UFC on Fuel February 3rd Bets Thread

[poopoo333]

WAR MARKES

[SPX]

Sure, but any given bettor might have more skill at identifying value at certain ranges of the line. I do think that I have an easier time seeing value in that +120 to +180-like range, where you can often get fights where there's no real reason to favor one guy over the other.

Probably so.

I guess we all have our own strategies. I just get mildly irritated when anyone fails to see the value in betting both sides of the line. On every card, it's mostly faves that win . . . with a few dogs playing spoiler. In my opinion, that means that most bets should be on faves, with some well-placed bets on dogs.

[poopoo333]

I don't really have a set strategy..I just bet on things where I think the line is off for the most part..or if I just flat out think somebody is going to win. If I think somebody should be the favorite, but is the underdog, I will usually bet 3-5u on it..(Markes over Simpson, Cormier over Bigfoot, Cormier over Barnett, Nelson over Werum...boy was I wrong, Nate Diaz over Cerrone, Brenneman over Story, Brock over Overeem, etc etc).

I also get sucked into betting props with crazy odds

[Svino]

Probably so.

I guess we all have our own strategies. I just get mildly irritated when anyone fails to see the value in betting both sides of the line. On every card, it's mostly faves that win . . . with a few dogs playing spoiler. In my opinion, that means that most bets should be on faves, with some well-placed bets on dogs.

That doesn't follow at all from the fact that more favorites win than underdogs. I don't see any clear reason to think there is generally more likely to be value on one side of the line than the other.

(I have heard it said that there is more often value on underdogs than on favorites because inexperienced bettors that just like to pick "winners" will ignore odds and tilt the lines, but I haven't noticed this to be true, at least with MMA. It certainly isn't why I personally bet more underdogs.)

[SPX]

That doesn't follow at all from the fact that more favorites win than underdogs. I don't see any clear reason to think there is generally more likely to be value on one side of the line than the other.

I actually think that many favorites (most?), even if their line is shit, are actually undervalued. Probably the majority of them win 9 times out of 10, but their lines are still -500 or less.

I mean, Ellenberger and Miocic honestly probably win those fights 90% of the time, even though Diego had a good round and that other dude got some good shots in on Stipe. Brookins probably beats Rocha and Dillashaw certainly beats Watson far more often than not, and they weren't even HUGE faves.

[Svino]

I actually think that most favorites, even if their line is shit, are actually undervalued. Probably the majority of them win 9 times out of 10, but there lines are still -500 or less.

I mean, Ellenberger and Miocic honestly probably win those fights 90% of the time, even though Diego had a good round and that other dude got some good shots in on Stipe. Brookins probably beats Rocha and Dillashaw certainly beats Watson far more often than not, and they weren't even HUGE faves.

It's interesting. Looking at my record, I am historically 32-0 on betting lines over 75%. Could it be that very steep lines on UFC fights are nearly worth an automatic bet?

[SPX]

It's interesting. Looking at my record, I am historically 32-0 on betting lines over 75%. Could it be that very steep lines on UFC fights are nearly worth an automatic bet?

I have a hard time betting lines that high just because sometimes you do get fucked, but really, when you look at the stats, those guys DO win the vast majority of the time.

I'd like to know what my own stats are with bets -400 or worse. Probably pretty good. I know that when I actually bet a fight like that and go into it, I'm a bit nervous, but pretty much consider winning a foregone conclusion, which it usually is.

[Svino]

I'd like to know what my own stats are with bets -400 or worse. Probably pretty good.

If you'd lost one of those, wouldn't you remember it? I know I remember when Joe Stevenson fucked me over those couple of times... and Machida vs. Rampage... and that dumb bet I made on Ryan Couture...

[SPX]

If you'd lost one of those, wouldn't you remember it? I know I remember when Joe Stevenson fucked me over those couple of times... and Machida vs. Rampage... and that dumb bet I made on Ryan Couture...

I also had a bet on Machida over Rampage.

There have been others. Soko over Alexander. And . . . others. Can't remember off the top of my head.

[mike]

That doesn't follow at all from the fact that more favorites win than underdogs. I don't see any clear reason to think there is generally more likely to be value on one side of the line than the other.

(I have heard it said that there is more often value on underdogs than on favorites because inexperienced bettors that just like to pick "winners" will ignore odds and tilt the lines, but I haven't noticed this to be true, at least with MMA. It certainly isn't why I personally bet more underdogs.)

i think value betting in mma is not the most effective. a guy can have a great odd but if i think he has no clear way to win, then i'm not betting it. on the other hand, parlaying 2-3 heavy "lock" favorites can give good return too. I usually try to catch the opening lines with the guys i think will win, and then bet 1 or 2 under dogs who i think will have a clear way of winning.

[trotterz]

I also had a bet on Machida over Rampage.

There have been others. Soko over Alexander. And . . . others. Can't remember off the top of my head.

Well, IMO Machida clearly won that fight

[MMA_scientist]

I made almost all of my money the last few years on favorites over -250. If you look at my tracker for last year, I was +35 in parlays (which is how I played my -250 or worse favorites last year) but I was -2 on straight bets, which is how I played dogs.

For whatever reason, probably a change in the way I see fights, I just feel like the favorites are being overvalued lately (obviously an incorrect feeling). Anyway, I am going to start pulling the trigger on the favorites again.

Svino, if was 32-0 on -400 favorites (I am not, thanks again Rolles), I would not hesitate to bet them. I will say that when I have lost on massive fave's it is almost always in a smaller organization. The only -400 bet I recall losing in the UFC is Rolles/Beltran. I distinctly recall losing MANY -400 bets in Bellator and other orgs (Shark Fights). It is just anecdotal, but I think there is definitely something to the theory that these once great fighters lose motivation or steam when they get cut or move from the UFC. Pretty much everyone trains the hardest they are going to for a UFC fight...

[Mr. IWS]

all I really bet is guys that are between -200 & -500, works ok for me, but at the same time, I go weeks, sometimes months between betting fights, which kinda sucks.

[Svino]

Svino, if was 32-0 on -400 favorites (I am not, thanks again Rolles), I would not hesitate to bet them. I will say that when I have lost on massive fave's it is almost always in a smaller organization. The only -400 bet I recall losing in the UFC is Rolles/Beltran. I distinctly recall losing MANY -400 bets in Bellator and other orgs (Shark Fights). It is just anecdotal, but I think there is definitely something to the theory that these once great fighters lose motivation or steam when they get cut or move from the UFC. Pretty much everyone trains the hardest they are going to for a UFC fight...

Over 75% is -300 or better. Also, it turns out I missed a clump of fights -- so actually, I'm 37-1. Damn you, Jamie Varner! Yeah, that fits with the theme you were talking about with getting burned on favorites in smaller orgs.

Also, I notice from the tracker that parlay plays have been doing well, and those usually focus heavily on significant favorites.

[Ludo]

Well, IMO Machida clearly won that fight

Rampage took the first two rounds simply by being the aggressor. Neither was effectively striking or grappling in the first round, or doing much of anything outside the clinch. But it was Rampage initiating and or getting the better of those clinch situations through two rounds. Machida finally showed a moment of competence in the third round and blitzed Rampage before taking him down and working him over. Had he done that earlier he wouldn't have lost the fight.