With Wimbledon just about to start, it is interesting that not many people know or understand the dynamics between a 5 set and 3 set match. Only 4 times a year, not including a couple of one-off finals matches are 5 set matches held for men, and the difference between betting favourites and underdogs on 5 set matches is vastly different to the best of 3 set format.
Truth is, that with a 5 set match, a favourite is more likely to win the match. It makes perfect sense. If you consider a player and a probability to win a certain point, then one can easily calculate the probability to win the game, set and then match. The more sets in the match, the more likely that a person is going to win if his probability of winning a point is higher.
For example, if a player is a 55% chance to win any point on serve, whilst their opponent is only a 50% chance to win any point on serve, then the first mentioned player is a 75.1% chance to win the match for a best of 3 sets match, and a 79.9% chance to win the match for a best of 5 set match.
The difference may not seem like a lot, but it is enough to get enough people confused.
Data over the past 6 years has shown that actually betting on the favourites in a 5 set match without any other information is in fact profitable. With a database of nearly 3000 bets, if one were to bet to win $500 on every match, then should all the bets be on the favourite, then you would have made a very handy 2.1% ROI. This equates to a profit of $224,383.00. Pretty nice indeed.
On the other hand, had you bet to win $500 of every underdog in a 5 set match, then you would have seen yourself out of pocket 10.3% ROI, or a loss of $58,621. Ouch. Interestingly the win amount is greater than the loss because of some large bets on short priced favourites.
Also, if one were to bet $500 straight up on all the favourites of 5 set matches, then one would have made 1.5% ROI or $20,855 over the past 5-6 years. Losses of 22.7% ROI or a massive loss of $321,230 would have been made if one were simply betting on the underdog at $500 a pop.
These are incredible numbers, and goes to show that the general public underrate the favourite when it comes to 5 set betting. Keep this in mind when betting on a favourite at Wimbledon.
Sportpunter’s tennis model is available for subscription.
With over ten years of live betting history on the net, and large profits almost every year, the Sportpunter AFL model is the best anywhere to be seen. More than 10% ROI had been made and is on sale now at the 
Sportpunter's tennis model has been one of the longest running. Operating since 2003 it has made around 5% ROI over the years. And with many matches being played, it is a model that tennis betting enthusiasts need behind them.
And a classic example first up!!
Fed would be on his way home from SW19 by now if it had been best of 3
One slight error (I think?) – the 75.1% chance you mention is for a 3-set advantage match while the 79.9% is for a 5-set tiebreaker match.
A 5-set advantage match is 80.04% by my reckoning which marginally magnifies the point you were making.
correct mark, the 75.1% goes down to 74.9%
So would this extrapolate to an automatic profit on the 3-0 set line for the favourite?
you would think so brett, I dont have the set odds to test
I am confused as I cant figure out a meaning of this article. What confuses me most is what is difference between 2 sentences belows? What do we bet on in each of them becasue as I understand now it is the same things. Thanks
1) With a database of nearly 3000 bets, if one were to bet to win $500 on every match, then should all the bets be on the favourite, then you would have made a very handy 2.1% ROI
2) Also, if one were to bet $500 straight up on all the favourites of 5 set matches, then one would have made 1.5% ROI or $20,855 over the past 5-6 years
It simply means that without any other information, if you simply bet on the favourite in every best of 5 set match, then you would have made a very handy 2% ROI. There is a bias there, that indicates that favourites in these matches seem to win a lot more often than the odds, and hence general public, percieve.
OK, thanks. It is my understanding of first sentence that I quote. But I am confused if the second sentence expresses the same? If yes, why it is 1.5% roi there and 2.1% in first one.
the first one is betting to win $500, the second one is betting a flat $500
OK, this makes perfect sense now!