UFC 121 Lesnar vs Velasquez

[SPX]

Re: UFC 121 Lesnar vs Velasquez

One member said that he did not want me banned because SPX was pissed at me. So one dude with a beef can get me banned here. I honestly do not need that crap.

Have you been banned?

And if you're really that enraged that I'm a moderator of this forum, then I don't know what to tell you. It sounds petty and . . . childish.

[sbjj]

Re: UFC 121 Lesnar vs Velasquez

Dude, that is another bad example, because I bet BJ in that fight in Vegas @ -240. That line does not pertain to the discussion.

My point was that even if BJ WAS -500 then he'd be worth it. Hell, BJ probably would've been worth -1000.

And my point is that even though I AGREE with you. I will still not bet it. I agree, i believe BJ is 3 levels above Joe, and I also believe that he is the far better fighter. But with me, it is simple, there is a cut off on the risk-reward that I will not cross(most of the time).

I also thought the same before BJ fought Edgar.

i have broken my rule one time in the last year or so(maybe longer). I bet 2.5 units on Kos(he was like -400 or -500) against Paulo. It was just a bet where I thought Kos was close to a lock. Plus, i just really like Kos. I watched video on Thiago, and just saw no way he could even get Kos to the ground. i thought it was a clear case of 1 fighter on a completely different level than the other.

[SPX]

Re: UFC 121 Lesnar vs Velasquez

^^^ Well hey, we actually agree on something. You see? It's a new day.

[sbjj]

Re: UFC 121 Lesnar vs Velasquez

One member said that he did not want me banned because SPX was pissed at me. So one dude with a beef can get me banned here. I honestly do not need that crap.

Have you been banned?

And if you're really that enraged that I'm a moderator of this forum, then I don't know what to tell you. It sounds petty and . . . childish.

Did not even notice you were a moderater. Really do not care. Just know you are a dude with an obvious beef(for some time now) with me. So since I did not even realize you were a moderator, I guess that must mean I am maybe not petty and ...childish.

[sbjj]

Re: UFC 121 Lesnar vs Velasquez

^^^ Well hey, we actually agree on something. You see? It's a new day.

We actually just disagree on one part of one issue. i think you took offense at me questioning the wisdom of the dude you posted about in here.

[MMA_scientist]

Re: UFC 121 Lesnar vs Velasquez

This shit is hilarious. Feel free(whoever has the power) to ban me at any time. because if all conversations are going to degrade down to this, it would be welcomed. It is just funny for you to say I am wrong on this issue when it has worked for a decade for me Scientist. Maybe I have my rules because this is my living. Seriously, it puts food on my families table, and puts clothes on my childs back. I do not have the luxury of having long extended bad runs.

And seriously, if a dude like SPX has the power to ban me from this site...Please, ban me.

cmon, it was just a joke. Take it easy.

Every time someone makes a logical or mathmatical point to you about value, your response is basically, "that's not what has worked for me" or "that's not how the pro's do it, you just think that because you're all amateurs, not pros like me."

Bottom line, until you can respond with an actual reasoned response, I am going to have to disregard what you are saying. Look, I have never said that what YOU are doing is wrong. All I am saying is that massive favorites can, and often do, have value. And there is nothing inherently wrong about betting them, as long as you keep your bet size in proportion to your bankroll. A person can win over the long term betting nothing but massive favorites- that's a fact. If you can't see that, I don't know what else I can tell you.

The only argument you could possibly make would be that past a certain point, no fighter can possibly have value- i.e. no fighter is never more than 90% to win because of uncontrollable variables.

But your theory seems to be that its not worth the risk... is you bet -400 and win $100 5 times and lose $400... you net 100. There is not a difference between this and winning 55% of your even money bets. Fi you lose 4 in a row, somewhere down the line, you will probably win 12 in a row, it all washes out (assuming you have an edge). I just don't get your argument.

[SPX]

Re: UFC 121 Lesnar vs Velasquez

I think you took offense at me questioning the wisdom of the dude you posted about in here.

The problem really hinged on the fact that you said that no pros bet high lines. I pointed out an example of one who does. (I've known that guy for a while. He lives in Chattanooga, TN most of the year, lives in Vegas for (I think) 3 months of the year, and also plays in Tunica, MS on a regular basis.) And instead of saying, "Oh, well all the ones I've known don't" or something disarming like that, you instead basically said that either he's a liar about his pro status or I'm a liar and making up some fictional character.

In any case, I'm over it and prepared to move on.

[sbjj]

Re: UFC 121 Lesnar vs Velasquez

This shit is hilarious. Feel free(whoever has the power) to ban me at any time. because if all conversations are going to degrade down to this, it would be welcomed. It is just funny for you to say I am wrong on this issue when it has worked for a decade for me Scientist. Maybe I have my rules because this is my living. Seriously, it puts food on my families table, and puts clothes on my childs back. I do not have the luxury of having long extended bad runs.

And seriously, if a dude like SPX has the power to ban me from this site...Please, ban me.

cmon, it was just a joke. Take it easy.

Every time someone makes a logical or mathmatical point to you about value, your response is basically, "that's not what has worked for me" or "that's not how the pro's do it, you just think that because you're all amateurs, not pros like me."

Bottom line, until you can respond with an actual reasoned response, I am going to have to disregard what you are saying. Look, I have never said that what YOU are doing is wrong. All I am saying is that massive favorites can, and often do, have value. And there is nothing inherently wrong about betting them, as long as you keep your bet size in proportion to your bankroll. A person can win over the long term betting nothing but massive favorites- that's a fact. If you can't see that, I don't know what else I can tell you.

The only argument you could possibly make would be that past a certain point, no fighter can possibly have value- i.e. no fighter is never more than 90% to win because of uncontrollable variables.

But your theory seems to be that its not worth the risk... is you bet -400 and win $100 5 times and lose $400... you net 100. There is not a difference between this and winning 55% of your even money bets. Fi you lose 4 in a row, somewhere down the line, you will probably win 12 in a row, it all washes out (assuming you have an edge). I just don't get your argument.

Scientist, the reason I do not argue about value, is because it is subjective. i am not going to argue with you about something that can not be nailed down. i really can not believe you want to argue something that is different in every person mind.

the reason i do not argue the uncontrllable variables aspect is because I just assume everyone considers that.

You seem to want me to argue with you about something that is different to everyone. Lets take actual test studies...Lets take Performity for instance...he by and large subscribes to your strategy of bet value(no matter the price). how did that work out for him? The guys only downfall was that he would bet heavy faves now and again, and it killed him. Now if you were to ask him what his flaw was, i am sure he would have all kinds of other excuses to why it did not work. Because for some reason, he just could not grasp that his system was flawed.

[sbjj]

Re: UFC 121 Lesnar vs Velasquez

I think you took offense at me questioning the wisdom of the dude you posted about in here.

The problem really hinged on the fact that you said that no pros bet high lines. I pointed out an example of one who does. (I've known that guy for a while. He lives in Chattanooga, TN most of the year, lives in Vegas for (I think) 3 months of the year, and also plays in Tunica, MS on a regular basis.) And instead of saying, "Oh, well all the ones I've known don't" or something disarming like that, you instead basically said that either he's a liar about his pro status or I'm a liar and making up some fictional character.

In any case, I'm over it and prepared to move on.

SPX, I am not the only one who told you that. And did I say NO high lines? Well, if I did, I should of clarified it with bets High lines on a (semi) regular basis.

But personally, I have never known someone who does this for a living, who even considers betting the types of lines you are advocating.

You do also understand that when it comes to other sports, the pros would consider your system suicide.

[SPX]

Re: UFC 121 Lesnar vs Velasquez

You seem to want me to argue with you about something that is different to everyone. Lets take actual test studies...Lets take Performity for instance...he by and large subscribes to your strategy of bet value(no matter the price). how did that work out for him? The guys only downfall was that he would bet heavy faves now and again, and it killed him. Now if you were to ask him what his flaw was, i am sure he would have all kinds of other excuses to why it did not work. Because for some reason, he just could not grasp that his system was flawed.

Last I saw of Performify he had had a bad run, but was still ahead overall.

[MMA_scientist]

Re: UFC 121 Lesnar vs Velasquez

^^ performity wasn't a world beating capper, but he knows what the hell he is talking about. He showed an edge over at least 3 three years, even though it was small- that's nothing to sneeze at.

Aside from that, he wrote the internet bible on mma betting, where anyone thinking about betting should start: http://mmajunkie.com/news/2690/mma-wagering-101.mma

As for arguing about subjective value... I am not arguing on a specific fight which would be subjective (where you put a figherts chances as opposed to where I do). I am arguing the concept that a fighters can have value past a certain point.

It doesn't really matter, though because mostly I agree with you... you should draw the line somewhere. I draw it at -400. But I don't concern myself with how many of my bets are in any specific line range, because I don't think it makes a difference.

[SPX]

Re: UFC 121 Lesnar vs Velasquez

You do also understand that when it comes to other sports, the pros would consider your system suicide.

What system is that? In the course of a year I probably take less than 10 -500 bets.

For a while it turned out I was betting almost all dogs. It all depends on the fight.

[sbjj]

Re: UFC 121 Lesnar vs Velasquez

This shit is hilarious. Feel free(whoever has the power) to ban me at any time. because if all conversations are going to degrade down to this, it would be welcomed. It is just funny for you to say I am wrong on this issue when it has worked for a decade for me Scientist. Maybe I have my rules because this is my living. Seriously, it puts food on my families table, and puts clothes on my childs back. I do not have the luxury of having long extended bad runs.

And seriously, if a dude like SPX has the power to ban me from this site...Please, ban me.

cmon, it was just a joke. Take it easy.

Every time someone makes a logical or mathmatical point to you about value, your response is basically, "that's not what has worked for me" or "that's not how the pro's do it, you just think that because you're all amateurs, not pros like me."

Bottom line, until you can respond with an actual reasoned response, I am going to have to disregard what you are saying. Look, I have never said that what YOU are doing is wrong. All I am saying is that massive favorites can, and often do, have value. And there is nothing inherently wrong about betting them, as long as you keep your bet size in proportion to your bankroll. A person can win over the long term betting nothing but massive favorites- that's a fact. If you can't see that, I don't know what else I can tell you.

The only argument you could possibly make would be that past a certain point, no fighter can possibly have value- i.e. no fighter is never more than 90% to win because of uncontrollable variables.

But your theory seems to be that its not worth the risk... is you bet -400 and win $100 5 times and lose $400... you net 100. There is not a difference between this and winning 55% of your even money bets. Fi you lose 4 in a row, somewhere down the line, you will probably win 12 in a row, it all washes out (assuming you have an edge). I just don't get your argument.

Scientist, i have answered that question in other posts. the fact that for some reason i have to respond to both you and SPX might be why you guys are not getting the full picture. 55% was just random, like I said, i am hitting WAY less than that lately and still capturing a small profit. that is because of bet size per fight. My worst bet in that entire time was the largest fave. I bet on losing.

Also, if you lose 4 -400 or -500 fights in a row, you would lose 16 to 20 units, if you then win 12 in a row, you win 12 units...you are still down 4 to 8 units. How is that the same as hitting 55% of your even money fights?

[sbjj]

Re: UFC 121 Lesnar vs Velasquez

^^ performity wasn't a world beating capper, but he knows what the hell he is talking about. He showed an edge over at least 3 three years, even though it was small- that's nothing to sneeze at.

Aside from that, he wrote the internet bible on mma betting, where anyone thinking about betting should start: http://mmajunkie.com/news/2690/mma-wagering-101.mma

As for arguing about subjective value... I am not arguing on a specific fight which would be subjective (where you put a figherts chances as opposed to where I do). I am arguing the concept that a fighters can have value past a certain point.

It doesn't really matter, though because mostly I agree with you... you should draw the line somewhere. I draw it at -400. But I don't concern myself with how many of my bets are in any specific line range, because I don't think it makes a difference.

Once again, answered that multiple times. yet you say I did not. I AGREE with you on that(see BJ-Stevenson). The ONLY difference between us is that I am set in a rule, and you are more flexible(and your line is prob. slightly higher)

You also say it is FACT that a bettor can bet all heavy faves. ONLY, and still come out on top after an extended period of time...How do you know this. You say YOU would never do that, so how do you know that would work. And if you do know it as fact, why dont you do it?

[SPX]

Re: UFC 121 Lesnar vs Velasquez

You also say it is FACT that a bettor can bet all heavy faves. ONLY, and still come out on top after an extended period of time...How do you know this. You say YOU would never do that, so how do you know that would work. And if you do know it as fact, why dont you do it?

It's a fact in the same sense that it's a fact that you can come out ahead in the long run if you only bet fights at a line or -150 . . . or -200 . . . or +200 . . . or +500.

If you win 85% of your bets betting only -500 faves then you win money in the long run. That's just the way it is.

Just like you have to win more than 70% of your bets to make money betting fights at -233.

Etc. . .