News for mma that occurs during the 8th month of the year and bewbz

[The iron sheik]

Not Sonnen ITD -335??????

What?

[MD]

Not Sonnen ITD -335??????

What?

My thoughts exactly. Surely it should be at least -900? That's being conservative in my opinion. He can probably finish Shogun if he gets to crucifix, or possibly even if he passes to mount (although mounting Shogun is no easy feat), but other than that, it's difficult to imagine.

[The iron sheik]

My thoughts exactly. Surely it should be at least -900? That's being conservative in my opinion. He can probably finish Shogun if he gets to crucifix, or possibly even if he passes to mount (although mounting Shogun is no easy feat), but other than that, it's difficult to imagine.

The thing is, I can see Sonnen winning but not in my wildest dreams without some freak injury or something like that, do I see Sonnen gnp'ing or finishing Shogun. Seriously. More like the -900 you suggested

e:sonnen will win through attrition if anything. If he doesn't get KO'd or submitted, I think he's going to TD all day but will do absolutely nothing significant with said TD's, because he CAN'T. Not a big lean in either direction for me, but not Sonnen ITD seems a good one

[Luca Fury]

Sonnen ITD listed at -707 at 5Dimes, with the last change occurring almost 14 hours ago. Where are you seeing -335?

[MD]

Sonnen ITD listed at -707 at 5Dimes, with the last change occurring almost 14 hours ago. Where are you seeing -335?

He's referring to the wager I posted, he's not saying it's -335 right now.

[Luca Fury]

He's referring to the wager I posted, he's not saying it's -335 right now.

Oh, gotchya. Damn, nice grab. Pretty much all the value is gone now.

[MD]

Oh, gotchya. Damn, nice grab. Pretty much all the value is gone now.

Indeed. I thought about waiting on it, but I realized that the line was so off that there was no way it would stay the same until limits went up. It may drop back down on fight day, though. All of the ITD and Doesn't Go Distance props tend to get action on fight day.

[MD]

The thing is, I can see Sonnen winning but not in my wildest dreams without some freak injury or something like that, do I see Sonnen gnp'ing or finishing Shogun. Seriously. More like the -900 you suggested

e:sonnen will win through attrition if anything. If he doesn't get KO'd or submitted, I think he's going to TD all day but will do absolutely nothing significant with said TD's, because he CAN'T. Not a big lean in either direction for me, but not Sonnen ITD seems a good one

I forgot about these, but both of those actually opened better than that.

$274.00

$100.00

Pending

8/17/13 11:00pm Props Fighting 1006 Not Sonnen inside distance -274* vs Sonnen wins inside distance

$470.00

$100.00

Pending

8/17/13 11:00pm Props Fighting 1012 Not Rua by 5 round decision -470* vs Rua wins by 5 round decision

I posted about it in my thread when they opened. Great value in my opinion.

[PunisherIND]

I forgot about these, but both of those actually opened better than that.

$274.00

$100.00

Pending

8/17/13 11:00pm Props Fighting 1006 Not Sonnen inside distance -274* vs Sonnen wins inside distance

$470.00

$100.00

Pending

8/17/13 11:00pm Props Fighting 1012 Not Rua by 5 round decision -470* vs Rua wins by 5 round decision

I posted about it in my thread when they opened. Great value in my opinion.

Rua wins inside distance +310
Sonnen wins by 5 round decision +218



just curious why you played the "not" lines. if you play "not sonnen itd" arent you,
in essence, paying for "rua by decision"? same with the "not rua by decision" play.

great value indeed. just wondering why you went that route.

[Beelzebubzy]

I have a flier on sonnen by ko (damage or cuts)

pretty much regarding fliers, if you are grabaka then they count against you but if you are gabe they don't.

[MD]

Rua wins inside distance +310
Sonnen wins by 5 round decision +218



just curious why you played the "not" lines. if you play "not sonnen itd" arent you,
in essence, paying for "rua by decision"? same with the "not rua by decision" play.

great value indeed. just wondering why you went that route.

Let's assume that Rua wins ITD around 36% of the time, Sonnen wins by decision around 57% of the time, Rua wins by decision around 3% of the time, and Sonnen wins ITD around 4% of the time.

According to my numbers, Not Rua Decision cashes 97% of the time, at -470, which implies that it cashes around 82%.

Not Sonnen ITD cashes around 96% of the time, with an implied probability of 72%.

Of the bets you posted, Rua ITD cashes 36% with an implied probability of 25%, and Sonnen dec. cashes 55% with an implied probability of around 31%. The value is far higher on the not lines, by my estimations.

Obviously your numbers will vary, those aren't even my exact numbers, they're just ballparks, as I don't like posting my exact numbers publicly. Hope my explanation made sense. I've been awake for quite some time, so if I made any mistakes in my calculations, you'll have to forgive me.

[Das Jax]

Rua wins inside distance +310
Sonnen wins by 5 round decision +218



just curious why you played the "not" lines. if you play "not sonnen itd" arent you,
in essence, paying for "rua by decision"? same with the "not rua by decision" play.

great value indeed. just wondering why you went that route.

With two random fighters that would be the case, but Shogun and Sonnen both have such clear paths to victory that it's far less of an issue. If Shogun wins, it will be via KO since that's his bread and butter and the odds of him grinding out a decision vs a wrestler like Sonnen are slim. The opposite is true for Sonnen. His gameplan is always the same (the term "wrestlefuck" was likely directly inspired by him). He's not going to stand with Shogun if at all possible, but at the same time, he's not a great submission artist and Shogun's good enough off his back to neutralize whatever Sonnen's able to muster. Accordingly, his most likely win is via a ground out decision.

I'm on both plays, but of the two I like the Not Shogun via Decision play far better (especially at the line MD caught it at... by the time I played it it had dropped to -955).

[PunisherIND]

Let's assume that Rua wins ITD around 36% of the time, Sonnen wins by decision around 57% of the time, Rua wins by decision around 3% of the time, and Sonnen wins ITD around 4% of the time.

According to my numbers, Not Rua Decision cashes 97% of the time, at -470, which implies that it cashes around 82%.

Not Sonnen ITD cashes around 96% of the time, with an implied probability of 72%.

Of the bets you posted, Rua ITD cashes 36% with an implied probability of 25%, and Sonnen dec. cashes 55% with an implied probability of around 31%. The value is far higher on the not lines, by my estimations.

Obviously your numbers will vary, those aren't even my exact numbers, they're just ballparks, as I don't like posting my exact numbers publicly. Hope my explanation made sense. I've been awake for quite some time, so if I made any mistakes in my calculations, you'll have to forgive me.

i might be doing something wrong, but according to your values and based on the respective implied odds of the lines we got, this is the edge for each play

not rua dec .18
not sonnen itd .31

rua itd .48
sonnen dec .81

[MD]

i might be doing something wrong, but according to your values and based on the respective implied odds of the lines we got, this is the edge for each play

not rua dec .18
not sonnen itd .31

rua itd .48
sonnen dec .81

I didn't check your numbers so I don't know if they're correct, but there is definitely more value on the lines I posted. Try inputting my numbers into a Kelly calculator. The difference between a bet on Not Rua Dec and Rua ITD is massive. At 1/4 Kelly, it's 35.2% vs 3.5% of your bankroll recommended. It's really not even comparable.

[PunisherIND]

I didn't check your numbers so I don't know if they're correct, but there is definitely more value on the lines I posted. Try inputting my numbers into a Kelly calculator. The difference between a bet on Not Rua Dec and Rua ITD is massive. At 1/4 Kelly, it's 35.2% vs 3.5% of your bankroll recommended. It's really not even comparable.

i must be doing something wrong because i'm coming up with 20% at 1/4 kelly for Not rua decision.

but still, the kelly stake is going to be higher because you are comparing a -470 line to a +310 line. isn't the "edge" a better indicator of value? not the kelly stake.

[MD]

i must be doing something wrong because i'm coming up with 20% at 1/4 kelly for Not rua decision.

but still, the kelly stake is going to be higher because you are comparing a -470 line to a +310 line. isn't the "edge" a better indicator of value? not the kelly stake.

Are you just taking a full Kelly calculation and dividing it by four?

The Kelly stake will be higher, yes, but there's a reason for that. There's a big difference between a 70% favourite that you think wins 90% of the time, and a 10% favourite that you think wins 30% of the time. Kelly is the optimal calculation for bankroll growth, so I consider it the optimal judge of value. If I'm wrong, Nunya will be able to let us know, this area is pretty much his expertise. N-dawg?

[Beelzebubzy]

Any other nerd have a Kelly app? Mine only does half and full Kelly

[PunisherIND]

Are you just taking a full Kelly calculation and dividing it by four?

The Kelly stake will be higher, yes, but there's a reason for that. There's a big difference between a 70% favourite that you think wins 90% of the time, and a 10% favourite that you think wins 30% of the time. Kelly is the optimal calculation for bankroll growth, so I consider it the optimal judge of value. If I'm wrong, Nunya will be able to let us know, this area is pretty much his expertise. N-dawg?

i am dividing by four... i put the numbers into sbr's kelly calculator and i got the 35% that you stated. not sure where i'm screwing it up, but i'll have to look into it.

would love to hear nunya's thoughts. normally i would defer to your logic in these matters, but i have to disagree here. if kelly stake is the optimal judge of value, there would almost always be more value in a favorite than an underdog (except in extreme examples)

[PunisherIND]

if i understand you correct, you are basically equating "expected profit" with "value".

i'm saying that your "edge" is a better indicator of "value".

[MD]

i am dividing by four... i put the numbers into sbr's kelly calculator and i got the 35% that you stated. not sure where i'm screwing it up, but i'll have to look into it.

would love to hear nunya's thoughts. normally i would defer to your logic in these matters, but i have to disagree here. if kelly stake is the optimal judge of value, there would almost always be more value in a favorite than an underdog (except in extreme examples)

Nunya's much more knowledgeable in this area than I am, so if I'm wrong, he'll let us know, me thinks. The reason that I use Kelly as a measure of value is that I consider bankroll growth the ultimate measure of success in sports betting. Optimizing bankroll growth is the ultimate goal.

[MD]

if i understand you correct, you are basically equating "expected profit" with "value".

i'm saying that your "edge" is a better indicator of "value".

"Expected value" and "expected profit" are the same thing, yes, but that's not where I'm coming from here. I thought that was where you were coming from. "Expected value" as it's traditionally understood, and "expected growth" are two different concepts. Since optimizing bankroll growth is my primary concern, as it is for most gamblers, my reasoning is that wagers which optimize my bankroll growth are thus higher value, by my definition. You can have a wager with a positive expected profit that provides a negative expected bankroll growth. A wager that I think provides a higher expected bankroll growth is thus more valuable to me than a wager I think provides higher expected value.

[PunisherIND]

"Expected value" and "expected profit" are the same thing, yes, but that's not where I'm coming from here. I thought that was where you were coming from. "Expected value" as it's traditionally understood, and "expected growth" are two different concepts. Since optimizing bankroll growth is my primary concern, as it is for most gamblers, my reasoning is that wagers which optimize my bankroll growth are thus higher value, by my definition. You can have a wager with a positive expected profit that provides a negative expected bankroll growth. A wager that I think provides a higher expected bankroll growth is thus more valuable to me than a wager I think provides higher expected value.

i understand you. we are just using different definitions of "value".

[MD]

To clarify something that I felt I explained poorly, expected growth is calculated using your bet sizing (percentage-wise), which is something that does not occur with expected value. By how I'm defining value, it's true that the same wager can have negative expected growth or positive expected growth depending on your bet sizing. In the case of expected value, it remains independent of bet sizing, except in the case of all-in situations (when, if my understanding is correct, your expected value becomes 0%).

[NunyaBidness]

The argument here is being predicated on MD's numbers, which I would argue (again) that MD vastly overestimates his edges.

Anyway, based on given numbers, Pun is risking 2u with an EV of +1.2886u.
MD is risking 7.44u with an EV of +1.6794u

Pun's edge is considerably higher.

[PunisherIND]

Any other nerd have a Kelly app? Mine only does half and full Kelly

http://www.sbrforum.com/betting-tools/kelly-calculator/

just change the kelly multiplier.

[NunyaBidness]

Kelly stake size is not an appropriate measure of value, only EG.

Kelly staking gets larger for favorites because you have to lay more to win the same amount and the increased confidence gained.

This leads us to real life concerns like limits, for example, say 5dimes moves everytime you place a bet, and you will only be able to bet these lines ONCE before they move to unplayable territory.

Even though Pun's method provides a higher edge, we prefer to play MD's method as our overall growth is higher.

[NunyaBidness]

In the case of expected value, it remains independent of bet sizing, except in the case of all-in situations (when, if my understanding is correct, your expected value becomes 0%).

You're completely off about EV here. Especially in the case of 'all-in' situations. EV correlates perfectly to bet size. If I have an EV of +1u when betting 1u then I have an EV of +100u when betting 100u. This also holds true for negative EV wagers.

If your statement was true, a player could stack off everytime he thought he was -EV in a hand and somehow increase his EV back to 0.

[NunyaBidness]

The argument here is being predicated on MD's numbers, which I would argue (again) that MD vastly overestimates his edges.

Anyway, based on given numbers, Pun is risking 2u with an EV of +1.2886u.
MD is risking 7.44u with an EV of +1.6794u

Pun's edge is considerably higher.

Tired, made a small mistake here.

While Pun can lose both of his bets, MD cannot. So, in reality he is maximally risking 3.7u. But he is still laying the money so the calculations all work out the same.

Also, just to be a completist, in the event of a draw MD wins both of his bets while Pun loses both of his, but the odds of this occurring are so small to not matter.

[MD]

The argument here is being predicated on MD's numbers, which I would argue (again) that MD vastly overestimates his edges.

Anyway, based on given numbers, Pun is risking 2u with an EV of +1.2886u.
MD is risking 7.44u with an EV of +1.6794u

Pun's edge is considerably higher.

Kelly stake size is not an appropriate measure of value, only EG.

Kelly staking gets larger for favorites because you have to lay more to win the same amount and the increased confidence gained.

This leads us to real life concerns like limits, for example, say 5dimes moves everytime you place a bet, and you will only be able to bet these lines ONCE before they move to unplayable territory.

Even though Pun's method provides a higher edge, we prefer to play MD's method as our overall growth is higher.

Thanks for the clarification, Nunya. As I said, my numbers are just ballparks and do not represent my actual 'capping, but it is possible I overestimate my edges regardless. Maybe even likely. I'm aware his edge was higher, but I was wondering if a higher edge indicates more value, as opposed to a higher rate of expected growth, which I was using to determine value. Which it apparently does. Thanks as always for the information bro. <3

You're completely off about EV here. Especially in the case of 'all-in' situations. EV correlates perfectly to bet size. If I have an EV of +1u when betting 1u then I have an EV of +100u when betting 100u. This also holds true for negative EV wagers.

If your statement was true, a player could stack off everytime he thought he was -EV in a hand and somehow increase his EV back to 0.

You're misunderstanding me here. What I'm saying is that percentage of expected value doesn't change. Obviously if I have an EV of $10 whilst risking $100, I have an EV of $100 whilst risking $1000. What I'm saying is that the EV of the play in this scenario is static at 10% profit. As opposed to EG, which will alter considerably given your bet sizing. Putting 1% of your bankroll on a +100000000 line that you think wins one in a million times is +EV, but catastrophic to your expected growth.

[NunyaBidness]

You're misunderstanding me here. What I'm saying is that percentage of expected value doesn't change. Obviously if I have an EV of $10 whilst risking $100, I have an EV of $100 whilst risking $1000. What I'm saying is that the EV of the play in this scenario is static at 10% profit. As opposed to EG, which will alter considerably given your bet sizing. Putting 1% of your bankroll on a +100000000 line that you think wins one in a million times is +EV, but catastrophic to your expected growth.

This is true, but in the statement I quoted, you never mentioned EG, only EV.

So, if I misunderstand you, it's only because you misspoke.

[NunyaBidness]

I'm aware his edge was higher, but I was wondering if a higher edge indicates more value, as opposed to a higher rate of expected growth, which I was using to determine value. Which it apparently does. Thanks as always for the information bro. <3

Well, the confusion mostly comes from the fact that 'value' is an arbitrary concept used many different ways by many different people. As I tried to highlight, when we get down to a real world scenario, things become easier to understand based on various limits imposed by books or life.

[NunyaBidness]

This leads us to real life concerns like limits, for example, say 5dimes moves everytime you place a bet, and you will only be able to bet these lines ONCE before they move to unplayable territory.

Even though Pun's method provides a higher edge, we prefer to play MD's method as our overall growth is higher.

So, given the above situation. We are playing on 5dimes, are bankroll is effectively unlimited, all these bets are available at the aforementioned prices. We can bet them only once before they move to unplayable territory.

What is the proper real life play to make?

10 points for the first correct answer.

[MD]

This is true, but in the statement I quoted, you never mentioned EG, only EV.

So, if I misunderstand you, it's only because you misspoke.

Misunderstanding me again bro. In the statement you quoted, I said that EV remains static regardless of bet sizing, which I meant percentage-wise, not in terms of actual monetary figures. Just so there's no confusion as to what I meant.

Well, the confusion mostly comes from the fact that 'value' is an arbitrary concept used many different ways by many different people. As I tried to highlight, when we get down to a real world scenario, things become easier to understand based on various limits imposed by books or life.

That sums up the discussion pretty well.

[MD]

So, given the above situation. We are playing on 5dimes, are bankroll is effectively unlimited, all these bets are available at the aforementioned prices. We can bet them only once before they move to unplayable territory.

What is the proper real life play to make?

10 points for the first correct answer.

Using the numbers I posted? All four of them would provide a positive expectation of value, so betting all of them would be correct, I would assume.

[PunisherIND]

So, given the above situation. We are playing on 5dimes, are bankroll is effectively unlimited, all these bets are available at the aforementioned prices. We can bet them only once before they move to unplayable territory.

What is the proper real life play to make?

10 points for the first correct answer.

all of them lol