Hopkins-Jones line up

[SPX]

But he's Roy Jones Jr. He has that really awesome highlight vid on YouTube. . .

[Mr. IWS]

But he's Roy Jones Jr. He has that really awesome highlight vid on YouTube. . .

LOL

He is still one of my favs of all time.

[Luke]

Kelly Pavlik #1 ranked MW and was MW champ at time =WIN dominating

I was on Hopkins in that one.

When they last fought, i would say Jones was PFP one of the top 3 in the world at the time. Hopkins was a solid pro, but wasnt ready for Jones in that one IMO.

I might pull the trigger on Hop, but Im reallly hoping this lines gets some Jones money on it.

Hopkins should win easily but I wasnt going to bet him unless he was -200 or under. Had Jones beat Green like he was suppose too I would have easily got that line

[SPX]

Hopkins should win easily but I wasnt going to bet him unless he was -200 or under. Had Jones beat Green like he was suppose too I would have easily got that line

What's confusing to me is that you're like, "Man, what a shitty line on Hopkins! I want him at -200 or better or else I'm staying away!" And what that tell me is that you think Hopkin's value runs out at -200 . . . which means that Jones' value should kick in around +200. Well he's way more than that. So how are you not betting Jones? And if you're really that certain that Hopkins will win, why not take him at the current line?

[Luke]

Hopkins should win easily but I wasnt going to bet him unless he was -200 or under. Had Jones beat Green like he was suppose too I would have easily got that line

What's confusing to me is that you're like, "Man, what a shitty line on Hopkins! I want him at -200 or better or else I'm staying away!" And what that tell me is that you think Hopkin's value runs out at -200 . . . which means that Jones' value should kick in around +200. Well he's way more than that. So how are you not betting Jones? And if you're really that certain that Hopkins will win, why not take him at the current line?

Had Jones won his last fight this line would be -200 or less. The fact the line is -450 is a complete over reaction imo.

I dont like laying big juice unless I'm 99.9% a fighter will win ,in fact I hate laying big juice. Thats the reason Hopkins at -450 is a no bet for me . Does Jones have value at +400 ? IMO a little but I still think he loses. I never bet an underdog unless I think its 50/50 he'll win and I dont think Jones is 50/50 to win.

[Luke]

For me to bet Jones I would have to think Jones wins this fight 51% of the time which I dont. To be Hopkins I would have to expect Hopkins to win 80% of the time which I dont .Now do you see why i'm not betting either side?

[SPX]

For me to bet Jones I would have to think Jones wins this fight 51% of the time which I dont. To be Hopkins I would have to expect Hopkins to win 80% of the time which I dont .Now do you see why i'm not betting either side?

How come you never bet dogs just because there's value in the line? I mean, does jones win this fight more than 20% of the time? If so, his line holds value. I'm not saying I bet every fight I find value in, but I don't really understand the mentality--and you're not the only one who has it, so I'm not singling you out--that a dog's only worth betting on if you think he deserves to be the fave.

[zY|]

For me to bet Jones I would have to think Jones wins this fight 51% of the time which I dont. To be Hopkins I would have to expect Hopkins to win 80% of the time which I dont .Now do you see why i'm not betting either side?

How come you never bet dogs just because there's value in the line? I mean, does jones win this fight more than 20% of the time? If so, his line holds value. I'm not saying I bet every fight I find value in, but I don't really understand the mentality--and you're not the only one who has it, so I'm not singling you out--that a dog's only worth betting on if you think he deserves to be the fave.

I understand it.

Whether or not you think the line is wrong, if you don't feel he has a legitimate shot at winning, then value or no value, it's a losing proposition.

The long term value only makes sense if you're betting every line that you feel has value. If you pick and choose and don't bet much, it's tough to take a dog you just know is gonna lose, no matter the line.

[SPX]

I understand it.

Whether or not you think the line is wrong, if you don't feel he has a legitimate shot at winning, then value or no value, it's a losing proposition.

The long term value only makes sense if you're betting every line that you feel has value. If you pick and choose and don't bet much, it's tough to take a dog you just know is gonna lose, no matter the line.

I think that if you just know he's gonna lose, then that's one thing. But I know that I would have less money in my accounts if I didn't take some big dogs when I felt that they at least had a better chance than the line indicated.

Consider a few of my winners:

SAKARA vs Leites (+300, if I remember correctly)
KANEHARA vs Kid (+350)
SMITH vs Le (+325)
PELLEGRINO vs Neer (+190)
GROVE vs Rosholt (+175)

I honestly didn't expect any of those guys to win . . . but I knew they could. I envisioned paths to victory and rolled with it. I knew Kid could have trouble with Kanehara's size and reach and I knew Smith could catch Le with a shot that would rock his shit. Pellegrino's a good wrestler; Grove has subs and Rosholt had shown questionable sub defense.

I certainly don't win every dog bet I make, but I win enough (or at least have won enough so far) to make it a profitable venture. You gotta remember that betting dogs you can lose more than you win, and still make money.

[Mr. IWS]

For me, I rarely bet a dog in a fight. I can probably say ive been on less than 10 in my life.

I will only bet a dog if I think they can win.

[zY|]

I understand it.

Whether or not you think the line is wrong, if you don't feel he has a legitimate shot at winning, then value or no value, it's a losing proposition.

The long term value only makes sense if you're betting every line that you feel has value. If you pick and choose and don't bet much, it's tough to take a dog you just know is gonna lose, no matter the line.

I think that if you just know he's gonna lose, then that's one thing. But I know that I would have less money in my accounts if I didn't take some big dogs when I felt that they at least had a better chance than the line indicated.

Consider a few of my winners:

SAKARA vs Leites (+300, if I remember correctly)
KANEHARA vs Kid (+350)
SMITH vs Le (+325)
PELLEGRINO vs Neer (+190)
GROVE vs Rosholt (+175)

I honestly didn't expect any of those guys to win . . . but I knew they could. I envisioned paths to victory and rolled with it. I knew Kid could have trouble with Kanehara's size and reach and I knew Smith could catch Le with a shot that would rock his shit. Pellegrino's a good wrestler; Grove has subs and Rosholt had shown questionable sub defense.

I certainly don't win every dog bet I make, but I win enough (or at least have won enough so far) to make it a profitable venture. You gotta remember that betting dogs you can lose more than you win, and still make money.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I just said I understand the mentality.

[Mr. IWS]

I went back and looked at a couple I did:

Rousimar Palhares +180 over Dan Henderson WTF?
Chris Leben +200 over Michael Bisping LOL
Ryan Bader +175 over Vinny Malgalese Winna

I was on Mir over Lesnar in their first fight, he was a small dog and I was on Hopkins over Pavlik too. Thats all I can really remember.

[Luke]

I understand it.

Whether or not you think the line is wrong, if you don't feel he has a legitimate shot at winning, then value or no value, it's a losing proposition.

The long term value only makes sense if you're betting every line that you feel has value. If you pick and choose and don't bet much, it's tough to take a dog you just know is gonna lose, no matter the line

I 100% agree .I dont bet a dog unless I think he'll win no matter what the line is

[Luke]

Underdogs I bet within the last year:

Hopkins - Pavlik +300 WIN

Andre Ward - Kessler +160 WIN

Coleman-Bonnar +350 WIN

Ali Funeka-Nate Campbell +162 LOSS (bad bad decision)

Tarver-Dawson +200 LOSS (bad bet lol)

Shane Mosley -Margiritio +350 WIN


I dont bet alot of dogs but I'd say I bet more than most people. Also the dogs I play are usually boxing

[Luke]

For me to bet Jones I would have to think Jones wins this fight 51% of the time which I dont. To be Hopkins I would have to expect Hopkins to win 80% of the time which I dont .Now do you see why i'm not betting either side?

How come you never bet dogs just because there's value in the line? I mean, does jones win this fight more than 20% of the time? If so, his line holds value. I'm not saying I bet every fight I find value in, but I don't really understand the mentality--and you're not the only one who has it, so I'm not singling you out--that a dog's only worth betting on if you think he deserves to be the fave.

I dont bet for value on underdogs ,only favorites. Favorites are suppose to win so when you find a favorite that the line is lower than you thought its a good be imo.If you find a line where the underdog is higher than you thought he'd be but hs no chance to win its a bad bet imo. I mean if Sims was +10000 against Fedor I still wouldnt bet him. Would he win in a fight 1 in a 1000 times ? Probably ,he would eventualy hit a lucky punch once in a 1000 times but I'm still not betting it.

Me and you bet dogs differently and thats fine .I just dont bet a dog unless I think theres a 51% chance he wins but ust because I think he has a 51% chance doesnt mean its not really 10% lol