Gaffa
@touchesinthebox · Public betting record
Research snapshot · 18 September 2026 · Evidence assessment, not a recommendation
Gaffa’s public spreadsheet contains 7,403 settled rows across ten tabs. The assessed figures reconcile within the sheet, but that does not verify publication times, obtainable odds or subscriber returns.
By SharpCheck · Published 18 September 2026 · Edited 18 October 2026 · Research methods
Gaffa review: the key facts
| Recorded profit and loss | +311.6515u from 8,137.5105u staked: 3.83% ROI, including pushes. Checked 18 September 2026; this is an internal spreadsheet reconciliation. Public results spreadsheet |
|---|---|
| Record scope | The combined record includes a separate 2024 props tab and mixed sports in 2018–19. It should not be described as one football-only sample. Source tabs and history |
| 2026 snapshot | 730 settled rows through 6 September 2026 show +33.69u and 4.99% ROI. Pre-bet publication and follower price access remain unverified. 2026 results tab |
Self-maintained Google Sheet · Annual tabs 2018–2026 · Latest recorded match date: 6 September 2026
Independent proof still missing.
Recorded profit reconciles to the bet rows. Publication timing, completeness and achievable prices have not been independently established.
Bet-level history
Inspected7,403 settled rows across ten record tabs, including the separate 2024 player-props tab. Row-level profit totals match the all-time summary.
Losing periods remain visible
Positive evidence2020 and 2023 losses, and the losing 2024 props record, are included in the aggregate. This supports transparency within the supplied record.
Pre-event publication
Not verifiedA typed “Posted Date” is not an immutable timestamp. Original posts, revisions and omitted selections have not been reconciled.
Date consistency
Clarification neededThree rows in the 2024 tab are dated 29 December 2025. Annual results below retain the source’s tab allocation.
Exact cells and treatment
Total recorded stakes: 8,137.51u · Includes pushes in turnover.
Every annual record, including the losses
| Source tab | Rows | Profit | ROI* |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | 473 | +59.46u | +10.01% |
| 2019 | 652 | +67.02u | +8.68% |
| 2020 | 763 | −2.16u | −0.25% |
| 2021 | 709 | +42.88u | +5.05% |
| 2022 | 1,056 | +57.29u | +4.58% |
| 2023 | 995 | −4.82u | −0.41% |
| 2024 | 908 | +35.67u | +4.06% |
| 2024-Player Props | 114 | −4.25u | −8.54% |
| 2025 | 1,003 | +26.87u | +2.60% |
| 2026 | 730 | +33.69u | +4.99% |
*SharpCheck calculation: recorded profit ÷ all recorded stakes, including pushes. The source’s 2018–2020 annual ROI excludes pushed stakes, so its displayed percentages differ. 2024 props are shown separately and included once in all-time totals.
Reconciliation method
Recorded odds need an execution check
“Units” can differ from money at risk
The latest row labels a selection 1 unit at American odds −128, with 1.28 units in the Stake field. ROI uses the stake at risk. A follower needs the staking convention made explicit.
Closing-line data exists for part of the history
446 of 709 rows in 2021 contain a closing-line field. Its accuracy and comparability have not been audited; no blanket closing-line-value claim is made.
Prices and bookmaker access
The recent ledger lists odds and stakes, but does not establish how long prices lasted, which followers could obtain them, or accepted bet limits.
Timing and completeness
Link original public selections to tracker rows, then check publication before kickoff and retain a history of edits and deletions.
A specific warning against chasing a shorter price
On 16 July 2026, Gaffa followed his Toronto +0.5 selection at −132 with a warning that it was no longer a 1.75-unit play at −150/−160. He suggested alternative combinations around even money. Those combinations are different bets, not equivalent replacements.
The original conversation shows him responding to a price move; it does not measure how many followers obtained the first price or their stakes. Selection, odds warning and replies ↗
Insufficient attributable review evidence
Focused searches for Gaffa and @touchesinthebox did not identify a substantive independent following trial or documented complaint suitable for this profile.
Positive evidence we can support
A lengthy public ledger with odds, stakes and losses available to inspect. Its aggregate profit and stakes reconcile. These are observations about the record, not customer endorsements.
Limitations we can support
No independent timestamp audit, follower-price trial or verified review sample established. Three date inconsistencies need clarification. None of these findings alone demonstrates abuse.
Avoid a mistaken identity
Search results also contain an older “Gaffa Tips” service. Its reviews are excluded because no link to @touchesinthebox was established.