UFC on FOX 7 (April 20, 2013)

[NunyaBidness]

It's almost always contradictory in logic to believe in value while simultaneously using the results of a fight to determine that value was there. There's always new information that you can use to reassess your opinions, but there's too much variance in the grand scheme of things to know how that information would factor in were the fight repeated ad infinitum.

I think Nunya's going to come at me for this comment, though.

Disagree, obviously. I think it's very useful to look at a fight afterwards and reassess what you place the true line at. However, most people do this by saying something like, "Guy won = -10000 favorite" I really don't think anyone here understands the amount of variance, the amount of chaos that goes into an individual fight.

[NunyaBidness]

Not that my opinion holds water here (it feels like I'm softbanned), but I'm kind of curious how anyone in this day and age can actually find value in -900 plays? In that sense I partly agree with Grabaka here on his Mendes talk. I just find it kind of unrealistic to put someone under 10%, at least with the usual matchups.

I'm not saying there's value in Mendes at -900, I'm saying there's value in the opener and current line. My initial notes on capping the fight said "Unbettable" because I never assumed it would open at -435. (or actually -445 and take action the other way).

Wikicapping and saying Elkins has a shot because he's won 5 in a row, is pretty terrible. No one has taken down Mendes, not Yahya, Omigawa, Javi. Elkins game is all lay-n-pray. Maybe he lands a lucky punch because Mendes is looking past him, but I personally wouldn't touch Elkins below +1500.

[Educ8d Degener8]

Some interesting viewpoints in this thread. Wish I wasn't banned so I could reply with proper paragraphs and shit...

[Grabaka]

A lot of BS.

[Grabaka]

I dislike the forum today. Its nice to have a little devils advocate and a little chest pumping but always same shit. Whatever penetrate you all. (Going back to a Nick Diaz mode)

[Sacrelicious]

A lot of BS.

Bold Statements? I agree!

[ArchieUD]

Anyone else on Bowling?
I'm liking him to overpower Njoukuani in is LW debut. Got him at +175 at Paddy, but still like him at current odds +150..

[MD]

I dislike the forum today. Its nice to have a little devils advocate and a little chest pumping but always same shit. Whatever penetrate you all. (Going back to a Nick Diaz mode)

Hope this isn't aimed at me bro. <3 All I did was politely disagree with you even when you were calling me cocky about my 'capping.

[MD]

Disagree, obviously. I think it's very useful to look at a fight afterwards and reassess what you place the true line at. However, most people do this by saying something like, "Guy won = -10000 favorite" I really don't think anyone here understands the amount of variance, the amount of chaos that goes into an individual fight.

Here's my dilemma; the idea of value is that fights can play out in a near-infinite number of ways, where almost every conceivable occurrence could happen, however unlikely, and that, in handicapping, we dissect the actual probability of events occurring and then compare those numbers to the bookies' in an attempt to find spots where we believe the events occur more or less often than the lines suggest. Would you agree with that statement?

[Grabaka]

Hope this isn't aimed at me bro. <3 All I did was politely disagree with you even when you were calling me cocky about my 'capping.

Its not. And i did called you cocky but i did in the most respectful way i could. Sorry pal.
I just woke up in a really bad mood and disliked to find more thesis than winnerz. But it was more the bad mood actually.

[Grabaka]

I did disliked to find nunya saying nobody understands how many variables there are but proceeds to pound Mendes -900. (jk)

[Grabaka]

we dissect the actual probability of events occurring and then compare those numbers to the bookies' in an attempt to find spots where we believe the events occur more or less often than the lines suggest. Would you agree with that statement?

We could have started there.
Then we can go on and disagree if Mendes is 85% bound to win or 97%. But penetrate that shit...

[Imsmarterthanu]

Some really tight competitive matchups on this card

[Vaughany]

tight like Nunya's posse!

[Grabaka]

tight like Nunya's posse!

Tight like BIGDAY's singlets. Too tight!

[Dwil125]

is this line off?? Romero/starks

+170

[NunyaBidness]

I did disliked to find nunya saying nobody understands how many variables there are but proceeds to pound Mendes -900. (jk)

I bet it at -435. And parlayed with a bunch of other things. One could say I get Mendes at +200.

[NunyaBidness]

Here's my dilemma; the idea of value is that fights can play out in a near-infinite number of ways, where almost every conceivable occurrence could happen, however unlikely, and that, in handicapping, we dissect the actual probability of events occurring and then compare those numbers to the bookies' in an attempt to find spots where we believe the events occur more or less often than the lines suggest. Would you agree with that statement?

Well according to Everett's many-world's interpretations of quantum theory, every single possibility will occur simultaneously. So, on one hand, if your concern is for the many future selfs that diverge, then you should be capping based on the most likely scenarios to provide the greatest good for the greatest number of your 'selfs' (a sort of self-centered hedonistic calculus). However, for the version of you that will exist in the timestream that you will be aware of, all that matters is that you have chosen the victor. In other words, pick winnerz.

[MD]

Well according to Everett's many-world's interpretations of quantum theory, every single possibility will occur simultaneously. So, on one hand, if your concern is for the many future selfs that diverge, then you should be capping based on the most likely scenarios to provide the greatest good for the greatest number of your 'selfs' (a sort of self-centered hedonistic calculus). However, for the version of you that will exist in the timestream that you will be aware of, all that matters is that you have chosen the victor. In other words, pick winnerz.

I'll take that as a yes. <3

The dilemma, then, is this: if we believe that a fight can play out in a near-infinite number of ways, regardless of how improbable they may be (EG: how many times out of 1000 does Nick Diaz take down GSP and ground and pound him to a decision?), and we're factoring all of these ways into our handicapping, why, then, is the one way which occurs somehow more likely to reoccur if the fight were to happen again? How many times does Awad take down Rickels and control him for two rounds, if the fight is repeated a thousand times? One? A thousand? Somewhere in between?

Here's the logical conundrum that arises: "value" means believing that a fight can play out in a multitude of ways, each of which you assign a particular probability or range of probabilities; using the results of a fight to vindicate said idea of value means believing that because it did occur, it is more likely to occur, regardless of what probability you saw for those events in the first place. Nick Diaz can take down GSP. He can also ground and pound him, and lay on him for five rounds to a decision. How likely is that? Microscopic. You may have to play out the fight five-hundred or a thousand times for that to happen. Had it happened in their fight, though, there would have been a lot of gloating Nick Diaz backers.

Hope that wasn't too long-winded, just how I've always felt about the subject. My general rule, and what I think is the truest measure of "value", is to ask myself if I would make the wager again. Scientific, no, but I can't think of anything more quantifiable.

[omalley21]

Nunya can you post the openers for the round totals? Thanks.

[NunyaBidness]

Nunya can you post the openers for the round totals? Thanks.

Sorry, I only have records for:

Nijem/Jury over 2.5 -155
Carmon/Larkin Over 2.5 -140
Brown/Mein over 2.5 +105
Elkins/Mendes over 2.5 -140

[TheCalculator]

MD -- just curious if you've ever been punched in the face by a pro fighter and drank your own blood? Or struggled against a trained professional for 20 minutes in a grueling grappling match?

I have and those experiences tends to change your view of fighting a bit.

Quantum physics aside -- every professional fighter has 3 fundamental elements:

1. Skill

2. Will

3. Fight IQ

We can then subdivide skill into sub categories.

IMO - Being able to predict the outcome of the fight to 2 things:

1. Your ability to assess a fighters 3 core fundamentals.

2. Your ability to simulate the fighters against each other and see the most likely outcomes.

Every time I watch a fight -- I learn a bit more about his 3 core fundamentals.

And every time I watch a fighter fight -- I learn how his skills defensive and offensive in all areas match up against the other guy.

The point of this is that... if you can't assess if your handicapping was "off", "on" or somewhere in the middle... your missing out on some of the critical part of the feedback loop of being a better capper.

[NunyaBidness]

Quantum physics aside -- every professional fighter has 3 fundamental elements:

1. Skill

2. Will

3. Fight IQ

This is incredibly simplified.

Plus this argument about "do you trane" as a measure of how well you can cap fights is beyond silly.

Every time I watch a fight -- I learn a bit more about his 3 core fundamentals.

And every time I watch a fighter fight -- I learn how his skills defensive and offensive in all areas match up against the other guy.

This statement is true, but is overshadowed by the fact that mostly you learn how a matchup played out at a specific point in time with millions of co-factors contributing.

I highly recommend this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Fooled-Randomness-Hidden-Chance-Markets/dp/0812975219

[MD]

MD -- just curious if you've ever been punched in the face by a pro fighter and drank your own blood? Or struggled against a trained professional for 20 minutes in a grueling grappling match?

I have and those experiences tends to change your view of fighting a bit.

Quantum physics aside -- every professional fighter has 3 fundamental elements:

1. Skill

2. Will

3. Fight IQ

We can then subdivide skill into sub categories.

IMO - Being able to predict the outcome of the fight to 2 things:

1. Your ability to assess a fighters 3 core fundamentals.

2. Your ability to simulate the fighters against each other and see the most likely outcomes.

Every time I watch a fight -- I learn a bit more about his 3 core fundamentals.

And every time I watch a fighter fight -- I learn how his skills defensive and offensive in all areas match up against the other guy.

The point of this is that... if you can't assess if your handicapping was "off", "on" or somewhere in the middle... your missing out on some of the critical part of the feedback loop of being a better capper.

You didn't read a thing I said, and instead just rehashed what you stated earlier in this thread.

MD -- just curious if you've ever been punched in the face by a pro fighter and drank your own blood? Or struggled against a trained professional for 20 minutes in a grueling grappling match?

By a professional mixed martial artist? No. Grappling match? Lots. Completely unrelated to anything I said, though.

[TheCalculator]

This is incredibly simplified.

Plus this argument about "do you trane" as a measure of how well you can cap fights is beyond silly.

True genius is the simplification of the elements to the core -- nothing more -- nothing less.

Having trained and fought CAN be an edge. The problem with most fighters who try to cap fights is they are full of biases based on who they trained with and their personal fight style (what they prefer and what fighters' styles they like).

This statement is true, but is overshadowed by the fact that mostly you learn how a matchup played out at a specific point in time with millions of co-factors contributing.

I highly recommend this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Fooled-Randomn.../dp/0812975219

Thanks for the book reference. I actually own the book. And believe it or not... I own a software company that primarily deals HEAVILY with statistical validity as we test hundreds of things.

We could talk all day long about standard deviations, confidence intervals (low and high) and dozens of other variables.

How valuable is understanding stats in capping? It's another edge. A small one in my opinion.

Fundamentally -- I get my biggest ROI and improvements as a capper watching fight tapes and getting to the know "the core 3 elements of a fighter" and then running simulations in my head.

I think if someone is good at that -- they can be successful at capping.

And of course, it doesn't mean they will be successful at wagering. You've elegantly laid out many of the other aspects that are possibly more important in the long run (shopping lines, predicting line movement etc...).

As far as a "million possibilities" argument -- that's only true on the "simulation side" of the capping.

It's completely irrelevant to the 3 core fighters elements. How good are you at evaluating those? That's the question.

Of course those 3 aspects change with time and with some variation from fight to fight (injuries, age, bad weight cuts, life situations, loss of motivation) -- however usually it's 5% to 10% max change from fight to fight in the majority of cases.

[MD]

Thanks for the book reference. I actually own the book. And believe it or not... I own a software company that primarily deals HEAVILY with statistical validity as we test hundreds of things.

We could talk all day long about standard deviations, confidence intervals (low and high) and dozens of other variables.

How valuable is understanding stats in capping? It's another edge. A small one in my opinion.

Fundamentally -- I get my biggest ROI and improvements as a capper watching fight tapes and getting to the know "the core 3 elements of a fighter" and then running simulations in my head.

I think if someone is good at that -- they can be successful at capping.

And of course, it doesn't mean they will be successful at wagering. You've elegantly laid out many of the other aspects that are possibly more important in the long run (shopping lines, predicting line movement etc...).

As far as a "million possibilities" argument -- that's only true on the "simulation side" of the capping.

It's completely irrelevant to the 3 core fighters elements. How good are you at evaluating those? That's the question.

Of course those 3 aspects change with time and with some variation from fight to fight (injuries, age, bad weight cuts, life situations, loss of motivation) -- however usually it's 5% to 10% max change from fight to fight in the majority of cases.

Not to say that your "core fighter elements" idea has any validity, but no, it is very relevant to handicapping a fight. Considering the likelihood of various events occurring is the point of handicapping a fight.

[BIGDAY]

Tight like BIGDAY's singlets. Too tight!

I have some high school photos that you guys would get a kick outa!

[Vaughany]

Tight like BIGDAY's singlets. Too tight!

lol

[Fragoel2]

Watched some tape, decided to stay away from Brown vs Mein.
IMHO Brown has to turn this into a brawl to win, but I don't see it happening, Mein seems able to keep his composure even when he gets hurt or when puches start flying everywhere. Won't get lured into a dogfight.

[BIGDAY]

Don't make me bust out my tricep up in here!

[BIGDAY]

I gotta pump that fukker back up. I'm getting old though.

Don't get to work out too often with couple of young kiddos.

[Beelzebubzy]

Free rolling brown here to win .125 units
I think mein can easily out jab and Outland brown but brown has turned alot of fights into said brawls and has added some ko power. Mein seems to have a great chin but we have not seen him under the big lights. Moreover brown has stopped the hype train before. Resilient plus dirty style is worth a shot at 290.

[Vaughany]

Bigday's tricep FTW!

[Sacrelicious]

Bigday's tricep FTW!

Bigday's tricep would be impressive to most.

But its significantly less girthy then my penis.

I'm not impressed.

[Vaughany]

is ur penis as tanned and defined tho?