Torque

Completely agree. He beat O'Sullivan playing attacking snooker, which got increasingly attacking the more he realised that O'Sullivan wasn't at the races and wasn't punishing his misses. It's easy to play high-tariff snooker when you're confident that your opponent's having a shocker - less so when your opponent plays steady, percentage snooker. Like I said, Ronnie put Brecel under no pressure at all and that was the key to him winning. All the talk after the match from the pundits and also Ronnie - not surprisingly - would have given the impression that Brecel played lights out. He didn't. He played well but I don't call 89% pot success across the match lights out snooker and a repeat of that in the next round and he's going back to Belgium but this time not coming back.

It'll never happen unfortunately. Besides, he wouldn't care about being fined.

There used to be a pinnacle api but not sure if it's still live. I wouldn't fixate on pinnacle closing lines though - they aren't the be all and end all, despite what you might read.

It'll be worth opposing Brecel in the next round now. That result will guarantee he's overvalued, especially as he was nowhere near as good as was suggested after the match - that's just what always seems to happen when Ronnie loses. He played well there's no doubt, but to an extent he was allowed to. I don't see that happening next round.

Bookie odds on 7-0 to Brecel in that session must have been ridic. Combined with no O'Sullivan break over 30 and the odds must have been astronomical.

Ronnie was atrocious. 79 percent pot success in the session, misaligning shots, played like a rank amateur. To go from 10-6 to 10-13 is ridiculous. He gave up in places and put Brecel under no pressure - if he had, it might have been a different story. Hendry in the commentary box would have beaten O'Sullivan playing like that.

Nice pick

Also, the suggestion that if betting on player 2 all the time leads to losses then betting on player 1 will make gains is flawed. There's juice on both sides so what you'll find in the long run is betting on player 1 all the time will lead to a loss as well. If player 1 is normally the favourite then that loss should be achieved more slowly as you'll have more winners than losers, but it'll be a loss just the same and most likely a lesser loss than when picking underdogs.

Speaking from experience, you'll need thousands of bets before you know if you're on the right track. I know you've had a few goes at this sort of thing so my advice would be to persevere rather than tweaking all the time. When I say persevere I don't mean forever as that could lead to large losses, but at least until you reach a stop loss point.

Coventry v Reading (1) 1.55 Plymouth v Cambridge (1) 1.61 Portsmouth v Accrington (1) 1.61 10pt treble

Bet 30 won. Next stake £802.98

Bet 30. Lay Angers to beat PSG @ 20.00

First thing I thought after the 147 - what price two or more. Wouldn't surprise me if there's another the scoring is so good.

I took that. Came nowhere. Still worth it though.

147 landed. Cheers Kyren

Alexandrova is very hit and miss in my experience. The kind of player who can beat anyone but also lose to anyone.

Best of luck @Swami but personally I can't have the words Alexandrova and reliable in the same sentence.

You make it sound so easy @MCLARKE

I saw about the overround. That was some overround. The bookies can't lose when it's like that can they.

Nice one @MCLARKE I took Noble Yeats because of your analysis so that's paid for a few drinks I actually ended up backing it twice as the price drifted like a barge before the off before coming back in - not sure what that was all about.

Possibly why it wasn't offered. I'm sure they don't pick the matches out of thin air.

Can't argue that he's the most talented there's ever been. It's just a shame the circus that's developed around him and you've just alluded to it. Does he practice or not, does he care or not. Who really knows and Ronnie has done nothing to dispel those stories and for me they demean the game. Nobody questioned whether Davis and Hendry practiced enough or cared enough and that's the way it should be.

That's what stops me from calling him the greatest. It's got to be Hendry or Davis for me because I can't remember anybody ever talking about which Hendry or Davis would turn up. They only played one way - relentless, focussed and with a pure hatred of losing. Some will say if O'Sulllivan wins another world title then that closes the conversation on the best player in history but not for me. Achievement is a relative thing in my opinion and O'Sullivan should have won more regardless of whether he's won the most. On the other hand, someone like Dott winning the World Title means he's overachieved in my book and I find players like that more impressive.

The only trouble @Fader with the no player to win 3 frames in a row is that isn't only in opposition to O'Sullivan. I wouldn't be that surprised to see Junxu win 3 in a row.

That last price looks big. Maybe worth a small stake. I'd say all the lines will be skewed in favour of O'Sullivan to the point that level stakes on anything to do with Junxu would have a decent chance of generating a return.