UFC 117

[sbjj]

Re: UFC 117

Value and the right side are two different things

Well now we're just playing word games.

Well thats just the way I've always looked at betting and the way Zak repsonded I think he feels the sameway.

If Fedor was to fight Mir and the line was +100000 the value would be with Mir. Now after Fedor wins the right side of the bet was Fedor even though the value was with Mir . You see what I'm saying?

Depends how he wins. +100000 would indicate a killing. If he wins a close split decision, then he was the wrong side(before the fight).

Just to be clear, when I say right side, i mean the side a smart capper SHOULD have bet. No serious capper would be happy with his Siva win, I know I would not be, because it would show that I overlooked something or missed something...And that something will evenyually bite me in the ass down the road if I do not catch it and fix it.

[zY|]

Re: UFC 117

I enjoy semantical arguments.

[Luke]

Re: UFC 117

Let put it in Poker terms...You are the dude that gets lucky on the river, and jumps up and screams, I beat your ass.

i am the dude that just realizes that it did not work out this time, but I made the right play at the time.

you're way off base


PS poker is stupid

[Luke]

Re: UFC 117

I enjoy semantical arguments.

Where the fuck you been ? I've been looking all over for you

[MMA_scientist]

Re: UFC 117

Luke, I see what you are saying. At some point, all that matters is that your guy won or lost. We assess value subjectively, both pre and post fight (see Okami/Munoz for proof- even though I lost, I still feel like Munoz was the right play, whereas the guys that had Okami think it was a blowout)...

So I think the "I was on the right side" stuff gets little overblown, because it doesn't matter, and it is not an exact science. You won or you lost. It is different than poker because in poker you can calculate the exact odds of catching that card on the river, look at the pot, and you know if the play is mathmatically correct. In sports wagering, we can't do that. Everything is up for interpretation.

[SPX]

Re: UFC 117

No serious capper would be happy with his Siva win, I know I would not be, because it would show that I overlooked something or missed something...

It actually reminds me of a verse in the Bible. . .

". . . he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames." 1 Corinthians 3:15

[SPX]

Re: UFC 117

you're way off base


PS poker is stupid

I thought it was a good analogy. . .

[sbjj]

Re: UFC 117

Actually, I do not think any serious capper would have bet Silva at his price period. I do think when it looked as if he would drop below -300 that you might be able to make a case for it.

but I was seriously getting scared when a few in here were getting close to making a play on him. I just do not know many successful bettors who play -400 type fights. maybe there are some out there, but I just have not run into them.

and any dude who layed 5000.00 on silva and won 1000.00 this time, and thinks he made the RIGHT play is a complete fool who will be broke within a year no matter what his bankroll is. not saying that is anyone in here, but I have seen guys do it. i saw dudes throwing 7 or 8 grand on BJ to win a grand against Edgar...And I am pretty sure these dudes were not wealthy.

[zY|]

Re: UFC 117

I enjoy semantical arguments.

Where the fuck you been ? I've been looking all over for you

What you want fool?

And Okami did beat the shit out of Munoz. Just because you had Cecil Peoples on your side doesn't make it a close fight.

[sbjj]

Re: UFC 117

Luke, I see what you are saying. At some point, all that matters is that your guy won or lost. We assess value subjectively, both pre and post fight (see Okami/Munoz for proof- even though I lost, I still feel like Munoz was the right play, whereas the guys that had Okami think it was a blowout)...

So I think the "I was on the right side" stuff gets little overblown, because it doesn't matter, and it is not an exact science. You won or you lost. It is different than poker because in poker you can calculate the exact odds of catching that card on the river, look at the pot, and you know if the play is mathmatically correct. In sports wagering, we can't do that. Everything is up for interpretation.

Disagree. i can respect both sides of Okami-Munoz, because I agree that the fight was somewhat arguable. the Silva-Sonnen fight really is not. Plus, Luke has already agreed that the value was on sonnen.

We just had a different definition of "right side"

[SPX]

Re: UFC 117

but I was seriously getting scared when a few in here were getting close to making a plat on him. I just do not know many successful bettors who play -400 type fights. maybe there are some out there, but I just have not run into them.

They're out there. I used to talk to a guy who would play a lot of heavy favorites and he was successful. In fact, he had system where he would even borrow from other bankrolls on certain fights so he could make 20 unit plays and shit on really heavy favorites and lectured me on how this was done by many pros.

He himself was a pro, I suppose. He made his living gambling. He was a poker player, poker teacher, and sports bettor.

Personally, I rarely play guys beyond -300 (and even that is relatively rare), but if you're good and you have your percentages right then the math is on your side. After all, a -400 guy who has a legitimate 80% chance of winning is a smart bet.

[Luke]

Re: UFC 117

you're way off base


PS poker is stupid

I thought it was a good analogy. . .

Name one time I have ever won a fight that I was lucky on and celebrated like I was right all along ? Jesus fuck SPX you should know better than that

The last time I got lucky in a fight was Lil Nog -Brilz and I said for 2 hours I hated to win like that. Not once did I act like it was the smart bet and I was a genius for play Lil Nog

[MMA_scientist]

Re: UFC 117

Actually, I do not think any serious capper would have bet Silva at his price period. I do think when it looked as if he would drop below -300 that you might be able to make a case for it.

but I was seriously getting scared when a few in here were getting close to making a plat on him. I just do not know many successful bettors who play -400 type fights. maybe there are some out there, but I just have not run into them.

We have argued about this before. I don't think it makes a difference what the line is. If you bet only -400 fights and you win more than 80% of the time, you will be successful. Most people fail at it, but it is because they lose control of their bankroll. I don't think the line you choose has any bearing on your long term success. If you can pick -400 fights that are more than 80% sure, more power to you. I bet for several years with -400 cap. It never hurt me, because I was winning at least 6 or 7 bets to each one I lost. I have since moved down my cap to -250, but it is not because I think there is anything wrong with -400 bets.

[zY|]

Re: UFC 117

I understand the Soares/Zy position.

I'm not sure I like being associated with Soares.

As far as his rib, from what I heard it was just bruised. A bruised rib is really painful and he's a total badass for still fighting, but I doubt it limits your range of motion or anything or keeps you from doing anything, especially once the adrenaline gets flowing.

[SPX]

Re: UFC 117

Name one time I have ever won a fight that I was lucky on and celebrated like I was right all along ? Jesus fuck SPX you should know better than that

The last time I got lucky in a fight was Lil Nog -Brilz and I said for 2 hours I hated to win like that. Not once did I act like it was the smart bet and I was a genius for play Lil Nog

Let me be more clear: It wasn't a good analogy FOR YOU. I agree that you are not like that.

But it was a clever analogy IN GENERAL, because we all know that those types of guys are out there.