Tennis Clay Trends

[robby]

I kinda miss Tennis betting

The "official" clay season is two weeks from now. So I'm starting this thread in hopes of getting some input and discussion going around.

In my opinion there is more value in the transition from hard to clay than there is anywhere else in the schedule. Hard courters falter, qualifiers thrive, clay specialists come from no where to get decent runs.

In 14 days there's a 7 week run to the start of the French Open. Traditionally after the Sony Eric. Open (last true hard court tourney before clay) there's 8 weeks. So we're going to be a little bottled up compared to normal. Which is good, because it means that we'll have tourneys combined the week before the French which should keep the spread of players a little more balanced.

Estoril opens the season for the second time in the past 5 years. Along with it is Valencia and the US Mens Clay Champ.

Then the Masters event Monte Carlo

Godo and BMW the next week

Rome, Hamburg, Cassa/Hypo all rounding up the rest of the weeks.

So over the next couple of weeks I'll post trends I discover, and debunk ones that I thought may hold true, but end up way off. I'd encourage anyone interested, going to bet, have trend ideas to join in. Even if it's not researched, throw it out there. If I have the time, I'll be sure to research and post the results of the idea at hand.

Keep in mind that there could be many trends of different approaches in this. There's a Masters Series in the middle, which takes a different mindset, has byes and the like.

I know there isn't many tennis bettors here, but if we all pool together, clay season could become quite profitable.

[Mr Intensity]

Love it mate, excellent idea

I'll get some thoughts down when I have a bit of time

[robby]

Alright, here's a few trends I have thus far. Note for anyone paying attention these are trends going into the clay court season. Not systems. As such I'm only going back 5 years, even though there's enough data to go back at least ten. For a couple of reasons, these are just to get a general feel with a historical prospective. As a fan of tennis I feel that the game, even on clay has changed a bit over the years. Focusing too far back may break that prospective.


All of that being said, one I can blow out of the water quickly after looking at a bit of data is there is no real correlation between playing late in the Miami tourney and how they do in the next clay tourney.

My thinking was that because they were deep into week 2 of the Miami tourney that they would be more accustomed to the timing of the hard court, and would be an easy scalp when they transitioned over to clay the very next week. Doesn't work that way.

In some years there's a week break, some there isn't. This year there isn't. However, most players who play deep into the Miami tourney don't even play the next week. Houston is the defacto post Miami tourney, the other one/two depends on the year.

Most of the time the seeds in these tourneys are actually lower ranked players. The higher seeds/successful Miami players tend to skip this rotation outright and go straight to Monte Carlo.

Makes sense if you think about it. Why run back to back on a surface you've had little to no time on when you want to have a good showing at a points based tourny the following week?

And if they're early out in the Miami tourney and play the next week? Pretty volatile. The early losses could be form based, which will carry over to the next tourney. Could be looking ahead but wanting to "show" at the Miami tourney or whichever.

In short, if a player gets deep at Miami, do not look to fade them the next week in the clay tourney on that alone. There's nothing in it, and if history says anything, they're probably not even playing in it to begin with.

[robby]

Trend: Top two seeds don't win the first week of clay.

Seeds as most are aware are ranking based. Which offers multiple issues. First of all the ranking will have gone up from the hard court season they just finished. So the ranking has some bias on hard court form, not clay form.

Secondly, most top seeds do not play this week. That means that there's a spread of various top 100 players seeded for these tournaments.

Year     Tourney            Name        
2007 
        Valencia
                        1 seed - Ferrer (Widthdrawn)
                        2 seed - Ferrero (Out in 2nd Rd)
                        Winner - 3rd seed Almagro
        Houston
                        1 seed - Roddick (Widthdrawn)
                        2 seed - Blake (Out in QF)
                        Winner - No Seed Karlovic
2006 
        Valencia
                        1 seed - Davydenko (Out in 1st)
                        2 seed - Gaudio (Out in QF)
                        Winner - (q) Almagro
        Houston
                        1 seed - Roddick (Widthdrawn)
                        2 seed - Blake (Out in QF)
                        Winner - No Seed Karlovic
2005
        Valencia    
                        1 seed - Davydenko (out in 1st)
                        2 seed - Gonzalez (out in QF)
                        Winner - 7th seed
        Cassablanca
                        1 seed - Schuettler (out in 1st)
                        2 seed - Volandri (out in SF)
                        Winner - 6th seed Puerta
2004
        Estoril
                        1 seed - Schuettler (out in 1st)
                        2 seed - Massu (out in 1st)
                        Winner - 5th seed Chela
        Houston
                        1 seed - Roddick (out in finals)
                        2 seed - Fish (out in 1st)
                        Winner - Unseeded Haas
        Valencia
                        1 seed - Ferrero (out in SF)
                        2 seed - Lopez (out in 2nd)
                        Winner - Unseeded Verdasco
2003
        Casablanca        
                        1 seed - Aynaoui (out in finals)
                        2 seed - Mathieu (lost in 1st)
                        Winner - Unseeded Boutter
        Estoril
                        1 seed - Novak (out in 1st)
                        2 seed - Schuettler (out in 1st)
                        Winner - Unseeded Davydenko

Historically there's only a couple of final appearances. There's also a large trend of 1 and 2 seeds going out 1st round. I'll grab some odds data later in the week and see what the value is on them getting knocked out in the first round.

These would make great public fades either way because the seeding should provide the dogs some extra juice you'd think.

[Mr Intensity]

Qualifiers tend to do pretty well in the clay events. This is rather draw dependent, but when they come up against hard courts players there can be some real value. Here are the % of qualifiers who come through the 1^st round for the clay events:

	Tournament		Years		Win		Lose		Total		%v
Estoril		15		26		34		60		43.33
Houston		6		10		14		24		41.67
Valencia		5		7		13		20		35.00
Monte Carlo TMS		14		45		61		106		42.45
Barcelona		15		44		59		103		42.72
Munich		15		26		34		60		43.33
Rome TMS		15		53		66		119		44.54
HamburgTMS		14		45		58		103		43.69
Casablanca		15		36		24		60		60.00
Portschach		2		4		4		8		50.00
French Open		15		112		127		239		46.86

The median value for the whole calendar is 41.67% so we can see that only one of the tournaments is below this value. Also look at the values for Casablanca and Portschach (although not much data), being the week before the French, qualifiers are motivated and that is very important.

The advice is not strictly to blindly back qualifiers (as I did in 2006) but to research into them, find the good ones!

[robby]

Now I'm trending the first week of the clay season, not the entire thing. My thinking stands at Miami is the last big hard tourney and there's a mental shift this first week going on clay. These may be part of larger trends, I'm not sure.

Wild Cards are a good fade.

Some quick data on the wild cards. Which are at a solid disadvantage you'd think. First they haven't played through the qualification tourney so they're at a disadvantage to begin with. Secondly, if they do win the first, you may want to tail them.. they tend to win deep.

2007
Total of 5 wild cards between 2 tourneys. Wild Cards are 1-4
one won till the semis
2006
Total 6 wild cards between 2 tourneys. 3-3.
one lost second round
one won finals
one won til semis
2005
Total of 6 wild cards between 2 tourneys. 0-6
2004
Total of 9 wild cards between 3 tourneys. 2-6
one lost second round
one won til quarters
2003
Total of 6 wild cards between 2 tourneys. 1-5
one lost second round


As you can see the wild cards are 6-24 over the course of the past 5 seasons. Only one year was a split that you can expect to lose a bit, the rest were solid winners.

However, if you were to have reasonable stakes and followed up on betting the winners out of this bunch you would have done fairly well. Keep in mind that wild card doesn't neccessarily mean a horrible player. Fish and Safin are in the mix of wild cards in this set. They could be wild carded in for various reasons. So if they come in and win the first round, it's reasonable to back them in the second round.

And don't think these guys are going against 1.05 favorites where your winning margin will be little, they're slotted all over the place in the brackets, but most don't put up a fight (2 set losses).

This may be worth a fixed profit staking plan at a glance. The trend is to fade the wild cards.

[robby]

Originally Posted by Mr Intensity

The median value for the whole calendar is 41.67% so we can see that only one of the tournaments is below this value. Also look at the values for Casablanca and Portschach (although not much data), being the week before the French, qualifiers are motivated and that is very important.

The advice is not strictly to blindly back qualifiers (as I did in 2006) but to research into them, find the good ones!

I'll have to further dig into the data, but one thing I was thinking that may prove to be profitable across the clay season at least, if not the whole year is to level profit stake to say 2 units and then flat stake one unit on the second round. I haven't looked deep yet into the whole season, but from a first/second week glance, it could be quite profitable.

[robby]

Lucky losers.
The sample size of lucky losers compared to say.. wild cards is a lot smaller. However, there's some value in a lucky loser should they win the first round. Yes, they lost in qualifying so they're not a high strike rate if they're gifted into the main draw.

However, to be a LL you need to win a few.. if not win up to the qualifying finals. So they not only have surface knowledge, but they've at least won a few. They seem to go deep should they win the first round.

So I'd tail LL's from the second round. Trends show it's quite profitable.

One example would be Navarro last year in Valencia. Won in the first round and in the second he was 4.46 odds and won, then he was 3.25 odds for the quarters and won. On level or fixed profits staking the odds should make it profitable enough to ride against odds multiple times.

This is one I want to see the strike rate year long instead of a few years of clay season, as it seems to look reasonably well.

[Mr Intensity]

Originally Posted by robby

I'll have to further dig into the data, but one thing I was thinking that may prove to be profitable across the clay season at least, if not the whole year is to level profit stake to say 2 units and then flat stake one unit on the second round. I haven't looked deep yet into the whole season, but from a first/second week glance, it could be quite profitable.

Agree with that entirely. Don't have my data set anymore, but from when I was running it level stakes in first round had a yield of 20% and second round about 7%. I believe the performance wasn't so hot last year but this year I think will have been decent so far.

[Mr Intensity]

Originally Posted by robby

Lucky losers.
The sample size of lucky losers compared to say.. wild cards is a lot smaller. However, there's some value in a lucky loser should they win the first round. Yes, they lost in qualifying so they're not a high strike rate if they're gifted into the main draw.

However, to be a LL you need to win a few.. if not win up to the qualifying finals. So they not only have surface knowledge, but they've at least won a few. They seem to go deep should they win the first round.

So I'd tail LL's from the second round. Trends show it's quite profitable.

One example would be Navarro last year in Valencia. Won in the first round and in the second he was 4.46 odds and won, then he was 3.25 odds for the quarters and won. On level or fixed profits staking the odds should make it profitable enough to ride against odds multiple times.

This is one I want to see the strike rate year long instead of a few years of clay season, as it seems to look reasonably well.

I think you need to be careful when looking at lucky losers. If someone in the main draw withdraws the highest seed in qualifying knows they are going to get into the main draw so sometimes tanks in the final round of qulalifying

[robby]

Some other ideas I have, but need to rip data on is

Does solid hard court form translate on clay well?

Do players who play the interm clay tourneys (mid hard court season) have a leg up on those who don't?

Look through the last few years to see if rise in ranking during clay season the previous year translate into a potential rise this year? (meaning they're rollercoastering rankings. Instead of being average to above average on all surfaces they tend to rise during clay and drift during hard).

Look at the tourneys that carry a first round bye. How many get knocked out in the second round after sitting stale the extra round of play? Is there a bias towards the lower seeds that get the bye?

(Thinking there may be a correlation between ranking rise from hard court form and ranking dives from bad hard court form. They should grind against each other quite a bit early on in clay. Maybe less towards the French. But the Masters is the second week)


Does head to head meetings where one wins translate to wins when back on clay? For example, if the H2H is 3-1 but the one is on clay, is it more likely to be 3-2?

Is there a bias towards three setters when a hard courter with knock out serve sits on clay? I have a recollection of backing 3 set bets whenever a hard server goes against a clay courter. The idea was since the serve is slowed down they may be out classed, but open for a break in serve.

Those are off the top of my head, if anyone else has any, feel free to jump in. Hope I got it off to a decent start.

And thanks Mr. I for joining in. I feel all nostalgic now, lol.

[Mr Intensity]

What do you think about Federer in the clay court season? I think he's going to be very opposable, even against guys other than Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Nalbandian....(list getting a bit long). In the past few years he's only played the Masters events and the French, I really think he needs to play more. All year people have been talking about him not playing much as a reason for him losing and surely that will continue. Last year in the Masters events he dropped sets to Moya, Ferrer, Monaco and took 2 tiebreaks against Seppi without thinking of his losses to Nadal and Volandri! I think this year those type of guys could beat him. His backhand is an UE waiting to happen and I think that's going to get worse on clay.

It may be hard to pinpoint which match Federer will lose in (if he's going to lose to a chump) so it might be best to oppose him in the outrights if the price in favourable. Mmm just noticed he's 6.8 for the French on Betfair, just around 4 at the bookies. I was thinking of laying him in the Masters events if he's anything around 3.5-4.0 but maybe that's not going to happen. Need a different approach, maybe laying him 2-0 in each of his matches would be profitable?

[robby]

Originally Posted by Mr Intensity

I think you need to be careful when looking at lucky losers. If someone in the main draw withdraws the highest seed in qualifying knows they are going to get into the main draw so sometimes tanks in the final round of qulalifying

I think I see what you're saying. But I've read it a few times and I'm not sure.. how does that effect the trend I'm seeing/typin' about?

I mean, if they tank in qualifying because they get an automatic bid into the tourney then win the first round in the main draw.. it still qualifies.

Or do you mean betting on the qualifying round itself?

Though I am curious if # of LL's puts any measurable difference on strike rate of qualifying winners/losers. Get too many LLs and the qualifiers may not be cream of the crop.

So while not clay specific, I'll note it for in general. I'm now curious on the strike rate of first round qualifying winners based on LL entries.

My small sample size shows that qualifiers tend to do better (higher win rate) with more LLs. But for this to be reasonable to look at, I'll have to delve in and get a large sample size to give it any validity.

But thinking about it, they could be correlated with each other.

[Mr Intensity]

Not sure what my point was

If a guy tanks in qualifying, he could still be playing well, and you may get a better price because of the loss - so it's a good thing. Maybe the market will expect them to be tired by the second or third round, but if they really tanked then this would be less likely?

Conversely, it could affect the price of the guy who wins - if he thumps a guy ranked 80-100 in qualifying he could be more over rated in the first round when really it wasn't a good win after all.


Just when you mentioned LLs it reminded me of Zverev in Vegas. It looked like he tanked against Anderson in final round of qualifying. Anderson went on to make the final and Zverev retired in the first round against another qualifier Luczak. Luczak then totally bombed in the second round (when I backed him). So I have no idea what was going on there

[robby]

Originally Posted by Mr Intensity

What do you think about Federer in the clay court season? I think he's going to be very opposable, even against guys other than Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Nalbandian....(list getting a bit long). In the past few years he's only played the Masters events and the French, I really think he needs to play more. All year people have been talking about him not playing much as a reason for him losing and surely that will continue. Last year in the Masters events he dropped sets to Moya, Ferrer, Monaco and took 2 tiebreaks against Seppi without thinking of his losses to Nadal and Volandri! I think this year those type of guys could beat him. His backhand is an UE waiting to happen and I think that's going to get worse on clay.

It may be hard to pinpoint which match Federer will lose in (if he's going to lose to a chump) so it might be best to oppose him in the outrights if the price in favourable. Mmm just noticed he's 6.8 for the French on Betfair, just around 4 at the bookies. I was thinking of laying him in the Masters events if he's anything around 3.5-4.0 but maybe that's not going to happen. Need a different approach, maybe laying him 2-0 in each of his matches would be profitable?

What about fixed stake opposing him 1-2, 0-2? Early rounds you're probably going to get a 4/1 to 5/1 odds in doing so. I'd say 3/1ish QF/SF.

Or laying against him everytime he's up against someone who has over .500 form in last 10 tourneys, and over .500 form in last ten clay tournies? Which would mean someone who has averages just past the second round in the past 10 tourneys recently, and clay?

Bookies are going to be lining the odds against him as sucker bets against the chumps because of his recent play. Lots of peeps are going to be grabbing the drifting prices, hoping he falters more.

I'd honestly say bet him 2-0 first round, maybe second because your odds will be solid for it. And then look for some way (that form concept may be one way) to start fading against him.

Yanno he's taken an ego hit hard as of late. Feels odd to say this... but Fed could be the shock of the clay season.. in a good way.