I cap Pat Curran at -900

[NunyaBidness]

if penn vs diaz was a 5 rounder, it still wouldnt have been -900 for diaz
after seeing the first fight we might cap this scenario at -500, -600 for diaz, but before the fight happened..? a 5 rounder would still have diaz no more than -400

Heh, I feel like you're both arguing points I'm not making.

[sideloaded]

I can't imagine what you think you're saying here.

lol yep

[Hannibal]

Well, I 'cap Curran at around -900, and I think there's a solid chance he could lose the first round (close to 50% I'd imagine, although I haven't put much time into that estimate). For whatever that's worth.

sham's offense is entirely in his striking, so if you believe there is a 50% chance that curran loses the first round, you'd have to expect that curran is going to take some strikes in the first round. if you expect that curran is going to eat enough shots to warrant losing the first round, i dont thikn you can say curran deserves to be -900. people get knocked out yo

[MD]

I can't imagine what you think you're saying here.

What is confusing about it? Pretty simple to understand. Only edit I can make for clarity is "You're supposed to handicap based on percentage chance of winning, not skill. They are related but different.".

[Nick Papageorgio]

-900 with a 50 % chance of losin in round 1. Break through mastermind capping going on here.

[NunyaBidness]

What is confusing about it? Pretty simple to understand. Only edit I can make for clarity is "You're supposed to handicap based on percentage chance of winning, not skill. They are related but different.".

I understand the Capping 101 post you're somehow targeting at me. However, it has literally nothing to do with what I posted.

[MD]

sham's offense is entirely in his striking, so if you believe there is a 50% chance that curran loses the first round, you'd have to expect that curran is going to take some strikes in the first round. if you expect that curran is going to eat enough shots to warrant losing the first round, i dont thikn you can say curran deserves to be -900. people get knocked out yo

Of course I think he's going to take some strikes. I can't remember every betting on someone with the expectation that they won't get hit. I think Shamhalaev finds the finish just under 10% of the time.

[Hannibal]

Heh, I feel like you're both arguing points I'm not making.

i think i get your point.. that some favorites are going to win even though it can be expected that they might lose a round or two
the diaz vs penn example illustrates that
but i think those favs are more in the range of -400, -500, not -900

am i misjudging the gap between -400 and -900?

[MD]

-900 with a 50 % chance of losin in round 1. Break through mastermind capping going on here.

I lol'd.

I understand the Capping 101 post you're somehow targeting at me. However, it has literally nothing to do with what I posted.

The discussion (as per your original post) related to whether a fighter can lose a round and still be justifiably considered a -900 favourite. I'm addressing that question.

[sideloaded]

i think i get your point.. that some favorites are going to win even though it can be expected that they might lose a round or two
the diaz vs penn example illustrates that
but i think those favs are more in the range of -400, -500, not -900

am i misjudging the gap between -400 and -900?

well the percentage isnt as large the higher you go up.

[MD]

am i misjudging the gap between -400 and -900?

Why would losing a round affect a fighter's chances of winning if you give the winner of this single round almost no chance of winning a decision, and your -900 prediction includes the odds of his opponent finding a finish?

[Beelzebubzy]

50% chance finishing in round 1? Not sure if serious.
-900 is insane but so is EV Curran being finsihed in round 1

[Nick Papageorgio]

If you had a lesnar -900 vs Carwin thread, I will buy into this capping.

[Hannibal]

Why would losing a round affect a fighter's chances of winning if you give the winner of this single round almost no chance of winning a decision, and your -900 prediction includes the odds of his opponent finding a finish?

doug the rhino marshall can take a decision over the sultan aliev, no one has 0% chance to take a decision

[sideloaded]

-400 80 percent chance
-900 90 percent chance
-1400 93.3 percent chance of winning

so -900 is only saying a 10 percent chance more of winning than -400.

[hobbesITD]

What makes you so confident Shamwow can't win rounds 2-5 if he has a 50% chance of winning round 1? Shamwow has never been to a third round but that doesn't mean he can't handle it.

[MD]

What makes you so confident Shamwow can't win rounds 2-5 if he has a 50% chance of winning round 1? He has never been to a third round but that doesn't mean he definitely can't handle it.

Discipline. Both an abundance of it for Curran and a lack of it for Shamhalaev. Also, I have sincere doubts about his cardio. There are other reasons too, such as Curran settling into his rhythm and finding Shamhalaev's timing.

doug the rhino marshall can take a decision over the sultan aliev, no one has 0% chance to take a decision

I did say "almost no chance", not "no chance", bro.

[Hannibal]

-400 80 percent chance
-900 90 percent chance
-1400 93.3 percent chance of winning

so -900 is only saying a 10 percent chance more of winning than -400.

i get that, my arithmetic isnt that bad

does this also mean that from -900 to -400, the odds of the underdog to win have doubled. His chances have increased by 100%
is it wrong to think this way nunya?

[MD]

-400 80 percent chance
-900 90 percent chance
-1400 93.3 percent chance of winning

so -900 is only saying a 10 percent chance more of winning than -400.

Exactly. Granted, there's a huge difference in divergence between 30% to 40%, and 80% to 90%, but I do think people have issues with translating implied probability to odds and vice-versa.

[MD]

i get that, my arithmetic isnt that bad

does this also mean that from -900 to -400, the odds of the underdog to win have doubled. His chances have increased by 100%
is it wrong to think this way nunya?

Is it wrong to think that the odds of the underdog winning have doubled? No. I sort of touched on this in my last post directed at 'Loader.

I recall Nunya saying something similar in a post in his thread reviewing Rothman's book, when he referred to Rothman's "margin of safety" idea.

[sideloaded]

i get that, my arithmetic isnt that bad

does this also mean that from -900 to -400, the odds of the underdog to win have doubled. His chances have increased by 100%
is it wrong to think this way nunya?

why does nunya only get to anwser math questions? haha

[Hannibal]

why does nunya only get to anwser maths questions? haha

not necessarily math, but theory
but ya.. he seems like the resident nerd here
nerds rule the world bro

[sideloaded]

not necessarily math, but theory
but ya.. he seems like the resident nerd here
nerds rule the world bro

actually gabe has aspergers and a math wiz, however he is a degenerate.

[Hannibal]

actually gabe has aspergers and a math wiz, however he is a degenerate.

getting lazy with the jokes bro, dfc would rip that shit up

[sideloaded]

getting lazy with the jokes bro, dfc would rip that shit up

dfc is permabanned, and I know why but cant say or I will be banned too

[NunyaBidness]

i get that, my arithmetic isnt that bad

does this also mean that from -900 to -400, the odds of the underdog to win have doubled. His chances have increased by 100%
is it wrong to think this way nunya?

It's absolutely the right way to think about it.

I would throw the word 'only' in there. His chances have only increased by 100%.

[MD]

dfc is permabanned, and I know why but cant say or I will be banned too

He's banned every five minutes. Are you saying he's not coming back this time?

[sideloaded]

a few obscure references he made caused other people to be banned forever, so I would assume he is too. Because he referenced people that have major pull on SBR. It really is digusting politics.

[MD]

a few obscure references he made caused other people to be banned forever, so I would assume he is too. Because he referenced people that have major pull on SBR. It really is digusting politics.

Who else was banned forever?

[Hannibal]

i dont get the whole drama and politics things with the forum..
its not like you guys all attend the yearly convention, or have any relationship with the site owners/moderators

[Hannibal]

a few obscure references he made caused other people to be banned forever, so I would assume he is too. Because he referenced people that have major pull on SBR. It really is digusting politics.

sound liek you're talking about a real politician with words like "major pull"
wtf does major pull mean around here? that you can moderate some conversations or deduct some sbr points?

[Hannibal]

I would throw the word 'only' in there. His chances have only increased by 100%.

are you trying to imply something? i dont understand

[visualrealism]

$550 to win $300 !!! Lets go!!

I mean $2700 to win $300!!!

[sideloaded]

Who else was banned forever?

not mma forum guys, but they too referenced the same thing that dfc did, and they got the axe.

[sideloaded]

sound liek you're talking about a real politician with words like "major pull"
wtf does major pull mean around here? that you can moderate some conversations or deduct some sbr points?

you dont even know man. It was a minor miracle that illmatick got gabe ubanned. And that is only because ill works for sbrforum.com as a writer.