UFC 121 Lesnar vs Velasquez

[MMA_scientist]

This shit is hilarious. Feel free(whoever has the power) to ban me at any time. because if all conversations are going to degrade down to this, it would be welcomed. It is just funny for you to say I am wrong on this issue when it has worked for a decade for me Scientist. Maybe I have my rules because this is my living. Seriously, it puts food on my families table, and puts clothes on my childs back. I do not have the luxury of having long extended bad runs.

And seriously, if a dude like SPX has the power to ban me from this site...Please, ban me.

cmon, it was just a joke. Take it easy.

Every time someone makes a logical or mathmatical point to you about value, your response is basically, "that's not what has worked for me" or "that's not how the pro's do it, you just think that because you're all amateurs, not pros like me."

Bottom line, until you can respond with an actual reasoned response, I am going to have to disregard what you are saying. Look, I have never said that what YOU are doing is wrong. All I am saying is that massive favorites can, and often do, have value. And there is nothing inherently wrong about betting them, as long as you keep your bet size in proportion to your bankroll. A person can win over the long term betting nothing but massive favorites- that's a fact. If you can't see that, I don't know what else I can tell you.

The only argument you could possibly make would be that past a certain point, no fighter can possibly have value- i.e. no fighter is never more than 90% to win because of uncontrollable variables.

But your theory seems to be that its not worth the risk... is you bet -400 and win $100 5 times and lose $400... you net 100. There is not a difference between this and winning 55% of your even money bets. Fi you lose 4 in a row, somewhere down the line, you will probably win 12 in a row, it all washes out (assuming you have an edge). I just don't get your argument.

[SPX]

I think you took offense at me questioning the wisdom of the dude you posted about in here.

The problem really hinged on the fact that you said that no pros bet high lines. I pointed out an example of one who does. (I've known that guy for a while. He lives in Chattanooga, TN most of the year, lives in Vegas for (I think) 3 months of the year, and also plays in Tunica, MS on a regular basis.) And instead of saying, "Oh, well all the ones I've known don't" or something disarming like that, you instead basically said that either he's a liar about his pro status or I'm a liar and making up some fictional character.

In any case, I'm over it and prepared to move on.

[sbjj]

This shit is hilarious. Feel free(whoever has the power) to ban me at any time. because if all conversations are going to degrade down to this, it would be welcomed. It is just funny for you to say I am wrong on this issue when it has worked for a decade for me Scientist. Maybe I have my rules because this is my living. Seriously, it puts food on my families table, and puts clothes on my childs back. I do not have the luxury of having long extended bad runs.

And seriously, if a dude like SPX has the power to ban me from this site...Please, ban me.

cmon, it was just a joke. Take it easy.

Every time someone makes a logical or mathmatical point to you about value, your response is basically, "that's not what has worked for me" or "that's not how the pro's do it, you just think that because you're all amateurs, not pros like me."

Bottom line, until you can respond with an actual reasoned response, I am going to have to disregard what you are saying. Look, I have never said that what YOU are doing is wrong. All I am saying is that massive favorites can, and often do, have value. And there is nothing inherently wrong about betting them, as long as you keep your bet size in proportion to your bankroll. A person can win over the long term betting nothing but massive favorites- that's a fact. If you can't see that, I don't know what else I can tell you.

The only argument you could possibly make would be that past a certain point, no fighter can possibly have value- i.e. no fighter is never more than 90% to win because of uncontrollable variables.

But your theory seems to be that its not worth the risk... is you bet -400 and win $100 5 times and lose $400... you net 100. There is not a difference between this and winning 55% of your even money bets. Fi you lose 4 in a row, somewhere down the line, you will probably win 12 in a row, it all washes out (assuming you have an edge). I just don't get your argument.

Scientist, the reason I do not argue about value, is because it is subjective. i am not going to argue with you about something that can not be nailed down. i really can not believe you want to argue something that is different in every person mind.

the reason i do not argue the uncontrllable variables aspect is because I just assume everyone considers that.

You seem to want me to argue with you about something that is different to everyone. Lets take actual test studies...Lets take Performity for instance...he by and large subscribes to your strategy of bet value(no matter the price). how did that work out for him? The guys only downfall was that he would bet heavy faves now and again, and it killed him. Now if you were to ask him what his flaw was, i am sure he would have all kinds of other excuses to why it did not work. Because for some reason, he just could not grasp that his system was flawed.

[sbjj]

I think you took offense at me questioning the wisdom of the dude you posted about in here.

The problem really hinged on the fact that you said that no pros bet high lines. I pointed out an example of one who does. (I've known that guy for a while. He lives in Chattanooga, TN most of the year, lives in Vegas for (I think) 3 months of the year, and also plays in Tunica, MS on a regular basis.) And instead of saying, "Oh, well all the ones I've known don't" or something disarming like that, you instead basically said that either he's a liar about his pro status or I'm a liar and making up some fictional character.

In any case, I'm over it and prepared to move on.

SPX, I am not the only one who told you that. And did I say NO high lines? Well, if I did, I should of clarified it with bets High lines on a (semi) regular basis.

But personally, I have never known someone who does this for a living, who even considers betting the types of lines you are advocating.

You do also understand that when it comes to other sports, the pros would consider your system suicide.

[SPX]

You seem to want me to argue with you about something that is different to everyone. Lets take actual test studies...Lets take Performity for instance...he by and large subscribes to your strategy of bet value(no matter the price). how did that work out for him? The guys only downfall was that he would bet heavy faves now and again, and it killed him. Now if you were to ask him what his flaw was, i am sure he would have all kinds of other excuses to why it did not work. Because for some reason, he just could not grasp that his system was flawed.

Last I saw of Performify he had had a bad run, but was still ahead overall.

[MMA_scientist]

^^ performity wasn't a world beating capper, but he knows what the hell he is talking about. He showed an edge over at least 3 three years, even though it was small- that's nothing to sneeze at.

Aside from that, he wrote the internet bible on mma betting, where anyone thinking about betting should start: http://mmajunkie.com/news/2690/mma-wagering-101.mma

As for arguing about subjective value... I am not arguing on a specific fight which would be subjective (where you put a figherts chances as opposed to where I do). I am arguing the concept that a fighters can have value past a certain point.

It doesn't really matter, though because mostly I agree with you... you should draw the line somewhere. I draw it at -400. But I don't concern myself with how many of my bets are in any specific line range, because I don't think it makes a difference.

[SPX]

You do also understand that when it comes to other sports, the pros would consider your system suicide.

What system is that? In the course of a year I probably take less than 10 -500 bets.

For a while it turned out I was betting almost all dogs. It all depends on the fight.

[sbjj]

This shit is hilarious. Feel free(whoever has the power) to ban me at any time. because if all conversations are going to degrade down to this, it would be welcomed. It is just funny for you to say I am wrong on this issue when it has worked for a decade for me Scientist. Maybe I have my rules because this is my living. Seriously, it puts food on my families table, and puts clothes on my childs back. I do not have the luxury of having long extended bad runs.

And seriously, if a dude like SPX has the power to ban me from this site...Please, ban me.

cmon, it was just a joke. Take it easy.

Every time someone makes a logical or mathmatical point to you about value, your response is basically, "that's not what has worked for me" or "that's not how the pro's do it, you just think that because you're all amateurs, not pros like me."

Bottom line, until you can respond with an actual reasoned response, I am going to have to disregard what you are saying. Look, I have never said that what YOU are doing is wrong. All I am saying is that massive favorites can, and often do, have value. And there is nothing inherently wrong about betting them, as long as you keep your bet size in proportion to your bankroll. A person can win over the long term betting nothing but massive favorites- that's a fact. If you can't see that, I don't know what else I can tell you.

The only argument you could possibly make would be that past a certain point, no fighter can possibly have value- i.e. no fighter is never more than 90% to win because of uncontrollable variables.

But your theory seems to be that its not worth the risk... is you bet -400 and win $100 5 times and lose $400... you net 100. There is not a difference between this and winning 55% of your even money bets. Fi you lose 4 in a row, somewhere down the line, you will probably win 12 in a row, it all washes out (assuming you have an edge). I just don't get your argument.

Scientist, i have answered that question in other posts. the fact that for some reason i have to respond to both you and SPX might be why you guys are not getting the full picture. 55% was just random, like I said, i am hitting WAY less than that lately and still capturing a small profit. that is because of bet size per fight. My worst bet in that entire time was the largest fave. I bet on losing.

Also, if you lose 4 -400 or -500 fights in a row, you would lose 16 to 20 units, if you then win 12 in a row, you win 12 units...you are still down 4 to 8 units. How is that the same as hitting 55% of your even money fights?

[sbjj]

^^ performity wasn't a world beating capper, but he knows what the hell he is talking about. He showed an edge over at least 3 three years, even though it was small- that's nothing to sneeze at.

Aside from that, he wrote the internet bible on mma betting, where anyone thinking about betting should start: http://mmajunkie.com/news/2690/mma-wagering-101.mma

As for arguing about subjective value... I am not arguing on a specific fight which would be subjective (where you put a figherts chances as opposed to where I do). I am arguing the concept that a fighters can have value past a certain point.

It doesn't really matter, though because mostly I agree with you... you should draw the line somewhere. I draw it at -400. But I don't concern myself with how many of my bets are in any specific line range, because I don't think it makes a difference.

Once again, answered that multiple times. yet you say I did not. I AGREE with you on that(see BJ-Stevenson). The ONLY difference between us is that I am set in a rule, and you are more flexible(and your line is prob. slightly higher)

You also say it is FACT that a bettor can bet all heavy faves. ONLY, and still come out on top after an extended period of time...How do you know this. You say YOU would never do that, so how do you know that would work. And if you do know it as fact, why dont you do it?

[SPX]

You also say it is FACT that a bettor can bet all heavy faves. ONLY, and still come out on top after an extended period of time...How do you know this. You say YOU would never do that, so how do you know that would work. And if you do know it as fact, why dont you do it?

It's a fact in the same sense that it's a fact that you can come out ahead in the long run if you only bet fights at a line or -150 . . . or -200 . . . or +200 . . . or +500.

If you win 85% of your bets betting only -500 faves then you win money in the long run. That's just the way it is.

Just like you have to win more than 70% of your bets to make money betting fights at -233.

Etc. . .

[Ludo]

If only we could see that little vein in his forehead throbbing like some sort of rage and stress filled balloon... I like to think it is following the intro to 'Hot For Teacher' by now

[MMA_scientist]

Scientist, i have answered that question in other posts. the fact that for some reason i have to respond to both you and SPX might be why you guys are not getting the full picture. 55% was just random, like I said, i am hitting WAY less than that lately and still capturing a small profit. that is because of bet size per fight. My worst bet in that entire time was the largest fave. I bet on losing.

Also, if you lose 4 -400 or -500 fights in a row, you would lose 16 to 20 units, if you then win 12 in a row, you win 12 units...you are still down 4 to 8 units. How is that the same as hitting 55% of your even money fights?

my numbers were just examples... I didn't check my math. The issue is winning more than the line indicates you should win. What I am saying is that the likelihood of losing 4 -400 (80%) fights in a row is no greater or no less than losing say an equivalent amount of of 50% fights (sorry, my math ability does not extend far enough to tell you how many that would be). The odds of you losing 12 50% fights in a row is the same as losing 3 (80%) fights in a row (assuming the lines are true).

If you go to a roulette wheel and bet on 1-18 (there are 37 numbers on a single 0 wheel)... you have no inherent edge against a guy who is betting on 1-24. He has 66% of the board covered, you have 50% of the board covered. He is going to win more often than you, and lose more when he loses. But at the end of the day, you will have both lost the same amount of money. His losses will be less frequent but more dramatic. Your losses will be more frequent but less dramatic.

The same thing applies if I cover every number but 1. or if you only cover 1 number. At the end of the day, it is all going to be even. We all have the same disadvantage of somewhere in the 2-3% range (don't know the exact house edge).

If we take away the 0 and the 1. Now we all have an edge. The same thing applies. At the end of the day, whether I cover 90% of the board or 10% of the board, we are all going to end up with the same amount of money.

As for your explanations, I don't see them. You said you have to win a certain amount every year... that could be a factor. Is that what you mean?

[Luke]

Do me a favor, come on here the next time you see a -300 guy that you believe should be -900. I think I might have to wait awhile on that one. Yet we have 2 fights coming up which IMO have GREAT value...Cain and BJ.

I remember a fight I bet where I believed a -300 fighter should be
-900,Mayweather over Mosley.I gave Mosley a 10% chance in that fight because I knew his only chance was a slim chance at a KO( which almost happened in rd2) besides that Mosley had no chance. I bet my biggest bet in a long time on Mayweather in the fight 9 units to win 3.

[sbjj]

You also say it is FACT that a bettor can bet all heavy faves. ONLY, and still come out on top after an extended period of time...How do you know this. You say YOU would never do that, so how do you know that would work. And if you do know it as fact, why dont you do it?

It's a fact in the same sense that it's a fact that you can come out ahead in the long run if you only bet fights at a line or -150 . . . or -200 . . . or +200 . . . or +500.

If you win 85% of your bets betting only -500 faves then you win money in the long run. That's just the way it is.

Just like you have to win more than 70% of your bets to make money betting fights at -233.

Etc. . .

Do you know anyone who bets Heavy Faves only(and comes out ahead). Because I know plenty of dudes who bet slight faves, even, and dogs and make money. But I know no one who bets heavy faves only. I used to know a few dudes who did that, but they no longer even bet fights anymore.

But one more time to both you and Scientist. WHY, in all other sports, do no pros consistantly bet these heavy lines(sure thing) bets? And the really good boxing cappers do not bet long lines either. MMA is new, and has brought in a whole new breed of bettor, but i think in time, it will be just like the rest of sports betting.

[sbjj]

Do me a favor, come on here the next time you see a -300 guy that you believe should be -900. I think I might have to wait awhile on that one. Yet we have 2 fights coming up which IMO have GREAT value...Cain and BJ.

I remember a fight I bet where I believed a -300 fighter should be
-900,Mayweather over Mosley.I gave Mosley a 10% chance in that fight because I knew his only chance was a slim chance at a KO( which almost happened in rd2) besides that Mosley had no chance. I bet my biggest bet in a long time on Mayweather in the fight 9 units to win 3.

I bet mayweather by decision. I think it was like -180. And I shit my pants in the second round. And I still believe that Floyd could have gotten him out of there if he wanted to...Glad he carried him though.

[Ludo]

I think due to the nature of MMA it will always be slightly more difficult to work all the variables down to a science for betting no matter how long it's around. There will always be new guys who nobody knows anything about, skewed lines because of that, smaller orgs and shows that there isn't any tape available on the internet from to research. The vast array of styles that can be used are also a heavy factor. Flash knockouts, subs you didn't see coming, DQ's, and bad judgments. I just don't see it becoming a "set in stone if you followed it long enough" kind of betting sport.

[SPX]

Do you know anyone who bets Heavy Faves only(and comes out ahead). Because I know plenty of dudes who bet slight faves, even, and dogs and make money. But I know no one who bets heavy faves only. I used to know a few dudes who did that, but they no longer even bet fights anymore.

I don't know anyone who bets only heavy favorites. I think that anyone with any maturity in this game would realize that that's a very poor strategy . . . not because it can't work, but because you're not maximizing profits because you're missing out on so many other opportunities.

I think that anyone who says "I only bet dogs" or "I only bet faves" or anything else that limits your options is not playing optimally.

But one more time to both you and Scientist. WHY, in all other sports, do no pros consistantly bet these heavy lines(sure thing) bets? And the really good boxing cappers do not bet long lines either. MMA is new, and has brought in a whole new breed of bettor, but i think in time, it will be just like the rest of sports betting.

I have no idea about other sports. I only bet MMA. But I will say that when it comes to MMA, there are times when--if you really want to make money--you have to make the choice to not be a pussy.

[sbjj]

I think due to the nature of MMA it will always be slightly more difficult to work all the variables down to a science for betting no matter how long it's around. There will always be new guys who nobody knows anything about, skewed lines because of that, smaller orgs and shows that there isn't any tape available on the internet from to research. The vast array of styles that can be used are also a heavy factor. Flash knockouts, subs you didn't see coming, DQ's, and bad judgments. I just don't see it becoming a "set in stone if you followed it long enough" kind of betting sport.

Sounds like a good case against betting long lines.

[Luke]

People in this thread has WAY too much time on their hands lol.

The reason I dont bet huge favs -500 or more is because sure you'll find a lot of fights where you think one guy has no chance at winning but if you go 5-1 you only break even . It seems like a big waste of time to me . I know alot of people here got bit on Penn when he fought Edgar and that was what -600? Do you really want to have to find 6 more fights at -600 that you have to win for that 1 you lost?

I've found plenty of fights that are -110 to -150 that had a better chance of winning than most -500 favs. Personally I'd rather lose a fight at -150 that I only have to win 2 more to be ahead again than lose 1 at -600 where I have to find 7 more to get back ahead.

Soko,Fedor,Lashely, Penn etc have lost recently as big favs.

I personally dont bet anything over the -300 to -350 range and I only bet those if I consider them " a lock"

I dont care what anyone bets though because in the end its your money not mine

[SPX]

I bet mayweather by decision.

I know pros who say that ALL prop bets are sucker bets and that only amateurs play them.

How do you feel about that?