Results for Mon 3 August 2026

4 picks. One won, one half won, two lost. A losing day, and it comes in the middle of a run that has not been enjoyable — so rather than skip past it, I want to go through what actually happened.

Nasaf did the job. 2-1 away at AGMK, carrying a quarter-goal start it never needed, at 2.03 — comfortably the best price on the card and the only one above 2.00. That is the shape of bet this system is built around: a side the market has slightly underrated, taken at a price the market has not caught up to.

Neftchi drew 0-0 and half won. A +0.25 handicap is two half-stake bets: half at level, half at +0.5. The draw voids the level half and wins the other. At 1.21 that returns a small profit rather than a full one, which is exactly how the line is supposed to behave. No complaints there.

San Lorenzo is the one worth looking at properly. They were carrying +1.25 — they could lose by one and still get half the stake back. The bet was alive deep into the match at 1-0 and then conceded twice in the closing minutes. On a scoreline basis it reads 3-0 and looks like a bad selection. On the basis of where the bet actually stood for most of the ninety minutes, it was one goal from a half return and two from a full one. That is not a defence of the result. It is a description of how thin the margin was.

Platense 0-4 has no such story. Talleres were better in every phase and the handicap was never relevant. Some bets lose because of a bounce; this one lost because the pick was wrong. Worth saying plainly.

1. AGMK 1-2 Nasaf (Uzbekistan Super League) — Away AH +0.25 Nasaf @ 2.03 — won
2. Dinamo Samarqand 0-0 Neftchi (Uzbekistan Super League) — Away AH +0.25 Neftchi @ 1.21 — half won
3. Sportivo Trinidense 3-0 Sportivo San Lorenzo (Paraguay División Profesional) — Away AH +1.25 San Lorenzo @ 1.65 — lost
4. Platense 0-4 Talleres Córdoba (Argentina Primera División) — Home AH +0.75 Platense @ 1.27 — lost

Day close: -0.865u (1 won, 1 half won, 2 lost from 4).

On the run we are in. It has been a poor few weeks and I am not going to dress that up. What I will do is be precise about what a run like this means, because the answer is less dramatic than it feels.

This system wins a high proportion of its bets at short prices. That structure produces long stretches of quiet profit and occasional clusters of losses, and the clusters feel far worse than they are, because each individual loss costs a full unit while each win returns a fraction of one. Four losses in a week can wipe out three weeks of grinding. That is arithmetic, not decline. A portfolio built on 75-85% strike rates will have losing weeks regularly, and they arrive in bunches rather than evenly spaced — that is what randomness actually looks like.

When I go back through the recent losers, the pattern is consistent: bets that were live late and lost to a goal in the closing stages, sides that created the better chances and did not convert them, and matches decided by a single decision. San Lorenzo above is the clearest example on this card — alive at 1-0, dead by the whistle. Those margins are the definition of the part we do not control. What we control is whether the selection was justified at the price, and on that count the recent cards hold up.

The three-year record is the reason I am not making changes. The selection rules that produced this week are the same ones that produced the last three years, and nothing in the process has changed. Drawdowns of this size have happened before and the record recovered from every one of them. I would be far more worried by a run of losses on bets that looked wrong at the time. These have not.

So the plan is unchanged: same rules, same discipline on price, same willingness to publish a short card when the value is not there. The bets will turn.