Blog

Article originally published in June 2009 on my old Romanian website

Context: An ‘aging’ Roger Federer defeats Robin Soderling 6–1 7–6 6–4 to win the 2009 Roland Garros, after a one year time span in which he was considered ‘done’.

It has been some time since I started to write up an article about this tennis giant and his achievement at Roland Garros forces me to wait no longer. Roger Federer has won 14 Grand Slam titles and has just completed a Career Grand Slam. He spent 237 weeks as World No. 1, reached 20 consecutive Grand Slam semifinals and played 15 finals in the last 16 Grand Slams. There should not be a doubt in anyone`s mind: Roger Federer is now the best tennis player of all time.

But how did it come to this? Just weeks before, Roger was considered done, finished. How did we get here after an entire planet saw his Rafa – induced tears at the 2009 Australian Open as a way to suggest that his time was finally over?

Journalists and tennis experts say Roger found humility. He realized he was not dominant through sheer talent anymore. He found the fighter within him, started putting in more effort on the court. I have a different perspective, and it is the correct one.

We got to this because non of the above happened. Roger was never finished, he was never done. Can`t a loss of form happen even to the best of them? And while it`s true he failed to win every 29 matches out of 30 like in previous years, he was still there. How about his 2nd place ranking? How about reaching 4 Grand Slam finals out of the previous 4, winning one? Is this a guy who seems to be ‘done’? Is everybody mental? He was never finshed. The media simply got exposed, yet again.

Why do we throw the stone at the great ones, when they show the first moment of weakness? Federer hit the ball so hard at the end of his win over Haas, you could see he wanted to blast all of those who did not believe in him anymore. Lifting one finger after his win over Nadal in Madrid a few weeks back, he was showing he`s still the best. Forced and backed against the wall by most, Federer showed us, yet again, what class in its purest form means.

This can`t be ended without talking about this beautiful Roger – Rafa rivalry, which keeps fascinating all men, even with these wonderkids like Murray, Djokovic or Del Potro starting to emerge. What a perfect clash of styles, as if it was made in heaven! Roger would not shine so bright without Rafa, just like Sampras needed Agassi to push him into immortality. When you think about Ilie Nastase, you think about his epic matchups with Stan Smith.

One year ago. Federer lost the 2008 Wimbledon final against Nadal and it seemed to be the beginning of the end. Future events cemented that feeling. But you know what? I was never worried. Because nobody who is even close to being finished can produce this match point down:

Right there, you knew that was a tennis moment to last forever.

In one shot, on his weak side, Federer had become FederEver. And the Swiss Maestro still has time to further push the legend into immortality – starting with the 2009 Wimbledon, which is just around the corner. Yet again, he will be the man to beat on the London grass.

Right now, Roger Federer is finally a Roland Garros Champion.

Conclusion? No matter what you think you know, NEVER underestimate the heart of a champion.

• 17 year old Martina Hingis had just become youngest ever World No.1
• Roger Federer was yet to play a match at senior level
• Milos Raonic was celebrating his 7th birthday
• Michael Jordan had not yet won his last NBA championship
• Google did not exist
• MP3 players did not exist
• Intel launches ground breaking 333 MHz Pentium II Processor
• Internet Explorer becomes the No.1 web browser at the expense of Netscape
• The accelerated expansion of the Universe was still unknown
• There was no EURO currency
• Frank Sinatra was still alive
• Seinfeld was the No.1 show on television
• Titanic was killing it in theaters
• When Nokia 3310 was launched, Venus and Serena had already met 5 times and owned 3 singles Grand Slam titles between them

photo source

Hey, guys!

Last summer we had great fun with an Euro 2016 social media tipping competition on our Betdistrict facebook group↗. With the help of Ohmbet, who are offering 100 Eur in freebets, we`re doing it again this week on Champions League and Europa League.

The predictor competition will take place from Tuesday to Friday this week. It`s easy to participate and according to last summer’s feedback, it`s a ton of fun. The only thing you have to do to take part in the competition is to join the group! Registering at Ohmbet↗ through our link would be highly appreciated and it would allow us to hold similar contests in the future.

Join our Betdistrict facebook group

My 2016 Rugby Championship stats:

Won: 8
Lost: 2
Average odds: 1.90
Profit: +42.73
Yield: +48,55%
10 units picks record: 4 won, 1 lost, +23.1 units, +57,8% yield

I just hope the next time when International Rugby is played, my tips will get more hits.

The last round of the Rugby Championship was decent in terms of readers, though I almost had to beg for you guys to check the picks out. Some of you won big and I was delighted with the positive messages via social media, comments or e-mail. But in the earlier rounds, without me parading my stats or promoting my tips, there were very few hits on the rugby.

I understand that most of you are looking for football tips, but my ability on International Rugby has been proved over and over again, even when I was in my worst form. I`ve never ended an international rugby tournament with a loss. We all want to win, right?

I`ll make sure to provide quality Rugby previews for the International tests set to be played at the end of the year and you guys make sure to check them out, deal? Hopefully results stay the same as in this Rugby Championship or the recent World Cup (1), (2).

Fallacy (definition) – a deceptive, incorrect or misleading notion or opinion based on inaccurate facts or invalid reasoning.

Gambler’s fallacy

By far the most well known fallacy in the gambling world, it suggests that future events are less / more likely to happen based on the outcome of previous, independent events. If something occurs more frequently than normal for a period of time, chances are that it will occur less frequently than normal in the future.

In other words, in a 50-50 chance event, like the toss of a coin, the chances for one particular side to hit increase with each consecutive time the other side hits. The chances for a red number to come up in roulette increase exponentially with each black number that comes up in a row. This is simply not true, as the chances remain 50-50, independent of past events.

An argument most supporters of this fallacy make: Before 5 spins of the roulette wheel in the casino, the chances for all spins to be of the same colour are 3%. Therefore, if 4 blacks occur, chances for a 5th black remain 3% and you should keep betting red. They fail to understand that probabilities update with each passing event, that they have a dynamic nature.

I have known very smart people who believe in this theory and heard about smart people who were ruined by it. It`s probably just the way one`s brain is connected, but maths and stats have proven this to be a fallacy. While the theory is correct in … well, theory, it is false when it is used on events which hold a random factor or / and in short term. That`s the entire trick which fools many gamblers.

Albeit less applicable in the sports betting world and more in the casinos, it does find it’s place in betting as well, being associated with systems like Martingale. The deception is so high with this one, that many people will still argue their case even when presented with the mathematical facts.

The most famous example of the gambler’s fallacy occurred at the Monte Carlo Casino on August 18, 1913 when the roulette ball fell on black 26 times in a row. This was an extremely uncommon occurrence, although no more or less common than any of the other 67,108,863 sequences of 26 red or black. Gamblers lost millions of francs betting against black, reasoning incorrectly that the streak was causing an “imbalance” in the randomness of the wheel, and that it had to be followed by a long streak of red. (wikipedia)

Reverse gambler’s fallacy

Based on the same core principles, it is the complete opposite of “Gambler’s fallacy”. It suggests “riding with the wind” and betting on an event that occurs more frequently than normal, with the assumption that it will continue to occur.

While this is based on the same assumptions and is also a false theory, it is actually more successful than the “Gambler’s fallacy”. The reasons are that you might indeed luck out on a tilted roulette wheel, or you might correctly estimate the form of a football team or a tennis player, concrete facts, as opposed to simply betting on incorrect mathematical probabilities.

Nevertheless, it is still a fallacy that must be avoided, especially as studies have shown it`s more difficult psychologically to give up / change your choice in “Reverse Gambler’s fallacy” than in “Gambler’s fallacy” – that’s because in the case of this particular fallacy, you saw your choice winning multiple times, making a “Win” more palpable.