UFC 121 Lesnar vs Velasquez

[Ludo]

Re: UFC 121 Lesnar vs Velasquez

If only we could see that little vein in his forehead throbbing like some sort of rage and stress filled balloon... I like to think it is following the intro to 'Hot For Teacher' by now

[MMA_scientist]

Re: UFC 121 Lesnar vs Velasquez

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?

my numbers were just examples... I didn't check my math. The issue is winning more than the line indicates you should win. What I am saying is that the likelihood of losing 4 -400 (80%) fights in a row is no greater or no less than losing say an equivalent amount of of 50% fights (sorry, my math ability does not extend far enough to tell you how many that would be). The odds of you losing 12 50% fights in a row is the same as losing 3 (80%) fights in a row (assuming the lines are true).

If you go to a roulette wheel and bet on 1-18 (there are 37 numbers on a single 0 wheel)... you have no inherent edge against a guy who is betting on 1-24. He has 66% of the board covered, you have 50% of the board covered. He is going to win more often than you, and lose more when he loses. But at the end of the day, you will have both lost the same amount of money. His losses will be less frequent but more dramatic. Your losses will be more frequent but less dramatic.

The same thing applies if I cover every number but 1. or if you only cover 1 number. At the end of the day, it is all going to be even. We all have the same disadvantage of somewhere in the 2-3% range (don't know the exact house edge).

If we take away the 0 and the 1. Now we all have an edge. The same thing applies. At the end of the day, whether I cover 90% of the board or 10% of the board, we are all going to end up with the same amount of money.

As for your explanations, I don't see them. You said you have to win a certain amount every year... that could be a factor. Is that what you mean?

[Luke]

Re: UFC 121 Lesnar vs Velasquez

Do me a favor, come on here the next time you see a -300 guy that you believe should be -900. I think I might have to wait awhile on that one. Yet we have 2 fights coming up which IMO have GREAT value...Cain and BJ.

I remember a fight I bet where I believed a -300 fighter should be
-900,Mayweather over Mosley.I gave Mosley a 10% chance in that fight because I knew his only chance was a slim chance at a KO( which almost happened in rd2) besides that Mosley had no chance. I bet my biggest bet in a long time on Mayweather in the fight 9 units to win 3.

[sbjj]

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. . .

Do you know anyone who bets Heavy Faves only(and comes out ahead). Because I know plenty of dudes who bet slight faves, even, and dogs and make money. But I know no one who bets heavy faves only. I used to know a few dudes who did that, but they no longer even bet fights anymore.

But one more time to both you and Scientist. WHY, in all other sports, do no pros consistantly bet these heavy lines(sure thing) bets? And the really good boxing cappers do not bet long lines either. MMA is new, and has brought in a whole new breed of bettor, but i think in time, it will be just like the rest of sports betting.

[sbjj]

Re: UFC 121 Lesnar vs Velasquez

Do me a favor, come on here the next time you see a -300 guy that you believe should be -900. I think I might have to wait awhile on that one. Yet we have 2 fights coming up which IMO have GREAT value...Cain and BJ.

I remember a fight I bet where I believed a -300 fighter should be
-900,Mayweather over Mosley.I gave Mosley a 10% chance in that fight because I knew his only chance was a slim chance at a KO( which almost happened in rd2) besides that Mosley had no chance. I bet my biggest bet in a long time on Mayweather in the fight 9 units to win 3.

I bet mayweather by decision. I think it was like -180. And I shit my pants in the second round. And I still believe that Floyd could have gotten him out of there if he wanted to...Glad he carried him though.

[Ludo]

Re: UFC 121 Lesnar vs Velasquez

I think due to the nature of MMA it will always be slightly more difficult to work all the variables down to a science for betting no matter how long it's around. There will always be new guys who nobody knows anything about, skewed lines because of that, smaller orgs and shows that there isn't any tape available on the internet from to research. The vast array of styles that can be used are also a heavy factor. Flash knockouts, subs you didn't see coming, DQ's, and bad judgments. I just don't see it becoming a "set in stone if you followed it long enough" kind of betting sport.

[SPX]

Re: UFC 121 Lesnar vs Velasquez

Do you know anyone who bets Heavy Faves only(and comes out ahead). Because I know plenty of dudes who bet slight faves, even, and dogs and make money. But I know no one who bets heavy faves only. I used to know a few dudes who did that, but they no longer even bet fights anymore.

I don't know anyone who bets only heavy favorites. I think that anyone with any maturity in this game would realize that that's a very poor strategy . . . not because it can't work, but because you're not maximizing profits because you're missing out on so many other opportunities.

I think that anyone who says "I only bet dogs" or "I only bet faves" or anything else that limits your options is not playing optimally.

But one more time to both you and Scientist. WHY, in all other sports, do no pros consistantly bet these heavy lines(sure thing) bets? And the really good boxing cappers do not bet long lines either. MMA is new, and has brought in a whole new breed of bettor, but i think in time, it will be just like the rest of sports betting.

I have no idea about other sports. I only bet MMA. But I will say that when it comes to MMA, there are times when--if you really want to make money--you have to make the choice to not be a pussy.

[sbjj]

Re: UFC 121 Lesnar vs Velasquez

I think due to the nature of MMA it will always be slightly more difficult to work all the variables down to a science for betting no matter how long it's around. There will always be new guys who nobody knows anything about, skewed lines because of that, smaller orgs and shows that there isn't any tape available on the internet from to research. The vast array of styles that can be used are also a heavy factor. Flash knockouts, subs you didn't see coming, DQ's, and bad judgments. I just don't see it becoming a "set in stone if you followed it long enough" kind of betting sport.

Sounds like a good case against betting long lines.

[Luke]

Re: UFC 121 Lesnar vs Velasquez

People in this thread has WAY too much time on their hands lol.

The reason I dont bet huge favs -500 or more is because sure you'll find a lot of fights where you think one guy has no chance at winning but if you go 5-1 you only break even . It seems like a big waste of time to me . I know alot of people here got bit on Penn when he fought Edgar and that was what -600? Do you really want to have to find 6 more fights at -600 that you have to win for that 1 you lost?

I've found plenty of fights that are -110 to -150 that had a better chance of winning than most -500 favs. Personally I'd rather lose a fight at -150 that I only have to win 2 more to be ahead again than lose 1 at -600 where I have to find 7 more to get back ahead.

Soko,Fedor,Lashely, Penn etc have lost recently as big favs.

I personally dont bet anything over the -300 to -350 range and I only bet those if I consider them " a lock"

I dont care what anyone bets though because in the end its your money not mine

[SPX]

Re: UFC 121 Lesnar vs Velasquez

I bet mayweather by decision.

I know pros who say that ALL prop bets are sucker bets and that only amateurs play them.

How do you feel about that?

[MMA_scientist]

Re: UFC 121 Lesnar vs Velasquez

But one more time to both you and Scientist. WHY, in all other sports, do no pros consistantly bet these heavy lines(sure thing) bets? And the really good boxing cappers do not bet long lines either. MMA is new, and has brought in a whole new breed of bettor, but i think in time, it will be just like the rest of sports betting.

Ok. I am done with this. You keep saying this, when both I and SPX have stated that this has not been my experience with other pros. If you can't provide a reason beyond "that's not what I have seen" I can't debate this any more. Actually, I am done with it any way.

But to answer your question, even if it were true that other pros don't bet the favorites in other sports, MMA is new, and the books make more mistakes on the lines at opening. Also MMA is a unique sport with a lot more variables and the clash of styles is more apparent in MMA than in any other sport. Boxing, you have style clashes, but not to the extreme you have in MMA. You have guys almost doing 2 different sports in there fighting each other. Sometimes it is just plain to see who is going to win.

When you have a world champion in Couture fighting a guy with no prior fights, you can say there is something different about MMA. It would be like the Steelers playing a high school team. In that case, I am pretty sure the smart money would be on the Steelers at any odds.

[sbjj]

Re: UFC 121 Lesnar vs Velasquez

Do you know anyone who bets Heavy Faves only(and comes out ahead). Because I know plenty of dudes who bet slight faves, even, and dogs and make money. But I know no one who bets heavy faves only. I used to know a few dudes who did that, but they no longer even bet fights anymore.

I don't know anyone who bets only heavy favorites. I think that anyone with any maturity in this game would realize that that's a very poor strategy . . . not because it can't work, but because you're not maximizing profits because you're missing out on so many other opportunities.

I think that anyone who says "I only bet dogs" or "I only bet faves" or anything else that limits your options is not playing optimally.

But one more time to both you and Scientist. WHY, in all other sports, do no pros consistantly bet these heavy lines(sure thing) bets? And the really good boxing cappers do not bet long lines either. MMA is new, and has brought in a whole new breed of bettor, but i think in time, it will be just like the rest of sports betting.

I have no idea about other sports. I only bet MMA. But I will say that when it comes to MMA, there are times when--if you really want to make money--you have to make the choice to not be a pussy.

LOL, funny that coming from you to me. I guess I am that pussy that quit my job at the age of 26 to bet boxing and MMA for a living.

[Ludo]

Re: UFC 121 Lesnar vs Velasquez

People in this thread has WAY too much time on their hands lol.

The reason I dont bet huge favs -500 or more is because sure you'll find a lot of fights where you think one guy has no chance at winning but if you go 5-1 you only break even . It seems like a big waste of time to me . I know alot of people here got bit on Penn when he fought Edgar and that was what -600? Do you really want to have to find 6 more fights at -600 that you have to win for that 1 you lost?

I've found plenty of fights that are -110 to -150 that had a better chance of winning than most -500 favs. Personally I'd rather lose a fight at -150 that I only have to win 2 more to be ahead again than lose 1 at -600 where I have to find 7 more to get back ahead.

Soko,Fedor,Lashely, Penn etc have lost recently as big favs.

I personally dont bet anything over the -300 to -350 range and I only bet those if I consider them " a lock"

I dont care what anyone bets though because in the end its your money not mine

Sokodjou and Lashley didn't deserve lines that big given Lashleys inexperience and stamina uncertainty, and Sokodjou didn't deserve it because we KNOW his cardio is an issue.

[sbjj]

Re: UFC 121 Lesnar vs Velasquez

I bet mayweather by decision.

I know pros who say that ALL prop bets are sucker bets and that only amateurs play them.

How do you feel about that?

Do you even know a Pro gambler who bets boxing? How would you have bet Mayweather vs. DeLaHoya when PBF was -250 straight up, and even money by decision.

Whe you say prop bets, you must be talking other sports. Every good boxing capper I know bets props frequently.

[SPX]

Re: UFC 121 Lesnar vs Velasquez

Sokodjou and Lashley didn't deserve lines that big given Lashleys inexperience and stamina uncertainty, and Sokodjou didn't deserve it because we KNOW his cardio is an issue.

Also, I thought Edgar has ways to win against Penn and bet him the first time around.

And Fedor's line deserved to be high, but not THAT high.