I honestly hate that we're writing the questions. We try to find the middle ground so there are no obvious answers and most of the time I don't know what to pick because in my eyes it's all 50-50.
If somebody else wrote it, they would probably change some of them so I could find an edge - but this way it's impossible. I changed my answers 3 times already, a hugely important round for me and I simply need to get it right.
You can't really win with questions, I've asked myself often how I would have phrased or cornered it, but you can't really predict in the end if you want to get closeness, or even if the question will become invalid BUT I think you guys do a great job. If there is only a slight edge for someone who does a bit of research, I think the point of BSFL is achieved.
My problem as a participant is to stop thinking like I'm betting. You look for value in betting, you look to outthink your opponent in BSFL. Not the same thing.
Now outthinking Trofo appears easy. He goes for BTTS, he generally favours proven tennis players on their strong pitch (so never a guy who's shit on clay, for example), and I believe you and he have a tendency for Overs and for favs to cover handicaps. It's unnatural for me to think like this, I always prefer to go with or against form, depending on the value so I have to do my best to match him in that thinking

(I could also be throwing smoke who knows, eh Trofo?)
P.S. I just realised I only have 3 rounds left to make sure I win, as casper's my match in Round 14... not much room left for error.