Still say you should have won that game. You battered them for most of it and created enough chances to win two games. Nice one on the win.
Just seen Man City threw that lead away None of the top teams have won today, but I think that will change tomorrow, I couldn't call the top 4 at the moment, apart from Chelsea and Arsenal will be in there. I also think Man City won't be. So Liverpool, Spurs and Man Utd, going for two places. I wouldn't like to call that one.
It's a hard one to call, we are fighting on 4 fronts. We might not need top 4 for CL qual we are fav's for the Europa League with very little top teams to worry us left. I say Chelsea will be in the top four, in first place. The rest is a lottery. Same down the bottom, didn't see that Swansea result coming today, they were toothless last week.
Here's todays goal crazy acca loser. Not normally a fan of GC mid-season, but as it's mid week and there's new players here there and everywhere, I think I'll have a stab. Please don't commit yourselves to my system, it's not as good as the tried and tested ones that have been so popular on here for so long.
If you did that with all of the teams to not score, would it still have more chance of winning than Rackem's ever did ? Obviously I trusted his 'tried & tested' recommendations more than I would yours, 'cos you're just making it up as you go along and he had a proper system, but I just wondered
All of the teams to not score, you'd get huge odds on that, unless you mean at least one of the two teams in each fixture not to score? That'd work out slightly better odds, I think on a 6 fold for both teams not to score you'd get 50/1. The problem with that bet is once you have a 1-1 in any game, your acca is gone. With a BTTS acca, you're essentially in with a shot until one of them ends without both teams scoring. Infinitely better chance of winning than with Rackem's system either way.
I just stick to a treble now, three teams to win with both teams to score. I generally get around 80/1, on average, but some weeks its much higher and some much lower.
You get about 6/1 for a 0-0. So I'd say you would get about 125,000/1 Or have I read that wrong Edit: i have read it right, but you meant something else
No as in every game finishing where both teams have not scored. Selections from only the right hand column.
This is now too complicated . . . . I miss Rackem If we'd only listened to him when we had the chance, we could, maybe, have all retired by now
I know yous don't usually bother with the horses, but there's a horse running at Newcastle in the 3.05 called Ryan The Giant, I backed him last time out and it finished 2nd in a much stronger race than what he's running in today, so I fancy him to go one better here. Currently 3/1 second favourite.
This is what I like to call, 'The Rackem', you know it has no chance of coming in, really but **** it anyway.