Talk About Tennis 2.0

It is not that we don't like zero. When you say that the field has zero chance, you are saying that, for example, Muchova has zero chance. Two time slam finalist Paolini has zero chance. Last year finalist and recent YEC champion QW has zero chance. Wimbledon champ Krejcikova has zero chance.
And that is not accurate.
Sabalenka at 35%
Coco at 30.
Swiatek 20
The rest at 15

Sinner at 60
Alcaraz 25
The rest gets the rest.

I do say they have 0 chance, of actually winning the title...they may do well, of course
Anyway now I say 1%
Btw, Coco won the YEC

So you think Sabalenka has abetter chance than Coco? I think not, we shall see. Swiatek at 20 is fine, she is a great champion. What about Djokovic? Do you think he has even a 5% chance? I am not sure .

Coco's service seemed fine, her forehand too..looks like she is on her way to fixing them...must be Daly, her new coach...and confidence.

The reason I am giving Sabalenka 35% is because it is so hard to repeat at a slam, and of course, three in a row even harder. But I think she hits harder than anybody and it the shots are landing in, that is a winning combo.
Txs for the correction about the YEC.
I have been burned before saying Novak is gone. So I won't. But that Opelka defeat was bad.

Why Sinner THAT much higher than anyone else? 50% would be more appropriate, I think.

Suliso wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2025 3:44 pm Why Sinner THAT much higher than anyone else? 50% would be more appropriate, I think.

He is so dominant that, really, it would take some real catastrophe for him not to win. Certainly much more than 50% would you be ok with 60% ?

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2025 2:30 pm The reason I am giving Sabalenka 35% is because it is so hard to repeat at a slam, and of course, three in a row even harder. But I think she hits harder than anybody and it the shots are landing in, that is a winning combo.
Txs for the correction about the YEC.
I have been burned before saying Novak is gone. So I won't. But that Opelka defeat was bad.

That three in a row is hard is a fallacy. Probabilities are always Bayesian...given that she has won 2 already, a third is easier, not harder. It is not the same as the probability of winning a major 3 times in a row, given nothing.

This is the list of players that have won the same slam 3 three years in a row.
Court - AO 69-71
Goolagong- AO 74-76
Graf - AO 88-90. W 91-93,
Seles - AO 91-93, RG 90-92
Henin - RG 05-07
Swiatek - RG 22-24
Martina - W - 82-87
Evert - USO - 75 - 78
Serena - USO - 12-14

It is more than I expected, but it is not an easy thing to do.

Thursday 9 January marks the date the Australian Open men’s and women’s singles draws will be revealed.

From 2.30pm AEDT, the draw will be conducted at the steps of Margaret Court Arena, where defending champions Aryna Sabalenka and Jannik Sinner will bring the AO trophies for the occasion.
...
For fans not at Melbourne Park, the draw ceremony will be live-streamed on the Australian Open YouTube channel and Facebook page.

ausopen.com

ETA:
The time difference from US East Coast (NYC) is +16 hours. It's now 11:42a in Melbourne.

agree with your list but here it the argument:
say a certain player's chances of winning a given major is 30%. Her chances of winning 3 in a row, given nothing as a basis, is 0.3x0.3x0.3, which is 2.7%
But if she has already won 2, chances of winning a third are ATLEAST 30%, more because she has proved she can do it, she likes the conditions, etc.. I would say 40% at least.
That is what I mean by Bayesian.

It's 2.7% only if you assume (correctly?) that winning it once doesn't make it easier to win it again.

Of course a chance doesn't have a memory.

Suliso wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2025 2:38 pm Of course a chance doesn't have a memory.

Did you see the entire post? I have clearly pointed out that the chances improve if you have won it before