Was Soderling a good bet against Federer?

Well done to anyone who took the $3.65 on offer for Robin Soderling to beat Roger Federer in Abu Dhabi.

But I still question whether it was a good bet.

Federer had beaten Soderling in 12 previous encounters. And granted, eventually, the Swede was bound to have a win, particularly given his recent terrific form which saw him march into the world's top 10.

But odds on Roger Federer of $1.28 was a message from bookmakers that Federer would win one out of four encounters between the two. Taking into account that Soderling was yet to break his drought, the odds should have been somewhere in the $1.10 mark which means Federer was massive overs (in percentage terms).

You can always find rationale to back the underdog. Soderling had beaten Nadal in their previous two encounters. Soderling's form was much better than previous meetings between the two. Maybe you can throw in the old chestnut: "He was due."

But none of those are a good reason to risk money on the Swede. They are, however, good reasons to avoid the match altogether.

Good sports betting is about playing the odds. And it's always wise to find occasions where the sportsbook odds calculators are taking a gamble. In other words, it's about finding "overs" - situations where the odds are greater than the chances of our pick winning the contest.

Take the Pakistan cricket team against Australia for example. They started the Sydney test match against Australia at $6.50. If you think Pakistan are good enough to beat Australia at least one in six test matches, then you'd be getting overs.

Anyone who took the $6.50, that was a smart bet, and you deserve the rewards.

If you want to know more about playing the percentages, check out the system being used by the team at winterolympicsformguide.com. You can find it here: http://aussiepunt.blogspot.com/2009/12/free-sports-betting-strategy-and.html