Hopkins-Jones line up

[zY|]

Re: Hopkins-Jones line up

I understand it.

Whether or not you think the line is wrong, if you don't feel he has a legitimate shot at winning, then value or no value, it's a losing proposition.

The long term value only makes sense if you're betting every line that you feel has value. If you pick and choose and don't bet much, it's tough to take a dog you just know is gonna lose, no matter the line.

I think that if you just know he's gonna lose, then that's one thing. But I know that I would have less money in my accounts if I didn't take some big dogs when I felt that they at least had a better chance than the line indicated.

Consider a few of my winners:

SAKARA vs Leites (+300, if I remember correctly)
KANEHARA vs Kid (+350)
SMITH vs Le (+325)
PELLEGRINO vs Neer (+190)
GROVE vs Rosholt (+175)

I honestly didn't expect any of those guys to win . . . but I knew they could. I envisioned paths to victory and rolled with it. I knew Kid could have trouble with Kanehara's size and reach and I knew Smith could catch Le with a shot that would rock his shit. Pellegrino's a good wrestler; Grove has subs and Rosholt had shown questionable sub defense.

I certainly don't win every dog bet I make, but I win enough (or at least have won enough so far) to make it a profitable venture. You gotta remember that betting dogs you can lose more than you win, and still make money.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I just said I understand the mentality.

[Mr. IWS]

Re: Hopkins-Jones line up

I went back and looked at a couple I did:

Rousimar Palhares +180 over Dan Henderson WTF?
Chris Leben +200 over Michael Bisping LOL
Ryan Bader +175 over Vinny Malgalese Winna

I was on Mir over Lesnar in their first fight, he was a small dog and I was on Hopkins over Pavlik too. Thats all I can really remember.

[Luke]

Re: Hopkins-Jones line up

I understand it.

Whether or not you think the line is wrong, if you don't feel he has a legitimate shot at winning, then value or no value, it's a losing proposition.

The long term value only makes sense if you're betting every line that you feel has value. If you pick and choose and don't bet much, it's tough to take a dog you just know is gonna lose, no matter the line

I 100% agree .I dont bet a dog unless I think he'll win no matter what the line is

[Luke]

Re: Hopkins-Jones line up

Underdogs I bet within the last year:

Hopkins - Pavlik +300 WIN

Andre Ward - Kessler +160 WIN

Coleman-Bonnar +350 WIN

Ali Funeka-Nate Campbell +162 LOSS (bad bad decision)

Tarver-Dawson +200 LOSS (bad bet lol)

Shane Mosley -Margiritio +350 WIN


I dont bet alot of dogs but I'd say I bet more than most people. Also the dogs I play are usually boxing

[Luke]

Re: Hopkins-Jones line up

For me to bet Jones I would have to think Jones wins this fight 51% of the time which I dont. To be Hopkins I would have to expect Hopkins to win 80% of the time which I dont .Now do you see why i'm not betting either side?

How come you never bet dogs just because there's value in the line? I mean, does jones win this fight more than 20% of the time? If so, his line holds value. I'm not saying I bet every fight I find value in, but I don't really understand the mentality--and you're not the only one who has it, so I'm not singling you out--that a dog's only worth betting on if you think he deserves to be the fave.

I dont bet for value on underdogs ,only favorites. Favorites are suppose to win so when you find a favorite that the line is lower than you thought its a good be imo.If you find a line where the underdog is higher than you thought he'd be but hs no chance to win its a bad bet imo. I mean if Sims was +10000 against Fedor I still wouldnt bet him. Would he win in a fight 1 in a 1000 times ? Probably ,he would eventualy hit a lucky punch once in a 1000 times but I'm still not betting it.

Me and you bet dogs differently and thats fine .I just dont bet a dog unless I think theres a 51% chance he wins but ust because I think he has a 51% chance doesnt mean its not really 10% lol