Nightmare

If I were you, I'd stop posting about tennis.

Hopefully Mahut beats the boring twat in straight sets.

Murray's got quite a tough draw this time. Cilic/Ljubicic in the 3rd, probably Gasquet in the 4th, Roddick in the QF. Makes his RG draw look so easy. Which it was, I suppose.

Murray made some ridiculous shots today. Great performance. Roddick really was dire, though. His gameplan seemed to consist of trading from the baseline for a few shots, then randomly charging up the middle and leaving huge holes on either side for Murray to make an easy passing shot.

Closer to 6 months than 4 weeks, anyway.

That's the most pedantic post I've ever seen. And anyway, it's still technically correct seeing as it can't be someone different who wins tomorrow anyway.

Safin was 26 GS's ago, so what he said is right.

Nah, Djokovic was 4th for at least 6 months. Murray took 3rd in May 09, and held it (including a brief stint in 2nd for a while, ahead of Nadal) until at least the US Open in 2009. The US Open is in September, so Djokovic was definitely 4th from May through September, and a while beyond that as well.

Watching Murray games is like watching WTA (except with an obvious quality difference). So erratic and breaks of serve all over the place.

Crucial break for Murray in the 4th. Unless he gets broken back immediately, which seems to be one of his favourite things to do. Session going to end very soon as well, it's getting dark.

Murray - I'm injured Troicki - Yas easy win! Murray - lol jk

He might be able to get past Troicki and whoever his QF opponent is with his ankle like that, but against a quality opponent like Nadal or Soderling, he's got no chance. Hope it's not as bad as it looks, but it DID look bad.

Murray has owned Troicki every time he's ever played him, whereas last year he had a few struggles with Dolgopolov, who is just so random that people find it tough to get in any sort of rhythm against him. He should beat them both, but Troicki is the safer bet, I think.

Anderson lost to Chela. Which makes it slightly even more favourable. Dolgopolov is the only name on that list who I think can even take a set off Murray. Although tbf he nearly lost one or two today, so maybe it's not going to be THAT straightforward. It really is a ridiculously easy path to the semis, though.

Nadal losing 2-1 in sets to John Isner in the 1st round. Maybe the biggest upset of all time? Could help Murray down the road as well... Still fully expect Nadal to get it done, but this would be amazing.

Looking at the draw, I can actually see Dolgopolov instead of Troicki in the 4th. Still not as tough as it could have been, though. Djokovic plays JMDP and Gasquet in the 3rd and 4th, which whilst he should win, are potential upsets. Wouldn't surprise me to see Gasquet take a lead in the match before choking, as he always seems to do. And if JMDP is fully fit, you never know with him. Federer gets his customary bend-over job from Wawrinka in the 4th. Might as well just give him a bye to the QFs if he wins his 3rd round match.

RG draw done. Murray plays a TBD qualifier in the 1st round, and then will play the winner of TDB qualifier v TDB qualifier in the 2nd. (Probable) route if he were to go all the way: Qualifer > Qualifier > Raonic > Troicki > Melzer > Nadal > Djokovic One of the most generous draws Ive ever seen at a Grand Slam. If only he could have got this draw at Wimbledon or the US Open. Early round matches of interest: 1st round - Nadal v Isner (Nadal will still hammer him, but quite a big name to get in the 1st) 1st round - Federer v Lopez (could be interesting actually, Feliciano has been playing well) 3rd round - Djokovic v Del Potro (early test for Novak, unless JMDP decides to injure himself as usual)

I've definitely got the time to research properly. It's my starting balance rather than time that's my problem. I've only really got a couple of hundred quid to start with, so if I'm doing £5 stakes I'll still only be able to cover 6 or 7 matches at a time (£30 liability per match). Wish I had a grand or something, so I could make a better go at it, but I'm going to have to start on just a few matches at a time and hope it doesn't take too long to build a better bank from it. Can't imagine it'll be going up too quickly based on the trial results so far, but oh well.

Missed a goldmine on that one. I actually did consider jumping in a few times, but on each occasion decided not to. I originally didn't think Djokovic was worth a lay at 1.2, and then when it fell to whatever it was after the first set, I thought Murray's questionable mental strength would just result in more of the same, so never bothered with that either. Murray is so unpredictable that I tend to avoid him anyway, though. Plus I hate backing against someone I want to win. Makes me feel dirty when I realise my money is more important than supporting them.

Novak really did get the rub of the green today with the net cords. He really should have lost that match. I wasn't even betting on that match, but I imagine it would have been a trading paradise.

That should have been 28% on the draw. Mis-typed it. And yeah, I discovered the need to round up the numbers on Betfair as well. It's not that I'm too concerned about wanting to get all my backs matched, because I understand that the more I try and change the prices to get more matched, the lesser the profit. I just wondered if it was mainly the backs that made up the majority of your non-matches, but I didn't even take into account the fact that by getting more than 1 back matched, only one can win so unless both the respective lays are matched as well, it's actually a disadvantage. Which obviously is why you're setting them at 88/89%. A slight oversight, that. Seeing as I'm not going to have the bank to be covering full cards of matches (only going to be able to do a few at once), would you advise going for games which are closer, like the Forest-Swansea one was, or games where I'm more sure of the winner? Definitely would be interested in reading any of your betting articles on that site, btw.

Me again, questioning another aspect of this post... Specifically about this. I'm stll in the trialing phase, but I'm looking at the 'price/volume over time' graph and stats on Betfair, and I've noticed that pretty much none of my backs would get matched (even at 90% rather than 88% or 89% like you're saying) if I'd put them up, whereas a decent percentage of the lays do (I just started off with a default 106% on these, although I understand in some instances that this could be increased and would still be matched). What I've been doing is creating %s for all three outcomes in the match, and then pricing these up/down to the percentages previously mentioned. For example: Nottingham Forest - 40% chance (2.5, marked up backing at 2.78 and laying at 2.35) Swansea - 32% chance (3.13, back 3.47 and lay 2.93) Draw - 27% chance (3.57, back 3.96 and lay 3.35) For that game, I would have had 4 out of 6 matches (all lays, and the Swansea back). Basically... is what I've done here, what you mean by the quote above? Or have I missed the point and am doing it wrong? But like I said, other than for this game, I seem to be finding it difficult to get matches, especially with the stakes when backing outcomes. Lays are ok, I have about half of them matched so far. You mentioned that only about 30% of all your stakes get matched; are these heavily weighted towards the laying side of what you're doing as well, or am I just getting unlucky?

"You have reached your quota of negative repuation for the day"

8-3.

Wade is a great player when he can be arsed.