Gambling
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Psychological momentum is a term used to describe a player's confidence. When you are winning, whether at cards or outdoor sports, you tend to go on winning. As a winner, naturally enough, you feel on top of your game, "one up", while your opponent, "one down", feels out of form. This kind of momentum often carries over to the next game.
I wrote here recently that betting on Pete Sampras to lose at Wimbledon might be a good proposition. (As it happens he lost the very same day, but I make no forecast for next week's US Open!) Such "disasters" often happen in sport.
Tennis is a good example of how psychological momentum works: in estimating a player's chances, it is usually assumed that tennis players perform to their official ranking. When it comes to betting, there is another way of looking at it. If a player wins the first set in a five-set match, is it more likely that the same player will win the next set, and the match?
The answer is a resounding yes, according to an analysis of tennis matches by statistician David Jackson of Trinity College, Dublin. (He explains, with cheerful modesty, that the bookies helped fund his research via his winning bets.) He analysed results of all 251 best-of-five-sets matches at the Wimbledon and US Open tournaments in 1987 (Applied Statistics, Vol 8, No 3) in two ways: first on the assumption that the probability of winning a set depended on the official ranking of the two players and was the same for all sets; and secondly on the assumption that winning a set increased the odds of winning the next set by a constant factor.
This second method gave a very close prediction of the actual outcome, both when the favourite won and on upsets. Figures on the upsets showed that 33 matches were decided by a 3-0 margin in sets, compared with a prediction of 26.8; 24 matches ended 1-3, exactly as predicted; and 15 matches ended 2-3 (prediction: 16.8). The same-for-all-sets prediction method was way off.
As sports betting firms allow betting "in running", this analysis offers interesting possibilities, and not just for tennis. Anyone for snooker?
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments