Is it just me, or does Bet Online suck? You have to pay to get money in (unless you use crypto) and you have to pay to get money out (unless you use obscure crypto). And they are the slowest to pay winnings from what I have seen. It took them over a month to pay out some of my political bets...
What if someone would have told you that Tottenham Spurs would AVOID RELEGATION by the "skin of their teeth"??
Would You Listen?!?!
IF YOU DIDN'T..... NEXT TIME YOU WILL BECAUSE ALL THE BARNES BROTHERS DO IS WIN BABY WIN!!!!
ANY PICKS MADE IN THIS SHOW ARE NOT SPORTSPICKS "OFFICIAL PICKS"
START TIME - 7:15 AM EST
Football Picks - My Review (Part Two of Two)
This is the second part of the post I began below:
The biggest change in the official picks from last season to this season was a reversion to moneyline betting from spread betting. Moneyline betting was the main format for the first three seasons in Sportspicks before it became common in the second half of 2023/24 and then the dominant mode in 2024/25. My observations from last season had been that spread betting creates a blind spot whereby it is impossible to directly benefit from an edge on the draw in circumstances where both teams are separately overvalued, particularly when said teams are evenly matched and the median spread is a draw no bet. This aligns with football not having key numbers per se, since every moneyline is a key line. When I have thought about it more, this does not necessarily invalidate ...
First, four factors dictate whether there is major turnover in the Senate in a midterm election independent of the favorability of the Senate map (due to only one-third of seats being up in any given midterm). Often, as was the case in both 2018 and 2022, is that incumbents are not destined to lose seats, outside of realigning elections in unfavorable maps. This cycle's map favors the GOP, which is why the prediction markets and most forecasters expect a GOP majority in the 2027 Senate. The four factors that prove dangerous to the incumbent party are: first, a recession or cost of living crisis; second, a war; third, a major scandal; and fourth, a sense of betrayal in the voter group that backed the incumbent amongst some portion of their prior electoral coalition. Five midterms feature some combingation of those factors in some significant degree: 1930, 1946, 1958, 1974 and 2006.
Without those factors present in multiple forms, the incumbent party can expect to hold on to seats in states it previously won outside the national margin. When those factors are present, the landscape shifts dramatically. Examining those White House incumbent seats that showed a state-wide election decided by single digits in the prior decade produces the following probabilities: the incumbent White House party lost at least 67% of its incumbent held seats, as much as 85% of its incumbent held seats, and an average of 75% of its incumbent hold seats, rarely upsetting the opposition party in any seat and often losing a surprise or two in seats considered completely safe.