[gabe]

I did. You don't.

Clearly you didn't. Pathetic loser.

[gabe]

You admit to cheating to make up for your losses.

I made a bet after a fight was over once on a night I was already winning, so it didn't make up for any "losses" you're a pathetic joke, buddy, been hating on me for weeks!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i didn't even notice it, i had to look in your thread history haha you loser

go keep making bets like beltran over johnson, lentz over dunham, and roller over mj and then come talk shit to people who are CRUSHING

[NunyaBidness]

I made a bet after a fight was over once on a night I was already winning, so it didn't make up for any "losses"

You really are beyond stupid.

The point isn't 'you cheated to make up for losses', the point is you CHEATED.

[Giblets]

I'm going to assume your subconscious is able to do math Gabe because you've had some good picks. It's when you try to put it into betting terms it comes off as absolutely insane. The frustrating part is you'll never understand why it's so terrible!!!

Anyways I'm off to see some local fights tonight, I'm pumped!!!

[gabe]

You really are beyond stupid. The point isn't 'you cheated to make up for losses', the point is you CHEATED.

No, you're stupid. The point was that I've lost a lot of money and have resorted to cheating to make up for it!

I had an opportunity to take money from my bookie and I did. I don't know a single gambler who wouldn't have taken advantage of that opportunity. I understand you're (a self-claimed professional in a sport and are) wealthy enough that you wouldn't, but people who need the money would! Everybody I've told the story of how I took advantage of the Palhares line to has been envious that they haven't had any opportunities like that. Then again, these are people who don't have a lot of money. You have claimed time and time again that you do very well financially, so none of this applies to you, big shot.

[gabe]

I'm going to assume your subconscious is able to do math Gabe because you've had some good picks. It's when you try to put it into betting terms it comes off as absolutely insane. The frustrating part is you'll never understand why it's so terrible!!! Anyways I'm off to see some local fights tonight, I'm pumped!!!

What's math got to do with it? Math is useful if you're V or Nunya and are trying to beat lines and arb out and shit... When you're simply evaluating fighters who are facing each other, you don't need to know much math.

You think it's a bad idea for me to include a favorite in a parlay when I think there's some value in the dog. The fact that I have continuously profited by doing that proves that it's not a bad idea.

Koscheck-Barao-Herman-Thompson-Poirier -- $50 to win $153
Max Halloway straight -- $50 to win $220

Worst case scenario, I would have lost $100. But I was confident the other 4 fights would hit, so I didn't feel I had $100 at risk. Either way, I wouldn't be bothered if I lost that hundo... but chances were, I was either gonna win $170 or $103 -- I won $103.

That may be insane to you, but it serves me fine as long as I profit.

[gabe]

I was gonna use this thread for all my picks, but my opening pages are filled with negativity, so I'm just gonna consider this my UFC on FUEL 1 thread. #PositiveEnergy #Yes!

[Beelzebubzy]

Get them Gabriel

[Vitooch]

If you can name me one play that I was on the opposite side of and got wrong, notify me.

[Vitooch]

Also, i went a perfect 4-0 or something on UFC on Fox 2. Last event i got all my Super-gabe lock plays correct. One of them being Matt Brown, whom i argued for as a fighter worth the juice because of his competition. I would love to participate in an MMA capping competition to see whos better. And Btw, you think very highly of yourself for a guy who bombed the last mma capping competition V created.

[Vitooch]

And dont only teenage girls and douchebags use hashtags? Are you still in hs Gabe?

[gabe]

And dont only teenage girls and douchebags use hashtags?

No. If all douchebags used hashtags, certainly you'd be using hashtags.

[gabe]

Also, i went a perfect 4-0 or something on UFC on Fox 2. Last event i got all my Super-gabe lock plays correct. One of them being Matt Brown, whom i argued for as a fighter worth the juice because of his competition. I would love to participate in an MMA capping competition to see whos better. And Btw, you think very highly of yourself for a guy who bombed the last mma capping competition V created.

You had ZERO locks. You never mentioned any of them being a really big play. You just said you "love" them, even the ones that lost. You went 2-3 for UFC 143, yet you posted a 3-3 record saying you won on Koscheck when you hadn't mentioned a bet on Koscheck.

You don't even bet with real money, so stfu dude, you shouldn't even be talking. You have "locks" yet you bet play-money.

We don't need to have a "contest" to find out who is better, all you have to do is look at our picks over the past few months. Easy as that.

For the record, I'm not putting you down. I'm just defending myself.

I'm not trying to say I'm great, I'm saying that people I've been doing as good or better than have no room to talk... Especially some of these jokers like "Wanna bet?" like I've done much better than... they have no business telling me anything. You, I respect your opinion and will always listen to your input, but don't fk w/ me.

[Vitooch]

My biggest plays of the night were Kos, Brown, and Herman. All of them are posted on my thread. The other three picks were purely for the action and were made right before the fight began. I most likely wouldn't have made those bets with real money. I have money loaded on my card but the card company is ******* me over but I will likely be beating with real money come next event. Making fun of me for playing with points is fair, but to attack me because I questioned one of your plays shows that you are the douchebag. There is a reason why so many people on this forum attack you. It's not just me.

I am still very curious to hear why you think Markes will win. You provided no breakdown of the fight at all. I presented you with very good points regarding the matchup, and you responded with insults. Not the behavior of a "superior capper" like yourself. Oh, and if you can mention ONE fight where you were on the opposite side of, a fight we vehemently disagreed on in which you were right, let me know.

[gabe]

My biggest plays of the night were Kos, Brown, and Herman. All of them are posted on my thread. The other three picks were purely for the action and were made right before the fight began. I most likely wouldn't have made those bets with real money. I have money loaded on my card but the card company is ******* me over but I will likely be beating with real money come next event. Making fun of me for playing with points is fair, but to attack me because I questioned one of your plays shows that you are the douchebag. There is a reason why so many people on this forum attack you. It's not just me.

Are you f*cking high?? I did not attack you because you questioned my plays, I DEFENDED MYSELF against YOUR ATTACK. You did not question sh*t, you attacked and insulted me.

I am still very curious to hear why you think Markes will win. You provided no breakdown of the fight at all. I presented you with very good points regarding the matchup, and you responded with insults. Not the behavior of a "superior capper" like yourself. Oh, and if you can mention ONE fight where you were on the opposite side of, a fight we vehemently disagreed on in which you were right, let me know.

Exactly. I'm not gonna waste time arguing my pick with a guy who is talking sh*t. What I mentioned in the original post is a good enough breakdown. I'm also not gonna go through your thread history and look for fights we've been on opposing ends of. I don't even remember arguing any fights with you. You were on Jorgensen on the last card and Barao was my lock. There's that.

A lot of people have been against picks I've made that have won, I didn't write down names so I don't remember which you were against. I don't even care, dude. You're a better capper than me. That what you wanna hear? Congratulations. You're the man. Now, if you can't respect my opinions and the fashion in which I provide them, fk off. If you posed legitimate questions without insulting me, I would have happily answered you, as our relationship was good until you started talking sh*t in this thread.

[Kaladarus]

What's math got to do with it? Math is useful if you're V or Nunya and are trying to beat lines and arb out and shit... When you're simply evaluating fighters who are facing each other, you don't need to know much math.

You think it's a bad idea for me to include a favorite in a parlay when I think there's some value in the dog. The fact that I have continuously profited by doing that proves that it's not a bad idea.

Koscheck-Barao-Herman-Thompson-Poirier -- $50 to win $153
Max Halloway straight -- $50 to win $220

Worst case scenario, I would have lost $100. But I was confident the other 4 fights would hit, so I didn't feel I had $100 at risk. Either way, I wouldn't be bothered if I lost that hundo... but chances were, I was either gonna win $170 or $103 -- I won $103.

That may be insane to you, but it serves me fine as long as I profit.

Next time instead of doing that parlay and the straight first check what happens if you don't include that fight you are taking both sides on. So in your example put just $100 on the parlay and take out the dog and Poirier. Or if you think there is value in the dog you just change your play a little bit. Put $80 on the parlay and $20 on the dog separately without playing Poirier. (I don't know the exact numbers to win more on both sides)

I'm not sure the exact odds you got on those fights, but if you had used the second method I mentioned you would have an extra couple of dollars in your pocket right now. By playing both sides of the fight you are just giving the book a little extra money. The amount may not be significant in each play, but in the long run you will have left a decent amount of money on the table.

[Vitooch]

Saying a fighter will outstrike another and win inside the distance is not a breakdown. I don't think I should be attacked because I questioned one of your plays that you did not provide any significant reasoning for. I mentioned Simpson's wrestling as a factor, Simpson and Markes past fights and wins and their level of competition, Simpson's toughness, the lack of significant striking in Markes's last fight, etc. You respond by insulting me instead of defending your case. If I came across as confrontational I apologize, but I can't help but it when you tell me a fighter will win 90% of the time without much reasoning. I'm not telling you to call me the better capper. I'm just asking for the decency of defending your play. Perhaps you did some extra research and found some sort of edge in this fight. I consider myself as equal to you in breaking down fights, so if you questioned one of my plays, I would be glad to defend my case because I enjoy discussing MMA.

How can you expect someone not to question your play when you say that a certain fighter will win 90% when he isn't even favored?

[gabe]

Saying a fighter will outstrike another and win inside the distance is not a breakdown. I don't think I should be attacked because I questioned one of your plays that you did not provide any significant reasoning for. I mentioned Simpson's wrestling as a factor, Simpson and Markes past fights and wins and their level of competition, Simpson's toughness, the lack of significant striking in Markes's last fight, etc. You respond by insulting me instead of defending your case. If I came across as confrontational I apologize, but I can't help but it when you tell me a fighter will win 90% of the time without much reasoning. I'm not telling you to call me the better capper. I'm just asking for the decency of defending your play. Perhaps you did some extra research and found some sort of edge in this fight. I consider myself as equal to you in breaking down fights, so if you questioned one of my plays, I would be glad to defend my case because I enjoy discussing MMA.

How can you expect someone not to question your play when you say that a certain fighter will win 90% when he isn't even favored?

Stop saying that! I did not attack you for questioning me, I responded to you laughing at me and making a ChandlerBlades joke at my expense. If you ask somebody a question and want an answer from them in the future, I highly suggest you don't insult them right before you ask the question.

Jim Hettes was a +200 dog and I had him winning at 90%, too.

If you think I'm stupid and questionable for sometimes thinking underdogs have a really big shot at winning, then I don't know what to tell ya.

Feeling 90% confident in Markes does not mean Simpson has a less than 10% chance of winning. The 90% represents my confidence in Markes; in actuality, it's a closer fight. I think Markes will have the superior striking and I don't think Simpson will be able to take him down. Simpson had trouble taking Brad Tavares down, and I think Markes' TDD is as good or better than Tavares'. Simpson does have good striking, but it wasn't good enough to KO an Eric Schaffer who has ZERO stand-up. I see Markes getting the better of the stand-up and stuffing the takedowns, then either scoring a late KO or taking the decision.

[Vitooch]

Thank you for providing some useful information regarding the fight. Despite the fact that I disagree with a few points you made, I respect your opinion.

As for the whole 90% thing, Nunya asked you what chance you think the fighter has of winning, not how confident you are in the pick. You should be 100% confident in each your picks, or you shouldn't be making that play. It's the chance of winning he originally asked for, which you responded with 90%, which is comical and will result in some bashing.

[Vaughany]

Thanks for pointing out the clearly obvious, retardo.

Yeah obvious yet u didnt include it! Everybody on here is telling u you're retarded yet u cant see it! But yes, I guess its just me

[gabe]

Yeah obvious yet u didnt include it! Everybody on here is telling u your retarded yet u cant see it! But yes, I guess its just me

"You're still not selling me on why it's a bad idea. As long as Markes and Herman keep up their end, I should be good either way here."

I didn't include it, huh????

[gabe]

LOL @ calling me retarded.. How am I retarded??? Because of MMA math you don't agree with? lolll you are the same guy who tweeted to Dana White and Joe Rogan asking them which hotel they are staying at and expected an answer. Don't go calling anybody else retarded, son.

[GoGoGadget]

You know what juice is? Why would you bet on both fighters and lose value?

Would you bet on Ellenberger -340 then go and betting on Diego at +280.

Being in a parlay is irrelevant, still losing value. Play the parlay without Miocic and the straight bet on De Fries.

[gabe]

You know what juice is? Why would you bet on both fighters and lose value?

Would you bet on Ellenberger -340 then go and betting on Diego at +280.

Being in a parlay is irrelevant, still losing value. Play the parlay without Miocic and the straight bet on De Fries.

That's not an option. I think Miocic is gonna win. It's either play him in a parlay and play De Fries straight or not play De Fries at all. I think De Fries has a chance, so making a play on him in case Miocic loses and ruins my parlay is not a bad move, IMO, but to each his own, I guess.

[varkolek]

I think Markes will have the superior striking and I don't think Simpson will be able to take him down. Simpson had trouble taking Brad Tavares down, and I think Markes' TDD is as good or better than Tavares'. Simpson does have good striking, but it wasn't good enough to KO an Eric Schaffer who has ZERO stand-up. I see Markes getting the better of the stand-up and stuffing the takedowns, then either scoring a late KO or taking the decision.

I haven't got footage of the Tavares-Simpson fight. But not being able to KO Eric Schaffer doesn't mean he has worse striking than Markes by default. Schaffer has a good chin. In the striking exchanges I think Simpson will outpoint Markes.

Markes hasn't demonstrated much striking in his fights. He got clipped by Vemola's arm punches a couple of times so seems to have a decent chin, and I think his stand up is better than Schaffer's, so Simpson getting a KO is unlikely. But if the fight remains standing I doubt Markes can outpoint Simpson or get a KO.

[Vitooch]

I haven't got footage of the Tavares-Simpson fight. But not being able to KO Eric Schaffer doesn't mean he has worse striking than Markes by default. Schaffer has a good chin. In the striking exchanges I think Simpson will outpoint Markes.

Markes hasn't demonstrated much striking in his fights. He got clipped by Vemola's arm punches a couple of times so seems to have a decent chin, and I think his stand up is better than Schaffer's, so Simpson getting a KO is unlikely. But if the fight remains standing I doubt Markes can outpoint Simpson or get a KO.

Also wedont know if Markes can stuff Simpsons collegiate wrestling shots

[Giblets]

What's math got to do with it? Math is useful if you're V or Nunya and are trying to beat lines and arb out and shit... When you're simply evaluating fighters who are facing each other, you don't need to know much math. You think it's a bad idea for me to include a favorite in a parlay when I think there's some value in the dog. The fact that I have continuously profited by doing that proves that it's not a bad idea. Koscheck-Barao-Herman-Thompson-Poirier -- $50 to win $153 Max Halloway straight -- $50 to win $220 Worst case scenario, I would have lost $100. But I was confident the other 4 fights would hit, so I didn't feel I had $100 at risk. Either way, I wouldn't be bothered if I lost that hundo... but chances were, I was either gonna win $170 or $103 -- I won $103. That may be insane to you, but it serves me fine as long as I profit.

Not trying to beat a dead horse here Gabe. I really am just trying to give some advice. You definitely can argue that math isn't that important when you're not arbing and hedging, however, whenever you bet on both fighters in a fight you must be arbing or hedging.

Continuously profitting off this method in no way proves that it's a good idea. If it's true that it has worked out for you over the long haul the only thing it shows is that you've made extremely good picks on the rest of the fights. If you left out the fights that you bet on both sides then you probably would have made an extra 5-20% on those bets depending on the juice and how heavily you bet on each.

When an entire forum tells me I could cut my losses by doing something simple I personally would figure out the math, or at the very least just take their word for it.

Cheers

[sideloaded]

jesus christ there are so many emo's on this board

[omalley21]

"Everybody knows, you never go full retard."

[gabe]

Not trying to beat a dead horse here Gabe. I really am just trying to give some advice. You definitely can argue that you math isn't that important when you're not arbing and hedging, however, whenever you bet on both fighters in a fight you must be arbing or hedging. Continuously profitting off this method in no way proves that it's a good idea. If it's true that it has worked out for you over the long haul the only thing it shows is that you've made extremely good picks on the rest of the fights. If you left out the fights that you bet on both sides then you probably would have made an extra 5-20% on those bets depending on the juice and how heavily you bet on each. When an entire forum tells me I could cut my losses by doing something simple I personally would figure out the math, or at the very least just take their word for it. Cheers

HUH??? I just told you math IS important when you arb and hedge like V and Nunya but not really when you're just tryna figure out who will win a fight.

I really don't think what I'm doing is a bad idea.

Right now V has Jake Ellenberger has his last leg (or one of last 2 legs) in a lot of parlays, and if I were him and thought there was value in Diego Sanchez, I would make a straight play on Sanchez.

I've got Miocic in a few parlays, and hopefully the other legs come through. If Miocic loses and ruins the parlay, at least I've got the straight play on De Fries to make up for my losses.

If I stopped doing it this way, I wouldn't "cut my losses," I would add to them. As long as Ronny Markes wins, it won't matter what happens in this fight. I'll profit from either fighter winning. You say bad idea, I say good idea.

[gabe]

jesus christ there are so many emo's on this board

mmmhm

[Educ8d Degener8]

I'd say:

Jones - 98%
Markes - 90%
Miocic - 65%
De Fries - 35%

Bet the house on Markes then, no? You've assigned him at -900, and the books are gifting you near EV odds, representing tremendous value.

[Vitooch]

Bet the house on Markes then, no? You've assigned him at -900, and the books are gifting you near EV odds, representing tremendous value.

lol

[BIGDAY]

Bet the house on Markes then, no? You've assigned him at -900, and the books are gifting you near EV odds, representing tremendous value.

[BIGDAY]

Kill the books Wednesday brotha!!!