@skillahmang
Well technically I almost called it since I predicted 6-3 and it ended 6-4. She broke 2ga 3 times in the second though so likely would've been 6-3 or 6-1 if Coco didn't hit 9 doubles in the set. To Gauff's credit, she was obviously frustrated when the double faults led to being broken twice in the second set but she didn't let the frustration linger or allow Swiatek to gain any momentum. She broke right back both times, once to love and once to 15.
For the match 2ga had 15 winners and 47 unforced errors. 19 game match so she basically averaged 2.5 UE per game.
After she came back to win from down a set and a double break against Barb I wonder if the books got flooded with 2ga money after she fell behind.
@skillahmang
Well technically I almost called it since I predicted 6-3 and it ended 6-4. She broke 2ga 3 times in the second though so likely would've been 6-3 or 6-1 if Coco didn't hit 9 doubles in the set. To Gauff's credit, she was obviously frustrated when the double faults led to being broken twice in the second set but she didn't let the frustration linger or allow Swiatek to gain any momentum. She broke right back both times, once to love and once to 15.
For the match 2ga had 15 winners and 47 unforced errors. 19 game match so she basically averaged 2.5 UE per game.
After she came back to win from down a set and a double break against Barb I wonder if the books got flooded with 2ga money after she fell behind.
I don't typically post men's predictions as I don't follow as much as I do women's
I don't typically post men's predictions as I don't follow as much as I do women's
Dang, Chan serving down 0-40 facing quadruple break point and ChaKuder win 8 straight points to get the hold then the break. Nice going into the tiebreak with the momentum.
Dang, Chan serving down 0-40 facing quadruple break point and ChaKuder win 8 straight points to get the hold then the break. Nice going into the tiebreak with the momentum.
@booboo14
Some people definitely play the fade and it seems to be profitable. I joke about it sometimes but fading a particular person's predictions is typically not a solid strategy IMO.
Tailing someone who makes good picks can be solid but if you're instead simply fading someone you're putting a lot of confidence in that person being bad enough to actually make it profitable, which would actually take a lot of skill (or negative skill?) to be that bad.
@booboo14
Some people definitely play the fade and it seems to be profitable. I joke about it sometimes but fading a particular person's predictions is typically not a solid strategy IMO.
Tailing someone who makes good picks can be solid but if you're instead simply fading someone you're putting a lot of confidence in that person being bad enough to actually make it profitable, which would actually take a lot of skill (or negative skill?) to be that bad.
Not into fading anyone but if you tail him, you will be living in a tent asking for change on the side of the road.
Not into fading anyone but if you tail him, you will be living in a tent asking for change on the side of the road.
@Uman
Congrats and don't blame ya for following the system. I haven't done the math but based on what I've seen it seems like the fade hits at a 70%+ clip. Or maybe it's just the losses get echoed more. Someone should do a W/L analysis along with unit sizes.
But what about randomly dropping in to comfort @wgomel21 when he was having a bad day?
Didn't see that one coming.
@Uman
Congrats and don't blame ya for following the system. I haven't done the math but based on what I've seen it seems like the fade hits at a 70%+ clip. Or maybe it's just the losses get echoed more. Someone should do a W/L analysis along with unit sizes.
But what about randomly dropping in to comfort @wgomel21 when he was having a bad day?
Didn't see that one coming.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.