Slump buster

[edman5555]

Re: Slump buster

I'm also thinking about Karo over Hallman..

[SPX]

Re: Slump buster

I know that, for me, I get caught up in the idea that EVERY fight is a money-making opportunity because every fight has a winner (except on those very rare draw occasions). So it seems so simple: Just pick the winner! What's so hard about that?

I mean, even if you were picking blindly you should pick the winning side 50% of the time. So surely with just a little extra effort you can do much better. Or so my reasoning goes.

Lately it hasn't been going that way though, and it's just baffling. How can you go 0-7 in an event? 1-6? Shit like that. . . But I've had a couple of events lately where I've done THAT badly. That's not taking bad lines . . . it's just not picking winners.

FUCK THAT SHIT!

[sbjj]

Re: Slump buster

WE had a conversation about this earlier. Many people were saying that every fight has value on one side. I just really think that is bad philosophy.

Yes, you can say that a fighter who is -250 should be -400, but the fact remains that you are laying 2 and a half to 1 on a fight. That is where I think some of these problems might be happening. I would say just stick to a price limit, and NEVER go over it. Make it -180, or -220, but never, ever go over it...or make it standard to only bet those lines in a 2 fight parlay.

The guys I see that get into trouble are the guys that bet faves thinking they have value. If I was convinced that a -400 fighter should be -1500, I would still not bet him.

[SPX]

Re: Slump buster

^^^ I'm saying that every fight has value because someone's gonna win. Period. Regardless of whether that's a good philosophy or whatever, the fact still remains that if you can manage to pick the right guy, you will win money.

As for not betting a -400 guy who should be -1500, I think that's a little silly, to be honest. You wouldn't bet on Mousasi in a rematch with Goodridge if he was -400?

[Havis Jr]

Re: Slump buster

Im also betting too many fights and losing for it. I think its better to just limit the number of bets rather then switch to betting parlays...

Either way I hope we can all turn around this damn losing streak. Bad judging decisions hasn't made it any better, that shit really fucks with your head.

[sbjj]

Re: Slump buster

^^^ I'm saying that every fight has value because someone's gonna win. Period. Regardless of whether that's a good philosophy or whatever, the fact still remains that if you can manage to pick the right guy, you will win money.

As for not betting a -400 guy who should be -1500, I think that's a little silly, to be honest. You wouldn't bet on Mousasi in a rematch with Goodridge if he was -400?

Why do it? I mean seriously, are you going to bet 400 to win 100? And then if Gegard blows his knee out, you lose 400 dollars.

Of course someone is going to win, but that does not mean you nedd to bet every fight, I think that is just silly. I thought Sok was going to destroy Houston. I actually thought that line had value for Sok, but I did not bet it because the price was simply just to high.

As for managing to pick the right guy, that is the whole point...no matter how good a capper someone is, he is not going to always pick the right guy...so why even bet a bunch of the heavy faves? When the tide turns on you, you are then in deep shit.

[SPX]

Re: Slump buster

Why do it? I mean seriously, are you going to bet 400 to win 100? And then if Gegard blows his knee out, you lose 400 dollars.

Why do it? To make money. I'm not good at math . . . but I still know that this game is all about math when it comes to making money. What are the odds that Gegard will blow his knee out? 1 in 20? 1 in 50? 1 in 100?

Let's say it's 1 in 20, a very conservative estimate in my opinion. So he beats Goodridge's ass 19 times, and you win $1900. Then in the 20th fight he blows his knee out. Or gets KOd. Or trips and falls and Goodridge falls on top of him and the ref stops it immediately and it's the worst stoppage in the history of bad stoppages. And you lose $400. Well you're still $1500 ahead.

I would absolutely take Gegard at -400 against Gary Goodridge.

Of course someone is going to win, but that does not mean you nedd to bet every fight, I think that is just silly. I thought Sok was going to destroy Houston. I actually thought that line had value for Sok, but I did not bet it because the price was simply just to high.

As for managing to pick the right guy, that is the whole point...no matter how good a capper someone is, he is not going to always pick the right guy...so why even bet a bunch of the heavy faves? When the tide turns on you, you are then in deep shit.

I had money on Soko and I lost and it sucks. But I knew going into that fight that Soko has some serious problems as a fighter. Nevertheless, I took the risk and it backfired. Shit happens. I'm still in the game and still ahead for the year.

I would have to look at my records, but I'm pretty sure I've won more money on big faves than I've lost. In fact, I don't think I've ever lost a single -500 bet. That doesn't mean that I never will. But by the time I do I will be (and already am, I'm sure) past the point to where I still show a profit.

With that said, I never said you should bet everything. I just said that every fight is a moneymaking opportunity. And it is. Because someone wins.

[Svino]

Re: Slump buster

I'm also in a huge slump. Likely as not, it's just random variation - I'm probably worse than I thought I was before, and not as bad as I'm tempted to feel I am right now. Still, I think the first thing for me to do is tighten up on bets a bit, bet fewer fights on small cards and stick to fights that fit my ideal profile (control victory). I mentioned earlier I was tempted to break away from that on the Cro-Cop and Nog fights. Well, I did - and lost both bets.

I would have to look at my records, but I'm pretty sure I've won more money on big faves than I've lost. In fact, I don't think I've ever lost a single -500 bet.

Yeah, same here. My most common bets are slight dogs and slight favorites. But I'm happy to dive in on the rare heavy favorite with value. For all the bad bets I've made, I really think my most foolish error in this last slump is not betting more than the 9U I did on Couture. It was the perfect situation for a full Kelly bet, which would have been above 20 U or so.

With that said, I never said you should bet everything. I just said that every fight is a moneymaking opportunity. And it is. Because someone wins.

I think the way you have to think of it is that if the fight is genuinely a coin toss, and the odds are -110 for both guys, then there's no value anywhere, except for the book.

Then the next category is all the fights where there clearly was value on one side in hindsight, but there was realistically no way to know that from publicly available information. This is a pretty big category, and of course, there's no way to make consistent money here, either.

[Svino]

Re: Slump buster

Also, I'm not generally a fan of any system that takes the bet sizing out of your hands. Optimal bet sizing should take into account bankroll size, house odds, your own estimated odds, and the uncertainty you feel about those odds. Of course in practice, the amount you come up with will be somewhat arbitrary, but it's an important part of gambling nonetheless.

The Martingale system is doomed to failure. In fact any system that gets the basic relationship wrong (bet more after winning, bet less after losing) is bad news.

Parlays tend to force bets that are too small initially and too large later on. Much much too large in the case of a huge parlay - the 15-fight parlay betting $5 to win $200,000 sounds fun until you actually hit the first 14 and wonder why betting the $100,000 you already won on a final coin-toss ever seemed like a good idea. Of course only betting from 5-10 U on a large favorite would keep this under control.

[MMA_scientist]

Re: Slump buster

Thanks for the fb fellows...

I think it is just as important to find a betting strategy that matches your particular tendencies as optimizing profit... Since I know I hate losing, and it makes me impatient and chase and make too big of bets, I try to come up with a system that takes all of that into consideration. Now, if I was a cyborg math robot from the future, I would vary my bets depending on my percieved advantage.

BUt as it were, I am an emo... I need to just embrace it because it hasn't changed in 7 years of pretty serious betting (bj, then poker, now mma). I just flat out can't let my edge play out slow and steady, I am wired wrong for it. I have stabbed it with my stelly knife, but I just can't kill the beast. So I am just trying to manage it now. I have been successful over a fairly long period of time just betting tight and winning a lot more than I lose (betting up to -400). But now that I have lost the ability to cap and am losing all the time, I am itching to make huge chasing bets.

I do what I have to do. So it is more of a "control myself" system than anything else.

[sbjj]

Re: Slump buster

SPX, I am sorry dude, but I believe your philosophy is extremely flawed. There is a reason that NO good cappers bet huge faves.

More importantly, there is a reason that they stay FAR away from the kind of bets that you are advocating on here. I am not as familiar with other sports...But I would doubt that there are serious cappers out there that would advocate placing a big bet on a huge straight up favorite.

I do not know if you betting -500 faves has worked out for you are not. But I have seen so many bettors with your philosophy get burned. Maybe you are the exception. Once again, I would not bet Gegard @ -400 against anyone, because to make money on a continual basis in sports(ANY) betting you have to have rules...And you must abide by them....I learned the hard way that one of my rules that I now MUST abide by is to just not bet a fighter if he is priced past a certain price.

Your way of betting can lead to HUGE losses in short periods. You will feel like a king when things are going your way, but when the cold spell hits, it will hurt much worse.

[sbjj]

Re: Slump buster

Thanks for the fb fellows...

I think it is just as important to find a betting strategy that matches your particular tendencies as optimizing profit... Since I know I hate losing, and it makes me impatient and chase and make too big of bets, I try to come up with a system that takes all of that into consideration. Now, if I was a cyborg math robot from the future, I would vary my bets depending on my percieved advantage.

BUt as it were, I am an emo... I need to just embrace it because it hasn't changed in 7 years of pretty serious betting (bj, then poker, now mma). I just flat out can't let my edge play out slow and steady, I am wired wrong for it. I have stabbed it with my stelly knife, but I just can't kill the beast. So I am just trying to manage it now. I have been successful over a fairly long period of time just betting tight and winning a lot more than I lose (betting up to -400). But now that I have lost the ability to cap and am losing all the time, I am itching to make huge chasing bets.

I do what I have to do. So it is more of a "control myself" system than anything else.

MMA, that is the danger of betting heavy faves. Everyone says that they do fine betting them until....the end. And the end is that rare time where your 3 or 4 big faves all lose. All of a sudden, you are down a third to a half of your bankroll. And when (most) dudes chase to win back some of their losses...They will most certainly look to chase by betting....more big faves(the cant lose fights). I am pretty sure that you realize the mistakes you have made recently. And i am just not sure you need to do a complete redo of your betting.

[SPX]

Re: Slump buster

SPX, I am sorry dude, but I believe your philosophy is extremely flawed. There is a reason that NO good cappers bet huge faves.

You lost me as soon as I finished this pair of sentences.

I know pro gamblers personally. Like, genuinely pro-gamblers, not peeps like us who do it on the side, but rather guys who make an actual living out of it.

Many do the exact opposite of what you're pontificating about. There's one who actually posted here briefly (UKdonkbet) who utilized a common system among pros where he would borrow money from other bankrolls so he could put HUGE bets on big faves (like 30 units on big favorites who are virtually guaranteed to win). To say that no serious or professional gamblers bet on big favorites is just asinine. Quite frankly, you don't know what you're talking about. It's that simple.

[sbjj]

Re: Slump buster

Why do it? I mean seriously, are you going to bet 400 to win 100? And then if Gegard blows his knee out, you lose 400 dollars.

Why do it? To make money. I'm not good at math . . . but I still know that this game is all about math when it comes to making money. What are the odds that Gegard will blow his knee out? 1 in 20? 1 in 50? 1 in 100?

Let's say it's 1 in 20, a very conservative estimate in my opinion. So he beats Goodridge's ass 19 times, and you win $1900. Then in the 20th fight he blows his knee out. Or gets KOd. Or trips and falls and Goodridge falls on top of him and the ref stops it immediately and it's the worst stoppage in the history of bad stoppages. And you lose $400. Well you're still $1500 ahead.

I would absolutely take Gegard at -400 against Gary Goodridge.

Of course someone is going to win, but that does not mean you nedd to bet every fight, I think that is just silly. I thought Sok was going to destroy Houston. I actually thought that line had value for Sok, but I did not bet it because the price was simply just to high.

As for managing to pick the right guy, that is the whole point...no matter how good a capper someone is, he is not going to always pick the right guy...so why even bet a bunch of the heavy faves? When the tide turns on you, you are then in deep shit.

I had money on Soko and I lost and it sucks. But I knew going into that fight that Soko has some serious problems as a fighter. Nevertheless, I took the risk and it backfired. Shit happens. I'm still in the game and still ahead for the year.

I would have to look at my records, but I'm pretty sure I've won more money on big faves than I've lost. In fact, I don't think I've ever lost a single -500 bet. That doesn't mean that I never will. But by the time I do I will be (and already am, I'm sure) past the point to where I still show a profit.

With that said, I never said you should bet everything. I just said that every fight is a moneymaking opportunity. And it is. Because someone wins.

That is a very simplistic way of looking at it. While your post is true. It does not take into consideration the fact that you can still hit a very unlucky streak at anytime. Lets say you lose your first -500 fave. You are down right off the bat 500.00. So now you are looking for the next can not lose bet to win some of that lost money. So you find your next can not miss -500 fave to bet. BUT NOW YOU HAVE TO BET 2500.00 to get back your 500.00 you lost. What happens if you lose that next bet? Are you honestly going to say that it can not happen? I have seen it happen SO MANY TIMES.

So now you(or whoever) is down 3 grand. Do you now finally say to yourself that betting big faves is at least very risky....or do you find yourself another can not lose -500 fighter and place 15K on him to win your 3 grand back.

Betting -500 type fights can eat into your bankroll real quick when things turn against you.

[poopoo333]

Re: Slump buster

I bet a lot of fights where I find the "value", and save my "bigger bets" for things I am pretty sure of. Lately, only a few of my "value bets" come through, but the things I am sure of have been losing seemingly EVERYTIME in the last month and a half or so: Varner, Dunham, Florian, Pearson, and the "sambo guy" from Cage Rage over the weekend.

I was thinking about going to a temporary 20u bankroll, but that does not fit my "betting style". If I were to go to a 20u bankroll, I would not bet nearly as many fights, and I would only bet fights @ reasonable lines that I was "sure of". BUT, look at the above. In the past month and a half, my "sure of bets" since September were what you read in the above paragraph plus Warren (who could have easily lost in round 1) and Ryan Bader. That would have been a 2-5 run in one month, and with a 20u bank roll that would have wiped me right out. Before September, I was doing pretty well with my many fractional unit "value bets" plus my somewhat of an "anchor bet" with the fights I was "sure of". Would this style of betting be better with a 100u bank roll? Or should I stick to my 50u bank roll and just realize I am in a typical slump and get over it?