Ferrer might win but does anyone else find it interested that every single angle you can take favors Ferrer yet this line is basically even.
i mean they've played twice on hard court and Ferrer won both meetings, and won 5 out of 6 sets. in those matches Ferrer was a -600 and a -400 favorite. Those matches were from 2015 and 2016 so are recent H2H meetings. Ferrer started the season poorly but is on form recently having won Bastad on clay and then had a very nice showing in Montreal, taking a set off of Federer in the match he lost, and beating Sock + Edmund as a underdog. Johnson's form has slipped lately going 4-7 in his past 11 matches and his wins over that stretch were as a -2500, -800, -600 and -350 favorite against lesser competition.
Yet here we are with a basically even money match according to the oddsmakers. Johnson is playing at home,and was a QF last year in Cincy but how does Ferrer go from a -600 favorite at the 2016 Aussie Open, and a little over a year later he is -120 vs the same player on the same surface.
Logically Ferrer is the smart wager. Good value, better player, better form etc. He should win on paper.
But If you believe in "reading between the lines" and thinking outside the box then its very clear here that Johnson is the play.
The books look to be fishing in people with this line.
I bet Johnson here. But what the hell do i know.
Best of luck
0
Ferrer might win but does anyone else find it interested that every single angle you can take favors Ferrer yet this line is basically even.
i mean they've played twice on hard court and Ferrer won both meetings, and won 5 out of 6 sets. in those matches Ferrer was a -600 and a -400 favorite. Those matches were from 2015 and 2016 so are recent H2H meetings. Ferrer started the season poorly but is on form recently having won Bastad on clay and then had a very nice showing in Montreal, taking a set off of Federer in the match he lost, and beating Sock + Edmund as a underdog. Johnson's form has slipped lately going 4-7 in his past 11 matches and his wins over that stretch were as a -2500, -800, -600 and -350 favorite against lesser competition.
Yet here we are with a basically even money match according to the oddsmakers. Johnson is playing at home,and was a QF last year in Cincy but how does Ferrer go from a -600 favorite at the 2016 Aussie Open, and a little over a year later he is -120 vs the same player on the same surface.
Logically Ferrer is the smart wager. Good value, better player, better form etc. He should win on paper.
But If you believe in "reading between the lines" and thinking outside the box then its very clear here that Johnson is the play.
The books look to be fishing in people with this line.
Johnson seems to go to a dark place real quick. Not sure how much of that is dealing with the loss of his father, but it seems like he's been unable to recover once he starts getting negative, unlike before when he was moderately mentally tough.
I ended up pulling the trigger on Ferrer, but not for as much as I was initially thinking.
0
Quote Originally Posted by packersbackers:
What happened a year ago is irrelevant
Johnson seems to go to a dark place real quick. Not sure how much of that is dealing with the loss of his father, but it seems like he's been unable to recover once he starts getting negative, unlike before when he was moderately mentally tough.
I ended up pulling the trigger on Ferrer, but not for as much as I was initially thinking.
I think you guys make some great points about the line but is it really that fishy? Where was Johnson ranked at the time of those matches? They're currently ranked around the same. It doesn't surprise me that the match at the Aussie Open would be higher odds - longer matches in majors tend to favor the player with more experience and pedigree which is definitely Ferrer. Based on current rankings this line doesn't seem fishy but you guys make interesting points about the historical lines so just wanted to continue this conversation before I decide on a play.
0
I think you guys make some great points about the line but is it really that fishy? Where was Johnson ranked at the time of those matches? They're currently ranked around the same. It doesn't surprise me that the match at the Aussie Open would be higher odds - longer matches in majors tend to favor the player with more experience and pedigree which is definitely Ferrer. Based on current rankings this line doesn't seem fishy but you guys make interesting points about the historical lines so just wanted to continue this conversation before I decide on a play.
I've gone back and forth with this one, and feel like I wouldn't be comfortable placing a bet on Ferrer. Sometimes the best bet is no bet. That's the play here, IMO.
0
I've gone back and forth with this one, and feel like I wouldn't be comfortable placing a bet on Ferrer. Sometimes the best bet is no bet. That's the play here, IMO.
I think you guys make some great points about the line but is it really that fishy? Where was Johnson ranked at the time of those matches? They're currently ranked around the same. It doesn't surprise me that the match at the Aussie Open would be higher odds - longer matches in majors tend to favor the player with more experience and pedigree which is definitely Ferrer. Based on current rankings this line doesn't seem fishy but you guys make interesting points about the historical lines so just wanted to continue this conversation before I decide on a play.
Agree with the point where longer matches favor Ferrer and i would say -600 was a over price for that particular match.
But disagree with today's match being listed accurately. I think under the current circumstances Ferrer should have been listed in the -200 range -225 something like that and if others see it that way then Ferrer at -135 ish is good value and deserves a wager.
And if you're a psycho like me and reverse analyze situations like this then it's a no brainer to take the crappy value on the not in form player who has been handled in H2H meetings. Johnson it makes no sense and thats why i like it. LOL
0
Quote Originally Posted by THE_GOAT_55:
I think you guys make some great points about the line but is it really that fishy? Where was Johnson ranked at the time of those matches? They're currently ranked around the same. It doesn't surprise me that the match at the Aussie Open would be higher odds - longer matches in majors tend to favor the player with more experience and pedigree which is definitely Ferrer. Based on current rankings this line doesn't seem fishy but you guys make interesting points about the historical lines so just wanted to continue this conversation before I decide on a play.
Agree with the point where longer matches favor Ferrer and i would say -600 was a over price for that particular match.
But disagree with today's match being listed accurately. I think under the current circumstances Ferrer should have been listed in the -200 range -225 something like that and if others see it that way then Ferrer at -135 ish is good value and deserves a wager.
And if you're a psycho like me and reverse analyze situations like this then it's a no brainer to take the crappy value on the not in form player who has been handled in H2H meetings. Johnson it makes no sense and thats why i like it. LOL
I've gone back and forth with this one, and feel like I wouldn't be comfortable placing a bet on Ferrer. Sometimes the best bet is no bet. That's the play here, IMO.
Agreed
0
Quote Originally Posted by kld1918:
I've gone back and forth with this one, and feel like I wouldn't be comfortable placing a bet on Ferrer. Sometimes the best bet is no bet. That's the play here, IMO.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
