How crazy is the current hot streak for favorites in the UFC?

[Svino]

Pretty damn crazy.

• If you bet just one unit on every favorite, you would be +10.4u for the year so far.
• Dogs higher than +200 have gone 1-19, with the only win being Prater's DQ victory over Erick Silva.
• Even if we neglect the vig, the odds that favorites overall would do this well (or better) by random chance is about 1 in 55.
• With a simple model for removing the vig, the odds are more like 1 in 200.
• A person who bet every favorite in my contest would be winning with a score of 5.98.


To make comparisons to past years in the UFC, I have tabulated the average return on a 1-unit fixed-swing bet for different line ranges. With BookMaker's vig (I am using their closing lines), we would expect this value to be around -0.025 for a random bet.

2010
-116 to -199 = -0.088
-200 to -249 = -0.051
-300 to -399 = -0.047
-400 to -599 = +0.074
-600 and lower = -0.155
All favorites: -0.060
All dogs: +0.010

2011
-116 to -199 = -0.101
-200 to -249 = +0.040
-300 to -399 = +0.058
-400 to -599 = +0.044
-600 and lower = -0.238
All favorites: -0.018
All dogs: -0.031

2012 so far
All favorites: +0.140
All dogs: -0.199

• It's interesting to see that 2010, a year in which I formed many of my betting habits, was actually a nice year for dogs. A blind 1u bet on each underdog would have left you with +5.5u for the year.

• 2011 was definitely a better year for favorites than 2011, with value overall in the -200 to -600 range.

• There is obviously a lot of fluctuation with the values here, and possible analysis pitfalls with arbitrary binning / cherrypicking data and such. That said, I am curious if there is some staying power to the idea that -400 to -600 favorites are good bets, and favorites lighter than -200 are weak.

• It doesn't even take that big an edge to be profitable. I had very good years in 2010 and 2011 with average returns on lines I bet of +0.064, and+0.051 (2012 so far: -0.032). The +0.14 return on all favorites so far is insane.

• I still don't know what to make of all this. I don't know if there is something here that represents a change in the way the UFC, or bettors, or oddsmakers are doing things, or if it really is just chance. I am sure it can't be sustainable; bettors will start to change their plays if nothing else.

[MMA_scientist]

Interesting, thanks for doing the work.

I have been saying for a couple weeks that the lines just seem different to me, and I have actually been betting dogs a lot (which I have rarely done in the past). I think the lines makers might be adjusting the lines, making them a bit steeper. So far, I have to think it is just chance... there have been seveat least a few big dogs (Bisping) that could have been given decisions. Also, it seems like the UFC is making fewer mismatches lately, Oliveira/Wisely and Palhares/Massenzio are the only out and out squash matches I can think of so far in 2012 (there may be others though).

I don't know, I hope it adjusts soon. I really don't want to see MMA lines end up looking like boxing lines (seems like it is common to see -1000 favorites every week in pretty major fights). Maybe the lines are sharper in boxing and the MMA gravy train is drying up... I think we will still figure out a way to beat the book, but it has been pretty damn easy since I started betting a few years ago.

[SPX]

Good work there, detective!

I know it's obvious, but I really think the key to being profitable with betting large favorites in the -300 to -500 range (-500 being my personal limit in ALMOST all cases) is to be selective. That is, make sure the line is justified and is not based on hype or that some legitimate way to win on the underdog's part is not being overlooked. So basically, does the dog really, truly have almost no way to win the fight?

As long as you are good at making that assessment you should win more than you lose.

[SPX]

BTW, Jay Silva choking out Grove is a perfect example of some shit that I would just never think would really happen.

[Ludo]

Well Grove does kind of suck.

[SPX]

He's actually a really competent fighter and borderlined UFC calibur.

[Ludo]

He's actually a really competent fighter and borderlined UFC calibur.

He's very hit or miss, though. His ability to take a shot in the most striker heavy division in the sport is astoundingly bad and he still hasn't filled into his frame yet(suggesting he probably won't ever do so). His length and height have allowed him to bridge certain skill gaps that he otherwise wouldn't have been able to overcome.

[SPX]

I agree he's hit or miss, but I would expect him to take care of someone like Jay Silva pretty much every time out.

[Luke]

He's actually a really competent fighter and borderlined UFC calibur.

BOL


I guess you missed his stellar performance against Minowa

[SPX]

I did see him clearly whip Minowa's ass.

[Luke]

I did see him clearly whip Minowa's ass.

BOL,he arguably lost 1 rd.(or was that rd 2?)

Not to mention Minowa is a bum x2

[Ludo]

BOL,he arguably lost 1 rd.(or was that rd 2?)

Not to mention Minowa is a bum x2

All three judges had it 30-27 for Grove. Thats not losing a round.

[Luke]

All three judges had it 30-27 for Grove. Thats not losing a round.

Are you fukin stupid? I said arguably

[Ludo]

Are you fukin stupid? I said arguably

No, I was trolling you in the same sense you trolled X about the Machida/Jones fight. Way to keep a lid on it, hoss.

[Luke]

Thank you for deducting reputation from this user

......................

[Ludo]

So much butthurt..............

[SPX]

BOL,he arguably lost 1 rd.(or was that rd 2?)

Not to mention Minowa is a bum x2

What's with the Minowa hate? That dude's a boss. . .

[SPX]

So much butthurt..............

BOL!

[Svino]

That is, make sure the line is justified and is not based on hype or that some legitimate way to win on the underdog's part is not being overlooked. So basically, does the fave really, truly have almost no way to win the fight?

One rule I try to follow is to imagine that the favorite is just a little worse in all areas than you think he is, and the underdog is just a little better. If that would give the underdog a decent chance, stay away from steep lines.

For fun: here are all the -500 or steeper losers from 2009 to present:

BJ Penn (-1100) vs. Frankie Edgar
Here, the fact that Edgar's "hummingbird style" was perfect for the type of outside striking match this fight was likely to be should have kept people away. Even so, it took a bad decision.

Rolles Gracie (-1010) vs. Joey Beltran
UFC newcomers = too much uncertainty.

Ryan Bader (-625) vs. Tito Ortiz
I'm not 100% convinced this line was bad. Maybe Bader just got caught?

Tom Lawlor (-620) vs. Joe Doerksen
The definition of a "grappler's chance".

Melvin Guillard (-615) vs. Joe Lauzon
Guillard rightly deserved to be a big favorite, but I guess if a fighter is undisciplined, there's a limit to how steep you should bet.

Erick Silva (-600) vs. Carlo Prater
Freak DQ, probably a good line, given the beating Silva put on him.

Josh Koscheck (-575) vs. Paulo Thiago
Good old K1 Kos. Wrestler who is too willing to stand vs. a guy with good power. Didn't scare me away from taking Kos at pretty heavy odds against Daley, though.

John Hathaway (-525) vs. Mike Pyle
This is the only one I actually bet (on Pyle).

Rick Story (-525) vs. Charlie Brenneman
This is a case where the rule I stated above would apply. People assumed Story would either outwrestle Brenneman, or their wrestling would cancel.

Brock Larson (-500) vs. Brian Foster
Brock Larson (-500) vs. Mike Pierce
Larson was -500 for three fights in 2009 and he had the good fortune to win one of them. But he didn't just lose both of these fights, he got dominated. LOL Larson.

[MMA_scientist]

don't you love it when you put in a bunch of work, post some new kind of stuff- get no replies- and the 15 posts arguing about minowa. IWS sucks so much, I am going to zewkey, catch you guys on the flipflop.