Posted:
#26
0
WTA Mid
Posted:
#36
@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.
1
Posted:
#43
@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.
0
Posted:
#49
@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.
0
You actually understood his post? 
Hot Forum Topics
