-
Comment -
well I dont score lay and pray very high. I dont know but that is Rickels MO. Almost all his fights look like that. Awad did grapple. I thought that he was too dumb to even try that.
But lets not kid ourselves. When two low level bums in bellator fight. And both have KO power but one has a chin and the other ate shit against Nam Phan. I know who Im backing.Comment -
Comment -
% of time Awad wins the second round. is really bullshit. this isnt blackjack. That round is never going to happen again in that exact same way. It's the wrong way to think about fighting.Comment -
what does that even mean? Whats the point of saying this? That round and fight is a one time thing. It's not like flipping a coin 100 times.
I dont give a shit about closers either in a bullshit market like this. For f-cks sakes no one is running a computer model on bellator bums.
Beating a ineffienct market because it's inefficient than citing "efficient" closers as the reason for a "right" side is bordering retardation.Last edited by sideloaded; 03-29-13, 06:37 PM.Comment -
my homie sider spittin knowledge on yous fooozComment -
I miss seeing my head on a dog in V's avatar and seeing myself take a dump in Nunya'sComment -
Wait, I thought you were going to sue me for that?Comment -
Comment -
Oh no! What is this place? Now the right side was Rickels?
LOLComment -
i have no idea what you are talking about. My point fits perfect with reality. A fight and round happens one time. Acting like these fights can be reproduced over and over like a coin flip or black jack is dumb.
Frank Mir being -1000000000000000000 i have no idea what you are talking about. Instead of being a smart ass just explain your point.
putting a % on various outcomes before the fight is the only way to cap fights. But once the fight has happened. It's over. They're is no going back and saying well the coin just landed on heads this time. Next time it could be tails. There will never be a next time and never will. Talking about that shit is wasting everyones time. Even if the rematch all the variables will be changed forever.Last edited by sideloaded; 03-30-13, 06:53 AM.Comment -
I don't think anyone said that the right side was Rickels. But claiming Awad was the right side because he won the first round and was winning the second until the end is also silly.
He's referring to the fact that Mir smoked Lesnar in their first fight. His logic being that if there's only one way the fight can go, then surely Mir is 100% likely to win the second fight. Obviously there are other factors (Brock's improvement, for example), but I believe that's the point he's trying to make.Comment -
and I completely agree. In fact that is my point. Once the first fight was over, it's over. The second fight is completely different. That example is what im saying. Maybe I just wasn't clear enough.
I understand %'s but once a fight has played out. You have all your answers. The closer doesn't matter, The fight happened. You really cant say something was a fluke or the guy who lost was the right side after the fight. Now under different circumstances you can say that the guy who lost still has a better shot at winning. But it's still a brand new occurrence. At that point you are not playing with the same deck of cards or flipping the same coin.
It's why full kelly would work perfectly flipping a weighted coin but would probably cause you to go broke betting sports.
I've made the mistake too. I no longer think rousey any other result +280 was a good bet. Why? because it lost and I will never be able to make that same exact bet again. It's just wasting time thinking losing bets were the "right" side or "good" bets. Now Rousey may be over valued and that bet will be worth a lot more in the future in different circumstances, but that doesn't go back and change what happened in that first round. Rousey won and the bet was a loser on that night with those circumstances.
But that is just me. I find it easier and fitting more with my world view that no bet that lost is the right side.Last edited by sideloaded; 03-30-13, 07:22 AM.Comment -
I think you're trolling, but I'll bite.
Rehashing right side/wrong side after a fight doesn't win us our money back, and rarely provides us insight into a rematch (since they rarely occur), but what it can do is provide a framework to understand mistakes we're making in our own capping.
I'm sure Gabe considers his Carlo Prater over Erick Silva to be the right side, but it clearly wasn't.
There is considerably more variance in sports than any of you seem to understand.Comment -
The funny thing is that, after it was said that Awad is a glorified KO prop, it was clear that Awad lacked the power to consistently finish Rickels, and Rickels was blasting Awad on the feet. Classic striker vs grappler matchup, but not as most thought.
As someone who has no problem 'capping fighters as 95%+ favourites, I may fall into this group. I'll defend to my dying breath that Nate Diaz had less than a 2% chance to beat Ben Henderson though.Comment -
I'll make you a prop bet. You pick 20 fighters who are 95% or greater favorites in your mind, I'll take even money that at least one of them loses.
Obviously, you can't take the bet because you'll always get a better price than that, but my point is these >95% favorites are much rarer than you think.Comment -
My 'capping may be too loose, I've always felt that it's a possibility, but when I objectively analyse certain fights, I simply can't imagine certain fighters losing more than 2-5% of the time. It's rare that I estimate a fighter's chances to be that high, however. I like to think I'm generally pretty on point when I'm that confident in a play. I didn't even think Lyoto was a 90% favourite over Hendo, and that was one of my biggest plays of the year so far.
The same way I was wrong about Game Theory, DublinUp?Comment -
I felt either Mike Massenzio or Carlo Prater were going to get a flukey win and bust a lot of parlays that night. I decided that Prater had the better chance of making that happen, so I laid some good money down on him. Did I get lucky? Yes. Was I right? Also, yes. Was playing the near +500 dog off (mostly) gut-feeling the right play? Alllllso, yes. Expected it to be a parlay buster and it surely was.
Other parlay busting plays I've hit off the top of my head: Tito over Bader, KZ over Hominick, Lauzon over Guillard (had Guillard picked in that one but ended up betting Lauzon 'cos I couldn't pass on the value)
Only really big juice MMA bet I recall losing: Barboza vs Varner (had him in a few parlays, minor loss.)Comment -
uh what about the ALL time great Daniel Sarafian??Comment
