*World Cup Groups E & F Round Two - My Picks
1% Sweden not to lose vs the Dutch at 43c (good to 52c)
1% Ivory Coast not to lose vs Germany at 34c (good to 38c)
1% Tunisia +1.5 vs Japan at 63c (good to 68c)
The second round of group stage games continues.
The Dutch vs Sweden - This is a clash of two teams with very different managerial styles. On one hand you have the Dutch under Ronald Koeman, who play a generally possession orientated game with technical players who are able to interchange positions to an extent. They are fluid and comfortable in possession but can struggle to find incision against teams who defend deep with tighter spacing between lines. There is a long term continuity in how the Dutch play going back multiple generations, with the total football of the Dutch team of the 1970s under Johann Cruyff. The exact style of each era's team varies somewhat but the general theme tends to be the same. Koeman is a manager who largely hasn't rocked the boat and is playing in a broadly Dutch style.
Sweden on the other hand are managed by Graham Potter, an English manager who made his name in the lower leagues of Swedish football with Östersund. He had rather unconventional methods, having his players take place in extra curricular activities such as acting to get out of their comfort zones and reduce their fear of failure. He then did well with Brighton, making enough of a name to be offered the Chelsea job after Thomas Tuchel was sacked, only to flop miserably. He also had a brief time as West Ham manager before he was sacked there too. He took a very unfancied Sweden team that was only in the World Cup playoffs due to their Nations League standings and he got them through it while getting Sweden's talent to look somewhat coherent again.
One of the most notable differences between Koeman and Potter is their responsiveness to events on the field. Graham Potter frequently changes formations during the match to counter whatever the opponent is doing. He often sees the game as a puzzle to be solved. Koeman on the other hand tends to keep playing with whatever system is there and against Japan, the Dutch played more passively while defending a lead, which caused them to let Japan back into the game. I would give an edge to Sweden to react to the state of play on the pitch, especially with the Dutch offence not always being so incisive. Sweden are hardly lacking talent themselves, with Viktor Gyökeres and Alexander Isak leading their front line. So I think this matchup is closer than the betting markets imply right now.
Germany vs Ivory Coast - Germany started their campaign with a 7-1 win over Curaçao but the scoreline does conceal what was going on during the game. German teams tend to be very good at taking an advantage over opponents when there's a clear talent gap and leveraging it over and over again but even while they were racking up the goals, they left a lot of holes in midfield. A persistent problem for Germany since they won the World Cup in 2014 is they have been able to dominate possession but they haven't been able to defend quite so readily against counterattacks. Ivory Coast meanwhile is a team that has gone under the radar but has a very strong squad. This is once again a game I have as being closer than the betting markets would suggest and Ivory Coast have been very good at launching counterattacks.
Tunisia vs Japan The markets have reacted very aggressively to Tunisia's 5-1 defeat to Sweden but I don't think Tunisia are really that bad. Their manager was sacked after that performance in which he had tampered with the playstyle that had generally been effective under the previous manager and now they have got Herve Renard in as manager, someone who has managed them before and who I think will get them back to a more pragmatic style. So they might not necessarily avoid defeat against Japan but I think they can at least keep it close.
MLB F5 SYSTEM
June 20, 2026
1. S-Tier Plays (Diff ≥ 2.50)
• PIT F5 (Skenes over Sugano) [LATE GAME] — Diff 5.2 | 70%+
2. A-Tier Plays (Diff 1.75–2.49)
• None on the late slate
3. Underdog Pitching Edges
• None on the late slate — Sugano and Ureña face clear disadvantages with no offsetting model edge.
4. Strongest Edge On Slate
Strongest Play — PIT F5 (Skenes) [LATE GAME]: Generational ace with elite ERA/FIP/K-BB/WHIP profile even on the road at Coors; massive Diff and highest-confidence edge of the night.
MLB F5 SYSTEM 4 PM
Saturday, June 20, 2026
MIA F5 (Max Meyer)
1. S-Tier Plays (Diff ≥ 2.50)
• MIA F5 (Max Meyer over Trevor McDonald) — Diff 3.1 | 70%+
2. A-Tier Plays (Diff 1.75–2.49)
• None on the 4 PM slate.
3. Underdog Pitching Edges
• MIL — Kyle Harrison’s breakout form (8-1, 2.47 ERA, elite K-rate) gives Milwaukee a live underdog arm against a strong Chris Sale. Modest but real counter-edge in a low-Diff game.
• SD — Walker Buehler’s road workload is playable in a near-even projection vs. MacKenzie Gore.
4. Strongest Edge On Slate
Strongest Play — MIA F5 (Max Meyer). Dominant season-long results (7-0), excellent ERA/WHIP/K numbers across 15 GS, and a massive Diff vs. a limited-sample, struggling Giants starter. Highest confidence and clearest separation on the slate.
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.