Federer, Gasquet and Economics -1

THIS POST MAY CONTAIN AFFILIATE LINKS. PLEASE READ MY DISCLOSURE FOR MORE INFO.

My understanding of Economics, particularly business, is based on first principles. That is, I make/back a product only if I can profit from selling it. Although I understand the statistical logic behind the success of new age businesses, I can never trust them to start my business, inspite of the billion dollar corporation called Google.

Extending this analogy to tennis, as always, I wish to state why I support Gasquet, bet heavily on his matches (sometimes even against him), and why Federer is a gambler’s nightmare.

Consider for instance Federer’s superb win-loss record this year: 68-9, which means that he loses twice every 17 matches he plays. It should naturally follow that for a gambler to make any kind of money in the long run the odds for a Federer win have to be greater than 1.13. Unfortunately, Federer is like that over-priced stock which many people have wet dreams about. So the average odds for his win against top 100 players this year could be around 1.07 (out of the hat). Clearly betting on Federer consistently is a losing proposition. Some geniuses here can wish to point to me that a gambler can chose to place bets on favourable odds like the ones when he faces an opponent that he lost to recently, banking on the revenge factor. Bad luck chummy, Federer lost to two opponents twice in a row this year and neither was the butt-picking Spaniard. Lots of money lost there.

And yeah, the sentiment on Federer is so pervasive that arbitrage opportunities are next to nil. I have the suspicion that the free market fundamendaliz stole Entanglement ideas from Jagadguru on the pretext of learning his compassion 101 course and then mixed it with dark arts to form the perfect free market system that cuts out speculators in Federer matches. In other words, nobody benefits from Federer.

Simply put, backing Federer makes bad economic sense for a gambler. Will be more so, in the coming years. If its simply for the thrill of watching tennis, thats good but all I can say is you haven’t watched enough tennis if you think Federer is godlike. And then there are another group who argue about the number of Grand Slams, they are losers!

Will write about how Gasquet provides the much required flexibility in speculation over Federer later.

p.s. Food for thought: Considering Federer won 8 titles this year, he didn’t even win half of the tournaments he participated in and to think the odds for him taking the Aussie Open next year is 1.50 right now and will only get lower. He is worse than Enron.

p.p.s. Federer was a gambler’s dream come true from late 2003 until early 2006.

0 comments… add one

Leave a Comment

css.php