Nice! It’s a pity that such a bold prediction gives only 1 point of advantage against those who bet on the favorite. Although I remember that the odds were close, most people saw Newcals as the winner no matter what.
For me, this is an unsuccessful round, so I won’t even look at the details, but I think that those who predicted Tottenham’s defeat are even fewer, although the result is classic (2-1) and it will be a full three points.
It's a frequent complaint of mine on Superbru. That the reward is so puny compared to the risk that it is very seldom wise to go against the grain. Over the seasons, I have slowly adjusted, no longer making bold predictions. I remember predicting 4-0 Liverpool beating United. We ended up winning 5-0. 1.5 points for that? Ridiculous.
My experiment in the UCL pool is an attempt to bring a bit more encouragement to back the unlikely result.
Anyway, early kickoff not good. Am out all day, will miss Liverpool...
Yes, this is a wonderful experiment, but now the situation has become sharply opposite: a crowd of lagging behind easily makes all-in bets to catch up with the leaders (who seem to be playing reliably), but since there are many lagging behind (and their total chances are high), this provokes the leaders too take more risks. In general, we'll see how it all ends, but I can assume that the volatility here will be too great to talk about a serious competition.
We need to come up with something in between. For example, so that the one who goes against the opinion of 90% of the participants receives more points (we need to come up with some kind of proportion for different ratios). It's too unfair when 15 people get 3 points for an accurate score of 2-1, and someone gets 3 points for a score of 4-0.
I understand that this is all difficult to implement (especially manual counting - this should be avoided), I’m just speculating.
