jd_fortune
-
Posts
32 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by jd_fortune
-
-
Re: Manchester United v Swansea City > Saturday January 11th
Thanks for the tip. I'm not up on all the intricacies of the actual lineups of the teams so your input was certainly valuable. So Chelsea is the one to watch then. I don't know what's going on with Man United's lineup but it looks like they're down some key players. It's like a different team than last year. I guess I have to start studying these team lineups a lot more before I put significant money on a game. It's also good to watch the games live and adjust betting according to who is on the field at the time. Like yesterday Real Madrid had gone scoreless the whole first half and early part of the second half, then they put Bale on and three goals came up. I should have laid no goal when I heard them say that Bale was warming up but it was getting too close to the end of the game to risk it. I know Madrid aren't EPL but it was a perfect example of what I was saying.I hear you but, to me Chelsea will be far more dependable in the coming weeks that Arsenal and Liverpool. If you asked me this weekend which of those three I would BANK to win (and they are all playing away) , I would take Chelsea all day. Their squad is miles better. Man City and Chelsea are streets ahead of everyone this season. Liverpool and Arsenal will fall off the pace in the second half. If Arsenal don't splash the cash for a top striker it's goodnight charlie for them, and they won't win the league. Equate van Persie's importance to that of Ozil or Suarez. Then see how Arsenal or Liverpool do without them for 10 games ! Additionally, if a great player becomes available in Jan, CHelsea will snap them up. One because they can, and two because it denies someone else his services. The problem with cup betting is always motivation. Most of the time the cup comps are not important for the epl teams and they don't give them the respect they deserve. Realistically it's a one-off, with nothing significant to make an accurate prediction with... -
Re: Manchester United v Swansea City > Saturday January 11th Man United can't be counted on anymore. I lost a crapload of money on them against Swansea in the FA cup game yesterday (Jan 5). Swansea had never beaten them at home Looked like a slam dunk. Then they were completely useless, blowing opportunity after opportunity. I don't know what happened to them but I won't be betting on them for a long long time, like maybe next year if they improve a lot. The dependable teams now are Arsenal, Man City, Liverpool. When you see them against an average team like Swansea you can be pretty sure they won't get beat 1-2 like Man U did. That was the most disgusting thing I ever saw. Tomorrow they'll get beat by Sunderland. Just bet on whatever team they play and the odds will be way higher than what they really are. Do that the rest of the season and you can't lose. It's the reverse Man U system.
-
Re: "Sports-Betting as a Business" strategy You can definitely make some money in soccer betting. Probably not by backing but by laying you can. Say you lay 50 to 1 shots and you do enough research on stats that you hardly ever lose. You're bringing in money every time you bet but you don't ever give it back because the unlikely event never, or very rarely, actually occurs. I've been doing that for a while. Aside from a few hits, on bets I really shouldn't have made but didn't know the teams that well at the time, I just never pay out. My only problem was I got cocky because I was winning all the time and I raised the lay bet to $50 once on a Tottenham game. Bad idea. Cost me $500. So happened I made a couple other bad bets and had 3 or 4 hits against me in one day. Set me back from about $2100 to about $1200. Now I'm back up to about $1800. I initially only put $800 in so I'm still doubled up even after that cluster of hits in one day. I got back to $1800 by flat lay betting $10 per game. I didn't want to risk another big hit. I'm a lot more particular about what games I will bet on now too. I'll usually wait until a game goes to HT with no goals before I will lay AUQ. Very few teams can make 4 goals in one half. That's like making 8 goals in a whole game. How many teams can do that? I just watch out for any teams that are actually capable of doing that, like Man U or Arsenal in the EPL, and now Tottenham after they did exactly that and cost me the $50 lay bet. You get to know which teams are dangerous and just avoid them. Isn't too likely a game between two low level teams will have either of them scoring 4 goals in the 2nd half, no matter what the prices are that are available on BF. Of course, you have to have nerves of steel to risk something like $500 to make $10, but it seems to be paying off.
-
Re: Imagine this You can sure tell when there's a bot in a correct score market. When something happens the exact same prices appear in a bunch of the selections. I wonder if there's a way to exploit somebody's bot, trick it into doing something stupid. Say it's programed to put a price in that's a certain number of increments over or under the current best price. Now say you choose a selection that nobody is likely to actually buy into, like 3-3, which is very high odds. Now you drive the bot to whatever price you want then withdraw your bet and take his. I don't know how the bots work but maybe something like that would be possible.
-
Re: Draws Method I don't know about betting on draws. Looking at the charts it seems that the average is around 1 in 3 for all teams except the very top one or two and very bottom ones. Otherwise it's pretty random as to which teams get less or more than that. It doesn't appear to have much connection to the team's standing in the charts. Stoke was in the middle and got 11 out of 21 while several below and above them got 3 or so. I don't think draw percentages can be accurately enough predicted to be profitable for any great length of time. Other factors are much more predictable, like number of goals or win/lose. The fact that 0-0 is a tie probably messes things up a lot. Even a bad team can go 0-0 against a good team rather easily, while it's doubtful they would get many 3-3 or 4-4 ties. Maybe your system would be better if you concentrated on betting against such mismatched teams getting those high score ties, though I'm sure the odds would be quite high so it would be costly if you ever did lose. Maybe 2-2 ties would be a better one to concentrate on. They are rare enough that a fairly minor variation between bookmaker odds and true odds would be profitable. I don't think they're going to be off by much on the 0-0 and 1-1 ties because they happen frequently enough to be able to average them out quite accurately. There's going to be a lot more variation when you get up to 2-2 and 3-3.
-
Re: Poisson Distribution Betting Premier League While it would be troublesome to work it out based on who is playing on the gameday, it would give you huge advantages over fixed odds bookmakers. Nobody, including the bookmakers, know what the lineup will be until the game starts or shortly before. Otherwise BF wouldn't say that the lineup won't be available until the game starts. So the bookmakers are making odds based on the average team configuration. One or two key players being on or off the team that day could change the odds drastically. There is actually no other way to beat the bookmakers consistently, IMO. They have more resources than punters do, with experts on staff, but they still don't know who will be playing until the game starts, unless they know the Coach personally. It's good, though, that most punters are unwilling to take the trouble to set up an excel sheet in such a way that all they have to do is enter the players' names and it spits out the Poisson distribution. That way I will be the only one collecting all the money in BF.
-
Re: Poisson Distribution Betting Premier League One factor you didn't consider is the actual team lineup on gameday. I watched an Arsenal game on New Year day, at Southampton, and it was a completely different team than the one that played at home on Dec 29 with them scoring 7 goals. I think they were giving their best guys the day off after working them a few days earlier. It was the crap version of Arsenal, not the good version. I don't know the exact lineups in the two games but it was obvious that it was all different guys and the play was completely different. You might as well have taken QPR and put Arsenal jerseys on them. So my current idea is to rather than use the team goal averages for the Poisson input to use the data of the actual team members who will play on each team on the particular game. Like add up the goal averages of the players on the field and divide by the number of players. If you can't get both the home and away stats for team members then you could approximate them by adjusting based on the average home/away goal difference. Like if the difference is 30% you would multiply by 1.15 if the team is at home and by 0.85 if they are away. As for the goals conceded, that would be harder to nail down on a game by game basis, other than by using the goalkeeper's stats. Maybe stats are available on individual defenders' capabilities, I don't know. But anyway, this should be a much more precise way to work out Poisson odds for a game. As I mentioned earlier, it might be a crap version of the team which is actually on the field that day, especially if it's not a crucial game for them. A team is not a static entity but the sum of whatever players are working that day. One key player can make all the difference in one game. Take Gareth Bale out of a Tottenham game and there's going to be a whole lot fewer goals scored. That guy was deadly in the Dec 26 game at Aston Villa. Even in the away position they won 4 to nothing. Cost me a lot of money because I layed AUQ in BF. I didn't think they had 4 goals in them after scoring none the whole 1st half. Apparently they did.
-
Re: Win if nothing happens system New balance; $1501.19. I'm getting better at judging a good game to bet. Only had one loss of $45 on an ill conceived Over 3.5 lay after one team already had two goals in. They got two more. Had to lay Colin Osborne's nobody opponent in a darts game to win it back quickly. A fast check showed that Osborne was a legendary darts player and the other guy was average. Osborne won 2-0. Today when I was up to $1458 and wanted to get it over $1500 I layed AEK v Kavala Any Unquoted for $45. Neither team had scored 4 goals all season and also had lower point averages than league average. The game came out 0-0. It was a slam dunk. It was only odds of 12. It was like candy from a baby. They didn't have 1 in 12 chance of scoring 4 goals, they had exactly zero chance, well maybe 1 in 100 or something like that.
-
Re: Win if nothing happens system Here's another thing I do. Instead of backing the likely winner I lay the likely loser. That way, I start out in a winning position because a draw is a win for me and it's currently a 0-0 draw. If I were to back the likely winner I would be in a losing position until my team scores. Since about 1 in 8 games end in a 0-0 score, I would be assured of losing at least that often. I only make match bets if I am very confident of a certain team winning, like today with Arsenal v Reading. There was virtually no chance of Reading winning that match so I layed them. Arsenal made an early goal and Reading's odds went up but I then knew that Reading would lose for absolutely certain so I put another equal amount on the same lay bet even with the higher odds. Arsenal then scored again. Had to leave home and go to work at that point but needless to say Arsenal went on to win. A good thing about laying the likely loser is that if the fav scores a goal first then even if the underdog scores a goal he only ties it up so I am still in a winning position. I can only lose if the dog then scores TWO goals and the fav scores none more before the dog scores the two. Since I only do this in games with a strong fav it's very unlikely that the dog could score first or that he could score twice after the fav scores first before the fav can score again. Of course in the unlikely event of the dog scoring first, I have a problem and have to lay some high scores to make up for the likely loss on the match bet. That actually happened recently. the dog scored 3 goals in the game and the fav scored none. I had to make a $60 lay bet on Over 3.5 after the dog's second goal to cover my $50 loss and make $10. I cut it pretty close on that one but the price was too high on Over 4.5 or more so I had to risk the 3.5 lay. That's why I'm reluctant to make match bets, they can go bad too quickly. I prefer laying high scores with teams that I'm pretty sure aren't capable of scoring that many goals in the remaining time. One strategy I use sometimes is to watch the first half of a streamed game so I can see what the play is like before betting on the 2nd half. If I see some effective gameplay I don't even put a lay bet on the high scores. I want to see two completely inept teams bouncing the ball off each other and making wild shots on goal that miss the net by a wide margin. If I see even one dangerously good player in the game I'll just pass. There's always a game somewhere with two useless teams, I call them "clown shows". Just gotta look around a little and check some stats. As for my results with my betting practices, I just started this a couple weeks ago. First I deposited $400 and happened to hit some very bad luck and lost that so I put another $400 in and got back to about $800. Then a couple little bad hits set me back a few hundred but I would keep winning it back plus more, always going up more than I went back, and at present I'm at about $1100. Could just be more good luck than bad luck recently but it does seem to be working out rather well overall. When I was making all backing bets in horseracing I lost massively. Now I only ever make lay bets and only on soccer and it works a whole lot better. I just have to be careful now so I don't lose it all back on one or two bad bets. I will make a back bet sometimes if I think a game is going the wrong way and I want to bail out on the lay bet but otherwise I let it run. That's because the backing odds on offer are always low, as the lay odds on offer are always high from the overround, so I would take a hit on the lay part and then also on the back part (I find that my own odds orders are rarely filled so I just take the odds on offer). So I pay less overround by not making a greening up bet but just letting the lay bet go through to the end. I guess a refinement would be to try to put odds orders in early enough for them to get taken, and thereby avoid the overround, but for now I'm just taking the odds on offer for convenience sake.
-
My soccer system is to always make bets in which I will win if nothing happens, like laying Any Unquoted in correct score markets when it's 0-0. I would never make a bet where I would lose unless somebody makes at least 1 goal. Then I just research the H2H stats of the various games scheduled and look for games where both teams have fewer goals than league average and also hadn't made 4 goals in recent history. The actual chance of either of those teams scoring 4 goals is more like 0% than whatever is being offered on BF. Then I just watch them fail yet again. If I were to back Any Unq, because I thought one of the teams could actually make 4 goals, then I would be in a losing position at that time until something happens,ie; a team makes 4 goals. That would be a bad position to be in. I want to be in a winning position currently and stay that way until something else happens. Just seems to work out better. It's also not hard to identify teams with no real chance of scoring 4 goals in a game. QPR; 0% chance.
-
Re: In-Play arbitrage and short odds That calculation could be wrong. Apparently the average number of goals in the EPL is 2.62 yet the average draw odds are 3.84. Using the back/lay arb calculator gives 2.84 instead of 2.62. In that case I don't know exactly why it works out to the particular amount of loss if no goals come up after laying draw. It's so close that it looks like it would be the average number of goals yet there appears to be a discrepancy. Guess I need to do more work on it. Sorry for the confusion. I'm still in the early stages of investigating soccer odds.
-
Re: In-Play arbitrage and short odds By "Interestingly, once a goal is scored the draw odds will only increase from that point by slightly less than 1 unit if no further goals are scored, no matter when the goal was scored." I meant 1 betting unit, the amount you staked, and I meant that this is the amount of money that would be lost if you backed draw right after that goal and then a draw didn't materialize by the end of the game and therefore the odds went up to 1000.
-
Re: In-Play arbitrage and short odds I don't believe in-play arbitrage will work, unless the odds coming up are substantially off from the true odds and you know which direction they're off. If you're just taking the odds on offer instead of requesting odds then you are also battling an overround on top of commissions. The winnings that you get when the score goes your way and you trade out is only temporary. It will go the opposite way just as often and will eventually work out to even minus the overrrounds and commissions. That kind of "arbitrage" is an illusion. There is no trend to capitalize on, it's just the natural odds playing out. If you started at odds of say 4 laying the draw and then a short time later a goal was cored you appear to make a profit by backing it, but as time is passing those draw odds are steadily decreasing and by the end of the game if no goals were scored they have gone down to the point, odds of 1 (actually 1.01 but I'm using exactly 1 so the math works out exactly), where on a 10 unit stake you will have lost 3 units not counting commission. You only make a few units when a goal is scored. It works out even aside from commissions and overrounds. Interestingly, once a goal is scored the draw odds will only increase from that point by slightly less than 1 unit if no further goals are scored, no matter when the goal was scored. That's how it works. If a goal is then scored by the other team, making a draw, it immediately resumes the same downward decline which it started at the beginning of the game at the same level as it would have been at the same time if no goals had been scored at all and it was still 0-0. The amount that the draw odds decrease if there are no goals is exactly the amount that matches the the total odds increase that occurs when the average number of goals are scored. See how the odds of 4 made up 3 units by the end of the game? That's because in a game with those draw odds the expected number of goals is 3. The draw odds are a little higher than average because that number of goals is a little higher than average. More goals means less chance of a draw. In fact, if you could work out how many goals are likely to be scored in a particular game you could check to see if the draw odds on offer are accurate or not. You just take a back/lay arbitrage calculator and put the draw odds in the back odds box, put 1 in the back stake box, 1 in the lay odds box and hit calculate. The profit that the calculator puts out should be the same as the predicted number of goals. If it's under, the odds are higher than true and vice versa. It will tell you that you should stake 4 on lay to make a profit of 3 in this case. I'm sure there's a way to calculate what the draw odds should be starting with the predicted goals number but I haven't figured it out yet. So far all I can do is check if the odds on offer are accurate or not, in theory at least. Haven't actually figured out how to accurately predict the number of goals yet, other than adding up the average goals for each team when they are home or away, whichever they will be in the upcoming game.
-
Re: Draws for profit...The last chance saloon! I meant draw odds not match odds in the first sentence.
-
Re: Draws for profit...The last chance saloon!
If two teams are about evenly matched wouldn't the predicted match odds be the average of all games and teams? I guess if they were evenly matched because both teams were equally over or under the average team then it would be different from the average draw percentage. For instance if two teams are both bad then there would probably be more 0-0 outcomes than average, due to both teams just getting in each others way more than actually making solid attempts on goal. I've seen a few games like that in crappy foreign leagues, basically spending most of their time bouncing the ball off each other. Then when I watched an American league game it was completely different. There were quite a few goals in those games because both teams were actually making effective moves. The more goals, the less likely a draw, I would think. Incidentally, the overall average for draws in the EPL since 2003 is 26% or odds of 3.84. How you got 1 in 10 I don't know, though that figure is close to the average occurrence of 0-0 scores, which is about 1 in 12.As for the “draw prediction” element of the system, I use a small allowance…The two teams don’t need to have exactly the same rating, but the ratings do need to be pretty similar…As a rough guide about 1% difference in the ratings...This results in me predicting about one in ten matches ending as a draw. -
Re: Why punters lose heavily on Betfair
Nothing to be ashamed of. I just post what's on my mind and if you get anything out of it then good, if you have no idea what the hell I'm talking about then I guess my posts didn't help you. Seemed clear enough to me. The odds increments between 10.5 ans 20 are 0.5. Therefore the increments are about 5% of the odds themselves. Since only crazy people would offer odds that are the true odds or over (for a back bet), they have to offer odds that are at least one increment below the true odds. Therefore if you put your stake into that same odds pool and it gets matched then you will profit if your BF commission is below 5%, which is not uncommon. Mine went down to 2.5% when betting on horses for a few weeks. You wouldn't have to worry about anyone putting in higher odds because they would make no money that way, so all you need to worry about is that your stake gets matched. If you're the last person who put money in then you might not get matched. So what? You didn't lose anything. I realize that this may be obvious to many but some may not have considered it in terms of how the varying odds increments affect your profitability. My point is mainly that if you choose to trade in BF sports then if you concentrated on the low odds selections, the favorites, you would have to be certain that you would get both back and lay bets matched because the odds increments are so small that if you only got the back or only the lay bet matched you could easily lose money. With the higher odds, the increments are such a large percentage of the odds that you can actually be profitable even if only the back or lay gets matched. If they both get matched, all the better, but it's not necessary if you have a BF commission rate substantially below the standard 5%. I know that most traders try to follow the trends of the odds but that's very difficult to do successfully. They could go pretty much any direction unless you know for a fact that they are currently way off what they will eventually go to and in what direction they are off. My proposed method is simply to concentrate on the odds categories that will have a built-in profit margin even when they get to the final odds right before the event starts due to the odds increments restricting people from getting too close to the true odds, as they do in the favorites categories, and thereby making you risk not getting back and lays both matched and having to play the single bet out and losing money because it was off from the true odds by such a small amount that your commission is actually larger than the profit margin. Suppose a favorite had back odds of 1.60 and lay odds of 1.61, which is possible due to the increments at that level being only 0.01. Even though the back odds are below true odds by 0.01, that's only 0.625%. If you could only get the back bet matched and played it out with a BF commission of 2.5% you would lose money. If the true odds are 11 then the closest anyone can offer without losing money is 10.5, because the increments at that level are 0.5. They can't offer odds of 10.99. Even if only your back offer got matched you would end up making money just playing it out. See? Simple right?I really don't have a clue what the hell you are talking about! -
Re: Why punters lose heavily on Betfair I meant between 10.5 and 15, not 1.5. Sadly, haven't made 20 posts yet so I can't edit.
-
Re: Why punters lose heavily on Betfair Come to think of it, nobody on BF is going to offer odds that are true odds so if there's a back button on there with say odds of 11 close to the start of the event you can be pretty sure that the true odds are at least 1 increment over that figure, so it's automatically almost 5% (4.55%) under true odds. With a discounted commission rate of 2.5% you could simply get your stake in there behind everybody else's and if it gets taken then you will profit. Or if you knew what the true odds would be you could put a request in there really early 1 increment under true odds and everybody else would have to get behind you. Nobody is going to go ahead of that and offer true odds. It would have to be a sport other than horseracing though, because it's too hard to figure the true odds on that. Something like soccer is easier to calculate. Just go to soccerstats and you have all the information you need right there. Since you're looking for odds between about 1.5 and 15 you would have to go concentrate on a category that has high odds, like correct score. For instance, you know that 0-0 only happens about 1 in 12 games, so the odds are going to be about 12.
-
Re: Why punters lose heavily on Betfair Actually the odds increments do get higher than 0.5 when you go above 20. I was looking at a shortened list apparently. The full list is here http://help.betfair.com/contents/itemId/i65767327/index.en.html At odds of 55 to 100 the increments are 5, almost 10%. Hard to get odds matched at that level though, I would think.
-
Re: Why punters lose heavily on Betfair My math could be wrong on that. Since it's only the 5% increment between the back and lay odds you may only make 2.5% on whichever bet wins, the back or the lay. In which case you would come out even or a slight loss because .5 isn't exactly 5% of 10.5 but actually only 4.76%. However if there are 2 increments between them it should be profitable if you can get back or lay odds matched at those odds by requesting rather than clicking available odds. Since you can't be sure which is closest to true odds, if you can't get both the back AND lay requests matched and have to let the bets run as is, you would have to hope that you can get roughly equal numbers of back and lay requests matched over time, even though it may be only one at a time. If it's roughly equal numbers of both getting matched then it will even out regardless which was closest to true odds. If you always get more of one than the other matched then it could be a problem.
-
Re: Why punters lose heavily on Betfair
Interesting. Must be because there is a built-in overround in the SP because the odds come from the regular BF odds displayed by other members trying to get matched. Since there is always an overround, when you combine several of those overround odds together to produce a multiple you get a compounded overround in the end. The minimum overround is 1%, because that's the minimum odsd increment which can be found in lowest odds selections. So if you strung 5 of together you would get a 5% overround. Even combining two bets into a multiple would produce a 2% overround.You do know that if you place your bets through the multiples market that you don't pay commission? The downside to this is that you'll only get sp.
Speaking odds increments, you will be better off trying to greenup odds of just over 10 than the low odds of the favorites. That's because the minimum separation between the back and lay odds is the odds increment itself. Odds between 1 and 2 have increments of 0.01, meaning between 0.5% and 1%, the 1% being for the odds closest to 1 and the 0.5% for those closest to 2. The percentages gradually increase until when you get to odds of 10.5 the increments are 0.5. That's almost a full 5% of 10.5. Of course, since that's the maximum increment the percentage goes down as the odds increase from 10.5. However, you would have to go all the way up to odds of 50 before the percentage goes down to the 1% increments of odds near 1 and all the way up to odds of 100 before it got down to the 0.5% increments of odds near 2. So my philosophy is to look for odds of 10.5 up to maybe 15. Might be hard to match both back and lay bets though unless it's a popular event. An interesting thing here is that if you have a discount on your BF commission so that it's 2.5% instead of 5% then you could actually profit by simply backing or laying a selection at odds between 10.5 and 19. Since you probably don't know which one, the back or the lay odds, are closest to the true odds, I guess you would have to find selections that have only 1 increment between them and then staking both. Whatever you lost on one because it was off true odds in the wrong direction you would make up on the other one because it would have to be equally off in the favorable direction.Multiple bets, unlike single bets, are struck directly with Betfair. However, the odds offered are based on the odds available on the singles exchange at the time of bet placement. You cannot ask for your own odds for multiple bets and multiple bets are never unmatched. -
Re: Why punters lose heavily on Betfair Since you can profit by greening up even a slight difference between back and lay odds, all you really have to do is keep putting in requests which are just ahead of those already on offer, even if you have to go to the point where there is only one odds increment between them. They can't go any closer than that so there is always profit to be made as long as there is good liquidity and you are working a selection which is popular, like the favorite, so that you can be pretty sure that both your back and lay requests will get filled. In fact, you could even profit at exchange games that way. How you would get your stake close to the front of the line I don't know though. I guess whoever has the fastest bot gets the front position.
-
Re: Why punters lose heavily on Betfair When I wrote this;
I meant if you can green it up. You still have to have two sets of odds that are separated by some amount. I tried to figure out a way to do it with just the backing odds or just the laying odds but it seems impossible. If you back and lay different amounts of money on the same set of odds it won't work. You'll still pay the extra commissions. There's no way around it, you need two sets of odds for the same selection that are different. That can be usually be accomplished by never taking the odds on offer but always requesting ones that are separated by some amount, even a slight amount if there's enough liquidity to make large bets.If true odds are 20 and BF odds are 20.1 you will profit. You will make 0.1 unit profit minus 5% commission, making 0.095 unit profit. Granted a rather small amount but if you can put a bet of 1000 units you would make 95 units. So it's just a matter of betting scale. So this is the real power of greening up, being able to profit on literally any deviation at all between the back and lay odds, if you can get a big enough bet in to make it practical. -
Re: Why punters lose heavily on Betfair No, in fact I only used it for about a month several months ago and then quit after losing heavily by simply backing or laying horses. I hadn't figured out that you need to green up to avoid massive losses due to commissions. I just recently started using it again, trying to win at soccer. Not doing well yet, down almost half of the $200 I put in there. The odds are pretty tight in soccer. They pretty much have everything calculated out accurately it seems. Quite a shark tank.
Manchester United v Swansea City > Saturday January 11th
in Premier League Predictions
Posted
Re: Manchester United v Swansea City > Saturday January 11th Sure enough, they lost to Sunderland, the worst team in the league. This is now the lowest point in Man U's career. However, you wouldn't think they could keep losing every game for an extended time so in theory they're about due for a win by a lucky penalty shot at least, like Sunderland got in that game. You do have to blame Man U for giving Sunderland a penalty shot right in front of the net though, and their goalie diving the wrong way. Man U do still get quite a few shots on goal though, they just haven't been landing any of them. Unfortunately. I couldn't resist laying Sunderland in that game. I figured the best they could do was tie. That would have been the case if they hadn't got that "can't miss" penalty shot. I only bet minimum amount in BF though so it only cost me a little and I managed to win it back later on another game. Still ticked me off though.