@InjuryReportPGA
Expect a lot more WD’s similar to Xander Schauffele’s this PGA Tour season. With the new elevated events a lot more golfers will attempt to start and then withdraw so it doesn’t count as a “missed event”
When betting on tournament match bets what is your preference:
- Both players hit a single shot and bet has action.
- Both players complete at least 1 round and bet has action.
- Both players have played 50% of possible rounds and bet has action.
- Both players have played all rounds they are eligible for and bet has action. (missed cut played 2 and made cut played 4 in cut events, No cut events must have played all four rounds etc)
Sometimes the WD will work in your favour and sometimes not. If you consider it a key part of your advantage that you know injuries better than others then obviously your view will be skewed versus those who do not want to have to worry about injuries. Your thoughts are appreciated.
1 Like
Interesting— thanks for sharing this.
This seems massively overblown.
It’s only the top 20 of the PIP program from 2022 who have to play in the elevated events (and they’re able to skip one).
If they’re seriously injured, they’re not going to show up to hit a tee shot and then withdraw. I don’t see many (possibly any) of them playing with an injury if there’s a chance they’d make it worse.
Schauffele was hurt, but he was still physically able to play 26 holes to a non-embarrassing standard. What are the chances that at any one time several of the top players are in that same boat?
It was just an introduction to the topic really. I make the rules for a bookmaker so just wanted people’s opinions. Some customers made money on the WD this week and some lost. All I care about is finding which rule would make the most people happy.
I wasn’t having a go at you, it’s the twitter account I was talking about.
Is there a single bookie who don’t have “hit one shot and bet has action”?
I don’t understand why it isn’t the same in tennis, which has a rich history of lower ranked players getting their contacts to bet them on a bookmaker which voids bets for retirements, and then if things aren’t going their way they suddenly develop an injury and stop playing.
I think I would prefer something like ‘both players complete at least 1 round’. It can’t be more than 1 round (and even requiring 1 full round might be too much) because players are more likely to WD if they are just playing terrible.
I can’t imagine, in the long-run, many bettors are happy with having bets graded as losses when a player hits 1 shot and WDs. Unless, as you say, they think that predicting WDs is a big part of their edge (seems unlikely to me, given how rare WDs are).
So what are the rules now in tennis then? Loss if player retires after match starts?
Tennis has had different rules across bookmakers for 20 years plus. Arbitarge software providers used to provide extensive lists of which bookmakers had which rules. To this day you can find bookmakers which require one point, one game, one set and full match variants.
What @mtrenhaile said.
Remember Luiten retired after hitting one shot on the European Tour in 2013 because he’d hurt his shoulder while doing gym work (not a long-term serious injury as shown by the fact he finished 18th and 4th in his next two events shortly afterwards, but one which incapacitated him for a few days), but needed to play the event to be eligible for the end of year tournament.
I think that’s the last time it’s happened on one of the major tours, because it’s such a freak set of circumstances.