Bellator 88...

[Vaughany]

[Vaughany]

Like some bum pulled from the audience...(my cabron Grabaka commentating in this one!)...

[Vaughany]

1. Luca Fury @GamblingFury
   As for Richman vs Jackson, there is a good chance Mike gets out wrestled and loses. He's definitely overvalued at -350. Again, dog or pass.
   
   
   
2. MIKE RICHMAN @MikeUSMCRichman
   @GamblingFury not this time
   
   

[PunisherIND]

Hahaha

[PunisherIND]

It didn't need to improve his position, he did it.

No, but that's not the proper analogy here; the proper analogy would be throwing an illegal kick, connecting, and doing very little damage, or it being a glancing blow. You still performed the illegal act, how much it impacted the fight isn't the problem.

your analogy is better, but i still think you're wrong. the effect of the fence grab is definitely the issue. this if from the unified rules:

When a fighter's fingers or toes go through the cage and grab hold of the fence and start to control either their body position or their opponent's body position it now becomes an illegal action.

so, its not simply grabbing the fence that makes it an illegal action, there has to be something more, i.e., he must also gain an advantage with the fence grab.

the rule continues:

the referee shall issue a one-point deduction from the offending fighters scorecard if the foul caused a substantial change in position such as the avoidance of a takedown

these rules leave the refs with a lot of discretion. i think a more experienced ref would not have issued the point deduction.

[hougigo]

Jackson would've KO'd Richman if Richman was wearing basketball shorts

[PunisherIND]

It didn't need to improve his position, he did it.

No, but that's not the proper analogy here; the proper analogy would be throwing an illegal kick, connecting, and doing very little damage, or it being a glancing blow. You still performed the illegal act, how much it impacted the fight isn't the problem.

just to make my point crystal clear, lets use the illegal kick analogy. you agree if the kick doesnt connect, there shouldnt be a penalty. what if the kick grazes clay guida's mop? or, lets exaggerate the point; what if it grazes an eye lash? now its a penalty?

these rules require some discretion by the ref. and i think the critical inquiry that the ref should be making, is whether the illegal move had any effect or impact on the fight.

i think a point deduction would have been warranted for the first fence grab, which actually did give akop an advantage, even though there wasnt a prior warning. i thought it was pretty weak on the refs part to deduct a point just because he promised it.

[Sacrelicious]

Damn i hate to miss dogs like that. Did he won? or that was the one with point reduction?

He lost. I posted that after round 2


Regardless, I hit Richman and the other 2 russians, good night all around!

[sideloaded]

bellator is turning into the most profitable promotion for me

[MD]

your analogy is better, but i still think you're wrong. the effect of the fence grab is definitely the issue. this if from the unified rules:

When a fighter's fingers or toes go through the cage and grab hold of the fence and start to control either their body position or their opponent's body position it now becomes an illegal action.

so, its not simply grabbing the fence that makes it an illegal action, there has to be something more, i.e., he must also gain an advantage with the fence grab.

the rule continues:

the referee shall issue a one-point deduction from the offending fighters scorecard if the foul caused a substantial change in position such as the avoidance of a takedown

these rules leave the refs with a lot of discretion. i think a more experienced ref would not have issued the point deduction.

The problem with that is that he had previously used the fence grab to gain a substantial advantage on more than one occassion. He had committed multiple purposeful fouls whilst being warned. He was told, directly, that if he grabs the fence again, which is the action that resulted in the fouls, that he would have a point deducted. He had already committed numerous punishable fouls, and was plainly instructed beforehand that were he to grab the fence again, a point would be deducted. And he did. It's really straight forward.

just to make my point crystal clear, lets use the illegal kick analogy. you agree if the kick doesnt connect, there shouldnt be a penalty. what if the kick grazes clay guida's mop? or, lets exaggerate the point; what if it grazes an eye lash? now its a penalty?

these rules require some discretion by the ref. and i think the critical inquiry that the ref should be making, is whether the illegal move had any effect or impact on the fight.

i think a point deduction would have been warranted for the first fence grab, which actually did give akop an advantage, even though there wasnt a prior warning. i thought it was pretty weak on the refs part to deduct a point just because he promised it.

Here would be an equivalent with the kick analogy: Fighter A kicks fighter B in the head while they're on the ground, blatantly. Does very little damage. Later on, the event repeats itself, with fighter A kicking fighter B in the head whilst he is grounded. Fighter A warned by the referee that, although he's done very little damage, if he tries to kick his opponent in the head again whilst he is grounded, he'll have a point deducted. Fighter A, later in the fight, throws an illegal kick towards his grounded opponent's head, which misses. The referee deducts a point. That's not justified?

[DeFactoCrippler]

lets face it boys

that was a blatant attempt at cheating

by that dirty armenian

dirty dirty armenian

[Vaughany]

loool

[DeFactoCrippler]

I have a moderate play on Genair Da Silva...prolly only my third mma bet in the last couple of months so prolly a good choice to fade lol

0-20?

[PunisherIND]

The problem with that is that he had previously used the fence grab to gain a substantial advantage on more than one occassion. He had committed multiple purposeful fouls whilst being warned. He was told, directly, that if he grabs the fence again, which is the action that resulted in the fouls, that he would have a point deducted. He had already committed numerous punishable fouls, and was plainly instructed beforehand that were he to grab the fence again, a point would be deducted. And he did. It's really straight forward.

like i said, it would have been justified if the point was deducted the first or second time, when he actually gained an advantage. it would have been fine to issue the deduction without a warning even. but to issue a deduction for the grab at the end of round 2, just because he promised to do so, was weak imo, and contrary to the rules.

Here would be an equivalent with the kick analogy: Fighter A kicks fighter B in the head while they're on the ground, blatantly. Does very little damage. Later on, the event repeats itself, with fighter A kicking fighter B in the head whilst he is grounded. Fighter A warned by the referee that, although he's done very little damage, if he tries to kick his opponent in the head again whilst he is grounded, he'll have a point deducted. Fighter A, later in the fight, throws an illegal kick towards his grounded opponent's head, which misses. The referee deducts a point. That's not justified?

i see we're just not going to agree on this. my position would be the same as the fence grabbing. the ref could deduct the point the first two times that connected, if, in the refs discretion, the illegal blows gave fighter A an advantage. but i think it would be poor use of discretion if the ref deducts it for the third kick which doesnt connect.

[PunisherIND]

bottom line, i think it depends on the circumstances. lets be honest, if a guy is blatantly trying to kick a downed opponent in the head, a dq would probably be warranted. if henzo was cornering the guy, he'd probably jump in and stomp the other dude.

[Vaughany]

0-20?

Question is is at what point does one start tailing Jesus's plays...surely by law of averages a winner will be hit soon?

[MD]

like i said, it would have been justified if the point was deducted the first or second time, when he actually gained an advantage. it would have been fine to issue the deduction without a warning even. but to issue a deduction for the grab at the end of round 2, just because he promised to do so, was weak imo, and contrary to the rules.




i see we're just not going to agree on this. my position would be the same as the fence grabbing. the ref could deduct the point the first two times that connected, if, in the refs discretion, the illegal blows gave fighter A an advantage. but i think it would be poor use of discretion if the ref deducts it for the third kick which doesnt connect.

I think deducting a point for attempting to cheat when you've been warned that if you attempt to cheat, a point will be deducted again, is more than acceptable. I think it's especially acceptable because the ref promised to do so.

You really think the ref shouldn't deduct the point for a blatant attempt at kicking a downed opponent? I concur, we're not going to agree on this matter.

[PunisherIND]

I think deducting a point for attempting to cheat when you've been warned that if you attempt to cheat, a point will be deducted again, is more than acceptable. I think it's especially acceptable because the ref promised to do so.

You really think the ref shouldn't deduct the point for a blatant attempt at kicking a downed opponent? I concur, we're not going to agree on this matter.

under your scenario where its clear the guy is disregarding the rule and making repeated attempts to kick a downed opponent, i think the right thing to do would be a DQ. but it really depends on the individual case. for example, what if the "downed" opponent is playing the game where they just reach down and put their hand on the floor. it can get tricky.

you read the rule. its not considered illegal unless there was an advantage gained from the fence grab. thats the main problem i had with the point deduction. the fact that he promised to do so doesnt justify it. now, if the ref thought that stepanyan did in fact gain an advantage there, then i could see the argument for deducting the point.

hey, at least we both agree there should have been a round 4. lol. we can agree to disagree on this one.

[MD]

under your scenario where its clear the guy is disregarding the rule and making repeated attempts to kick a downed opponent, i think the right thing to do would be a DQ. but it really depends on the individual case. for example, what if the "downed" opponent is playing the game where they just reach down and put their hand on the floor. it can get tricky.

you read the rule. its not considered illegal unless there was an advantage gained from the fence grab. thats the main problem i had with the point deduction. the fact that he promised to do so doesnt justify it. now, if the ref thought that stepanyan did in fact gain an advantage there, then i could see the argument for deducting the point.

hey, at least we both agree there should have been a round 4. lol. we can agree to disagree on this one.

The thing is, he did break the rules, and the ref gave him a discretionary warning as such, and told him that if he grabs the fence again (with no quantification; just "if you grab the fence again, I'm taking a point"), that he would lose a point.

The argument boils down to whether or not you think warning someone of a point deduction for rule violations warrants a point deduction if they attempt to break the rules again. I certainly think it warrants the point deduction; if you don't, well, you're entitled to your opinion. Far be it for me to tell you you're wrong.

I certainly agree there should have been a round four. Sandro clearly lost round one in my eyes. I didn't think it was close.

[MMAbetMASTA]

The decision was horseshit, the point deduction was flawless and 100% warranted. He warned him on more than three occasions to stop grabbing the fence, warned him he was taking a point away the next time he did it, and then took the point as promised when he repeated the behaviour.

i scored it a draw, but agree 100% with the point deduction for reasons stated above. It was legit, whether the fench grabs affected the fight or not doesn't matter - he broke the rules, was warned multiple times, and the ref followed through.

[MMAbetMASTA]

Awesome man. Glad you didnt blind tail Luca. He was loving the fucko brazilian!

I've never tailed that clown once, if anything i've auto faded his ass on a few of his big picks, the best one being cung over cote

"cung le is the most overrated fighter in the sport" -Fury

I'm sure fury only lost a little tho since this 'moderate' play was only a hundred bucks risked, unlike his other 'moderate' plays that won where he happened to lay a few hundred as 'moderate' lol... Guy is a joke with that ish..

[MMAbetMASTA]

Nice hit on Khasbulalalalalaav bro.

Richman should of been -500 cuz, he was under-valued if anything, anybody who's last win was against a can on a 13 fight losing streak on a card called "OktoberFIST" should be auto-failed!! Mitch Jackson is Jason Reinhardt Version 2.0!

haha yea yea nice win last night fuckerr!

I felt bad betting against you even if it was just sprinkle, one of my 'value' bets that turned out to have absolutely no value lol... He was legit at -300 with solid value, I'll admit.

Jackson looks tiny too, I didn't realize richman was gonna be a monster next to him, seemed to dwarf him.

[MMAbetMASTA]

lol wow... HIGH FIVE!!

[MMAbetMASTA]

prob paid the price too early, think I might have f'd up and could have gotten this much cheaper if I waited... GOnna be pissed if it drops a bunch, especially if bezzera loses ha. Won't be around a computer tomorrow tho so I made the play just now before I crash. Silva prob has an advantage on the feet, but popo has legit stand up too and def has the mma grappling edge imo. Hoping popo will mix it up in this fight, and be more aggressive than in the sandro fight Keep the chin tucked as well, silva looks like he hits hard. Don't think bezzera will finish, but think he'll get the decision and be fresher in the latter round. GL tomorrow.

92511879-1

2/6/2013 10:58 PM

Money Line

180.00

100.00

Pregame Sports 24018 A BEZERRA -180 for Game

Adding:

92512018-1	2/6/2013 11:03 PM	Money Line	15.00	27.00	Pregame Sports 24013 F Khasbualev +180 for Game
92530426-1	2/7/2013 9:31 PM	Money Line	15.00	41.25	Pregame Sports 24009 M Jackson +275 for Game
92530514-1	2/7/2013 9:32 PM	Money Line	10.00	29.00	Pregame Sports 24001 M Falcao +290 for Game

Tailed most the board (and what seems like most hte online predictions) on khasbulev.

Other two sprinkles are strictly outta value, think falcao will gas and lose the 4th and 5th, but might have a win or two in the 1st or 2nd rnd to keep things interesting. Guy has a very underrated ground game, especially wrestling for a brasilian. Mitch is prob a stupid bet, I've already lost twice betting against richman (but redeemed myself last fight), but don't know that richman deserves the juicy odds.

GL, tuning in now!

Profited a bill thanks to popo's sick jitz, despite the donk play on jackson.

falco wilted.. think he was hoping the ref might stop it or schlemenko would walk away after that body shot but he paid for wilting and lowering his hands like that, brutally ktfo!

Not many enticing choices for shclemenko at mw in bellator right now... perhaps that other rusky who lost that close decision to falcao could be a good fight for him

Solid fights last night outside of sandro's debacle, entertaining show overall. Sounds like everyone was in the green!

[sideloaded]

I like the over 3.5 on Falcao/Shlemenko.

nice call, fa-ggot


see how this game works?