The Art of Outright Tennis Betting_ Lesson 3- Seeding

In basic terms, the seeding for any given tennis tournament (World Tour 250 to Grand Slam) is done according to the same, simple guideline.

The assembled number of players - being it 28, 32, 48, 64 etc - are listed in order of their world ranking and the seedings are then assigned in descending order until the required number of seeds is determined. Hence, the highest player in the world rankings is the No.1 seed, the next highest is No.2, then No.3 and so on.

The No.1 and the No.3 seeds are placed in the top portion of the draw and the No.2 or No.4 seeds in bottom. This is the usual format. The remaining seeds are then split equally so as to produce the framework around which the rest of the draw is made.

Not rocket science (and the above blueprint is open to a fair amount of interpretation by tournament organisers from time to time) but it's something which every tennis backer should be familiar with - although not many are!

However, a blind acceptance of these seedings in selecting outright bets is a HIGHLY RISKY strategy. They take little, or no, account of current form, surface form nor the rest of the players in the draw (in that a top seed might avoid other seeds until the QF's or SF's but they could still face some tough opponents in the opening rounds).

And the statistics firmly point to the fact that No.1 seeds don't win as many tournaments as you might think.

The ratio of wins/seeds in the 20 first tournaments of 2010 was: No.1 (1), No.2(4), and No.3(5). No.4 & 5 (0), No.6 (1). No.7(0), No.8 (1). Unseeded (5).  pokerjazz77.site This is right. Only 4/20, or 20%, of ATP Tour winners were top seeded. However, interestingly 5/20 (or 25%) were unseeded.

Example: Feliciano Lopez (Johannesburg 2010) WON 8/1
The Spaniard was the No.3 seed in South Africa - statistically the most successful of the seeds - and his success added further evidence to the argument that not every No.1 seed should be seen as the surefire winner of a tournament. In fact, by the numbers they are no more likely to win than any one of the other seeds.

While it is sensible to believe that the No.1 seed will be the best player in the draw (as his ranking is highest in the world), and therefore the player most likely to win, it is far too simplistic to use as a basis for a betting strategy.

In selecting outright bets, seedings should be taken as a mere guideline and nothing more - after all, how many times is the No.1 seed not the market leader. If the bookies don't consider him the most likely winner why should you?