In basic terms, the seeding for any given tennis tournament (World Tour 250 to Grand Slam) is done according to the same, simple guideline.
The assembled number of players - being it 28, 32, 48, 64 etc - are listed in order of their world ranking and the seedings are then assigned in descending order until the required number of seeds is determined. The No.1 seed is the highest ranking player in the world rankings, followed by No.2, No.3, and so forth.
The usual format is for the No.1 and No.3 seeds to be placed in the top half of the draw, the No.2 and No.4 seeds in the bottom half. The rest of the seeds are then divided equally to create the frame around which the rest is done.
http://downloadforwindows10.com/playing-cards/ It's not rocket science, and tournament organizers may make changes from time to time. But it is something that every tennis backer should know - even though many don't!
However, a blind acceptance of these seedings in selecting outright bets is a HIGHLY RISKY strategy. They do not take into account current form, surface form, or the rest of the players in a draw. A top seed may avoid other seeds until the QF or SF, but they might still face tough opponents in the first rounds.
The statistics are clear that the No.1 seeds do not win as many tournaments than you might think.
In the first 20 tournaments of 2010 the ratio of wins/seeds was:- No.1 (4), No.2 (4), No.3 (5), No.4 & No.5 (0), No.6 (1), No.7 (0), No.8 (1) and unseeded (5). This is right. Only 4/20, or 20%, of ATP Tour winners were top seeded. However, interestingly 5/20 (or 25%) were unseeded.
Example: Feliciano Lopez (Johannesburg 2010) WON 8/1
The Spaniard was the third seed in South Africa, and statistically the most successful. His success further supported the argument that not all No.1 seeds are guaranteed to win a tournament.
http://kabarindonesiapintar.com/dangers-of-stress-while-playing-uk-bingo/ In fact, by the numbers they are no more likely to win than any one of the other seeds.
And so whilst there is sense in believing the No.1 seed is the best player in the draw (as he's the highest in the world rankings) and so the player who is most likely to win, this is a far too simplistic a method upon which to base a whole betting strategy.
In selecting outright bets, seedings should be taken as a mere guideline and nothing more - after all, how many times is the No.1 seed not the market leader. And if the bookmakers don't see him as the most likely winner, why should you?