) 25-1
Anastasia Myskina (Russia) 30-1
Elena Dementieva (Russia) 50-1
Patty Schnyder (Switzerland) 50-1
Shuai Peng (China) 60-1
Nadia Petrova (Russia) 60-1
Alicia Molik (Australia) 100-1
Field (any other player) 10-1

jfk
Aug 27th, 2005, 03:34 AM
That's pretty crazy. You could easily make a case that Lindsay should be the #1 favorite. Clijsters is deserving as #1, but Lindsay has beaten her in their last two meetings....

Mrs. Peel
Aug 27th, 2005, 03:43 AM
A distant shot?!?!? Getthefuckouttahere....:rolleyes: Those odds are stupid.

JenFan75
Aug 27th, 2005, 03:46 AM
:rolleyes:

Jakeev
Aug 27th, 2005, 04:34 AM
I can tell ya now that if Lindsay see's that she will probably raise her arms and yell......."YESSSSSSSSSS."

Means less pressure on her and that's just the way she likes it.

ezekiel
Aug 27th, 2005, 04:36 AM
:haha:

alwayshingis
Aug 27th, 2005, 04:36 AM
Serena with more of a chance than Lindsay :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Mr Snuggles
Aug 27th, 2005, 04:42 AM
Davenport is one of the favourites in my book, considering how well she plays on hardcourts and how her draw as almost given her a bye to the semis, those odds are laughable. Once again it seems Lindsay will quietly progress to the business end of a slam without anyone paying much attention. ;)

TFan1156
Aug 27th, 2005, 05:15 AM
Cannot believe people are laughing at the bookmakers. They know more about tennis than 99% percent of the people on this board. It is how they make their living and decisions are made collectively. Huge amounts of money are at stake. Odds are so against Lindsey for two reasons, 1. a possible injury reoccurance, 2. and most importantly, she has a long history of choking up at slams, no win in over 5 years. Would be a good bet to make the semis or final but to win, no...

Denise4925
Aug 27th, 2005, 05:29 AM
That's pretty crazy. You could easily make a case that Lindsay should be the #1 favorite. Clijsters is deserving as #1, but Lindsay has beaten her in their last two meetings....
Stop making an ass of yourself. :rolleyes:

Denise4925
Aug 27th, 2005, 05:30 AM
Cannot believe people are laughing at the bookmakers. They know more about tennis than 99% percent of the people on this board. It is how they make their living and decisions are made collectively. Huge amounts of money are at stake. Odds are so against Lindsey for two reasons, 1. a possible injury reoccurance, 2. and most importantly, she has a long history of choking up at slams, no win in over 5 years. Would be a good bet to make the semis or final but to win, no...
I agree with this, but why give Serena better odds on winning than Lindsay?

jfk
Aug 27th, 2005, 05:32 AM
Stop making an ass of yourself. :rolleyes:
Haha. Riiiiiight. An insult from a delusional poster regarding a sensible prediction about a player who has made the most GS finals this year. What you say has a huge impact....

Denise4925
Aug 27th, 2005, 05:33 AM
Haha. Riiiiiight. An insult from a delusional poster regarding a sensible prediction about a player who has made the most GS finals this year. What you say has a huge impact....
Same to ya, dick! :lol: The odds are on winning, not making the finals, genius.

Sun*Kissed
Aug 27th, 2005, 05:38 AM
Cannot believe people are laughing at the bookmakers. They know more about tennis than 99% percent of the people on this board. It is how they make their living and decisions are made collectively. Huge amounts of money are at stake. Odds are so against Lindsey for two reasons, 1. a possible injury reoccurance, 2. and most importantly, she has a long history of choking up at slams, no win in over 5 years. Would be a good bet to make the semis or final but to win, no...
This is true. and regarding serena having better odds, i think it's because even if she's injured , she's more likely to fight through and win matches than lindsay is, given the same circumstance

TFan1156
Aug 27th, 2005, 05:42 AM
I agree with this, but why give Serena better odds on winning than Lindsay?

Because Serena lives for slams, has won one this year, and a number of slams since Lindsey won her last. Lindsey seems to have developed a phobia about winning another slam. Even if she gets close, is quite liable to drop her game on the big points. That is why Serena is the better bet.

Denise4925
Aug 27th, 2005, 05:44 AM
Because Serena lives for slams, has won one this year, and a number of slams since Lindsey won her last. Lindsey seems to have developed a phobia about winning another slam. Even if she gets close, is quite liable to drop her game on the big points. That is why Serena is the better bet.
Even with her injury, being unfit, getting beaten by Jill Craybas at Wimby (God! :rolleyes: ) and lack of match play?

Ceecor
Aug 27th, 2005, 05:45 AM
best avail open., mid. now............Womans USOpen
Kim Clijsters 3.00 $2.50 3.0
Justine Henin-Hardenne 5.00 $3.50 4.0
Maria Sharapova 5.00 $8.00 6.0
Lindsay Davenport 17.00 $12.00 8.0
Venus Williams 7.50 $8.00 8.0
Serena Williams 7.50 $11.00 13.0
Amelie Mauresmo 17.00 $13.00 15.0

TFan1156
Aug 27th, 2005, 05:48 AM
Even with her injury, being unfit, getting beaten by Jill Craybas at Wimby (God! :rolleyes: ) and lack of match play?

Davenport has been injured also and is just back. Serena has killer instinct at slams which may well overcome a sore knee. Word is she is ready to play, right? Yea 6-1 for her, 12-1 for Lindsey is reasonable.

Leo_DFP
Aug 27th, 2005, 05:51 AM
Cannot believe people are laughing at the bookmakers. They know more about tennis than 99% percent of the people on this board. It is how they make their living and decisions are made collectively. Huge amounts of money are at stake. Odds are so against Lindsey for two reasons, 1. a possible injury reoccurance, 2. and most importantly, she has a long history of choking up at slams, no win in over 5 years. Would be a good bet to make the semis or final but to win, no...

Bookies are not tennis experts. They usually get these things wrong.

Considering that Davenport is a lock for the semis with her easy draw (for once), putting her at 12-1 is ludicrous. Of course, Lindsay loves being out of the spotlight.

Ceecor
Aug 27th, 2005, 06:01 AM
Cannot believe people are laughing at the bookmakers. They know more about tennis than 99% percent of the people on this board. It is how they make their living and decisions are made collectively. Huge amounts of money are at stake...

you are 100% correct.

TFan1156
Aug 27th, 2005, 06:15 AM
Bookies are not tennis experts. They usually get these things wrong.
Considering that Davenport is a lock for the semis with her easy draw (for once), putting her at 12-1 is ludicrous. Of course, Lindsay loves being out of the spotlight.

Sorry but your opening statement is what is ludicrous. If these bookmakers were so incompetent then sports betting enterprises would be losing money on tennis, and I assure you that is not the case. As to who is or is not in "the spotlight," they could care less! Is all about money and weak links, eg. less than effective bookmakers are quickly replaced.

Ceecor
Aug 27th, 2005, 06:27 AM
Sorry but your opening statement is what is ludicrous. If these bookmakers were so incompetent then sports betting enterprises would be losing money on tennis, and I assure you that is not the case. As to who is or is not in "the spotlight," they could care less! Is all about money and weak links, eg. less than effective bookmakers are quickly replaced.

I wouldnt worry about it....i had the same 'discussion' when i 1st joined...very few here have a clue about prices, percentages, bookmakers, totes or money in sports betting. The large Bookmakers employ hundreds of employees all round the world to cover a multitude of sports and events etc

..............but of course the people here know far more than them.

kabuki
Aug 27th, 2005, 06:33 AM
Amelie the same odds as Lindsay? :retard:

Andy Murray the same odds as Coria, Ferrero, and Moya? :retard: :retard:

Pengwin
Aug 27th, 2005, 06:35 AM
Amelie the same odds as Lindsay? :retard:

Andy Murray the same odds as Coria, Ferrero, and Moya? :retard: :retard:

Britons love betting on our glorious no-hopers so they always cut the odds a bit.

TFan1156
Aug 27th, 2005, 06:37 AM
I wouldnt worry about it....i had the same 'discussion' when i 1st joined...very few here have a clue about prices, percentages, bookmakers, totes or money in sports betting. The large Bookmakers employ hundreds of employees all round the world to cover a multitude of sports and events etc

..............but of course the people here know far more than them.


Absolutely, it is a true objective, profit driven enterprise, that takes into account a multitude of factors, then relies on a large collective judgment. Thaey make a lot of money. If they were so stupid they would not...

Ceecor
Aug 27th, 2005, 07:24 AM
The odds posted by the thread maker are a bit outdated.....you are hard put to get better than 8's for davenport. she has moved from 17 . 12 . 11 . 9 . 8

tennisrox
Aug 27th, 2005, 07:47 AM
12-1?? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Maria,Justine,and Serena ahead of Lindsay :lol: :tape:
Bunch of idiots!

Leo_DFP
Aug 27th, 2005, 07:29 PM
Amelie the same odds as Lindsay? :retard:

Andy Murray the same odds as Coria, Ferrero, and Moya? :retard: :retard:

Exactly. If bookies really knew what they were doing, why would Murray be at 60-1? :rolleyes:

GoDominique
Aug 27th, 2005, 07:33 PM
Sounds sensible. :)

LeRoy.
Aug 27th, 2005, 07:35 PM
why does it say any other player 10-1 for women and 5-1 for men ? :eek:

GoDominique
Aug 27th, 2005, 07:44 PM
Amelie should have 100000-1 though.

TFan1156
Aug 28th, 2005, 03:16 AM
12-1?? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Maria,Justine,and Serena ahead of Lindsay :lol: :tape:
Bunch of idiots!

Think so? Go take their money then, should be like taking candy from a baby... ;)