View Full Version : Slump buster
MMA_scientist
10-04-2010, 12:29 PM
I can't win lately. I don't know if it is the public getting better, me getting worse, books getting sharper, or fighters getting better. Or maybe I am just looking for bets now, whereas I used to bet far fewer fights.
I tend to think that fighters are just getting better. The sport really only took off about 5 years ago, so those guys would just now be getting really good- so maybe the infusion of true athletes into what was formerly extremely niche, is changing the game. Takedown defense is getting better, non-wrestlers can suddenly wrestle, and some of the best grapplers are strict mma fighters. It is bizarro world out there.
I am going to change the way I bet for the remainder of 2010, and maybe beyond. Instead of trying to find value in fights that are usually way more competitive than I think they are going to be, I am going to start doing 2-3 fight parlays.
I am taking my 50u bankroll and dividing it into eight 5u stakes. Each 5u stake is going to be a parlay project. The goal is to double up the 5u, then take it down and start over. Hopefully, I can double up each stake more often than busting out. There is no line cap on the favorites for the parlays. I don't care if they are -1500, if they are GOING to win, they are in. The other 10u is for underdogs or slight favorites, with a max bet to win 1u.
Bam. That's how I do it now.
The Scientist has been spending time in his laboratory again, I see. . .
I really distrust parlays considering my abysmal luck, but good luck on this. I'm curious to see how it works out for you.
I've also been considering playing around a bit with different betting systems. Specifically, I've considered coming up with some sort of Martingale system that might be workable. But we all know the risks of the Martingale . . . a bad streak can put you out of business pretty quickly (and I've hit some pretty bad streaks).
If not that, then maybe something else. I could maybe deal with the possibility of catastrophic failure if the odds of that failure were very small.
Also. . .
Trace buster-buster-buster-buster. . .
If anyone here gets that then I'll give you some sort of credit.
MMA_scientist
10-04-2010, 01:01 PM
Yeah, a martingale, or any variant of it, usually ends abruptly and tragically. I am familiar with any and all negative progression system, and I can tell you that the inevitable losing streak always always happens.
Still, in the short term, it can build your bankroll quickly. So i understand the appeal. It is hard to do with sports betting though, because much of the time, you are betting on 2:1 or 3:1 favorites... so it can get out of control quickly. If you stick to even fights or dogs, it would be more manageable, but then your losing streak is more likely to come too...
edman5555
10-04-2010, 04:46 PM
Well I'm a little skeptical of this, I think you should try to keep it to 2 fight parlays..But please keep me posted on your picks. I'm interested.
MMA_scientist
10-04-2010, 04:59 PM
^ picks are going to be the same, and I am keeping 20% of the bankroll to play the usual way. But I am taking the cap off for the parlays.
My thinking is that i will have to be more careful with my bets with the parlays. When I am just value betting, I end up betting every damn thing. This way, 1 loss will bust my parlay, so I will have to be tighter.
I am still going to do my thing the usual way too though... I am not going to pass up an opportunity for teh sake of my system.
MMA_scientist
10-04-2010, 05:01 PM
I dont like the idea
what don't you liek about it? is it just too much risk?
I think you might be betting to many fights, and maybe betting to much on them. I have been in a slump as of late also, but have been betting less money on these fights as I see some big fights down the road that I have high confidence in.
MMA_scientist
10-04-2010, 05:23 PM
I think you might be betting to many fights, and maybe betting to much on them. I have been in a slump as of late also, but have been betting less money on these fights as I see some big fights down the road that I have high confidence in.
I am definitely betting too many fights. I used to bet only UFC and Strikeforce, totally shied away from WEC and small shows. Incidentally, I have been doing fine with the UFC and SF. WEC, Shark, and Cage Warriors is where I have taken almost all my losses.
When I stick to my formula, I win. My problem is that I am turning into an action junkie... So I am hoping I can reel it in a little with this method.
We'll see.
edman5555
10-04-2010, 05:52 PM
The same shit happened to me. This is not easy.
MMA_scientist
10-04-2010, 06:04 PM
^^ Picking fights is only half of the battle. Money management is more important IMO than capping skill. I know I have a tendency to get wild, so keeping the monster under control is always my struggle.
edman5555
10-04-2010, 06:07 PM
I get anxious waiting for a good bet or when I win I start to think I know everything and I bet a lot and lose. I have too many problems. I need to be more patient. I won a lot on ufc 117 then basically lost it all. I still have money in my accounts but I need to make a comeback bigtime.
MMA_scientist
10-04-2010, 06:11 PM
Yeah, I do the same thing. I get cocky after a win streak and think I have it all down... then I roll the dice. Lesson I need to learn: watching 3 minutes of video is not going to give me the info I need.
So I am hoping that these parlays are going to make me think long and hard about my bets. That is how I used to be with all my bets, but you get used to betting and build up an immunity... the risk does not scare you enough to do your homework. So I am hoping I can scare myself into doing my homework again.
Also, the sucess of my never ending locks parlay emboldened me. I whipped up 5 units in no time, betting on huge favorites.
edman5555
10-04-2010, 06:14 PM
I'm looking at bets now and I know I should just stick with the ones that stand out to me. As of now, Nick Diaz is semi-tempting. Ben Askren is very good even though I already missed the damn line..probably Carlos Condit..Maybe Neil Grove. I'm on the fence about Akiyama Bisping..Either Bisping by Decision or Akiyama prob by Decision..Maybe go the distance heh.
edman5555
10-04-2010, 06:15 PM
I'm also thinking about Karo over Hallman..
I know that, for me, I get caught up in the idea that EVERY fight is a money-making opportunity because every fight has a winner (except on those very rare draw occasions). So it seems so simple: Just pick the winner! What's so hard about that?
I mean, even if you were picking blindly you should pick the winning side 50% of the time. So surely with just a little extra effort you can do much better. Or so my reasoning goes.
Lately it hasn't been going that way though, and it's just baffling. How can you go 0-7 in an event? 1-6? Shit like that. . . But I've had a couple of events lately where I've done THAT badly. That's not taking bad lines . . . it's just not picking winners.
FUCK THAT SHIT!
WE had a conversation about this earlier. Many people were saying that every fight has value on one side. I just really think that is bad philosophy.
Yes, you can say that a fighter who is -250 should be -400, but the fact remains that you are laying 2 and a half to 1 on a fight. That is where I think some of these problems might be happening. I would say just stick to a price limit, and NEVER go over it. Make it -180, or -220, but never, ever go over it...or make it standard to only bet those lines in a 2 fight parlay.
The guys I see that get into trouble are the guys that bet faves thinking they have value. If I was convinced that a -400 fighter should be -1500, I would still not bet him.
^^^ I'm saying that every fight has value because someone's gonna win. Period. Regardless of whether that's a good philosophy or whatever, the fact still remains that if you can manage to pick the right guy, you will win money.
As for not betting a -400 guy who should be -1500, I think that's a little silly, to be honest. You wouldn't bet on Mousasi in a rematch with Goodridge if he was -400?
Havis Jr
10-04-2010, 06:51 PM
Im also betting too many fights and losing for it. I think its better to just limit the number of bets rather then switch to betting parlays...
Either way I hope we can all turn around this damn losing streak. Bad judging decisions hasn't made it any better, that shit really fucks with your head.
^^^ I'm saying that every fight has value because someone's gonna win. Period. Regardless of whether that's a good philosophy or whatever, the fact still remains that if you can manage to pick the right guy, you will win money.
As for not betting a -400 guy who should be -1500, I think that's a little silly, to be honest. You wouldn't bet on Mousasi in a rematch with Goodridge if he was -400?
Why do it? I mean seriously, are you going to bet 400 to win 100? And then if Gegard blows his knee out, you lose 400 dollars.
Of course someone is going to win, but that does not mean you nedd to bet every fight, I think that is just silly. I thought Sok was going to destroy Houston. I actually thought that line had value for Sok, but I did not bet it because the price was simply just to high.
As for managing to pick the right guy, that is the whole point...no matter how good a capper someone is, he is not going to always pick the right guy...so why even bet a bunch of the heavy faves? When the tide turns on you, you are then in deep shit.
Why do it? I mean seriously, are you going to bet 400 to win 100? And then if Gegard blows his knee out, you lose 400 dollars.
Why do it? To make money. I'm not good at math . . . but I still know that this game is all about math when it comes to making money. What are the odds that Gegard will blow his knee out? 1 in 20? 1 in 50? 1 in 100?
Let's say it's 1 in 20, a very conservative estimate in my opinion. So he beats Goodridge's ass 19 times, and you win $1900. Then in the 20th fight he blows his knee out. Or gets KOd. Or trips and falls and Goodridge falls on top of him and the ref stops it immediately and it's the worst stoppage in the history of bad stoppages. And you lose $400. Well you're still $1500 ahead.
I would absolutely take Gegard at -400 against Gary Goodridge.
Of course someone is going to win, but that does not mean you nedd to bet every fight, I think that is just silly. I thought Sok was going to destroy Houston. I actually thought that line had value for Sok, but I did not bet it because the price was simply just to high.
As for managing to pick the right guy, that is the whole point...no matter how good a capper someone is, he is not going to always pick the right guy...so why even bet a bunch of the heavy faves? When the tide turns on you, you are then in deep shit.
I had money on Soko and I lost and it sucks. But I knew going into that fight that Soko has some serious problems as a fighter. Nevertheless, I took the risk and it backfired. Shit happens. I'm still in the game and still ahead for the year.
I would have to look at my records, but I'm pretty sure I've won more money on big faves than I've lost. In fact, I don't think I've ever lost a single -500 bet. That doesn't mean that I never will. But by the time I do I will be (and already am, I'm sure) past the point to where I still show a profit.
With that said, I never said you should bet everything. I just said that every fight is a moneymaking opportunity. And it is. Because someone wins.
Svino
10-04-2010, 08:15 PM
I'm also in a huge slump. Likely as not, it's just random variation - I'm probably worse than I thought I was before, and not as bad as I'm tempted to feel I am right now. Still, I think the first thing for me to do is tighten up on bets a bit, bet fewer fights on small cards and stick to fights that fit my ideal profile (control victory). I mentioned earlier I was tempted to break away from that on the Cro-Cop and Nog fights. Well, I did - and lost both bets.
I would have to look at my records, but I'm pretty sure I've won more money on big faves than I've lost. In fact, I don't think I've ever lost a single -500 bet.
Yeah, same here. My most common bets are slight dogs and slight favorites. But I'm happy to dive in on the rare heavy favorite with value. For all the bad bets I've made, I really think my most foolish error in this last slump is not betting more than the 9U I did on Couture. It was the perfect situation for a full Kelly bet, which would have been above 20 U or so.
With that said, I never said you should bet everything. I just said that every fight is a moneymaking opportunity. And it is. Because someone wins.
I think the way you have to think of it is that if the fight is genuinely a coin toss, and the odds are -110 for both guys, then there's no value anywhere, except for the book.
Then the next category is all the fights where there clearly was value on one side in hindsight, but there was realistically no way to know that from publicly available information. This is a pretty big category, and of course, there's no way to make consistent money here, either.
Svino
10-04-2010, 09:05 PM
Also, I'm not generally a fan of any system that takes the bet sizing out of your hands. Optimal bet sizing should take into account bankroll size, house odds, your own estimated odds, and the uncertainty you feel about those odds. Of course in practice, the amount you come up with will be somewhat arbitrary, but it's an important part of gambling nonetheless.
The Martingale system is doomed to failure. In fact any system that gets the basic relationship wrong (bet more after winning, bet less after losing) is bad news.
Parlays tend to force bets that are too small initially and too large later on. Much much too large in the case of a huge parlay - the 15-fight parlay betting $5 to win $200,000 sounds fun until you actually hit the first 14 and wonder why betting the $100,000 you already won on a final coin-toss ever seemed like a good idea. Of course only betting from 5-10 U on a large favorite would keep this under control.
MMA_scientist
10-04-2010, 09:35 PM
Thanks for the fb fellows...
I think it is just as important to find a betting strategy that matches your particular tendencies as optimizing profit... Since I know I hate losing, and it makes me impatient and chase and make too big of bets, I try to come up with a system that takes all of that into consideration. Now, if I was a cyborg math robot from the future, I would vary my bets depending on my percieved advantage.
BUt as it were, I am an emo... I need to just embrace it because it hasn't changed in 7 years of pretty serious betting (bj, then poker, now mma). I just flat out can't let my edge play out slow and steady, I am wired wrong for it. I have stabbed it with my stelly knife, but I just can't kill the beast. So I am just trying to manage it now. I have been successful over a fairly long period of time just betting tight and winning a lot more than I lose (betting up to -400). But now that I have lost the ability to cap and am losing all the time, I am itching to make huge chasing bets.
I do what I have to do. So it is more of a "control myself" system than anything else.
SPX, I am sorry dude, but I believe your philosophy is extremely flawed. There is a reason that NO good cappers bet huge faves.
More importantly, there is a reason that they stay FAR away from the kind of bets that you are advocating on here. I am not as familiar with other sports...But I would doubt that there are serious cappers out there that would advocate placing a big bet on a huge straight up favorite.
I do not know if you betting -500 faves has worked out for you are not. But I have seen so many bettors with your philosophy get burned. Maybe you are the exception. Once again, I would not bet Gegard @ -400 against anyone, because to make money on a continual basis in sports(ANY) betting you have to have rules...And you must abide by them....I learned the hard way that one of my rules that I now MUST abide by is to just not bet a fighter if he is priced past a certain price.
Your way of betting can lead to HUGE losses in short periods. You will feel like a king when things are going your way, but when the cold spell hits, it will hurt much worse.
Thanks for the fb fellows...
I think it is just as important to find a betting strategy that matches your particular tendencies as optimizing profit... Since I know I hate losing, and it makes me impatient and chase and make too big of bets, I try to come up with a system that takes all of that into consideration. Now, if I was a cyborg math robot from the future, I would vary my bets depending on my percieved advantage.
BUt as it were, I am an emo... I need to just embrace it because it hasn't changed in 7 years of pretty serious betting (bj, then poker, now mma). I just flat out can't let my edge play out slow and steady, I am wired wrong for it. I have stabbed it with my stelly knife, but I just can't kill the beast. So I am just trying to manage it now. I have been successful over a fairly long period of time just betting tight and winning a lot more than I lose (betting up to -400). But now that I have lost the ability to cap and am losing all the time, I am itching to make huge chasing bets.
I do what I have to do. So it is more of a "control myself" system than anything else.
MMA, that is the danger of betting heavy faves. Everyone says that they do fine betting them until....the end. And the end is that rare time where your 3 or 4 big faves all lose. All of a sudden, you are down a third to a half of your bankroll. And when (most) dudes chase to win back some of their losses...They will most certainly look to chase by betting....more big faves(the cant lose fights). I am pretty sure that you realize the mistakes you have made recently. And i am just not sure you need to do a complete redo of your betting.
SPX, I am sorry dude, but I believe your philosophy is extremely flawed. There is a reason that NO good cappers bet huge faves.
You lost me as soon as I finished this pair of sentences.
I know pro gamblers personally. Like, genuinely pro-gamblers, not peeps like us who do it on the side, but rather guys who make an actual living out of it.
Many do the exact opposite of what you're pontificating about. There's one who actually posted here briefly (UKdonkbet) who utilized a common system among pros where he would borrow money from other bankrolls so he could put HUGE bets on big faves (like 30 units on big favorites who are virtually guaranteed to win). To say that no serious or professional gamblers bet on big favorites is just asinine. Quite frankly, you don't know what you're talking about. It's that simple.
Why do it? I mean seriously, are you going to bet 400 to win 100? And then if Gegard blows his knee out, you lose 400 dollars.
Why do it? To make money. I'm not good at math . . . but I still know that this game is all about math when it comes to making money. What are the odds that Gegard will blow his knee out? 1 in 20? 1 in 50? 1 in 100?
Let's say it's 1 in 20, a very conservative estimate in my opinion. So he beats Goodridge's ass 19 times, and you win $1900. Then in the 20th fight he blows his knee out. Or gets KOd. Or trips and falls and Goodridge falls on top of him and the ref stops it immediately and it's the worst stoppage in the history of bad stoppages. And you lose $400. Well you're still $1500 ahead.
I would absolutely take Gegard at -400 against Gary Goodridge.
Of course someone is going to win, but that does not mean you nedd to bet every fight, I think that is just silly. I thought Sok was going to destroy Houston. I actually thought that line had value for Sok, but I did not bet it because the price was simply just to high.
As for managing to pick the right guy, that is the whole point...no matter how good a capper someone is, he is not going to always pick the right guy...so why even bet a bunch of the heavy faves? When the tide turns on you, you are then in deep shit.
I had money on Soko and I lost and it sucks. But I knew going into that fight that Soko has some serious problems as a fighter. Nevertheless, I took the risk and it backfired. Shit happens. I'm still in the game and still ahead for the year.
I would have to look at my records, but I'm pretty sure I've won more money on big faves than I've lost. In fact, I don't think I've ever lost a single -500 bet. That doesn't mean that I never will. But by the time I do I will be (and already am, I'm sure) past the point to where I still show a profit.
With that said, I never said you should bet everything. I just said that every fight is a moneymaking opportunity. And it is. Because someone wins.
That is a very simplistic way of looking at it. While your post is true. It does not take into consideration the fact that you can still hit a very unlucky streak at anytime. Lets say you lose your first -500 fave. You are down right off the bat 500.00. So now you are looking for the next can not lose bet to win some of that lost money. So you find your next can not miss -500 fave to bet. BUT NOW YOU HAVE TO BET 2500.00 to get back your 500.00 you lost. What happens if you lose that next bet? Are you honestly going to say that it can not happen? I have seen it happen SO MANY TIMES.
So now you(or whoever) is down 3 grand. Do you now finally say to yourself that betting big faves is at least very risky....or do you find yourself another can not lose -500 fighter and place 15K on him to win your 3 grand back.
Betting -500 type fights can eat into your bankroll real quick when things turn against you.
poopoo333
10-04-2010, 11:11 PM
I bet a lot of fights where I find the "value", and save my "bigger bets" for things I am pretty sure of. Lately, only a few of my "value bets" come through, but the things I am sure of have been losing seemingly EVERYTIME in the last month and a half or so: Varner, Dunham, Florian, Pearson, and the "sambo guy" from Cage Rage over the weekend.
I was thinking about going to a temporary 20u bankroll, but that does not fit my "betting style". If I were to go to a 20u bankroll, I would not bet nearly as many fights, and I would only bet fights @ reasonable lines that I was "sure of". BUT, look at the above. In the past month and a half, my "sure of bets" since September were what you read in the above paragraph plus Warren (who could have easily lost in round 1) and Ryan Bader. That would have been a 2-5 run in one month, and with a 20u bank roll that would have wiped me right out. Before September, I was doing pretty well with my many fractional unit "value bets" plus my somewhat of an "anchor bet" with the fights I was "sure of". Would this style of betting be better with a 100u bank roll? Or should I stick to my 50u bank roll and just realize I am in a typical slump and get over it?
SPX, I am sorry dude, but I believe your philosophy is extremely flawed. There is a reason that NO good cappers bet huge faves.
You lost me as soon as I finished this pair of sentences.
I know pro gamblers personally. Like, genuinely pro-gamblers, not peeps like us who do it on the side, but rather guys who make an actual living out of it.
Many do the exact opposite of what you're pontificating about. There's one who actually posted here briefly (UKdonkbet) who utilized a common system among pros where he would borrow money from other bankrolls so he could put HUGE bets on big faves (like 30 units on big favorites who are virtually guaranteed to win). To say that no serious or professional gamblers bet on big favorites is just asinine. Quite frankly, you don't know what you're talking about. It's that simple.
LOL, I do it for a living SPX...And have been for over 10 years. These guys you speak of are most certainly fictitious. I know this for a fact. I lived in Vegas for 5 years and damn near lived in the sportsbooks, and I saw plenty of these guys you talk about leave Vegas broke because they could not control themselves. If your system worked, everyone would do it, there would be no need to even think about a bet...just bet those big faves because they are bound to win.
LOL @ betting 30 units on a big fave. So you bet 30 units to win 3 to 5 units...Do you even realize how absurd that is.
poopoo333
10-04-2010, 11:17 PM
LOL, I do it for a living SPX...And have been for over 10 years. These guys you speak of are most certainly fictitious. I know this for a fact. I lived in Vegas for 5 years and damn near lived in the sportsbooks, and I saw plenty of these guys you talk about leave Vegas broke because they could not control themselves. If your system worked, everyone would do it, there would be no need to even think about a bet...just bet those big faves because they are bound to win.
LOL @ betting 30 units on a big fave. So you bet 30 units to win 3 to 5 units...Do you even realize how absurd that is.
1. What else do you bet besides MMA/Boxing?
2. So all you do for a living is gamble? If so, I idolize you.
3. If you don't mind me asking, on average, what is your yearly profit?
4. How much money did you have to invest @ the start of your "career" to be able to net in such big profits to make a living over time?
I bet a lot of fights where I find the "value", and save my "bigger bets" for things I am pretty sure of. Lately, only a few of my "value bets" come through, but the things I am sure of have been losing seemingly EVERYTIME in the last month and a half or so: Varner, Dunham, Florian, Pearson, and the "sambo guy" from Cage Rage over the weekend.
I was thinking about going to a temporary 20u bankroll, but that does not fit my "betting style". If I were to go to a 20u bankroll, I would not bet nearly as many fights, and I would only bet fights @ reasonable lines that I was "sure of". BUT, look at the above. In the past month and a half, my "sure of bets" since September were what you read in the above paragraph plus Warren (who could have easily lost in round 1) and Ryan Bader. That would have been a 2-5 run in one month, and with a 20u bank roll that would have wiped me right out. Before September, I was doing pretty well with my many fractional unit "value bets" plus my somewhat of an "anchor bet" with the fights I was "sure of". Would this style of betting be better with a 100u bank roll? Or should I stick to my 50u bank roll and just realize I am in a typical slump and get over it?
PooPoo, that just looks like a bad luck slump to me. None of those bets were way out there faves and you got screwed on Dunham. I also bet Pearson(small bet) and right after I made the bet i felt shitty about it because of the price.
One thing i am going to start doing with MMA that I was doing with boxing is...take the Varner and Florian bets. They were both facing guys that were pretty elite fighters themselves. Many boxing cappers subscribe to the idea that when you get 2 fighters who both look like the same class, do not overthink it(stylewise, etc), just take the dog. think about it. The reason you took Florian and Varner(even though they were both 2 to 1 faves) was because you probably thought they had a favorable style match up. instaed of thinking....hey, they are fight quality opponents who should not be such dogs. sometimes i think we may overthink some of these bets.
LOL, I do it for a living SPX...And have been for over 10 years. These guys you speak of are most certainly fictitious. I know this for a fact. I lived in Vegas for 5 years and damn near lived in the sportsbooks, and I saw plenty of these guys you talk about leave Vegas broke because they could not control themselves. If your system worked, everyone would do it, there would be no need to even think about a bet...just bet those big faves because they are bound to win.
LOL @ betting 30 units on a big fave. So you bet 30 units to win 3 to 5 units...Do you even realize how absurd that is.
1. What else do you bet besides MMA/Boxing?
2. So all you do for a living is gamble? If so, I idolize you.
3. If you don't mind me asking, on average, what is your yearly profit?
4. How much money did you have to invest @ the start of your "career" to be able to net in such big profits to make a living over time?
I'm going to have to agree with SBJJ no serious professional gambler bets huge favorites all the time .
I'm going to have to agree with SBJJ no serious professional gambler bets huge favorites all the time .
That's fine. You, also, can carry on, not knowing what the fuck you're talking about.
poopoo333
10-04-2010, 11:31 PM
I'm going to have to agree with SBJJ no serious professional gambler bets huge favorites all the time .
That's fine. You, also, can carry on, not knowing what the fuck you're talking about.
http://i746.photobucket.com/albums/xx104/poopoo333/wrestler_excited-1.gif
I'm going to have to agree with SBJJ no serious professional gambler bets huge favorites all the time .
That's fine. You, also, can carry on, not knowing what the fuck you're talking about.
Relax, homie.
http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c171/zygote7/Gsudo.jpg
I'm going to have to agree with SBJJ no serious professional gambler bets huge favorites all the time .
That's fine. You, also, can carry on, not knowing what the fuck you're talking about.
I swear you are so clueless sometimes X. You've gambled for barley 2 years
I swear you are so clueless sometimes X. You've gambled for barley 2 years
I've been an astronaut for 0 years, but that doesn't mean I can't tell you something about going to the moon.
PooPoo, I was able to do this because of an investment that paid of big. i started playing poker and betting boxing-MMA for a living. stopped the poker as it started to feel like a job.
this might be my worst year. i am up a couple of grand, but have had a couple of deaths in the family, and have not been able to get to vegas as much as I have needed to.
i firmly believe that there are a half dozen bets a year that are easy money around the moderate fave to moderate dog area. i try to hit those fights. Marquez over Vazquez was my last big bet. i pocketed over 6 K on that fight. Velazquez will be my next big bet. A lot of these 1 and 2 unit bets I make on the smaller fights are just my online money.
My best year was over 100K. 1 fight that year I pulled in 16K on one fight. But keep in mind, i do not need much to keep up my lifestyle...i have very few bills, i have a house payment, and a timeshare payment(I know). No car payments and no credit card payments. I just try to average around 50 to 60K a year. i will be lucky to pull in 15K this year. my wife works part time and gets kick ass benefits, so we have everything we need.
Whatever dude,any long time gambler knows what me and Sbjj are talking about .I could careless if you believe us or not.
Svino
10-05-2010, 01:15 AM
That is a very simplistic way of looking at it. While your post is true. It does not take into consideration the fact that you can still hit a very unlucky streak at anytime. Lets say you lose your first -500 fave. You are down right off the bat 500.00. So now you are looking for the next can not lose bet to win some of that lost money. So you find your next can not miss -500 fave to bet. BUT NOW YOU HAVE TO BET 2500.00 to get back your 500.00 you lost. What happens if you lose that next bet? Are you honestly going to say that it can not happen? I have seen it happen SO MANY TIMES...I saw plenty of these guys you talk about leave Vegas broke because they could not control themselves.
The problem you're identifying isn't betting on favorites, it's sizing your bets like a crazy-man and not being able to control yourself. Someone like that is going down eventually regardless. What you're describing is just a version of a Martingale system. As I said above, of course you'll go bust doing that; bet sizes need to go down after a loss. If you have a $10k bankroll and lose a $500 bet, your next bet for the same type of wager should be $475, not $2500.
There is one very good reason to be cautious about betting on heavy favs, and that is you could be off on your estimate. If you bet into -700 odds assuming a guy has a 90% chance of winning, but he really has an 80% chance, you're making a horrible bet (worse than if you made a similar mistake at lower odds). So is it possible then, in a sport where "anything can happen" to make an actual solid prediction of a 90% outcome? I'm very much convinced that it is, though it is probably less common than a lot of bettors might be tempted to think. The Couture / Toney fight I mentioned is one example. At some of the odds given, a 30 U bet would have been perfectly reasonable, or at least, certainly a better wager than 0 U.
MMA_scientist
10-05-2010, 09:07 AM
^^ bingo.
Value can be found on either side of the line. SPX has that right...
You might not know any gamblers that do it that way, but it is because of bankroll management, not that there is is some magic to underdogs. If you can manage your bankroll and not fly off the handle, you can get an edge at any line. It is just easier to manage your bets when you are betting dogs. That's it.
MMA_scientist
10-05-2010, 09:15 AM
MMA, that is the danger of betting heavy faves. Everyone says that they do fine betting them until....the end. And the end is that rare time where your 3 or 4 big faves all lose. All of a sudden, you are down a third to a half of your bankroll. And when (most) dudes chase to win back some of their losses...They will most certainly look to chase by betting....more big faves(the cant lose fights). I am pretty sure that you realize the mistakes you have made recently. And i am just not sure you need to do a complete redo of your betting.
As we have discussed before, we disagree on the favorites issue. As bad as I have made it sound, I am still up a considerable amount for the year, more than 50% (which only amounts to a few grand for me).
I have not lost a lot when I stick to my original plan... the problem is that I do not follow my own advice. I took a big hit, not because I bet on favorites and lost, but because I went on tilt and made bets I had no business making, and that I actually warned everyone else NOT to make.
I certainly understand and appreciate the favorites betting style. But for me, that has its own problems. Namely, patience. Sometimes I can go several months just sort of breaking even with the small bets...
Bottom line, the favorites aren't the problem, I am the problem.
MMA_scientist
10-05-2010, 09:43 AM
I was thinking about going to a temporary 20u bankroll, but that does not fit my "betting style". If I were to go to a 20u bankroll, I would not bet nearly as many fights, and I would only bet fights @ reasonable lines that I was "sure of". BUT, look at the above. In the past month and a half, my "sure of bets" since September were what you read in the above paragraph plus Warren (who could have easily lost in round 1) and Ryan Bader. That would have been a 2-5 run in one month, and with a 20u bank roll that would have wiped me right out. Before September, I was doing pretty well with my many fractional unit "value bets" plus my somewhat of an "anchor bet" with the fights I was "sure of". Would this style of betting be better with a 100u bank roll? Or should I stick to my 50u bank roll and just realize I am in a typical slump and get over it?
You really should have 100u IMO. But when you are building, 50u is enough to protect against the risk of ruin, and still allow you to build your bankroll. 20u is just not enough IMO.
The anchor bet system is extremely common, and I know a lot of guys who bet that way. I personally like that method, and think 50u is plenty while you are building. Once you get to an amount that you feel you need to protect, I would go to 100u.
I was playing with a 100u bankroll, until life intervened and I had to cash out. Now I am back to my 50u bankroll. For me, I am not particularly worried about losing a few grand... I get pissed not because of the money, but just because I made mistakes.
Once I nail down the optimal betting strategy for me and my personality, I will start dumping more money in.
The bottom line is...no serious capper bets these big faves you guys are talking about. None of them. If you find yourself betting them, then you are not a serious capper...It is that plain and simple. There is a reason that NO ONE bets like this in any sport, because in the long run it will fail you. Do any of the best sports cappers have money line picks on faves in the -400 range?
If some of you continue to do it, I am VERY confident you will eventually get your ass kicked by it. I have not been on this site for very long, and have already seen it burn a few dudes in here.
I am not talking about betting 2 or 3 big faves a year. but if you see yourself continually betting -400 and up guys because they are sure things, I honestly believe you have a problem. That is like going to the roulette wheel and covering 30 of the 38 numbers because you are bound to win.
Take the Couture bet. Looking back it is easy to say we all should have layed our entire bankroll on him. But we know that now. If BJ would have beat the shit out of Edgar the first fight like he did to Kenny, Sherk, and Diego we would have said the same thing about that fight.
Here's the exact PM that I received from UK. We were talking about the size of his bankroll (which is huge and much larger that 100 units) and the fact that he bet a lot of big favorites.
FWIW
Sorry I'm just now getting back to you on this.
I don't just bet MMA, I bet football, basketball, MMA, and hockey. I basically tail others on hockey and NBA basketball. Tail meaning I buy picks from pro bettors on the sport for a percentage and tailor my picks according to their picks. MMA and hockey and NCAA basketball I follow my own analysis. In each sport I have a different bank roll. I have atleast a 100u in each sport but I have way more in MMA and basketball.
Now to answer your question, when a fight happens where like Brown/Cheesesteak and there is crazy value even at -650, I will pull funds out of my poker account to add to my MMA bet. I will take 8% of MMA roll and then add whatever I feel like I can til I reach max value for the fight. So I had 8% of my roll on the fight and the other units where pulled from somewhere else. I learned this from the guy who watches my sports betting accounts. Its an old boxing bettors trick. to have seperate rolls and to pull from others when a value fight happens.
Granted if its not BJ, Brown, Aldo, ANderson Silva, Mousasi, orust an extremely off-line fight like JDS/Gilbert or Couture/Coleman I will NOT do this. I used to keep up with what I have made from these -600 or over bets I have made after I lost 25u on GSP/Serra 1. But I'm so much in the black I quit keeping up. MMA is such a new sport that lines aren't nearly what they should be, and I'm trying to keep the most value I can while the line is weak. I have 40u on GSP at -490 for instance.
My roll isn't exactly 500u anymore, bc I increased my unit size. But the last four MMA cards I atleast made 4.5u so I will prob be increasing my unit size again by UFC 114 or hopefully sooner like Sengoku 12 would be the soonest I could do it prob.
me and CGAD actaully had a simiular discussion the other day. He was talking w/an experienced sports bettor and the guy was telling CGAD that making these "30u on -650 line" bets were the only way to go. The only sure fire way to make +EV. My life is gambling, poker is my number one job. Being a poker coach and the $ I make off betting is about equal. So to me and my friends who gamble for their livings also, its not uncommon to make these types of bets. For the most part on this forum people are just building their roles and just started watching MMA or betting on MMA. So thats why I always say 1u should be 1 or 2% of your rolls bc that is the ONLY way you can build your roll. I had to do it that way, and I have the flexibility now to take +EV 'risks'. This is also why I always say every parlay is dead money. Sports gamblers don't have the parlay in their voc. Its actually very ridiculous. I know forums if you mention the word parlay you get a week ban. Bc to them, you are not taking what they do to survive seriously. I hope this helped and not confused you more.
MMA_scientist
10-05-2010, 01:47 PM
The bottom line is...no serious capper bets these big faves you guys are talking about. None of them. If you find yourself betting them, then you are not a serious capper...It is that plain and simple..
We disagree. I think no serious capper will pass up a value play at any odds range.
If some of you continue to do it, I am VERY confident you will eventually get your ass kicked by it. I have not been on this site for very long, and have already seen it burn a few dudes in here...
Been here nearly a year, and I have seen just as many guys bust out betting dogs. It is an issue of bankroll management, not the line you bet.
I am not talking about betting 2 or 3 big faves a year. but if you see yourself continually betting -400 and up guys because they are sure things, I honestly believe you have a problem. That is like going to the roulette wheel and covering 30 of the 38 numbers because you are bound to win..
Well if the pay out on the roullette wheel was 38:1 instead of the 35:1 that would be an awesome bet, and you would be a millionaire in a matter of months. I think you are confusing the issue of betting too much for your bankroll with betting on favorites.
The bottom line is that if you can bet -400 favorites and win more than 80% of your bets, you have an edge and you will make money... I don't see how you can't see this.
You keep throwing your antecdotes (which conflict with my experiences with pros btw) as evidence. But the bottom line is that the math is simple... win more than the line says you should.
Take the Couture bet. Looking back it is easy to say we all should have layed our entire bankroll on him. But we know that now. If BJ would have beat the shit out of Edgar the first fight like he did to Kenny, Sherk, and Diego we would have said the same thing about that fight.
No one said we should bet the bankroll on him, again, just because you bet a favorite, does not mean you have to bet too much. I have a firm 5u cap on any bet. I never bet more than 5% on any fight (10% in the 50u building stage)... I don't always have to bet to win a certain amount. Personally, I have always had a -400 cap... but it is not magic. There is nothing wrong with -600 bets, if you set your line higher than that. I just choose not to make them.
I agree with everything you said, Scientist. . .
It's really just a simple issue of math. Provided you have a bankroll largest to handle the swings, then you will come out ahead in the long run provided you bet with an edge, regardless of the line. . .
Wow, it looks like we will just disagree. It is hard for me to come to grips with this. As I really know no one who takes this seriously who bets such long lines like this. It seems this is a hobby for most in here, so i kind of understand. But I can assure you that those who do this for a living pretty much stay clear of this big faves.
That guy that SPX posted is probably bust right now. He lost 25 units on GSP, so he loaded up double on the rematch to win back 10 units...Priceless. If GSP lost the rematch he would be down damn near 75 units. And this guy is a PRO? The fact that this guy even bet a fight(GSP-Serra 1) that was damn near -1000 shows me he really does not trust his capping judgement and is just looking for the mobs percieved value of a sure thing.
Some of you keep talking about the value. There is a big difference in a guy that has value @ -180 and a guy that has value @ -650. You are still risking so much more of your bankroll for such a small payout...That is part of money management and more importantly common sense.
The bottom line is...no serious capper bets these big faves you guys are talking about. None of them. If you find yourself betting them, then you are not a serious capper...It is that plain and simple..
We disagree. I think no serious capper will pass up a value play at any odds range.
If some of you continue to do it, I am VERY confident you will eventually get your ass kicked by it. I have not been on this site for very long, and have already seen it burn a few dudes in here...
Been here nearly a year, and I have seen just as many guys bust out betting dogs. It is an issue of bankroll management, not the line you bet.
I am not talking about betting 2 or 3 big faves a year. but if you see yourself continually betting -400 and up guys because they are sure things, I honestly believe you have a problem. That is like going to the roulette wheel and covering 30 of the 38 numbers because you are bound to win..
Well if the pay out on the roullette wheel was 38:1 instead of the 35:1 that would be an awesome bet, and you would be a millionaire in a matter of months. I think you are confusing the issue of betting too much for your bankroll with betting on favorites.
The bottom line is that if you can bet -400 favorites and win more than 80% of your bets, you have an edge and you will make money... I don't see how you can't see this.
You keep throwing your antecdotes (which conflict with my experiences with pros btw) as evidence. But the bottom line is that the math is simple... win more than the line says you should.
Take the Couture bet. Looking back it is easy to say we all should have layed our entire bankroll on him. But we know that now. If BJ would have beat the shit out of Edgar the first fight like he did to Kenny, Sherk, and Diego we would have said the same thing about that fight.
No one said we should bet the bankroll on him, again, just because you bet a favorite, does not mean you have to bet too much. I have a firm 5u cap on any bet. I never bet more than 5% on any fight (10% in the 50u building stage)... I don't always have to bet to win a certain amount. Personally, I have always had a -400 cap... but it is not magic. There is nothing wrong with -600 bets, if you set your line higher than that. I just choose not to make them.
How can you say that Scientist. The one thing that has gotten you to re evaluate your whole betting system was 1 simple mistake...you took long odds on a few faves and they bit you in the ass. If you would have not done that 1 thing, you would be going about your business like nothing went wrong.
Betting these faves can work out great for some time. But when the tide turns, and you hit your rough patch, the hurt will be profound.
MMA_scientist
10-05-2010, 03:08 PM
As I really know no one who takes this seriously who bets such long lines like this. It seems this is a hobby for most in here, so i kind of understand. But I can assure you that those who do this for a living pretty much stay clear of this big faves.
So I have heard (from you, mostly)... I don't do things just because I saw another guy doing it that way. There are a lot of guys who claim to be professional poker gamblers out there... And I have seen A LOT of really dumb strategies and an inordinate amount of so called pro poker players that believe in a lot of weird "lucky" charms and rituals. The bottom line is that the math bears out... win more than the line says you are supposed to, that's all you have to do.
Some of you keep talking about the value. There is a big difference in a guy that has value @ -180 and a guy that has value @ -650. You are still risking so much more of your bankroll for such a small payout...That is part of money management and more importantly common sense.
You keep saying that. But the part where we all agreed that risking too much of your bankroll is bad just keeps buzzing right past you for some reason.
We will just have to agree to disagree here. Let's just move on because this is not going anywhere...
MMA_scientist
10-05-2010, 03:15 PM
How can you say that Scientist. The one thing that has gotten you to re evaluate your whole betting system was 1 simple mistake...you took long odds on a few faves and they bit you in the ass. If you would have not done that 1 thing, you would be going about your business like nothing went wrong.
Betting these faves can work out great for some time. But when the tide turns, and you hit your rough patch, the hurt will be profound.
Not really though. My mistake was not taking long odds... I have always lost long odds fights occasionally, and have plenty of rough patches where I lost several 5u bets in a short time frame. What bit me in the ass was chasing mid-event, on fights that I knew were bad bets. Just pure tilt.
When I stick to my strategy, I am fine. My problem is my own personally inability to stick to my own strategy. I keep a tally of my "recommended" plays on my blog, and it is going fine, about a 40% ROI for the year. I am just a wild man at heart and the amount of money I am playing with is relatively small for me (not bragging, just sayin). So I tend to get reckless with my bankroll.
That guy that SPX posted is probably bust right now.
No
He lost 25 units on GSP, so he loaded up double on the rematch to win back 10 units...Priceless.
Where does it say this? Oh, wait, it doesn't. . .
Also, if you didn't catch it, his bankroll was 500u at the time. So 25u is only 5%. You've never risked 5% of your bankroll on a fight?
MMA_scientist
10-05-2010, 03:45 PM
^^ wasn't he the guy that knew performity and was getting on us for bashing him?
^^^ I think he may have come to Performify's aid, basically saying that we all go through slumps, but I don't think he knows him personally.
MMA_scientist
10-05-2010, 03:50 PM
There was someone that knew him, maybe it was on a different forum.
In any event... I am so lost now.
Maybe I should just go back to my original plan, and just try not to go on tilt again. Then do a side parlay project for locks like I had. That was working pretty well.
MMA_scientist
10-05-2010, 03:53 PM
FYI, here is another guy I usually confer with: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key ... l=en#gid=0 (https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ao7l9Rs0knhYdFNBdGRrMzdTV1dUT0xxdFA4WmFzQ lE&hl=en#gid=0)
He is on a shitty run too, just like everyone
Maybe I should just go back to my original plan, and just try not to go on tilt again. Then do a side parlay project for locks like I had. That was working pretty well.
I honestly think this is the best idea.
Devoting most of your bankroll to parlays, regardless of how well researched, just doesn't sound like something that has the best chances of succeeding in the long run to me.
MMA_scientist
10-05-2010, 04:15 PM
^^ I am like the Frank Mir of mma betting. Anytime something goes wrong, I look for a way to change my regimen to make me unbeatable.
i don't see anything on the near horizon that is parlay worthy anyway, so it will be moot for a while.
But you guys might have set me straight here. I might flip it around, 40u for regular play, and 10u for project play (since I wiped out my entire parlay project bankroll on the night of doom).
Svino
10-05-2010, 05:44 PM
Also, if you didn't catch it, his bankroll was 500u at the time. So 25u is only 5%. You've never risked 5% of your bankroll on a fight?
Yeah, I also tend to fall into the catch of assuming 1U = 1%. Honestly, a bet of only 5% on a heavy favorite is pretty low-risk.
Let me just go back to something sbjj and luke said that I agree with though: if you are betting on heavy favorites in MMA constantly then there's probably something wrong. I don't do more than a few a year. It's simply because really steep lines are rare to begin with, so steep lines with discernible value are doubly rare, and steep lines where the value is on the favorite are probably twice as rare as that.
On the other hand, if these pros really got together and put the word out that "serious bettors don't bet heavy favorites", maybe they could get enough people to follow them and pull down the lines. Then we could find value on all the favs and win big money. sbjj is doing his part, so I approve. ::thumbup::
Svino
10-05-2010, 05:45 PM
^^ I am like the Frank Mir of mma betting.
LOL
That guy that SPX posted is probably bust right now.
No
He lost 25 units on GSP, so he loaded up double on the rematch to win back 10 units...Priceless.
Where does it say this? Oh, wait, it doesn't. . .
Also, if you didn't catch it, his bankroll was 500u at the time. So 25u is only 5%. You've never risked 5% of your bankroll on a fight?
LOL, it is in his post dude. Read it again. He says he lost 25 units on GSP, and is betting 49 units on the rematch. I am assuming the line he got in at was around -400 on the rematch.
^^^ I think he may have come to Performify's aid, basically saying that we all go through slumps, but I don't think he knows him personally.
I would have not doubt that he stuck up for Performity. Performity would make decent picks and then fuck it all up with one stupid ass bet on a heavy favorite. Good God, all you have to do is look at him to see how betting heavy faves can screw up a dudes bankroll.
He actually states he has 40 units on GSP @ -490 afetr losing 25 units on him in the first fight. So he is essentually risking 10% of his bankroll after already losing 5% of it to try to win back less than 2% of his bankroll. HHHHMMMMM! Sounds brilliant. I guess he just found it too hard to find a -150 or lower fight out there to bet on.
That guy that SPX posted is probably bust right now.
No
He lost 25 units on GSP, so he loaded up double on the rematch to win back 10 units...Priceless.
Where does it say this? Oh, wait, it doesn't. . .
Also, if you didn't catch it, his bankroll was 500u at the time. So 25u is only 5%. You've never risked 5% of your bankroll on a fight?
Not to increase my bankroll by a mere half of one percent. Risk vs. Reward.
He actually states he has 40 units on GSP @ -490 after losing 25 units on him in the first fight.
I actually got that PM from him on 1/15/2010. So the fight he'd be referring to is the GSP/Hardy fight, long after GSP/Serra I and II. These events are not connected. He simply believed that GSP was going to easily beat Hardy and that even at -490 there was a ton of value, and he capitalized on it.
And we all know how that fight turned out.
He actually states he has 40 units on GSP @ -490 after losing 25 units on him in the first fight.
I actually got that PM from him on 1/15/2010. So the fight he'd be referring to is the GSP/Hardy fight, long after GSP/Serra I and II. These events are not connected. He simply believed that GSP was going to easily beat Hardy and that even at -490 there was a ton of value, and he capitalized on it.
And we all know how that fight turned out.
Hell yea he did. He risked 10% of his bankroll to add less than 2% to his bankroll. I mean, you could just bet GSP every fight @ -400 or higher and more than likely you will win money(the guy is that good)...but at that price, you are gonna win what...3 or 4 units a year on him.
Hell yea he did. He risked 10% of his bankroll to add less than 2% to his bankroll. I mean, you could just bet GSP every fight @ -400 or higher and more than likely you will win money(the guy is that good)...but at that price, you are gonna win what...3 or 4 units a year on him.
I guess I think 2% is a pretty big increase, and is worth a 10% risk if the possiblity of winning is tremendous.
I think the important point is not bet all high lines . . . but to bet -500 (or whatever) fights when they should really be -900.
edman5555
10-06-2010, 03:36 PM
I can't see betting huge fav's all the time...The problem is the low return and high risk of "something" happening. I do it every now and then but i generally don't go over -250 or so. I'd rather look for value in dogs, they seem to win almost as much as favorites. Which is the KEY. Dogs win almost as much as favorites..
As for the "something" I am referring to, I'll give you some examples.
A fighter coming in injured and not telling anybody. His performance will be affected.
A fighter not being in shape. This shit happens a lot, we all know it.
A freak accident. There have been guys that have literally slipped on the budweiser logo. I think Jason Macdonald?? was going for a takedown on John Salter and stepped in wrong and broke his leg..remember that?
The fact that one punch can end a fight.
A fighter developing new skills he never had before...Doerksen getting submitted by C.B. Dolloway..who was expecting that?
A guy not following the most logical path to victory..Koscheck trying to stand up with guys and getting KO'd. Serra trying to box with the bigger, Professional boxer Chris Lytle. That was stupid and he lost.
Guys who decide to fight just to be entertaining..
Fedor deciding to leap into Werdums guard?
Serra punching GSP behind the ear.
The problem with betting A LOT of big favorites is that the return is so small you have to be an amazing picker to win in the long run.
Lets say you bet 10 bets at -500. 100 bucks each.
that is 100 to win 20.
You will have to bet 1000 to win 200.
After you lose two bets your in the hole. Check my math, I am pretty sure I am right. So you have to have an 80% pick rate. That is really really hard.
On top of all the reasons I mentioned before for why a fight can go bad there is also the fact that sometimes all of us will straight up be WRONG. We are not mma fighters, hell even they are wrong a lot of the time. Read pros pick before any big fight. THEY ARE NEVER IN AGREEMENT.
Well thats what I think. For the record I am way down right now but I have been chasing and betting like an idiot. Or maybe I just don't know enough about MMA. I'm not sure.
Which is the KEY. Dogs win almost as much as favorites.
I can't remember who it was, but I know this was looked into at one point and it was determined that, on average, dogs win about 30% of the time. So out of 10 fights, dogs should win 3 times and faves should win 7 times.
So you have to have an 80% pick rate. That is really really hard.
I'm not sure it's that hard when we're talking about -500 favorites. I think you just have to be educated. WHY has a line been set to -500?
Let me give you an example of a -500 bet I recently bet: Megumi Fujii vs Carla Esparzaa.
Fujii has been called by some the best pound-for-pound female fighter in the world. In fact, she's been called the best pound-for-pound fighter PERIOD. Not female fighter . . . just fighter. Going into the Esparzaa fight, she had a perfect 20-0 record with a finish rate of something like 88%. She is a black belt in Judo and BJJ and has either won or performed very respectably in judo, sambo, and BJJ competitions. (She is Japan National Sambo and BJJ champ. She also has placed third at ADCC.) She is the Fedor of the 115 lb. women's division (only truly undefeated).
Esparzaa, on the other hand, was 3-0 going into the fight. She also took the fight on short notice. She did have legit wrestling credentials and at least held wins over fighters with winning records, but had very little experience in the sport and had never faced a submission master like Fujii. It was, in essence, like taking a promising young WW fighter and making him fight GSP.
In my opinion, taking -500 on a fight like this is a no-brainer. It would truly take a freak occurrence to lose and I think the odds are a lot less likely than 20%.
Now on the other hand, there have been a lot of high lines that never deserved to be. Like Larson vs Pierce, for instance. I'm sure you can come up with a few more examples of your own.
But I think the key is not betting big favorites "all the time" as you say, but to bet big favorites who deserve to be BIGGER favorites than they already are.
MMA_scientist
10-06-2010, 04:32 PM
^^ I totally agree. I think it is easier to win more that 80% of your bets @ -400 than it is to win more than 50% at even odds.
You have -500 lines where it is a legit fighter against a legit fighter (Sonnen/Silva was in that ballpark). #1 should not be -500 to #2. Same thing with GSP/Koscheck IMO. I don't make -400 bets where there are two top guys involved.
But then you have a lot of fights like Phil Davis or Daniel Cormier (who could probably beat at least 4 or 5 top 10 guys right now) at -500 against another guy that does not have a big name. In those cases, I will take the Cormier's of the world @ -400. Then you have the legit fighter vs. scrub matchups like Couture/Toney or Sylvia/Pudz or Mousasi/Goodridge... those fights scream to be bet even at deep odds.
I don't know, the more I think about it... you just can't pick any old deep odds fight, but I think I could go a long time, very long picking -500 fights and never losing, much more than 5:1 tbh. And that is how I used to bet. I would take anything up to -400, and I used to go one 10-1 streajs ALL the time. Since each win ratchets up your unit size, you can bak pretty quickly this way.
In short, I am going back to the favorites. You can't talk me out of it.
edman5555
10-06-2010, 04:42 PM
Well I think it is all subjective..You can bet at any line. It just comes down to how confident you are the guy will win Vs. The payout.
I can't see betting huge fav's all the time...The problem is the low return and high risk of "something" happening. I do it every now and then but i generally don't go over -250 or so. I'd rather look for value in dogs, they seem to win almost as much as favorites. Which is the KEY. Dogs win almost as much as favorites..
As for the "something" I am referring to, I'll give you some examples.
A fighter coming in injured and not telling anybody. His performance will be affected.
A fighter not being in shape. This shit happens a lot, we all know it.
A freak accident. There have been guys that have literally slipped on the budweiser logo. I think Jason Macdonald?? was going for a takedown on John Salter and stepped in wrong and broke his leg..remember that?
The fact that one punch can end a fight.
A fighter developing new skills he never had before...Doerksen getting submitted by C.B. Dolloway..who was expecting that?
A guy not following the most logical path to victory..Koscheck trying to stand up with guys and getting KO'd. Serra trying to box with the bigger, Professional boxer Chris Lytle. That was stupid and he lost.
Guys who decide to fight just to be entertaining..
Fedor deciding to leap into Werdums guard?
Serra punching GSP behind the ear.
The problem with betting A LOT of big favorites is that the return is so small you have to be an amazing picker to win in the long run.
Lets say you bet 10 bets at -500. 100 bucks each.
that is 100 to win 20.
You will have to bet 1000 to win 200.
After you lose two bets your in the hole. Check my math, I am pretty sure I am right. So you have to have an 80% pick rate. That is really really hard.
On top of all the reasons I mentioned before for why a fight can go bad there is also the fact that sometimes all of us will straight up be WRONG. We are not mma fighters, hell even they are wrong a lot of the time. Read pros pick before any big fight. THEY ARE NEVER IN AGREEMENT.
Well thats what I think. For the record I am way down right now but I have been chasing and betting like an idiot. Or maybe I just don't know enough about MMA. I'm not sure.
Very well said. if you bet a -500 or -600 fighter every month(5 or 6 units at a time) and hit 11 of them for the year, you net 5 units for the year...seriously, that is ridiculous. That is like a 5% return for the year(assuming a 100unit bankroll). Jesus, just put your money in a conservative high yield stock with a 6% dividend. If you only hit 10 of the 12 fights, you net nothing. It just really makes no sense IMO.
And I think you would be lucky to win 11 of 12 big favorites...And the return is STILL not worth it.
^^ I totally agree. I think it is easier to win more that 80% of your bets @ -400 than it is to win more than 50% at even odds.
You have -500 lines where it is a legit fighter against a legit fighter (Sonnen (R-Or)/Silva was in that ballpark). #1 should not be -500 to #2. Same thing with GSP/Koscheck IMO. I don't make -400 bets where there are two top guys involved.
But then you have a lot of fights like Phil Davis or Daniel Cormier (who could probably beat at least 4 or 5 top 10 guys right now) at -500 against another guy that does not have a big name. In those cases, I will take the Cormier's of the world @ -400. Then you have the legit fighter vs. scrub matchups like Couture/Toney or Sylvia/Pudz or Mousasi/Goodridge... those fights scream to be bet even at deep odds.
I don't know, the more I think about it... you just can't pick any old deep odds fight, but I think I could go a long time, very long picking -500 fights and never losing, much more than 5:1 tbh. And that is how I used to bet. I would take anything up to -400, and I used to go one 10-1 streajs ALL the time. Since each win ratchets up your unit size, you can bak pretty quickly this way.
In short, I am going back to the favorites. You can't talk me out of it.
Am I missing something? Was it not betting a couple of heavy faves. that got you in trouble? I know you say it was you going on tilt, but did you not bet on a couple of heavy favorites that lost?
Look, I am just trying to help you the best I can through this slump. I could very well be wrong. But I really think the worst thing you can do to get your edge back is to bet a couple of -500 fighters to win a couple of units. What if you lose one and drop another 5 or 10 units. You are going to jump off a building if you lose 10 units on a -500 fighter, but win a couple of units on an even money fight because you bet 10 units on a sure thing and 2 units on a value bet on the same card.
edman5555
10-06-2010, 05:10 PM
Ok well seeing as we are all down in the dumps. What does everyone see on the horizon for good bets?
For the odds posted so far on bestfightodds.com I see(I am not 100 percent confident in all of these)
Askren, Condit, Akiyama, Belfort, Machida, Cain Velasquez, Nick diaz.
Special mention to Neil Grove, even though I probably won't bet it.
MMA_scientist
10-06-2010, 05:12 PM
^True, but there are hundreds of fights in the -250 to -400 range...
I used to bet a lot of fights in that range and did pretty well... I ran some back tests and figured out that I would have done better had I just stuck to -250 bets or under, but I think that made me start betting more fights that I otherwise would not have bet in that range. Whereas when I had a couple of -350 bets on the card, I was pretty careful about my lower line bets. No, I seem to be betting a lot more recklessly in that range. -250 is sort of my sweet spot. I seem to win WAY more than 2.5 to every one that I lose in that range. It is just enough to where you can find some pretty solid favorites, but not so high that you have to win every one.
Am I missing something? Was it not betting a couple of heavy faves. that got you in trouble? I know you say it was you going on tilt, but did you not bet on a couple of heavy favorites that lost?
He bet on a couple of everything that lost. It happens. It wasn't just heavy favorites.
MMA_scientist
10-06-2010, 05:26 PM
Am I missing something? Was it not betting a couple of heavy faves. that got you in trouble? I know you say it was you going on tilt, but did you not bet on a couple of heavy favorites that lost?
Look, I am just trying to help you the best I can through this slump. I could very well be wrong. But I really think the worst thing you can do to get your edge back is to bet a couple of -500 fighters to win a couple of units. What if you lose one and drop another 5 or 10 units. You are going to jump off a building if you lose 10 units on a -500 fighter, but win a couple of units on an even money fight because you bet 10 units on a sure thing and 2 units on a value bet on the same card.
Really the fights I lost were not heavy favorites except Sok (which I vowed not to bet) I lost on Darebdyan, Jardine, Larson, and Sok (back to back to back to back). Karen was like -170 IIRC, Larson was -180 or so and I think KJ was are -210... Sok was deep, like -300 or more. 3 fights I did not even look at prior to betting, except to say I though Prangley was the exact same type of fighter that has been beating KJ and that I will never bet Sok again, even though he was a near lock here (in my then opinion).
I don't really get too upset about my losses believe it or not, because I am not playing with that much money (about 5K) in regards to my overall situation in life. I get more upset because I made mistakes that I nkow better than to make... I am still "testing" my edge before I start contributing extra money. I built my bankroll off of 1 $600 deposit to almost $10k, then I had to cash out about 6 months ago for a purchase and then I took some hits in the last few months. Next year was the year I was planning on dumping some more money into this thing, but I think I am going to wait a while on that now.
That said, I appreciate and value your input... We are all here to try to make money and improve each other as cappers. My goal is to build this into a part time income... I know my capping ability is there, I lack the maturity in my bankroll management though.
Big faves, dogs, small faves, I have looked at my past bets... I am not very good at picking dogs. So that is part of it... the other part of it is that I have a capping system that I believe in (favorites with a grappling element, very few variables). I like to know where the fight is going to take place and who has the edge in that place. That formula has worked for me. I lose when I get away from that formula. I consistently lose when I get away from that actually. When I stick to that, I win.
edman5555
10-06-2010, 05:28 PM
Ok well seeing as we are all down in the dumps. What does everyone see on the horizon for good bets?
For the odds posted so far on bestfightodds.com I see(I am not 100 percent confident in all of these)
Askren, Condit, Akiyama, Belfort, Machida, Cain Velasquez, Nick diaz.
Special mention to Neil Grove, even though I probably won't bet it.
BUMP
MMA_scientist
10-06-2010, 05:39 PM
BUMP
I will probably be on Askren. The fight fits my profile- I know what the battle is..Askren will be wanting the takedown and Good will be trying to avoid it. I will put my money on the olympic wrestler to get the takedown... since I have confidence in Askren's gas tank and ability to get repeated takedowns, I think he will win by submission or UD. Good has a puncher's chance of course.
I don't like Grove for the same reason I do like Askren.
I will be on Cain as well. I like BJ a lot at -130. I will definitely be on BJ there.
I like the sexy bet, but am not going to make it bc it doesn't fit my profile. I do not like Diaz at the current line at all (@ -170 ok, @ -250 no way- value is on Noons now IMO)... Same thing with Condit, I like Hardy a lot there, I think he will beat Condit and his line is pretty good.
edman5555
10-06-2010, 05:54 PM
BUMP
I will probably be on Askren. The fight fits my profile- I know what the battle is..Askren will be wanting the takedown and Good will be trying to avoid it. I will put my money on the olympic wrestler to get the takedown... since I have confidence in Askren's gas tank and ability to get repeated takedowns, I think he will win by submission or UD. Good has a puncher's chance of course.
I don't like Grove for the same reason I do like Askren.
I will be on Cain as well. I like BJ a lot at -130. I will definitely be on BJ there.
I like the sexy bet, but am not going to make it bc it doesn't fit my profile. I do not like Diaz at the current line at all (@ -170 ok, @ -250 no way- value is on Noons now IMO)... Same thing with Condit, I like Hardy a lot there, I think he will beat Condit and his line is pretty good.
Why Hardy? I'm not 100 percent on condit, just looking for input.
A couple of things about Condit. He requested the fight with Hardy(he says, could be a hype thing) because he thinks his style matches up with him well and he is a big name. I like that Condit thinks he has the skills to beat him and picked him out of the lot. He knows more about himself, Hardy and mma than I do.
Second, he is training with GJackson now and in an interview claimed this is the best camp he has ever had in his entire life.
Third all of his wins except one have come via finish..he is only 26 now. He is probably just starting to tap into his potential..
Fourth, Hardy is just a striker. He doesn't do anything else. Condit will most likely be going for takedowns.
Fifth. I've always thought Hardy is somewhat overrated. I could be wrong.
I dont see Hardy knocking him out or submitting him. I could see Condit doing either..Though Hardy via decision is quite possible.
^^^ I've got a bet on Hardy. I think he's going to be sharper in the striking. He also has pretty decent TDD and Condit's takedowns aren't the best. Also, if it does go to the ground, it's not like he's entirely a fish out of water. He held his own against Davis, who also has solid--if not exceptional--ground skills.
I think the turning point for me when it comes to Hardy was the Swick fight. Swick is pretty good everywhere and Hardy schooled him.
Ok well seeing as we are all down in the dumps. What does everyone see on the horizon for good bets?
For the odds posted so far on bestfightodds.com I see(I am not 100 percent confident in all of these)
Askren, Condit, Akiyama, Belfort, Machida, Cain Velasquez, Nick diaz.
Special mention to Neil Grove, even though I probably won't bet it.
Askren=no bet, as I just think he looks beatable at times, and I actually think Good is good.
Condit= I am prbably on the other side, Scientist summed it up pretty well.
Akiyama= I love it, 2 to 1 dog is a steal IMO.
Belfort= Maybe a small play, but I think the line is ALMOST right.
Machida= I think he wins this easy, I have thought Rampage was about done for awhile now...The speed asvantage will be huge. The price is the only thing that may keep me off Lyoto...-250 or lower, I may bet it.
Cain= May be my biggest(maybe sencond largest) bet of the year...I think he should be favored, and I think he matches up extremely well with Brock. I have thought he would be the champ for awhile now.
Diaz= I think he wins and holds some BIG advantages here...just the price that keeps me away.
Scientists mentioned BJ, I am on him already for 5 units, at a great opening price, I still like him @ -130. He will be a big bet.
BUMP
I will probably be on Askren. The fight fits my profile- I know what the battle is..Askren will be wanting the takedown and Good will be trying to avoid it. I will put my money on the olympic wrestler to get the takedown... since I have confidence in Askren's gas tank and ability to get repeated takedowns, I think he will win by submission or UD. Good has a puncher's chance of course.
I don't like Grove for the same reason I do like Askren.
I will be on Cain as well. I like BJ a lot at -130. I will definitely be on BJ there.
I like the sexy bet, but am not going to make it bc it doesn't fit my profile. I do not like Diaz at the current line at all (@ -170 ok, @ -250 no way- value is on Noons now IMO)... Same thing with Condit, I like Hardy a lot there, I think he will beat Condit and his line is pretty good.
Why Hardy? I'm not 100 percent on condit, just looking for input.
A couple of things about Condit. He requested the fight with Hardy(he says, could be a hype thing) because he thinks his style matches up with him well and he is a big name. I like that Condit thinks he has the skills to beat him and picked him out of the lot. He knows more about himself, Hardy and mma than I do.
Second, he is training with GJackson now and in an interview claimed this is the best camp he has ever had in his entire life.
Third all of his wins except one have come via finish..he is only 26 now. He is probably just starting to tap into his potential..
Fourth, Hardy is just a striker. He doesn't do anything else. Condit will most likely be going for takedowns.
Fifth. I've always thought Hardy is somewhat overrated. I could be wrong.
I dont see Hardy knocking him out or submitting him. I could see Condit doing either..Though Hardy via decision is quite possible.
Hardy seems to have a really good beard, and really rarely takes clean shots. Hardy is a bit deceiving because he just does not go in there and try to knock you out. He is a pretty slick counter puncher who can make you pay coming in. I personally think he is going to make Condit pay when they stand in the pocket. On the other hand, Condit could outwork Hardy in the judges eyes. I could see a fight where Hardy lands the cleaner shots, but Condit pushes the pace. could end up being a close fight.
edman5555
10-06-2010, 06:35 PM
BTW. Mike Swick has been fighting with health issues.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/news?slug=ys-mmaweek081110
Obviously it's hard to say how much this has affected him but this could be the reason why he has looked so bad lately. Starting with Hardy.
He hasn't really dominated anyone either.
Ghono is a 5'7'' 170 pounder. Win via Split D. Online play by plays all seem to favor Hardy but he still fighting a much smaller guy.
He knocks out Marham who gets knocked out a lot.
Marcus Davis. He wins this. 2 rounds to 1? Since then, KO'd by Ben saunders, fights Goulet and wins but gets dropped in the fight, beaten badly by Nate Diaz. He seems to be coming to the end of his career.
Lastly Mike Swick who might be sick..
I don't know, I think he is overrated. He is a good striker but that is all he ever does. He has never gone for a takedown and I am pretty sure the only reason he got the title shot is because he is a Brit and they want to get them to watch. Also he is a striker so that is a good sell...
Fightmetric for Hardy GSP..
http://blog.fightmetric.com/2010/08/st- ... eport.html (http://blog.fightmetric.com/2010/08/st-pierre-vs-hardy-fightmetric-report.html)
I think he did the worst out of anyone that fought GSP(that didn't get finished).
Thats not a big teller, i know everyone gets their ass beat by him but still.
BTW. Mike Swick has been fighting with health issues.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/news?slug=ys-mmaweek081110
Obviously it's hard to say how much this has affected him but this could be the reason why he has looked so bad lately. Starting with Hardy.
He hasn't really dominated anyone either.
Ghono is a 5'7'' 170 pounder. Win via Split D. Online play by plays all seem to favor Hardy but he still fighting a much smaller guy.
He knocks out Marham who gets knocked out a lot.
Marcus Davis. He wins this. 2 rounds to 1? Since then, KO'd by Ben saunders, fights Goulet and wins but gets dropped in the fight, beaten badly by Nate Diaz. He seems to be coming to the end of his career.
Lastly Mike Swick who might be sick..
I don't know, I think he is overrated. He is a good striker but that is all he ever does. He has never gone for a takedown and I am pretty sure the only reason he got the title shot is because he is a Brit and they want to get them to watch. Also he is a striker so that is a good sell...
Fightmetric for Hardy GSP..
http://blog.fightmetric.com/2010/08/st- ... eport.html (http://blog.fightmetric.com/2010/08/st-pierre-vs-hardy-fightmetric-report.html)
I think he did the worst out of anyone that fought GSP(that didn't get finished).
Thats not a big teller, i know everyone gets their ass beat by him but still.
Very solid points. This could be a case where everyone thinks that Hardy beats him because of the style match up. But they forget that Condit is at least on his level. This fight could really end up being VERY close, just like the Davis fight was. Not sure I feel like sweating a close decision with a -170 bet on Hardy.
Starting to think this is a no bet for me.
^^^ Okay, interesting analysis. So sell me on Condit. . .
edman5555
10-06-2010, 06:43 PM
I'm reading play by plays for Condit right now.
edman5555
10-06-2010, 06:44 PM
I'm not sold on him yet. Everyone else seems to say Hardy. I just think Condit MIGHT be able to pull it off and he is a Udog. That attracts me. He isn't a very big dog though.
Svino
10-06-2010, 06:44 PM
Askren: I might bet him, too. I need to watch more footage of Good before I feel comfortable with it, though.
Condit: I agree that Hardy is overrated, but I was unpleasantly surprised to find the line as close as it is. Probably no bet from me.
Akiyama: Probably a good bet at 2:1, but the line is quickly moving towards something more reasonable.
Belfort: I love the guy, but I don't think he's the right type of fighter to beat Anderson. I might end up with a bet on Silva here, as bettors are left with the memory of Silva looking weak against someone who was the right type of fighter to beat him. On the other hand, I don't want to bet against Vitor.
Machida: I already have a nice bet on him. Rampage hasn't impressed me in a long time, and Machida is an awful matchup for him anyway. (He looked worse than Thiago Silva did against both Evans and Jardine, looking worse against Machida would be a tall order, but we'll see if he can pull it off.)
Cain: I have money on him. I'm not super confident about it. I'm pretty sure Brock won't be able to manhandle Cain, but I don't know that Cain will be able to get takedowns either. If the fight stays standing, I'm not sure what to expect. Brock does have a reach and power advantage, but he looked pretty awful against Carwin. On the other hand, I haven't quite forgotten how bad Cain's striking looked against Kongo, and out-boxing Nog isn't the accomplishment it used to be.
Diaz: The line is probably too steep here. I actually think Noon's striking in MMA is overrated, but then he did already beat Diaz up once.
edman5555
10-06-2010, 06:49 PM
Ellenberger Condit was very close. Ellenberger seemed to take him down a lot and hurt him badly standing. From what I am reading Condit has an amazing Chin.
I read some more on Condit. It seems like he gets taken down a lot. It also seems like he gets beat up a lot. This is a hard one.
Maybe I will not bet this.
I actually thought Condit beat Kamp., which says alot in my book. He also showed a great beard and heart in both his wins against Burger and McDonalds.
Both Berger and MacDonald would probably give Hardy a good fight also.
edman5555
10-06-2010, 06:56 PM
Yeah I just wonder if Condit can't not fight like a crazy madman and actually mix it up and pull off some takedowns against Hardy. The outworking him for the D is a good point also.
I like Condits confidence. I don't know if he is just trying to hype this fight up or what but he said this the following. He took the fight because Hardy seemed like a guy he could beat with a big name. There are a lot of big names but he picked Hardy..It kind of makes sense. All Hardy can do is standup. Condit seems like he is looking for opportunity here..
The switch to Greg Jackson has me thinking as well. I hate putting faith in him though. He has lost plenty of fights. However, Condit is only 26 years old. He has obvious potential to be really good though..
Now that he is with Jackson, is that being tapped or what? That is a really solid question that basically can't be answered.
Askren: I might bet him, too. I need to watch more footage of Good before I feel comfortable with it, though.
Condit: I agree that Hardy is overrated, but I was unpleasantly surprised to find the line as close as it is. Probably no bet from me.
Akiyama: Probably a good bet at 2:1, but the line is quickly moving towards something more reasonable.
Belfort: I love the guy, but I don't think he's the right type of fighter to beat Anderson. I might end up with a bet on Silva here, as bettors are left with the memory of Silva looking weak against someone who was the right type of fighter to beat him. On the other hand, I don't want to bet against Vitor.
Machida: I already have a nice bet on him. Rampage hasn't impressed me in a long time, and Machida is an awful matchup for him anyway. (He looked worse than Thiago Silva did against both Evans and Jardine, looking worse against Machida would be a tall order, but we'll see if he can pull it off.)
Cain: I have money on him. I'm not super confident about it. I'm pretty sure Brock won't be able to manhandle Cain, but I don't know that Cain will be able to get takedowns either. If the fight stays standing, I'm not sure what to expect. Brock does have a reach and power advantage, but he looked pretty awful against Carwin. On the other hand, I haven't quite forgotten how bad Cain's striking looked against Kongo, and out-boxing Nog isn't the accomplishment it used to be.
Diaz: The line is probably too steep here. I actually think Noon's striking in MMA is overrated, but then he did already beat Diaz up once.
I think Kongo is one of the better strikers in the UFC. I understand that blasting Nog out is not what it used to be, but Cain made him look absolutely silly. Much more so than Mir. And this was the same Nog that beat randy(I know) up standing. I am also starting to think maybe Brocks power is not what everyone thinks it is. the dude tagged Heath with one good shot, and TKO'd randy, the same Randy that was dropped by Nog. I doubt that the Cain that stood up to full blasts from Kongo can not handle shots from Brock. but IMO it will not matter, as I doubt Brock even lands anything signifigant on Cain. i believe Brock will go into hyper panic takedown mode after he eats about a dozen shots from Cain.
i am very confident that Cain will outclass brock on the feet.
edman5555
10-06-2010, 07:01 PM
Okay nvermind, he started training with GJ when he was 15. Also started wrestling when he was 9 btw. I'm assuming all the way until high school.
Yeah I just wonder if Condit can't not fight like a crazy madman and actually mix it up and pull off some takedowns against Hardy. The outworking him for the D is a good point also.
I like Condits confidence. I don't know if he is just trying to hype this fight up or what but he said this the following. He took the fight because Hardy seemed like a guy he could beat with a big name. There are a lot of big names but he picked Hardy..It kind of makes sense. All Hardy can do is standup. Condit seems like he is looking for opportunity here..
The switch to Greg Jackson has me thinking as well. I hate putting faith in him though. He has lost plenty of fights. However, Condit is only 26 years old. He has obvious potential to be really good though..
Now that he is with Jackson, is that being tapped or what? That is a really solid question that basically can't be answered.
I have always said, if you have a fight with two equally matched up fighters, take the dog. the only thing that stops me is that i think Hardy will land the harder(head-snapping) cleaner shots.
edman5555
10-06-2010, 07:03 PM
Askren: I might bet him, too. I need to watch more footage of Good before I feel comfortable with it, though.
Condit: I agree that Hardy is overrated, but I was unpleasantly surprised to find the line as close as it is. Probably no bet from me.
Akiyama: Probably a good bet at 2:1, but the line is quickly moving towards something more reasonable.
Belfort: I love the guy, but I don't think he's the right type of fighter to beat Anderson. I might end up with a bet on Silva here, as bettors are left with the memory of Silva looking weak against someone who was the right type of fighter to beat him. On the other hand, I don't want to bet against Vitor.
Machida: I already have a nice bet on him. Rampage hasn't impressed me in a long time, and Machida is an awful matchup for him anyway. (He looked worse than Thiago Silva did against both Evans and Jardine, looking worse against Machida would be a tall order, but we'll see if he can pull it off.)
Cain: I have money on him. I'm not super confident about it. I'm pretty sure Brock won't be able to manhandle Cain, but I don't know that Cain will be able to get takedowns either. If the fight stays standing, I'm not sure what to expect. Brock does have a reach and power advantage, but he looked pretty awful against Carwin. On the other hand, I haven't quite forgotten how bad Cain's striking looked against Kongo, and out-boxing Nog isn't the accomplishment it used to be.
Diaz: The line is probably too steep here. I actually think Noon's striking in MMA is overrated, but then he did already beat Diaz up once.
I think Kongo is one of the better strikers in the UFC. I understand that blasting Nog out is not what it used to be, but Cain made him look absolutely silly. Much more so than Mir. And this was the same Nog that beat randy(I know) up standing. I am also starting to think maybe Brocks power is not what everyone thinks it is. the dude tagged Heath with one good shot, and TKO'd randy, the same Randy that was dropped by Nog. I doubt that the Cain that stood up to full blasts from Kongo can not handle shots from Brock. but IMO it will not matter, as I doubt Brock even lands anything signifigant on Cain. i believe Brock will go into hyper panic takedown mode after he eats about a dozen shots from Cain.
i am very confident that Cain will outclass brock on the feet.
Yeah I will be betting cain also. He has had an 8 month layoff. Not too hairy.
I just wonder how he will win. I bet the line on him to win via TKO/KO will be insane. I think after he wears brock down he can win that way or also by sub. Cain is a bjj Purp belt world champ, correct me if i am wrong. Only purp belt but it shows he is serious about his bjj training.
edman5555
10-06-2010, 07:04 PM
Also i think the line will get better for Cain.
edman5555
10-06-2010, 07:05 PM
It would be great to get him at +200.
It would be great to get him at +200.
Jesus, i would wet myself. I am going to hit Vegas the weekend before the fight. Would just love +160 or better. My fear is that he goes to +180 +200 range after the weigh-ins.
edman5555
10-06-2010, 07:31 PM
Do you ever bet online or just vegas? If only vegas, why?
MMA_scientist
10-06-2010, 09:51 PM
My bets are going to be Askren, Cain, and BJ for sure... the others are no bets for me...
Re: Condit/Hardy... Condit does not have the tools to take the fight to the mat. If he does manage to get it there, he can't keep it there. So it comes down to who has better striking. I think Hardy is overrated too, and I think almost any wrestler at WW would beat him. But I think he has too much power and will just be too strong for Condit. He does use more kicks and knees though. I just don't see a path to victory for Condit, other than a decision, which will be close in any event. Hardy could win a decision or finish him off with a big shot. Condit has not looked good to me since taking the step up in competition.
Brock is not going to hold Cain down. Watch a college wrestling match. None of these guys can hold each other down for more than 10 seconds. The wrestling skil disparity is small.
edman5555
10-06-2010, 09:55 PM
Askren, Cain an BJ are solid bets. I am probably going to be off Condit. Maybe Hardy via decision would be a good bet.
Condit has not looked good to me since taking the step up in competition.
I think that it's obvious Condit is not in the WEC anymore, and he's not ready for the top of the division, but he does seem good at finding ways to win. I mean, he ALMOST lost to Ellenberger but came back . . . and ALMOST lost to MacDonald but came back . . .
Svino
10-06-2010, 10:36 PM
I am also starting to think maybe Brocks power is not what everyone thinks it is. the dude tagged Heath with one good shot, and TKO'd randy, the same Randy that was dropped by Nog.
In hindsight, I would say that Brock's performance against Couture was positively underwhelming. Randy seemed to have aged a bit during that layoff. It wasn't just Nog - Randy was completely unable to hang with Vera at striking range. Also, for an NCAA champion, the fact that Brock wasn't able to really outwrestle a guy 40 pounds lighter and 15 years older doesn't say great things.
And I might have whined about this before, but I'm pretty sure the shot Brock dropped randy with was illegal.
I don't know about BJ. He has never been great above LW, and when it comes to looking past one's peak, I think he looked as bad in his last fight as Hughes ever did. If he brings the same takedown defense he brought to Edgar 2, Hughes will beat him again.
And I might have whined about this before, but I'm pretty sure the shot Brock dropped randy with was illegal.
I only regard a shot to the back of the head as "illegal" if it's done intentionally and is a clear shot to the line of the spine. (Mohawk interpretation.) Apparently the judges and referees agree, otherwise Brock, Serra, Vitor, Jon Jones, and Aldo would all have losses via DQ.
Quite frankly, this talk of "illegal" shots is hard to me to deal with. If a man throws a punch and the other fighter ducks into it and gets tagged in some way that it could be construed as being to the back of the head, then that's not illegal. That's called fighting.
Quite frankly, this talk of "illegal" shots is hard to me to deal with. If a man throws a punch and the other fighter ducks into it and gets tagged in some way that it could be construed as being to the back of the head, then that's not illegal. That's called fighting.
^^^^^ what he said
My bets are going to be Askren, Cain, and BJ for sure... the others are no bets for me...
Re: Condit/Hardy... Condit does not have the tools to take the fight to the mat. If he does manage to get it there, he can't keep it there. So it comes down to who has better striking. I think Hardy is overrated too, and I think almost any wrestler at WW would beat him. But I think he has too much power and will just be too strong for Condit. He does use more kicks and knees though. I just don't see a path to victory for Condit, other than a decision, which will be close in any event. Hardy could win a decision or finish him off with a big shot. Condit has not looked good to me since taking the step up in competition.
Brock is not going to hold Cain down. Watch a college wrestling match. None of these guys can hold each other down for more than 10 seconds. The wrestling skil disparity is small.
This to me just sums up the wrestling portion of this fight. I would actually not be surprised if Brock ends up spending more time on his back during this fight.
Svino
10-06-2010, 11:49 PM
Quite frankly, this talk of "illegal" shots is hard to me to deal with. If a man throws a punch and the other fighter ducks into it and gets tagged in some way that it could be construed as being to the back of the head, then that's not illegal. That's called fighting.
Are you saying you feel the same about groin shots?
I wasn't suggesting a DQ. In that situation, I think the technically correct is to stand the fighters up and give 1 min to recover.
Are you saying you feel the same about groin shots?
I'm saying that the invocation of the "rule" has gotten out of hand.
It was added to the ruleset for one reason: The keep fighters from getting paralyzed. This is only applicable to fighters who get hit directly along the spinal line. You just can't say that any time a fighter's fist somehow comes into contact behind the ears that it's an "illegal" shot. It's just the most retarded shit ever.
Svino
10-07-2010, 12:51 AM
Are you saying you feel the same about groin shots?
I'm saying that the invocation of the "rule" has gotten out of hand.
It was added to the ruleset for one reason: The keep fighters from getting paralyzed. This is only applicable to fighters who get hit directly along the spinal line. You just can't say that any time a fighter's fist somehow comes into contact behind the ears that it's an "illegal" shot. It's just the most retarded shit ever.
You just mean the "back of the head" rule? Actually I wouldn't mind if they got rid of that rule entirely. I hate it when guys can just cover up by guarding the sides of their head and leaving the back exposed. But if you make the rule, you should enforce it. I don't think you need to make a big deal out of it, unless there's a shot to the back of the head that significantly changes the course of the fight - like by causing a knockdown.
Are you saying you feel the same about groin shots?
I'm saying that the invocation of the "rule" has gotten out of hand.
It was added to the ruleset for one reason: The keep fighters from getting paralyzed. This is only applicable to fighters who get hit directly along the spinal line. You just can't say that any time a fighter's fist somehow comes into contact behind the ears that it's an "illegal" shot. It's just the most retarded shit ever.
You just mean the "back of the head" rule? Actually I wouldn't mind if they got rid of that rule entirely. I hate it when guys can just cover up by guarding the sides of their head and leaving the back exposed. But if you make the rule, you should enforce it. I don't think you need to make a big deal out of it, unless there's a shot to the back of the head that significantly changes the course of the fight - like by causing a knockdown.
The problem with that is what do you do when you run into a Jon Jones/Stephan Bonnar situation where the strike at the time it was thrown was in no way shape or form designed to hit the back of the head but because the other fighter moved the wrong way it ended up being that way? How was Jones supposed to know Bonnar would come forward when he noticed a spinning back elbow was coming? Also, what do you define as "back of the head"? Is it anything behind the ears or there something more specific and less defined, therefore being harder to enforce? if it is to be anything behind the ears then we would be seeing "Illegal" strikes in almost every fight. Any looping punch could then potentially be one that lands in an illegal area.
The problem with that is what do you do when you run into a Jon Jones/Stephan Bonnar situation where the strike at the time it was thrown was in no way shape or form designed to hit the back of the head but because the other fighter moved the wrong way it ended up being that way? How was Jones supposed to know Bonnar would come forward when he noticed a spinning back elbow was coming? Also, what do you define as "back of the head"? Is it anything behind the ears or there something more specific and less defined, therefore being harder to enforce? if it is to be anything behind the ears then we would be seeing "Illegal" strikes in almost every fight. Any looping punch could then potentially be one that lands in an illegal area.
Yes, that's pretty much exactly how I feel right there. . .
MMA_scientist
10-07-2010, 04:02 PM
after some thought, I have decided to just free myself of all limits. I am going to keep a parlay project bankroll of 10u and the rest is for betting any fight within my parameters that has value.
Thanks for the talk guys. You probably saved me a shitload of money.
after some thought, I have decided to just free myself of all limits. I am going to keep a parlay project bankroll of 10u and the rest is for betting any fight within my parameters that has value.
I personally think that's the best idea. If you feel like you're weak in evaluating strikers or weak in picking underdogs, I would just work on those skills, instead of limiting yourself by saying, "I'm only going to bet THIS kind of fight or THAT" kind of fight.
At the same time, I would say to focus the majority of your money in the area where you know you're strongest.
edman5555
10-07-2010, 10:43 PM
Cheick Kongo, Good slump buster bet. I think.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.