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

[Luke]

Where are you finding all these lines at?

Also,wouldn't using opening lines instead of closing lines give us more info since it's before the public moves the line?

[Svino]

BTW Svino, all this stuff seriously is interesting. Thanks for doing the work.

I do wonder how the results would be different though if you picked the best line, or the average line, instead of the closing lines. I mean, I know I bet a lot of these guys at lines that were much better than what you're using.

Yeah, I did too. Sometimes the best line is too fleeting to be relevant to me though, even with BFO sending me alerts. One thing I would like to look at someday is if there's any pattern with the relationship between the opening and closing lines. Like: for fighters that close at -200, do guys that opened at -115 do better or worse than guys that opened at -330?

[SPX]

One thing I would like to look at someday is if there's any pattern with the relationship between the opening and closing lines. Like: for fighters that close at -200, do guys that opened at -115 do better or worse than guys that opened at -330?

I'd certainly be curious to know. Get on it!

[Svino]

Where are you finding all these lines at?

Also,wouldn't using opening lines instead of closing lines give us more info since it's before the public moves the line?

I am using the closing BookMaker lines from bestfightodds.com. Using opening lines would certainly give *different* info. But what I'd ideally like is to use the line that I would be able to, or most likely to bet the fight at. For me, that's probably closer to the closing line. Not only do opening lines often not last longer than about 15 minutes, the books sometimes only accept small bets on them.

[MMA_scientist]

That would be interesting and useful information to have. Do that. I will wait.

[SPX]

For me, that's probably closer to the closing line. Not only do opening lines often not last longer than about 15 minutes, the books sometimes only accept small bets on them.

Why not use an average line then? I mean, a lot of times lines don't move substantially until the day of the fight, and at that point we've often already made our bets. I'm positive Penn was under -500 for at least a little while--long enough to get a bet in--before jumping up to -1100 (which I didn't even know ever happened).

Guillard also was under -500 for a while, at least long enough for any observant person to place their bet.

[Svino]

Why not use an average line then?

Unfortunately, I'm not sure the data needed to take a proper time average is available anywhere. The data needed to do it "improperly" might be available on BFO, but it would be very time consuming to get. Hmm. I'd have to figure out a way to write a script to get it from their pop-up thing.

[Ludo]

Awesome work, Svino. I'm a little bit of a stat junkie when it comes to some things in MMA but I never really looked at winning percentages vs steep lines, I only started making the connection that there was a trend in favorites winning more frequently at the end of last year when My record on favorites was literally the exact opposite and double My record on dogs(which was what I made My money on when I got into betting the sport initially).

Minowa is probably the only legend of the sport for being involved in more suspicious fights than any other figure to date.

I'm not even bothered by the fact that nobody wanted to talk about the champions by the numbers thing. I realize not everyone is a stat junkie.

[Svino]

OK, one more stats thing. This is basically a continuously-blurred (instead of binned discretely) version of the 2009-to-present data. The average return on a fixed-swing bet is plotted against the implied win probability of the line (with vig). The data can't be trusted too much out on the edges, where there are few fights, but the positive peaks in the +120 to +100 range, and the peak a little over and around -400 stand out.

[Ludo]

OK, one more stats thing. This is basically a continuously-blurred (instead of binned discretely) version of the 2009-to-present data. The average return on a fixed-swing bet is plotted against the implied win probability of the line (with vig). The data can't be trusted too much out on the edges, where there are few fights, but the positive peaks in the +120 to +100 range, and the peak a little over and around -400 stand out.

I'm going to assume I'm not alone when I say that I have no fucking idea what that graph is trying to tell Me.

[SPX]

I for damn sure don't.

[Svino]

I'm going to assume I'm not alone when I say that I have no fucking idea what that graph is trying to tell Me.

Sorry. For example, the height of the line at (say) 80, would give you an estimate of expected return for bets on fighters around -400 (since that corresponds to implied odds of 80%). Places where the line is above zero indicate lines or line ranges where blind-betting on all fighters in that range from 2009 to the present would have been profitable.

[Ludo]

Sorry. For example, the height of the line at (say) 80, would give you an estimate of expected return for bets on fighters around -400 (since that corresponds to implied odds of 80%). Places where the line is above zero indicate lines or line ranges where blind-betting on all fighters in that range from 2009 to the present would have been profitable.

Thanks, I think I have it now.

[SPX]

My theory is that Minowa is the worst fighter in the world, and that all of his wins are works. All evidence points to the super hulk tournament being totally fixed.

What evidence exactly are you referring to? The evidence of Minowa winning?

[Ludo]

What evidence exactly are you referring to? The evidence of Minowa winning?

Plenty of fighters have come out and said they were offered money to take dives against Minowa in the past. He's like the Goldberg of Japan.