European Football Review - 23rd-26th October 2026
Plenty of games to review so let's get straight down to it.
Ipswich Town 1-1 Nottingham Forest
This is a game that can be a little bit more difficult to project because Gary O'Neil doesn't appear to have a settled playstyle at Ipswich Town. Nottingham Forest under Oliver Glasner have a similar style to Glasner at Crystal Palace, which is a defensively compact transition orientated side. On this occasion, Ipswich started out playing more proactively but Forest's transition's threatened, which led to them taking the lead. Ipswich equalised from an unforced error from Forest. Second half Ipswich played more directly but this also suited Forest, who had the better of the chances. From a chance creation perspective Forest had the edge in this matchup even if they did not secure the win.
Aston Villa 1-2 Manchester City
Aston Villa after a rough start to their season have found their feet and they followed this up with a home win over Manchester City. Aston Villa under Unai Emery have a flexible opponent responsive style in which they are willing to press high selectively while packing the midfield when the ball approaches there and playing through a high press when it comes. In this game Aston Villa opened the scoring by taking advantage of a City mistake in defence. After that City dominated chance and equalised in the second half. Aston Villa scored another goal and held on for the win. From a chance creation perspective City had a very clear chance creation edge and yet I still find it difficult to say City were value. Villa were ahead for most of the game so they spent a lot of time defending. City were favoured by almost a goal pre game, which is a very big margin away to another Champions League team. On balance I would be willing to say Villa still had some value in this spot.
Arsenal 2-0 Everton
A routine win for Arsenal, whose physical, positional style based around accumulation of incremental margins was able to successfully suppress the threat presented by Everton's direct, combative style. Arsenal were able to match Everton's transitions and set piece threat and grind out a comfortable 2-0 win. Arsenal were favoured by over a goal anyway so finding value there needed a clear margin. You can argue that margin was there but I think there was cleaner value taking no on both teams to score, which was priced in the early 50s. Since Everton generated very little from a chance creation perspective, both teams to score gave a good payout for the chances created.
Napoli 3-3 Roma
This was a high scoring game in which Napoli once again showed their ability to create chances against a high pressing team to take a two goal lead yet not so much to manage the game and see it out. As against Inter Milan, Napoli's structure was able to hold up against possession and their attacking players were able to cause trouble when they found space but the real story was in the second half when their opponents played more aggressively, Napoli weren't able to maintain control over the pace of the game. Napoli took the lead again not long before the end but conceded the equaliser shortly before injury time. From a chance creation perspective Napoli did have a chance creation edge and despite being at home this game was priced as a pick'em so you can say Napoli had some value here, though I would say there was value on the over and moreso both teams to score because there has been a mechanism for expansion of scoring volatility when one team takes the lead.
Manchester United 0-3 Bournemouth
I have no idea how United were favoured at home to Bounnemouth with all that is going wrong at the club. Their underlying metrics only look superficially sustainable, being heavily inflated by a chaotic 5-2 win over Ipswich. Outside of that, United have looked much less balanced after Carlos Casemiro's departure to Inter Miami. Their structure has changed since last season, with Bruno Fernandes and Matheus Cunha not playing in their strongest positions and their midfield is neither playing a coherent press, consistent positional rotations nor carefully timed transitional breaks. In other words, they are getting the worst of all worlds and Michael Carrick has been a dead man walking since the international break. This turned out to be another game where United didn't pressure their opponents and so Bournemouth had free reign to play like the home team, not the away team and all three of their goals came from very preventable errors. Bruno Fernandes was benched for this game after his comments after Como so United were in a bad position from the very start. Chance creation supported clear value on Bournemouth in this game.
Barcelona 1-2 Real Madrid
This match had a very unusual line, with Barcelona favoured by a goal against Real Madrid, the draw price all the way down in the teens and Real Madrid clear underdogs in El Clásico. The expectation was that Real Madrid would not have consistent answers for Barcelona's relentless attacks yet it was Real Madrid who not only achieved the win but they did so with better chance creation. José Mourinho's return to El Clásico saw him shake up Real Madrid's starting lineup, with Ernesto Valverde starting at right back while Yan Diomandé started up front in place of Vinícius Júnior, who is suspended for four game. This removed a problem that Real Madrid have had since the arrival of Kylian Mbappé, since both of these players have not fit well into the same team. With Bernardo Silva in midfield alongside Aurélien Tchouaméni, Madrid's structure was well equipped to stay tight and look for balls behind Barcelona's high press. Mbappé scored both goals and the winner came from a lightning fast break in which Arda Güler played in Eduardo Camavinga behind Barcelona's defence to provide the finish for Mbappé. I would see Real Madrid as having had value in this match.
https://ultimouomo.com/real-madrid-barcellona-come-jose-mourinho-ha-vinto-clasico
Freiburg 1-3 Bayern Munich
This was a matchup in which Freiburg applied pressure to Bayern Munich's build up but Bayern Munich were able to play through it, which was where they created a fair bit of danger. Freiburg were able to pull a goal back late on and then pressed for an equaliser but Bayern Munich scored a third at the end of injury time to cover the -1.5 spread. Going by chance creation Bayern Munich created enough to imply the -1.5 was value but I would say the late goal distorted this, though this is far from an unusual goal for Bayern Munich to score at the death. From a tactical point of view, Freiburg were able to pressure them but Bayern Munich did have the means to turn it against them. It is difficult to project if there was any value in this game but there might have been a tiny bit of value taking no on both teams to score as that was priced very high to begin with.
PSG 2-0 Lyon
A clash at the top of Ligue 1, it was a competitive first half with both sides getting into dangerous positions but PSG found an edge in the second half, taking the lead later in the second half and adding a second on the break some time after. Chance creation was unusually low for games involving PSG recently and that may have been PSG defending transitions more effectively. There wasn't quite enough in chance creation to justify a substantial edge for either side so I think there was some edge on Lyon +1.5 and no on both teams to score.
In this edition of "Master Class", we're gonna look at Prediction Markets vs Sportsbooks, and why the Prediction Markets are the Future of Sports Betting!! Come join us, as we try to provide you with all the tools to STACK YOUR NICKELS TO THE CEILING!! Feel Free to drop any questions you have in the comments!! Hope This Helps My Friends!! Good Luck, Good Gamblin, & Have The Day You Deserve!!
-Crickett
Two conflicting trends dictate the Senate outcome in 2026. The map heavily favors Republicans, as the competitive Senate seats up lean heavily Republican. By contrast, the election context heavily favors Democrats, with war, recession, realignment and scandal tipping in their direction. A deeper dive reveals why prediction markets still likely undersell Democratic prospects.
First, the idea that Senate midterms favor the party out of power in the White House is belied by both recent and a century of history of Senate elections. Unlike the House, only a third of Senate seats face election in any midterm, and that map dictates outcomes unless the election context is particularly bad for the incumbent party.
Consider that the highly unpopular Biden didn’t lost any net Senate seats in 2022 and Trump added Senate seats in the Democratic friendly cycle in 2018. Equally, Clinton didn’t lose net Senate seats in 1998 nor did W. in 2002. Even low-approval election cycles like 1966 and 1982 didn’t produce a big swing in the Senate. Indeed, since 1934, the party in power only lost 10% or more of their Senate seats (4+) less than half of the time. Democrats need a flip of exactly that — at least 4 Senate seats — to retake power in the Senate.
Then take a look at the map, and you can see the reason for optimism in GOP circles and some traders in the prediction markets. Only 2 GOP-held seats are in states Trump won by less than double digits, while 2 Democratic-held seats are in states Trump won, and one of those GOP held seats features a long-time incumbent who typically runs double-digits ahead of the GOP norm (Collins in Maine). This is why the GOP entered the year believing odds of losing the Senate were remote, and the prediction markets mostly concurred.
But this ignores the counter-trend: the degree of election dismay with the incumbent party in the White House, and the reasons for that dismay. Presidential job approval has not been a neat proxy for Senate midterms because it depends on the reason for that dissatisfaction in the electorate. Four factors drive Senatorial midterms: war, recession/cost of living, realignment, and scandal. When two of those four factors are not present and don’t dominate, then the incumbent party’s odds of losing 4+ Senate seats drops to less than 20%. By contrast, when two of those four factors are present and do predominate, then the odds of the incumbent party losing 4+ Senate seats rises to 100%. Indeed, the median number of Senate seats lost when some combination of war, recession, realignment and scandal, are present, the White House party loses at least 8 Senate seats.
A few examples: while FDR added Senate seats in 1934 midterms, he lost 9 in 1938 midterms due to the combination of recession and scandal (trying to stack SCOTUS). 1942 and 1946 gave us war and recession to cost Democrats 8 and 12 Senate seats alike. 1950 gave us war again and scandals concerning the war costing Democrats 5 Senate seats. 1958 gave us recession and scandal, costing Ike 15 Senate seats. While JFK added Senate seats in 1962 and Nixon added Senate seats in 1970, only Watergate and stagflation in 1974 or the combination of Iran Contra and vulnerable class of 1980 incumbents cost the incumbent party 4 or more Senate seats until the realignment election of 1994, where evangelicals shifted their down-ballot voting to the GOP en masse. It took war and scandal in 2006 to see the Senate switch 4+ Senate seats again.
That’s the story of 2026: a very GOP favorable Senate map versus a very Democratic friendly election cycle. The GOP enters election season with all four factor present: war, recession/cost of living, realignment, and scandal. The Iran War was already deeply unpopular, and it’s impact on the economy in gas and diesel prices turns Americans sour on their current economic prospects, as wages fall behind, housing and health care feel increasingly unaffordable, labor force participation continues to drop, the the mirage of AI keeps the GDP just above a technical recession. The Epstein scandal remains one of the worst scandals in American political history, and Trump managed to associate himself deeply with the scandal in his handling of it. Then the realignment, as the new Trump 2024 voters joined the Obama-Trump converts of 2016 in abandoning GOP identity, already evident in surveys and primary participation.
A quintet of voter groups appear to be realigning away from the Republican brand — hispanic voters, black voters, industrial area voters, libertarian-leaning voters, and war-skeptical voters alike. This realigning electorate shows up disproportionately in key Senate contests. The war-skeptical voters in states like Maine, New Hampshire, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Montana, Nebraska, and Alaska (these are the states W failed to gain in between 2000 and 2004 due to the Iraq War before it even turned unpopular). The hispanic voters in states like Florida and Texas. The African-American voters in states like North Carolina and Georgia. The industrial voters in Ohio and Michigan. The libertarian leaving voters in states like New Hampshire, Alaska, Texas and Florida.
Thus, many of the states that seem “Safe” on the map are anything but, as their realigning electorates shift back against the Republican brand, with all of them having recent histories in electoral cycles of favoring Democrats or being true swing states. Take states like Florida and Texas where suburban margins began to erode for the GOP in the Trump era but countered that by massive margin shifts in hispanic and black precincts. Primary participation, voter identification, and public opinion surveys show those black and hispanic voters shifting back massively away from the GOP brand, which, given the erosion in some suburban areas and losses with younger generations, makes states Florida and Texas closer to competitive than double-digit leans.
In big swing election cycles, even “safe” Senate seats can suddenly turn razor close, as Bob Dole found out in 1974, barely holding on to his Kansas seat before being the VP nominee two years later. Strong independent candidates in Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota and Montana may pose a unique threat to GOP held seats, as the Nebraska race in 2024 showed, with Osborn running 17 points ahead of Harris’ margin in the state. Democrats field the much better candidate in Ohio with a proven track record of out-performing Democratic margins in the state, while the Texas GOP nominee faces abandonment from his own party after they spent over $100M bashing him in the state for a disliked party incumbent. Alaska primary results suggest the Democratic nominee already holds the edge in that ranked choice voting state, while the famed cross-over support for Collins in Maine appears to be fading with newer generations taking over the voter rolls. My current map would be as follows, with surprising closer-than-expected races in Montana, Kansas, Louisiana, Florida, Mississippi, South Dakota, South Carolina and Kentucky, and a median map of Democrats holding 53+ Senate seats after the 2026 elections.

If past is prologue, the map won’t save the GOP in 2026, and an ever bigger tsunami may be incoming than anyone in Washington expects.