I apologise if I'm going to be direct here, but I think I can see you have the ability to come up with great insights but you're just shy of getting it right.

You establish the call to look for value bets here:

> So generally in the first round the top ranked players would play someone who is unseeded in the tournament. Even in the second round the chances of the top two or three players playing unseeded players is extremely high.

> Of course the betting lines tend to correspond to the mismatch but there are in-play betting lines which have not quite caught up with the trends.

This is good. I like the fact that you've spotted a solid bet but that you recognise that bookmakers often offer poor value on those and you need to look further afield for value. And then…

> For example if the number one seed player is playing against an un-seeded player in the first round, generally their odds will be as low as 1/40 or even 1/100. However, the odds for them to win their own service game will likely be closer to 1/12.

Oh dear. The reason why those odds are 1/12 is because the true odds are more like 1/10, and there might be no value there. You need to show that in fact the true odds are more like 1/15 by grabbing some historical data, and doing some analysis, and showing it if you can.

You then develop a system where you assume that games where the favourite serves to open the set or to win the set they are more likely to lose them, without showing any actual numbers. Why are the odds still 1/12 if the true odds change in these games? This could be a great understanding of value if you had stats to back you up.

Then this sentence:

> If you roll your bet, a $10 bet would see approximately a $30 return. So from an initial 1/40 bet, you have increased your odds to 2/1

No. No, no, no, no, no.

No.

Please, read up on Kelly criterion. If you can identify true odds, and you can identify the odds being given to you, you can identify edge/value and you can therefore identify the optimal staking plan between games that is mathematically proven to increase your bankroll optimally.

It's not a "system". It's not a guess. It is mathematic proof that given true odds and odds being offered it is trivial to work out what percentage of your bankroll you should bet.

Just rolling like this is guaranteed to kill you off almost every time.

This is a great book on the subject if you don't like the idea of reading academic papers: http://www.amazon.com/Fortunes-Formula-Scientific-Betting-Casinos/dp/0809045990

And then this:

> If you are brave enough to follow this system through both rounds letting the bet roll, your $10 initial stake would grow up to as much as $2,500.

No, because you're betting 100% of the bank roll on it - you have a huge odds-on chance of losing your bank roll. This sentence suggests you have paper-traded the system but not actually done it, otherwise you would know this.

And you'd think "well, what if I bet half the bank roll? Or 75%? Or 25%?" and then suddenly you'd plot these things on a graph using historical results, and you'd spot the apex and then you would think - ah, there is a sweet spot here which increases my bank optimally.

From that you can work out through the kelly criterion your edge by rearranging the formula.

Please stop giving anecdotes, use data, show what is going on. If you don't want to give it all away to bookmakers so the edge disappears, either don't write about it, or conceal pieces of data.

You should read Trading Bases. It's about a former Wall Street hedge fund manager who uses his knowledge from trading stocks to develop a baseball betting formula.

You can get the print version here: https://www.amazon.com/Fightnomics-Reed-Kuhn/dp/0991238206/

Or a personalized, signed copy here: https://www.ebay.com/itm/282801020742