Anyone following Tiger Woods would know that he's never missed the cut in a major and, despite being almost out with 6 or 7 holes to play in round 2, kept that "statistical certainty" alive in the PGA yesterday. Unfortunately if we go back to 15/5/2005 the very same Mr Woods MISSED the cut in another tournament for the first time in 142 events; the longest streak in golf history!!!!!
Bearing in mind that Tiger has had such a fabulous year in 2005, it's even more AGAINST the stats that he'd crack in the midst of it ( for the first time in more than 7 years).There are NO certainties, statistical or otherwise.
That old saying that it's darkest just before the dawn should have a contra-cliche. Maybe the sun shines brightest just before the eclipse (?????). In 1969 R.Laver won all 4 Tennis Majors as well as the Italian, German, Canadian and Sth African Opens. Not only was/is that year the greatest in tennis history BUT it was also the last time he ever won a major at all!!!! Who would've bet against him at the end of that fabulous year??? When all about are fawning on todays "unbeatables" the successful punter must not LOSE THEIR OBJECTIVITY and start thinking of betting FAVOURITES. Cheers

Hawthorn beats Essendon for the first time in 8 years!!!! Another "statistical certainty" bites the dust. Hope you followed my advice (see 12th August) and BET AGAINST THE CERTAINTY. Cheers, and I'm off to collect. Am also hoping for an early payout on the Poms winning the Ashes as well.

I don't see ANYWHERE here where you tipped Hawthorn to beat Essendon on Aug12. You never even referred to that match. "BET AGAINST THE CERTAINTY" could mean absolutely anything.

Please feel free to post tips for individual matches if you wish, but just saying people should bet against the favourite says nothing.

Personally, I didn't bet in that Hawthorn/Essendon match because I didn't trust the form of either team. I don't go blindly betting on teams just because statistics suggest they should win. I also have to have some sort of form reasoning behind my selections. That's why I only had a 1 unit bet on Geelong against Melbourne. (really should have left them alone altogether) I had 3 units on Sydney against Brisbane. I thought they were good things although I must admit I would have had 5 units on them if they had played at the SCG.

Sportz, I hope you haven't lost your sense of humour. Every one of my entries on this topic has been taking the p*** out of it, if you'll notice. When I said that on 12th August it was to give general advice not to fall for anything as ludicrous as "stats" or "certainties". This thread is EXACTLY about betting without reference to form/conditions/weather etc and to only look at stats. It follows on from the original "Statistical Certainties" thread.
Since it seems we agree that stats are only a part of the story (a very small part) I don't see why you are having a go at me for mocking them. Well? Cheers anyway.P57
P.S. Sportz: attacking people for not giving you tips on every individual bet under the sun AFTER they've given you the 100% iron-clad winning principle (you may remember the Wimbledon fiasco where no-one wanted to know about V.Williams at 80-1 and then they bucketed ME afterwards) is a little churlish. It is the old cliche: if you give a man a fish, he can eat that day BUT if you show him HOW to fish he can feed himself forever!!!.

The Statistical Certainity tennis syste won with Nadal. Now 3-0 For +.25

At Cinci it picks Federer in r1 & nadal in r2.

Well here we are 5 minutes after seeing Nadal, the latest statistical "certainty" bite the dust and all those absurdly skinny divvy wins (accepted by fav backers) evaporate into a screaming loss. The advice still stands and WITHstands the test of time; wait until they CAN"T LOSE and then bet that they WILL!!!
What a winning gambler needs is GUTS; guts to bet against the crowd. Nadal was and IS always a risk when he's not on some dinky slooooooooooow Euro-trash clay-court. Ho-hum...and another one's down and another one's gone!!!
Cheers and good luck to those with courage. P57

OK smarty pants,

Hows about you post some statistical "un"certainties, at your leisure or when the next becomes available, so we can rate and follow your advice.

__________________
I like Bing Lee.

Thanks for the amiable challenge Mr Mad. After Wimbledon I promised not to give any specific tips until the US Open drew near. In both the ATP and WTA threads I did, however, explicitly warn NOT to bet Nadal on any surface other than Euroclay. This would seem to include Cincinatti (not in Europe and not on clay!!!) so you could've either bet Berdych and cleaned up OR not bet at all. If only one of our fellow forum followers, upon feeling "certain" of something, stops for a reality check (at $1.10 especially), I'll feel a warm inner-glow. Smarty-Pants 57 (mockingly dubbed Professor57 by Karla909, as well!!!!) over and out.Best of Luck.

Well well well. Aren't some of us willing to jump down the throats of others without double checking. If you would take a second to scroll down P57 you might note the following:

The Statistical Certainity tennis syste won with Nadal. Now 3-0 For +.25

At Cinci it picks Federer in r1 & nadal in r2.

NADAL WAS A PICK IN R2 (ROUND 2) Nadals loss was in round 1. Therefore the pick in round2 is void.

To qualify in the tennis statistical certainty system the seed must have a 90% record. The number 2 seed at Cincinatti is 22 for 27 which is 81%. In fact the 2nd seed has now lost 3 of the last 5 years in round 1. I apologize, if my use of r2 for round2 confused anybody.

Caution - the tennis statistical certainity system could be a wealth hazard and is presented here for amusement only.

The system since first presentation is now 4-0 with Federer winning in r1 (ROUND 1) for a profit of +.30.

We should be fair and present the other side of the argument. Betting against the tennis statistical certainity choice which will now be affectiontly named -P57 is now 0-4 for a loss of 4 units.

P57, I actually agree with you, that betting something on the basis of pure history is folly and if you are clever, betting against it will probably bring a profit. I do bet on historical events in tennis. But only when the gentleman involved in the match not only meet the historical conditions but also when my database has a favourable rating.

It is interesting that Federer did lose for the system last year in Cinci after performing well in Canada.
---------
If you do not mind, I would like you (P57) to desist from implying that I would have selected any short priced fav that losses. I am fully aware that Roddick, Nadal or anyone else is highly suspectible to a r1 loss after winning on the previous Sunday. I accept any criticsm of my selections which I present before the event. I did not pick Roddick in Canada or anywhere allude to that match.

I agree with MR Mad and remind you that your before the match picks are still 0% (0-1). I am also very sure that if Ms Williams had not won Wimbeldon you would not have told us after the event what a clever professor you are.

much love and kisses
Karla

ps if you want to meet the real Karla, she stands 6.5 feet on her hind legs, and has all the charm of a German Shepherd guard dog which she is. I'm sure she would love to meet you. lol

WOOF ..Floydyboy stands about 5and a half feet on his hinds hes a boxer staffy cross with no nuts but Im sure hed like to meet her hes a friendly fella ...dosent like tennis much though well not that I know of Ive never seen him paying attention when its on the tv ............Lighten up fellas lets respect eachothers opinions and agree to disagree about things ...I gotta say P57 its really counterproductive rubbin people the wrong way ......The people here as a whole seem to want to help oneanother ........if you disagree say so but why not try to do it without the sarcasm........ there again if your intent is to annoy people or to assert some imaginary superiority why not stick your head in the betfair forum and speak your mind The content there is more condusive to sarcasm and sh**slinging