Pinnacle

What Are Blackjack Side Bets?Side bets are bonus bets placed on a round of Blackjack on outcomes beyond whether the player or dealer will win. The majority are staked at the start of the round before the cards have been dealt alongside regular bets and many have fixed odds that usually offer greater payouts than the simple 2:1 rewarded for beating the dealer.Play Blackjack at Pinnacle Casino

Play Blackjack

Side bets provide an exciting way to make Blackjack games more interesting whilst offering you a greater number of ways to win. So what are side bets, what side bets are available and are they worth it? Read on to find out.

Blackjack Side Bets Explained

Finding a niche market in betting can often lead to value. This can be anything from specialist knowledge of handball betting to extensive experience in betting on Japanese baseball. Providing you know more than the bookmaker, there is money to be made.  &lt;Bet on soccer at Pinnacle&gt; They also make for interesting and potentially profitable bets, as they can be a little more reliable

Soccer odds

A corner is one of the most inexplicably exciting events in soccer. Only around three per cent of them lead to a goal, but you can guarantee that the attacking team’s fans will roar their approval and encouragement if their team are awarded one. Read on to find out how you can benefit from betting on corners.

Corners betting in soccer: Value in a lesser-known market

Poisson Distribution is a mathematical concept for translating mean averages into a probability for variable outcomes across a distribution. For example, if we know Manchester City average 1.7 goals per game, so by putting the Poisson Distribution formula tells us that this average equates to Manchester City&nbsp;scoring 0 goals 18.3% of the time, 1 goal 31% of the time, 2 goals 26.4% of the time and 3 goals 15% of the time.

Bet on soccer at Pinnacle

Poisson Distribution: Predict the score in soccer betting

What is Expected Value?The amount a player can expect to win or lose if they were to place a bet on the same odds many times over, calculated through a simple equation multiplying your probability of winning with the amount you could win per bet, and subtracting the probability of losing multiplied by the amount lost per bet.A simple example of Expected Value (EV) put into practice -&nbsp;if you were

Bet Now

The Expected Value of a bet shows us how much we can expect to win (on average) per bet, and as such is the most valuable calculation a bettor can make when comparing bookmakers' odds. How can you calculate Expected Value in sports betting in order to predict your winnings? Read on to find out.

How to Calculate Expected Value

As an analyst and trader specialising in tennis, Dan uses statistical analysis to research and write about tennis pre-match and in-play betting markets. With a degree in Accounting &amp; Finance (BA), Dan devised his own pre-match pricing model and writes daily match previews and betting articles for his website, <a class="invisible-for-meet-authors" href="http://www.tennisratings.co.uk">www.tennisratings.co.uk</a>.

Dan Weston

Recent years have seen the advent of what have been described as "super coaches". Those of you unfamiliar to the tennis world may expect people who fall into this category to be coaches who get results on a consistent basis - perhaps the tennis equivalent of Antonio Conte, Pep Guardiola or Jose Mourinho in soccer - but this is not actually the case.&nbsp;

<h3>What is a super coach in tennis?</h3>

In tennis, a super coach would simply be described as a former top player who is now coach of a top player - in a soccer context, this might be Steven Gerrard or Rio Ferdinand managing the clubs they used to play for.
<blockquote>Assessing player win percentages is useful, albeit inherently flawed in that player injuries - which have no influence from a coach - can affect these numbers.</blockquote>
Without doubt, the comparison between sports is markedly different - anyone who has analysed managerial records in soccer will be able to draw the conclusion that top players do not always make good managers - but it appears that in tennis, having a decent playing career at the very least is virtually a pre-requisite for a coaching job.&nbsp;
While this pre-requisite can certainly be debated, looking at the numbers behind these ‘super coaches’ could go a long way to proving whether they actually add value, or whether their grandiose nickname is purely hype.

<h3>The emergence of the super coach</h3>

Since 2010, a number of ‘super coaches’ have taken charge of tennis players. Ivan Lendl (twice) has been Andy Murray’s coach, while Novak Djokovic turned to Boris Becker for several years before moving on to Andre Agassi. Rafa Nadal is now under the tutelage of Carlos Moya following the split with his uncle Toni, while Roger Federer previously employed Stefan Edberg as his coach.&nbsp;
Even non-elite, but still top players, have employed super coaches. Stan Wawrinka took on Richard Krajicek in 2016, while Marin Cilic was coached by Goran Ivanisevic for several years. The aforementioned Moya and Krajicek have been involved with Milos Raonic, who has a propensity for coach changes - he’s also employed John McEnroe - while Tomas Berdych has also taken on Ivanisevic.
A number of players have certainly been accused of knee-jerk reactions regarding coach recruitment - a facet of tennis which is very relatable to soccer - and it is likely that this process will continue until players are aware of quantifiable metrics which can reliably assess coaching performance.&nbsp; Much of coaching is still done on an ‘eye test’ or ‘feel’ basis, and this subjective judgement is likely to create bias.

<h3>How do you measure the impact a coach has?</h3>

Assessing player win percentages is useful, albeit inherently flawed in that player injuries - which have no influence from a coach - can affect these numbers.&nbsp;
Furthermore, a player’s place on the age curve can have considerable impact, with young players logically able to improve their win percentages, while a veteran may consider maintaining a win percentage from one year to the next to be a relative success.&nbsp;
<blockquote>There is a case that Ivan Lendl (in his first coaching spell) did not actually improve Andy Murray nearly as much as the media would have you believe.</blockquote>
Arguably the best measure of a coach’s performance is whether they were able to improve their player’s fortunes relative to the betting markets - would backing a player under a given coach yield long-term profits? There would certainly be a case for suggesting that a ‘super coach’ would be able to yield these long-term rewards.&nbsp;
Therefore, an assessment of the ‘super coaches’ mentioned above was undertaken, for matches in Grand Slams and on the ATP Tour (250 to 1000 level). Davis Cup, where national team coaches are used, were not included in this assessment.
Pinnacle’s closing prices were used, and a hypothetical £100 flat stake bet on each match that a player was coached for by a given coach was adopted as a staking strategy, and this assessment can be seen below (sorted by coach return on investment) :-
<div class="table-holder-article-content">
<div class="table-modal">
<div class="table-modal-head">
<div class="table-modal-head-inner">
<h2>Tennis super coach performance</h2>
</div>
</div>
<div class="table-modal-content">
<div class="article-table-content">
<table class=" article-table">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
Coach
</td>
<td>
Player
</td>
<td>
Won
</td>
<td>
Lost
</td>
<td>
Win %
</td>
<td>
Pinnacle P/L
</td>
<td>
Pinnacle ROI
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
-
</td>
<td>
&nbsp;
</td>
<td>
&nbsp;
</td>
<td>
&nbsp;
</td>
<td>
&nbsp;
</td>
<td>
&nbsp;
</td>
<td>
&nbsp;
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
McEnroe *
</td>
<td>
Raonic
</td>
<td>
6
</td>
<td>
1
</td>
<td>
85.71
</td>
<td>
143
</td>
<td>
20.43
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
Edberg
</td>
<td>
Federer
</td>
<td>
127
</td>
<td>
22
</td>
<td>
85.23
</td>
<td>
1492
</td>
<td>
10.01
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
Moya *
</td>
<td>
Raonic
</td>
<td>
52
</td>
<td>
17
</td>
<td>
75.36
</td>
<td>
234
</td>
<td>
3.39
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
Becker
</td>
<td>
Djokovic
</td>
<td>
204
</td>
<td>
22
</td>
<td>
90.27
</td>
<td>
408
</td>
<td>
1.81
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
Ivanisevic
</td>
<td>
Cilic
</td>
<td>
110
</td>
<td>
53
</td>
<td>
67.48
</td>
<td>
-271
</td>
<td>
-1.66
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
Lendl (Spell 2)
</td>
<td>
Murray
</td>
<td>
71
</td>
<td>
12
</td>
<td>
85.54
</td>
<td>
-149
</td>
<td>
-1.80
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
Moya
</td>
<td>
Nadal
</td>
<td>
56
</td>
<td>
9
</td>
<td>
86.15
</td>
<td>
-199
</td>
<td>
-3.06
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
Lendl (Spell 1)
</td>
<td>
Murray
</td>
<td>
102
</td>
<td>
29
</td>
<td>
77.86
</td>
<td>
-593
</td>
<td>
-4.53
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
Agassi
</td>
<td>
Djokovic
</td>
<td>
12
</td>
<td>
2
</td>
<td>
85.71
</td>
<td>
-84
</td>
<td>
-6.00
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
Ivanisevic
</td>
<td>
Berdych
</td>
<td>
40
</td>
<td>
19
</td>
<td>
67.80
</td>
<td>
-481
</td>
<td>
-8.15
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
Krajicek
</td>
<td>
Raonic
</td>
<td>
22
</td>
<td>
9
</td>
<td>
70.97
</td>
<td>
-572
</td>
<td>
-18.45
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
Krajicek
</td>
<td>
Wawrinka
</td>
<td>
2
</td>
<td>
1
</td>
<td>
66.67
</td>
<td>
-90
</td>
<td>
-30.00
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
&nbsp;-
</td>
<td>
&nbsp;
</td>
<td>
&nbsp;
</td>
<td>
&nbsp;
</td>
<td>
&nbsp;
</td>
<td>
&nbsp;
</td>
<td>
&nbsp;
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
Overall
</td>
<td>
&nbsp;
</td>
<td>
804
</td>
<td>
196
</td>
<td>
80.40
</td>
<td>
-162
</td>
<td>
-0.16
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
*John McEnroe coached Milos Raonic in conjunction with Carlos Moya in McEnroe’s assessed matches&nbsp;
Evidently, we can see that the vast majority of ‘super coaches’ were unable to add betting value to their players, and thus, it is questionable as to whether they actually improved the level of their players more than generic coaches.&nbsp;
Of those coaches with a decent sample size of data, only Stefan Edberg, coaching Roger Federer, yielded considerable improvement, while Boris Becker, with Novak Djokovic, did also generate some improvement as well.
However, there is a case that Ivan Lendl (in his first coaching spell) did not actually improve Andy Murray nearly as much as the media would have you believe - variance and small margins play a big part in tennis players’ success and failure at the top level. Richard Krajicek’s data with Milos Raonic, and Goran Ivanisevic’s with Tomas Berdych were both also disappointing.
Overall, super coaches yielded a rather mediocre -0.16% ROI across a sample of around 800 matches, and there is little doubt that - similarly to soccer - there is a reasonable argument to be made that elite players generally do not make for elite coaches.&nbsp;

What impact does a tennis coach have on performance?

The term "super coach" has become increasingly popular in professional tennis since 2010. What exactly is a "super coach" and how big an impact, if any, do they have on a tennis player's performance? Read this article and find out.

Article

The impact of a coach on a player’s performance has never previously been quantified in the public domain. Our tennis betting expert, Dan Weston, looks at the effects of coaches on various players in an attempt to work out whether certain coaches offer genuine value to a player. Read on to find out more.