Tennis spreads/totals question

[rolandcorts]

Why is it so often that books offer majorly different numbers on tennis matches where there is a major underdog such that

Dog +2.5 sets is +110 but the total sets is over 3.5 +125 let's say

Doesn't the match have to go o3.5 for +2.5 to cash?

Right now at pinnacle you could bet Medvedev -2.5 -135 and o3.5 +133. Obviously a losing scalp but bizarre because pinnacle is essentially offering no juice on this wager if you like one side.

Retirements should lead to both the spread and total to push, no?

Thanks

 

[Ace7550]

Why is it so often that books offer majorly different numbers on tennis matches where there is a major underdog such that

Dog +2.5 sets is +110 but the total sets is over 3.5 +125 let's say

Doesn't the match have to go o3.5 for +2.5 to cash?

Right now at pinnacle you could bet Medvedev -2.5 -135 and o3.5 +133. Obviously a losing scalp but bizarre because pinnacle is essentially offering no juice on this wager if you like one side.

Retirements should lead to both the spread and total to push, no?

Thanks

I suppose there is the longshot that Medvedev's opponent could win in straight sets. Then you would lose both. Very unlikely though.
In the other example: "Dog +2.5 sets is +110 but the total sets is over 3.5 +125 let's say"
If the favored player won in straight sets you would lose both.

And yes, most shops push spreads and totals in the event of a retirement or disqualification.

 

[rolandcorts]

I suppose there is the longshot that Medvedev's opponent could win in straight sets. Then you would lose both. Very unlikely though.
In the other example: "Dog +2.5 sets is +110 but the total sets is over 3.5 +125 let's say"
If the favored player won in straight sets you would lose both.

And yes, most shops push spreads and totals in the event of a retirement or disqualification.

Oh right. Duh!
Thanks sir