UFC 152

[mike]

i never do the percentage thing and convert it to a line. its how confidence i am on certain fighter to win the fight and how steep the line on him is then decide how much i want to bet. though i never bet on a guy with great odds if i dont think he has at least 1 clear way to win. But i think Stan will edge Bisping standing and Bisping is going to have to take stan down to beat him. Bisping td is overrated tho, imo. From what i remember, he usually able to get guys down after they starting to gas. otherwise, his td isnt that good. I think stan beats him.

[SPX]

Yeah, I don't set percentages or anything. I basically just bet bigger on lines I think are way off and if I am in confident in that side to begin with. For example, Daniel Cormier/Josh Barnett. I thought Cormier should have been around -200 and he was at + odds so I put 10 units down on it

Yes, but even then, at least implicitly, by saying the line is "way off" or that a fighter should be "around -200" still refers to percentages. After all, the line itself has no other meaning.

[poopoo333]

Yeah, I don't set percentages or anything. I basically just bet bigger on lines I think are way off and if I am in confident in that side to begin with. For example, Daniel Cormier/Josh Barnett. I thought Cormier should have been around -200 and he was at + odds so I put 10 units down on it

[MMA_scientist]

^^ I never did it that way. I have always thought it was a pretty inexact science. I generally just go with whether I have confidence that they guy will win, and if I am willing to pay the price. It is really the same thing as setting a line and comparing to the existing line, just less exact. I do think it is helpful to have that knowledge, but I have never really felt that anyone could accurately set a winning percentage.

[SPX]

Speaking of setting a percentage for each fight and then converting that into a moneyline, does anyone really do that anymore? I used to do it for every fight and that's how I made my betting decisions, as per Performify's betting guide. But now I just look at a line and make a decision on whether or not I think it's a good deal. I get the impression that's how most of us are doing it rather than literally saying, "Well I think he has a 70% chance of winning, but the line says it's only 63%! That line is off!"

[poopoo333]

Oh, I was wrong then. Thanks guys

[SPX]

I don't really know much about the correlation with percentages and lines, but wouldn't 70% mean the line should be WAY more than -170 and would warrant a pretty big bet?

If in fact Bisping has a 70% chance to win then the line should be -233. So yeah, -170 would be low in that case. But I could always be wrong and Stann could show us just how wrong I am when he blows Bisping to pieces in 30 seconds. We both know how this sport is.

BTW, if you ever want to know what the proper line is for any given percentage, this thing is pretty handy:

http://www.covers.com/sportsbetting/money_lines.aspx

[MMA_scientist]

I don't really know much about the correlation with percentages and lines, but wouldn't 70% mean the line should be WAY more than -170 and would warrant a pretty big bet?

-170 implies a 63% win rate

-233 implies a 70% win rate

[poopoo333]

Me, personally, I'd probably say it's about 70/30 or 75/25 in favor of Bisping. But we'll see.

I don't really know much about the correlation with percentages and lines, but wouldn't 70% mean the line should be WAY more than -170 and would warrant a pretty big bet?

[MMA_scientist]

Bisping is a kickboxer with no power and bad defense. He usually wins with his grappling. I think Stann will light him up standing to be honest. But Bisping can win by getting it to the ground, which he almost always does. I will probably bet Bisping at -170.

[SPX]

I think most people feel like we do: Bisping is more technical and a better grappler. Stann's one out is his KO power. So I doubt the line drops too much more than it already has.

Me, personally, I'd probably say it's about 70/30 or 75/25 in favor of Bisping. But we'll see.

[poopoo333]

Nothing to argue there...hopefully one day we see the fight..it's interesting to me. I actually want to watch Shields vs Palhares next.

So back to original point...I am really confident in Bisping over Stann. The Stann by KO factor is there, but you can always hedge with Stann by KO or Stann KOTN. I would bet Bisping now, but to my surprise Bispings line is holding around -170 and was even down in the -150s at one point. I don't want to bet the line around -170, then have the chance to take it later on at -140

[SPX]

Weidman to me is like Cormier. For some reason I just can't get on board. I keep thinking they're going to lose any day now.

I thought Sonnen beat Bisping, but it was very close. And if anything it is the Sonnen fight that makes me think Bisping would probably beat Shields. Bisping defended so well against Sonnen that I think he will just shrug Shields off and go to work on his face.

[poopoo333]

I think Bisping has continued to improve. The dude has been around for a long time now and I think he's come a long way since losing to Hamill.

As for your list, Sonnen would probably beat him again. Weidman perhaps, though I'm not positive about that. Not sure about Okami either. But I would favor Bisping against Shields. If Shields can't get the takedown, he's fucked. And I'm not sure he can get it, at least not consistently.

I think Weidman would have his way with Bisping to be honest...I think Weidman would probably be able to beat Sonnen at his own game and I am a Sonnen nuthugger. I am really high on Weidman, have been since he was announced to fight Sakara. He is great and is only improving. Oh and while on the subject on Sonnen, people think Bisping beat him but I didn't see it that way. People were just really surprised Bisping defended the TD as well as he did. I also read recently Sonnen had some issues going into that fight as well (crazy weight cut and had trouble with the commission all of fight week).

As for Okami...it's an interesting one. I'd actually like to see it one day.

I would not favor Bisping over Shields for the simple fact of how judging works in MMA. If Shields has Bisping up against the cage for 2 minutes of the fight but Bisping is defending well and stuffing Shields, Bisping outstrikes Shields for 2 minutes of the fight, and Shields gets a takedown and stays on top for a minute and doesn't do much=90% of the time in MMA, Shields gets that round.

[SPX]

I think Bisping has continued to improve. The dude has been around for a long time now and I think he's come a long way since losing to Hamill.

As for your list, Sonnen would probably beat him again. Weidman perhaps, though I'm not positive about that. Not sure about Okami either. But I would favor Bisping against Shields. If Shields can't get the takedown, he's fucked. And I'm not sure he can get it, at least not consistently.