liquidglass

Firstly, I want you to know that I did not set out to have a go at you in anyway. Rather my main aim as has always been the case with people that I have mentored over ther years, is to first bring them to realise what this game is about and secondly to make them come to realise what it is that they are supposed to be doing in terms of understanding the working structure of the game. Let me throw this out there by saying that gambling against the bookies is the greatest manipulation of the mind ever known to man and it is totally impossible to come to grips with the modus operandi unless someone opens the door from the inside to let you into the mystery that lies underneath. Let me make it clear by saying that I am not selling or trying to sell anything to you. Rather I always speak most times from the power of the knowledge that i possess stemming from the love that i have for the game. I have been tremendiously blessed to know all that I know about this indulgence. Everyone that has benefitted from me over the years have just run into me by accident from discussions on forums Your answer to me makes me understand that your fundamentals like many other people is completely wrong as I already knew is the case. This game is based on a translation or the expression of the metaphysical into reality. Two factors control the game, namely market moves and market forces. Market Moves (odds movement) gives birth to Market Force within a cycle that commences from when the odds are first released to the beginning of play. Within the scope of market force is a whole lot of encrypted information that needs to be translated or unscrambled by applied knowledge. Murray carrying a slight injury, or Edmunds being unrecognizable from yesterday were all factored into the odds before play. It is just that you could not see or sense what you have never understood. The same goes for a team that receives a red card or even misses a penalty in the 93rd minute. Everything about the game is deliberate. There is no such thing as luck or an out-of-place occurence. Crazy eh! The idea then will be to unlearn everything that you have ever known with a view to relearning by training your mind to understand most of the underlying workings of the game. In summary I would say that everything that happens in a game is a replay of everything that has already happened in the metaphysical realm. The default reasoning now is that the winner of any given match always manifests even before the first ball is struck. YOUR ABILITY TO FIND THAT WINNER IS HEAVILY RELIANT ON THE RESOURCES AT YOUR DISPOSAL of which "stats" is only a minor contributory factor. Everytime you set out to pick your games or select your winners, you do so by responding to the predominant voices echoing in your head. These voices have a known source. Their key function is to oppose, confuse and bring you deliberately to the loser - This is the key battlepoint of this indulgence. How do you now train your mind to know which voice is authentic and which is not? It takes years of practice and adhering to norms and protocols within the workings of the game to acquire this knowledge. It also takes stubborn will and mind power to be able to navigate within the minefields of this mysterious setup. "Knowing" does not guarantee that you will win everyday, however it will guarantee that you will be able to spot deadspots more frequently from a mile off. It will also guarantee the inner strength to ward of any outside influence aimed at corrupting your thought process and leading you easily and deliberately to losers. Therein lies the power to suceed tremdiously. Crazy but interesting eh! Now, here is a very important fact that I want you to take away. Most people who are involved in this game are all wired in the same way when it comes to being receptive. These contrary voices or counter productive information that enters the punter's or listener's head can be very contagious and damaging to anyone who even sees or hears it accident. Why? Because however serious or unserious you are about what you put out, your words will always come out coated in power and authority and there is no way to limit the vast damage that you could be causing instinctive followers who dare to listen to you. Personally I would feel very inadequate if i had to produce two comprehensive wrongs in a row. Finally, I always say this; that there is no connection with what happened in the match with the resulting outcome if we can prove that outcome preceeds play itself. Why then go through the wasteful and pointless effort of a post match explanation that only serves to preserve pride and promote further catastrophe?

With all due respect I really think that you need to take a break to reset considering how badly you started out on Monday and then continuing into today on the same inflated confidence on picks that were totally lifeless. I believe your fundamentals are wrong - referring to how you begin and go through your thought cycle to arrive at conclusions. That is what you will need to reset to become a better tipster. There is only so much I cay say on a public platform. So i will leave it there for you to ponder over.

Common now, I think we should all know enough about this sport to agree that ranking does not necessirily determine outcome. In fact, it does not determine outcome which is why the bookies remain firmly in business. There are a good number of lowly ranked players who are more talented than a number of highly ranked players but just lack consistency. Also some are just lowly ranked because they kind of play the game part-time like Kyrgios who only shows up late in the season. In my opinion ranking only becomes distinctive in the top 10 and around the fringe. Anything outside that bracket referring to 20-100+ might just come down to player match-ups and who is better on the day. Every player is ranked provisionally in the tipsters head and that is why you would not expect an experienced tipster to allow the ranking number influence his judgement. I was quite shocked you made the statement above pertaining to how on earth a player ranked 45 could lose so badly to another ranked 170. Additionally we also know that not all matches end up as competitive as we expect them to. Some players just come disinterested and go ahead to tank. A few of them might cheat in betting influenced games while some might just be moody on the day and not feel like even being there. There are endless reasons which can easily explain why a lower ranked player can beat a higher ranked player in various scenarios.

This is certainly a case of semantics. The default mode of reasoning should be that trends always precede outcome or rather that trends give birth to outcome. Of course, there will always be a number of trends presumably working at one time to seemingly validate the outcome which could end up being wrong. However there is always an authentic trend or trends running that must validate the outcome. Some trends have a weekly life span, some have monthly or yearly life span and in some cases would have predated the match in question for even more than a year. This clearly supports the notion that "Outcome" is always constant since it has to conform to the trend. Everything that happens in real time is of no consequence to the outcome which is fixed. It is the reason why my mindset unlike many in this game, is always set on finding the outcome that I already know exists out there. I employ my inner man along with a few other diagnostic tools to reach safe conclusions in most cases. Training your inner man to instinctively know can be a job of so many years of continuous learning. I have brought a whole lot of people to unlearn.....and then relearn under my stewardship opening them to a whole lot of control within their persons.

Rybakina vs Jabeur I think both have played confidently well throught this tournament and should come together to provide us the final that we expect. This certainly seems the right surface for Rybakina who has the sort of robust game to put anyone to the sword. I think her whole game found completeness in the last roundwhere she finally employed the ingredient that was always missing - Balls! This is what has stopped Karolina Pliskova from reaching the top - with a laid back game and indifferent attitude during the match. Whether Rybakina has fully overcome that aspect can still be open to question as this is a Wimbledon final. When on song I also feel that there is too much power and control behind the Rybakina shots to afford Jabeur any chance of slicing and dicing for profit. However trust Jabeur to capitalize to good effect if Rybakina slumps in error mode. In summary, considering that ranking points were cut out of Wimbledon and Russian and Belarusian players disqualified for no justifiable reason, I see that decision coming back to sting the organizers in the face with Rybakina skating to victory. For a person that was born and resides in Moscow, I see her putting a fly in the ointment. My verdict However will be Rybakina to win a set @ 4/9 Bet365. That should account for any mood swings within the match. Good luck all!!!

Everything about gambling in terms of what will happen during a match is delibrate and has all been comprehensively factored into the odds before the match. We see this when "market moves" transitions into "market forces". Every visual occurence in real time happens the way it does because it can not possibly have happened any other way. In other words everything happens deliberately to line up with an outcome that most certainly precedes the match before the first ball is struck. So I deem it complete rubbish for anyone to suggest that what a player did or did not do affected the outcome. The outcome is an invariable and is independent of whatever is tagged to it. I know that sounds confusingly deep. However it is a fact. It is the main reason why i do not entertain post-game explanations. This indulgence is brutal making no room for second best. You either get it right or wrong. It is that simple. Bookies do not entertain explanations and certainly do not pay out on nearly. I can defend this school of thought all day which is evidence based.

From my experience, it just does not seem the right way to go because that is where they want you to go. The bookies have carefully carved out this cul-de-sac which only offers one choice that will be followed thoughtlessy by many. I am not saying that it cannot happen, it is just that knowing that the bookies never really pay everybody, it will just be more disciplined to avoid the game totally or go over in total games with no particular winner picked. If you are brave enough on medium stakes Norrie to steal a set by gifted or hoodini means would seem reasonable.

@ Torque, Firstly I do not understand how this points system works which makes me want to ask how much a point is worth in terms of real money. I constantly see you re-backing pre-tournament favorites or strengthening your position as you would prefer to term it and wonder if you are really staking real money or just playing a private game of confidence boosting. Secondly with due respect, I just see you to be constantly chasing on a daily basis with no solid belief behind the picks you put out. You just seem to be running a daily feel good blog within this forum where you just put out these recreational picks and then go into the ritual of providing a contigency explanation of why the picks did or did not do well. Left to me, I do not see the importance of the after-game postmortems as every game is different and should not be used to judge the next, unless of course it just aids you in the release of negative energy which consequently can have a domino effect on other readers. In fact, I think the most important requirement for successful tipping is to ensure that a person reboots their memory after viewing a previous match or previous matches to be able to achieve an unbiased analysis of the current matches in focus . When that is adhered to, you come to realise that every player performance no matter how seemingly convincing has limitations, and can only be used for the judgement of future matches to a certain extent. Finally, I really cannot understand how you would constantly strengthen your position on two favorites that are in no way outstanding either in relation to the surface or the way this tournament has been unfolding and other hard to ignore circumstantial matters. Or is it because that is the only plausible reachable conclusion devoid of hard thinking? I am almost certain that Swiatek will not win this tournament while Djokovic while with major competition running alongside him coupled with the excess mental baggage remains very very iffy.

Keys vs Krejcikova Keys and Krejcikova were both fortunate to walk through injured opponents in the last round. As they say, a win is a win and it matters not how that win was achieved. Since there is no obvious head to head to follow, I have been trying to retrace looking back for clues that might lead me in the right direction. My thinking here is that whoever has the consistent weight of shot-making playing first strike tennis wins. I have a good feeling that this will end in straight sets once I can find the right horse to be on. I believe that Madison's problem over the years has been shot selection and consistency with her accuracy. I think she has gotten this far for a reason and will go on to prove it. She should have the heavier and more penetrating shots which should carry her through in the end. Verdict: Madison keys to win

Firstly, I need to remind you that we live in an evolving world where some things that were not accepted many years ago are accepted today. Perhaps the grey area here lies with trying to find an appropriate definition for the word "acceptable" which I feel certain that you have misunderstood. I believe the word "acceptable" is used in today's society interchangeably depending on the point you are trying to make. In the example being discussed smashing your racket can earn you a penalty by law but the act itself is not deemed as offensive as you try to make it sound. Nobody makes the news headlines for smashing their rackets and in most cases the incident is quickly forgotten by everyone. Many years ago boobs hanging out was offensive and degrading to women, now it is mostly out there with pride hanging freely for appreciation. Even so there are people who will still term it as offensive. So we clearly see that the word acceptable is relative. My reason for responding to the original post was that I felt that the point of Zverev smashing his racket was not worthy of being mentioned as it was a normal everyday occurence. I do not know where you have got the idea that I love to say things that I do not want anyone to challenge. Wrong! I am always up for a good debate so long as the challenger can defend whatever they are putting forward. I think your attempt to correct the notion of a player taking off their shirt as different from a person smashing their racket constituted a faux pas reverting to your original comment. You said......(your words) that it was obvious that smashing of the racket was unacceptable which was why it earned the player a caution from the referee, yet in a sudden turnaround you say that the player taking off their jersey is different because it is done in celebration, forgetting that it is still an offence punishable by law. So what is your point? What really is the acid test for determining acceptability? And if you ever come to reason and see it for what it actually is, you would realise that "acceptable" is a word coated in ambiguity and only as relevant as subject being discussed.

Again I beg to differ. I do not know what you classify as acceptable in your opinion. the fact that players get penalised in no way amplifies your point. That is why a person like McEnroe was popular even for his offensive rantings on court. The tennis world came to love him for that and would even get a buzz from it. It is not like you are talking about something entirely despicable here. In football, a player will score a goal and intentionally take of his jersey to purposely collect a yellow card. It is the norm You need to be sure you are quite capable of defining the word "acceptable" in relation to the topic being discussed before jumping in.

I think you are overreacting with the Zverev racket smashing episode. Racket smashing is a very acceptable part of the game depicting a release of bad energy which fans love. It is just another game assessory like groaning, a loud short scream at the end of a brutally fought out point or even smashing a ball out of the stadium in annoyance. Players react differently. Then again, we have never even seen Nadal express any outward emotion of any sort. He just gets on with the game in his own way.

Halep vs Cornet One of the matches tonight that has caught my interest. I really think the price on Halep to win is ridiculously high. I must admit that Halep wins matches that she is supposed to win and as much as I admire her current 8match run streak, I was not entirely impressed by the opposition. Cornet on the other hand has started the year well with a number of impressive victories. The match against Osaka at Melbourne, and Muguruza and Zidansek in the second and third round respectively is my gauge to know what to expect from her in the next hour or so. Importantly enough her head to head with Halep stands at 3-1 with a game superiority evident in the sets played. I am expecting Cornet to be her usual defiant grinding self and give Halep a good run for her money. I will suggest for parlays Cornet +7.5 @4/11 (Alternative handicaps Paddy Power) Verdict: Over 17.5 games @ Paddy Power 4/7

@UK Tennis girl. all this banter comes down to opinion. There is nothing official in place stopping me from expressing my opinion in calling that match a pick em. my opinion is my property. Pick em simply means that in my opinion anyone could win the match and the odds did not do justice in trying to reflect the possible outcome. This here is really a case of english language and translation. Once again Zverev is the favorite but from the stats i presented, this is a pick em for all its worth.

Would you not say that my tone was warranted? Perhaps you need to read over what you initially sent me again. To suggest that english might not be my first language on the back of what you deemed as a misuse of words or rather a handicapped translation of what I was trying to get accross, was a bit naughty, overtly rude and insultive. I deliberately chose to respond in a civil way that was designed to echo how I actually felt about the comment you made. Simple.