Pink Ball wrote:Cloud Strife wrote:Andre147 wrote:Pink Ball wrote:Probably not very sporting of me. I think Selby-O'Sullivan is hard to call, fair enough, but I went with Selby because I need to risk losing ground to make up ground. I actually think Wilson will beat McGill, but same applies.
That tactic has won me a title before.
Tainted victory.
I'd love a tainted victory.
Shall we put it to a vote? Who wants PB disqualified in the event that he finishes top?

On a serious note, predicting a certain result to try and bridge a deficit isn't against the rules or the spirit of the rules. I know in 2017, the only way I could mathematically have a chance of winning was if I went for Higgins over Selby in the Final. I didn't expect him to win, but I did get rather excited when the Scot led 10-4. Likewise, your UK win isn't tainted. You won it fair and square even if it was a rather different format.
The only real prediction rules are that they need to be in before the match starts (obviously) and that predictions shouldn't be changed once made (hence why the posts in this thread can't be edited). The reason why predictions for the Final are asked for by PM is to stop someone predicting a certain way to nurse a lead.
We've had it at least twice where a leader has asked if I could tell them what scoreline they needed to be guaranteed a win and someone shamelessly saying 'I want to win so please change my prediction to match x'