- Joined
- Jul 11, 2008
- Messages
- 1,518
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 63
This guide is for bettors who want to know which stats actually predict future performance versus which ones just describe what already happened without telling you anything useful about what comes next.
Most bettors grab whatever stats are easiest to find and build narratives around them. "This player holds serve 85% of the time, they're great on serve." Maybe. Or maybe they've been playing weak opposition and that hold percentage doesn't mean what you think it means.
Hold Percentage Is Context-Dependent
Service hold percentage tells you how often a player wins their service games. Sounds straightforward. On grass where serves are dominant, a player holding 90% of service games might be average. On clay where returns are stronger, that same 90% is elite.
The bigger problem with hold percentage - it's heavily influenced by opponent quality. A player holding serve 88% at ATP 250 events against weaker fields versus holding 72% at Masters 1000 against top players. Which number is predictive? Neither, by itself.
What matters more is hold percentage relative to expectation given the opponent and surface. If a player normally holds 80% on hard courts and they're suddenly holding 92%, either they've improved their serve significantly or they're playing weaker competition. You need to dig into the context.
I don't look at raw hold percentages when betting. I look at changes in hold percentage across similar opponents and surfaces. A player whose hold percentage has improved 5-8% over the past three months on the same surface - that's potentially meaningful. A player whose hold percentage varies wildly tournament to tournament - that's just noise from opponent quality differences.
The other issue with hold percentage - it doesn't tell you how comfortable those holds were. Holding serve at 40-0 versus holding at deuce after multiple break points is recorded identically in the stats but represents completely different match dynamics. A player holding 85% but facing break points in 60% of their service games is vulnerable even though the hold percentage looks solid.
Break Percentage Shows Up Better
Break point conversion rate actually does matter more than most stats because it directly measures clutch performance under pressure.
A player who converts 45-50% of break points is genuinely good at executing when it matters. They're not choking on big points. That consistency shows up across opponents and surfaces. A player converting 25-30% is struggling on the big points regardless of how well they're playing otherwise.
The challenge is sample size. Break point opportunities don't come that frequently in individual matches. A player might only face 5-8 break points in a three-setter. Converting 2 of 6 is 33%, converting 3 of 6 is 50%, but that's only a one-point difference in actual execution.
Over larger samples though - say 10 matches on the same surface - break point conversion rates become more predictive. A player consistently converting 40%+ is executing well under pressure. A player consistently below 30% has a genuine problem closing out opportunities.
When I'm betting matches, I check recent break point conversion rates over the player's last 8-10 matches on that surface. Not career numbers, not all-surface numbers - recent performance on the relevant surface. If one player is converting 45% and their opponent is converting 28%, that's meaningful especially if the match is likely to be tight.
The inverse matters too - break points saved percentage. Defending break points is its own skill. Some players are excellent at raising their level when serving under pressure. Others fold. This shows up consistently across matches and is more predictive than raw hold percentage.
Tiebreak Records Are Overrated
People love citing tiebreak records. "This player is 18-7 in tiebreaks this year, they're clutch."
Tiebreaks are basically coin flips with tiny edges for better players. The sample sizes are too small and the variance is too high for career tiebreak records to mean much. Federer has one of the best tiebreak records in tennis history but he also lost crucial tiebreaks in big matches. The record describes his overall quality more than predicting specific tiebreak outcomes.
What matters slightly more is recent tiebreak performance and how the player got there. A player who's 6-1 in tiebreaks over the last month and won those tiebreaks by playing aggressive first-strike tennis - that's useful information. They're executing a gameplan that works in compressed situations.
A player who's 5-4 in tiebreaks but needed opponents to choke to win most of them - that record isn't predictive of future tiebreak success. They got lucky more than they executed well.
I rarely build bets around tiebreak records unless I've specifically tracked that the player has a genuine tactical advantage in tiebreak situations. Most tiebreak records are just noise from small samples.
The one exception - when betting totals games, knowing that both players are strong in tiebreaks can push you toward the over because sets are more likely to reach tiebreaks rather than breaking earlier. But that's different from predicting who wins the tiebreaks.
First Serve Percentage Versus Second Serve Points Won
First serve percentage gets talked about constantly. "He's only getting 55% of first serves in, his serve is struggling."
First serve percentage by itself doesn't tell you much. What matters is what happens on those first serves. A player getting 65% of first serves in but only winning 68% of first serve points isn't dominating. A player getting 58% in but winning 78% of first serve points has a weapon even though the percentage looks lower.
Second serve points won is way more predictive than first serve percentage. Your second serve is when you're vulnerable. If you're winning 55%+ of second serve points, your serve overall is solid regardless of first serve percentage. If you're winning below 45% of second serve points, you're getting attacked on your second serve and that's a problem.
When I'm evaluating serve quality I look at second serve points won first, then first serve points won, and first serve percentage is maybe third in importance. The percentages describe volume, the points won describe quality.
Also pay attention to trends. A player whose second serve points won has dropped 8-10% over recent tournaments is either injured, fatigued, or being attacked more effectively by better returners. That's predictive going forward.
Return Stats Are Messier Than Serve Stats
Return statistics are harder to interpret because they're so heavily influenced by opponent serve quality.
Returning against big servers naturally produces worse return stats than returning against weaker servers. A player with 40% return points won might be doing better than another player with 45% if the first player faced stronger servers.
What I look for is return performance against specific serve types. A player who struggles badly against lefty serves, or against kick serves to the backhand, or against serve-and-volley patterns - those specific weaknesses show up repeatedly and are exploitable.
General return statistics don't help much without opponent context. But if I'm betting a matchup where Player A has a specific serve pattern that Player B has historically struggled against, that's useful regardless of their overall return numbers.
The other thing worth tracking - return positioning. Some players stand way back to return, others crowd the baseline. Against big servers, standing back can neutralize pace but makes it harder to attack second serves. Against weaker servers, standing close puts pressure on them. Return positioning combined with serve quality of the opponent tells you more than raw return statistics.
Unforced Errors Are Nearly Useless
Unforced error counts are subjective and inconsistent. What one stat keeper calls an unforced error, another calls a forced error. The definitions vary tournament to tournament.
Also, unforced error counts are heavily influenced by playing style. Aggressive players generate more unforced errors because they're going for more. Defensive players have fewer unforced errors because they're hitting safer balls. The error count doesn't tell you who played better.
A player with 35 unforced errors who won the match in four sets probably played more aggressively and effectively than a player with 18 unforced errors who lost in straight sets playing defensive tennis.
I basically ignore unforced error statistics when betting. They describe match style more than match quality and they're not predictive of future performance.
The only time unforced errors matter is when they spike dramatically from a player's normal baseline. A player who normally has 15-20 unforced errors suddenly having 45-50 multiple matches in a row - something's wrong. Injury, fatigue, mental issues. But you'd probably notice that from watching the matches or checking other stats anyway.
Stats That Actually Work - Winners to Errors Ratio
Winners to unforced errors ratio is more useful than either number individually.
A player hitting 40 winners and 35 unforced errors is playing high-risk aggressive tennis and executing reasonably well. A player hitting 15 winners and 30 unforced errors is playing poorly regardless of style.
The ratio tells you whether a player's aggression is paying off or whether they're just making errors without creating enough offense to justify the risk. Over multiple matches, players with consistently positive ratios (more winners than errors) tend to perform better than their rankings suggest. Players with negative ratios are vulnerable.
This stat is less influenced by opponent quality than most stats because it describes the player's own execution rather than the interaction between players. You can hit winners and make errors against anyone, and the ratio shows whether your level of play is high or low.
I check winners to errors ratio over a player's last 5-6 matches on the relevant surface when I'm betting close matchups. If one player is consistently positive and the other is consistently negative, that's confirmation of an edge.
Ace to Double Fault Ratio Works Similarly
Aces per match don't mean much without context. But aces to double faults ratio does indicate serve reliability.
A player hitting 12 aces and 8 double faults has a serve that's powerful but inconsistent. A player hitting 8 aces and 2 double faults has a reliable serve even if it's not as spectacular. Over five sets especially, reliability matters more than peak power.
Players with poor ace to double fault ratios fade in long matches because the double faults accumulate and cost them critical games. Players with good ratios maintain their serve effectiveness throughout.
When I'm betting Slams or longer matches, I weight ace to double fault ratio more heavily than at shorter tournaments. The serve needs to hold up for potentially five hours, and consistent serves do that better than boom-or-bust serves.
Surface-Specific Stats Matter More Than Career Stats
This should be obvious but people constantly make the mistake - using career statistics to predict performance on a specific surface.
A player's clay court serve stats tell you nothing about how they'll serve on grass. The surfaces play completely differently. Holds percentages, break percentages, tiebreak records - all surface specific.
When I'm betting a match I only look at statistics from the relevant surface over the past 12 months max. Ideally I'm looking at recent form from the past 2-3 months on that surface. Career stats across all surfaces are useless for prediction.
The exception is physical attributes that don't change - height affects serve potential regardless of surface, movement quality matters everywhere. But performance stats need to be surface-specific to be predictive.
What I Actually Track for Betting
Here's what I use when evaluating matches, in order of importance.
Recent form on the specific surface - last 8-10 matches. Not win-loss record but quality of performance. Who did they beat, how did they win, what were the match dynamics.
Second serve points won - shows vulnerability when under pressure serving. Below 45% is a problem, above 52% is strong.
Break point conversion rate - measures clutch execution. Below 30% is weak, above 42% is strong. Recent 10-match sample.
Service break points saved - measures resilience under pressure. Below 55% is vulnerable, above 65% is solid.
Winners to errors ratio - shows whether aggression is paying off. Consistently negative is a red flag, consistently above 1.2 is strong.
Everything else is context or confirmation but those five things predict future performance better than any other widely available stats. Hold percentage, first serve percentage, aces, unforced errors - those describe what happened but don't predict what comes next nearly as well.
When Stats Don't Matter At All
Sometimes stats are completely irrelevant because other factors dominate.
Head-to-head matchups where one player has a stylistic edge - the stats might say Player A is better but if Player B's game specifically counters Player A's patterns, the stats don't account for that.
Injury or fatigue situations - a player's stats from three weeks ago when they were healthy don't predict their performance now if they're carrying an injury or exhausted from a tough schedule.
Motivation differences - a player who's already qualified for year-end championships playing a meaningless late-season event versus a player fighting for ranking points. The stats show equal quality but the motivation gap is huge.
Court conditions that dramatically favor one style - extremely slow courts that neutralize big servers, extremely fast courts that expose poor movers. The stats might show these players performing well generally but not on these specific conditions.
Don't let stats override your eyes and your understanding of the specific match context. Stats are tools for confirmation and tiebreaking, not primary decision-makers.
FAQ
Is hold percentage the most important serve stat?
No. Second serve points won is more predictive because it shows what happens when you're vulnerable. Hold percentage is too influenced by opponent quality and doesn't distinguish comfortable holds from holds under pressure. A player can have high hold percentage while still being shaky on serve.
Should I bet based on tiebreak records?
Rarely. Tiebreak records have small sample sizes and high variance. Most tiebreaks are close to 50-50 with small edges for better players. Recent tiebreak performance can suggest momentum but career tiebreak records aren't predictive of specific tiebreak outcomes.
Which stats should I ignore completely?
Unforced error counts are too subjective and style-dependent to be useful. Career stats across all surfaces don't predict surface-specific performance. First serve percentage by itself doesn't tell you much without knowing what happens on those first serves. Aces per match without context of opponent return quality or court speed isn't meaningful.
Last edited: