UFC 117

[SPX]

This is the thing though, these are sports where a cut can stop a fight, one fighter could be sick or have a bad weight cut. And I am telling you, if you lose 2 or 3 big faves in a row, your confidence is shattered.

Take the last 2 big faves(Fedor-Siva) if a guy would have layed 20 units on both, he was 30 seconds away from hitting the soup kitchen.

Well I should probably clarify that this guy played with like a 500 unit bankroll. The confidence part is legit, though, and that brings the psychological element of things into play. Like Scientist pointed out, this is when guys really start fucking up.

I'm trying to remember some -400 or worse plays that I've done. . .

Mayweather VS Marquez, I think. Klitschko vs Arreola. Fedor vs Brett Rogers. I dunno. There were some more, but that's all that's coming to mind at the moment. In fact, I don't think I've ever lost a bet in that range. I think you just have to be very selective.

[edman5555]

but I was seriously getting scared when a few in here were getting close to making a plat on him. I just do not know many successful bettors who play -400 type fights. maybe there are some out there, but I just have not run into them.

They're out there. I used to talk to a guy who would play a lot of heavy favorites and he was successful. In fact, he had system where he would even borrow from other bankrolls on certain fights so he could make 20 unit plays and shit on really heavy favorites and lectured me on how this was done by many pros.

He himself was a pro, I suppose. He made his living gambling. He was a poker player, poker teacher, and sports bettor.

Personally, I rarely play guys beyond -300 (and even that is relatively rare), but if you're good and you have your percentages right then the math is on your side. After all, a -400 guy who has a legitimate 80% chance of winning is a smart bet.

This is the thing though, these are sports where a cut can stop a fight, one fighter could be sick or have a bad weight cut. And I am telling you, if you lose 2 or 3 big faves in a row, your confidence is shattered.

Take the last 2 big faves(Fedor-Siva) if a guy would have layed 20 units on both, he was 30 seconds away from hitting the soup kitchen.

Yeah bad weight cut(alves), injuries they don't tell anyone about(silva), freak accidents in the octogon(Jmac), groin shots, freak illegal DQ's (JJ), people not coming in fully prepared(Quinton Fatass Jackson vs Evans), Bad judges decisions(many). Then factor in errors you can make, errors a fighter can make.

Bottom line. In my opinion Favs are worth betting sometimes but it's dumb to specifically limit yourself to just favs or just underdogs. Its not like the bookies always know who should be the favorite. In the last card I bet: Hallman(Underdog that won), Fitch (underdog that won), Hughes(underdog that won), Guida(About even, won), Chael (underdog that came really close to winning) and JDS( Favorite that won).

The money to be made is in finding the mistakes the bookies/other bettors who affect lines make.

[MMA_scientist]

This is the thing though, these are sports where a cut can stop a fight, one fighter could be sick or have a bad weight cut. And I am telling you, if you lose 2 or 3 big faves in a row, your confidence is shattered.

Take the last 2 big faves(Fedor-Siva) if a guy would have layed 20 units on both, he was 30 seconds away from hitting the soup kitchen.

That's a bankroll management issue, not an issue with the line. You will have 2 and 3 fight skids, even betting -400 guys. If you bet 20% of your bankroll on a fight, you are a psycho. I will say that you have to be a damn robot to play the faves.

[Mr. IWS]

No serious capper would be happy with his Siva win,

I won 100 bucks on my parlay. I was pretty happy.

[Luke]

Let me be more clear: It wasn't a good analogy FOR YOU. I agree that you are not like that.

But it was a clever analogy IN GENERAL, because we all know that those types of guys are out there.

Well he was refering to me in that analogy and saying thats the kind of person I am .Instead of defending me you said "i thought it was a good analogy"

I'm always the first person to admit to being wrong and the first to congratulate the other side and had I bet on Silva I would have hated winning the way he did .So I'm not even close to the person he was describing and took offense to it

[sbjj]

Disagree. i can respect both sides of Okami-Munoz, because I agree that the fight was somewhat arguable. the Silva-Sonnen (R-Or) (R-Or) fight really is not.

I don't know. There can be an argument made that Sonnen (R-Or) has a problem with his submission defense, and that he was caught in exactly the same way he usually loses fights. That he has never beaten a brazilian, that he has been subbed by every brazilian he has ever fought. So the fact that it happened later rather than earlier has no bearing. I thought he would be submitted from guard, and he was. He has always been winning up until the time he gets subbed, that's his MO. If they fought again, the sub could come at any point in the 25 minutes, maybe next time it would happen in round 1.

Mind you, this is not my position... but some guy could make this argument to justify his bet, and it would not sound totally arbitrary. It is subjective.

He could make that argumant, but it would be wrong...He beat Filho, who is brazilian. so the argumant would not be factually based.

I think the fact that the sub happened in the last minute means everything. If Sonnen wanted to pull a Siva in the rematch, he could clearly win the first 3 rounds, and then just bear hug him the last two, throwing the occasional body shot to not get stood up. his problem the last round, is that he must have not have known he already set the record for strikes landed. he should have just been more careful the last round, something he might be able to adjust in the rematch.

[SPX]

I don't know. There can be an argument made that Sonnen (R-Or) has a problem with his submission defense, and that he was caught in exactly the same way he usually loses fights. That he has never beaten a brazilian, that he has been subbed by every brazilian he has ever fought. So the fact that it happened later rather than earlier has no bearing. I thought he would be submitted from guard, and he was. He has always been winning up until the time he gets subbed, that's his MO. If they fought again, the sub could come at any point in the 25 minutes, maybe next time it would happen in round 1.

I think Sonnen was tired and probably also a little comfortable, so he got caught sleeping. So I disagree with this hypotethical man that the sub could've come at any time, or at least that it is as likely to come earlier as later.

Also, something else I think about is that if it were a 3-round non-chamionship fight then Sonnen would've won. All that would have to happen for that to be the case is for Vitor to dethrone Silva and then have Silva rematch Sonnen for a title shot. We now KNOW that Sonnen can beat Silva in a three round fight, because he already has.

[Luke]

I'm not a troll.

And i'm still on Sonnen (R-Or) down to +250 in the rematch.

no one was accussing you of being a troll. SPX just thought it was one of us with another account arguing the other side just to argue.

As it stands you were right

[sbjj]

No serious capper would be happy with his Siva win,

I won 100 bucks on my parlay. I was pretty happy.

i meant a guy that would bet a grand to win 200. i know dudes who included silva in a couple of parlays, or had him by sub(very good bet)

[Luke]

No serious capper would be happy with his Siva win,

I won 100 bucks on my parlay. I was pretty happy.

I could tell by the text

[sbjj]

Let me be more clear: It wasn't a good analogy FOR YOU. I agree that you are not like that.

But it was a clever analogy IN GENERAL, because we all know that those types of guys are out there.

Well he was refering to me in that analogy and saying thats the kind of person I am .Instead of defending me you said "i thought it was a good analogy"

I'm always the first person to admit to being wrong and the first to congratulate the other side and had I bet on Silva I would have hated winning the way he did .So I'm not even close to the person he was describing and took offense to it

It was sort of a joke actually. Sorry if you took offense. but the fact that some in here lost 100s of dollars(actually thousands)if they would have won. and some guys are typing..."Well, you lost" does kinda seem like that type of guy to be honest.

[Mr. IWS]

I could tell by the text

LMAO. I think it went:

SILVAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[SPX]

Well he was refering to me in that analogy and saying thats the kind of person I am .Instead of defending me you said "i thought it was a good analogy"

My bad, brother. Didn't mean to come off that way. Let me fix it:

sbjj, you fucking punk ass piece of shit! Luke is NOTHING like what you described! You fucking pull that shit around here again and you're gonna get drilled in the ass harder than an 18-year-old white kid in San Quentin!

Got it? Good.

Fucking bitch.

[MMA_scientist]

He could make that argumant, but it would be wrong...He beat Filho, who is brazilian. so the argumant would not be factually based.

I think the fact that the sub happened in the last minute means everything. If Sonnen (R-Or) wanted to pull a Siva in the rematch, he could clearly win the first 3 rounds, and then just bear hug him the last two, throwing the occasional body shot to not get stood up. his problem the last round, is that he must have not have known he already set the record for strikes landed. he should have just been more careful the last round, something he might be able to adjust in the rematch.

True about Filho, but he also got subbed by Filho in pretty much the exact same way this fight happened (and Filho was in space in II).

You are getting into subjective territory again though... my point is that the argument could be made. You see it as though Sonnen got tired, whatever... someone else might see it differently (and I think at least somewhat validly). Sonnen may not be able to win the first 3 rounds without getting subbed again. I could make the argument that the sub will come quicker next time because he has figured out Sonnen's defense, just as well as you can argue that Sonnen will do XYZ in order to survive the full fight next time.

That's my point, these post fight analyses are subjective. It is the same skill that makes you a successful capper. There is no right or wrong like there is math based games like poker. There is only what happened and how YOU see it.

[Mr. IWS]

To me, fuck the right side, fuck the wrong side. I am having a fucking brutal year betting MMA, i dont care if Ed Soares got tagged in and finished Sonnen. Gimme my bread nigga!

[Mr. IWS]

Well he was refering to me in that analogy and saying thats the kind of person I am .Instead of defending me you said "i thought it was a good analogy"

My bad, brother. Didn't mean to come off that way. Let me fix it:

sbjj, you fucking punk ass piece of shit! Luke is NOTHING like what you described! You fucking pull that shit around here again and you're gonna get drilled in the ass harder than 18-year-old white kid in San Quentin!

Got it? Good.

Fucking bitch.

Me and sbjj vs You and Luke for the WWE Tag titles muthafuckas

[MMA_scientist]

I think Sonnen (R-Or) was tired and probably also a little comfortable, so he got caught sleeping. So I disagree with this hypotethical man that the sub could've come at any time, or at least that it is as likely to come earlier as later.

Also, something else I think about is that if it were a 3-round non-chamionship fight then Sonnen (R-Or) would've won. All that would have to happen for that to be the case is for Vitor to dethrone Silva and then have Silva rematch Sonnen (R-Or) for a title shot. We now KNOW that Sonnen (R-Or) can beat Silva in a three round fight, because he already has.

you are probably right... but my point is that there is no true right or wrong. There is only your perception of what happened. In poker, there is a true correct and incorrect play.

[Luke]

you are probably right... but my point is that there is no true right or wrong. There is only your perception of what happened. In poker, there is a true correct and incorrect play.

Poker deals alot more with luck though imo.

[MMA_scientist]

you are probably right... but my point is that there is no true right or wrong. There is only your perception of what happened. In poker, there is a true correct and incorrect play.

Poker deals alot more with luck though imo.

It does, because it is a game on incomplete information. You don't know the other guy's cards. You can still calculate pot odds based on the information you have though, and you should be able to decide if it worth a draw or not. There are a lot of variables though, that is for sure.

[sbjj]

[quote=MMA_scientist]

you are probably right... but my point is that there is no true right or wrong. There is only your perception of what happened. In poker, there is a true correct and incorrect play.

Poker deals alot more with luck though imo.

It does, because it is a game on incomplete information. You don't know the other guy's cards. You can still calculate pot odds based on the information you have though, and you should be able to decide if it worth a draw or not. There are a lot of variables though, that is for sure.[/quote:qnfx1orc]

But, if you use your subjective argument. a guy could say every time he loses that the other fighter got lucky. I actually believe Hughes win over Ricardo was luckier than Silvas over Sonnens. i firmly believe that was pretty much a lucky shot that he hit Ricardo with, and that he looked like complete shit before that shot.