UFC 165: Jones vs. Gustafsson (September 21, 2013)

[plekz]

SO when I give out 2 bets in this thread pre-fight at +500 and +115 and they both hit for 18.45 units, I'm not allowed to mention it?

Not when YOU were on your fücking idiotic bicycle just a few weeks back when i was saying that Jones DEC is a far more likely outcome and you was on the OH BUT HE HAS T-REX ARMS GUSYS UFC TALE OF THE TAPE IS GOSPEL YA'LL EASY ITD CASH TO BE MADE HERE tip.

But yeah, HUGE thanks for coming to the same conclusion i already did SEVERAL weeks back eat a whole bag of d1cks you worthless flipfloppin piece of sh1t.

[Luca Fury]

Not when YOU were on your penetrating idiotic bicycle just a few weeks back when i was saying that Jones DEC is a far more likely outcome and you was on the OH BUT HE HAS T-REX ARMS GUSYS UFC TALE OF THE TAPE IS GOSPEL YA'LL EASY ITD CASH TO BE MADE HERE tip.

But yeah, HUGE thanks for coming to the same conclusion i already did SEVERAL weeks back eat a whole bag of d1cks you worthless piece of sh1t.

LOL!!! When did I ever say Gus had t-rex arms? You said he was only at a 1 inch reach disadvantage and I said you were wrong.

And where did I say there was easy money to be made on inside the distance? I gave out over 2.5 rounds and Jones by decision in this very thread.

You're seriously the dumbest poster on here.

EDIT:

I agree with Jones ITD not being a good play

Jones by decision at +500 is worth a play. I should probably give that out as an official free pick before the line moves.

I also like the over 2.5 at +115. Even if Jones by decision loses, I think the over 2.5 still hits. I risked 3 units (standard sized play) on each so if that were to happen it'd be 1-1 for +0.45 units. I think they they both probably hit, though, for a total of 6 units risked to win 18.45.

Yeah, I sure was all over inside the distance and called it easy money… Oh, wait… I actually said the opposite was true.

Nice job embarrassing yourself once again, troll.

[Luca Fury]

Oh, and I publicly picked Jones to win a decision as well. LOL at you making up this shit about me saying Jones would win by stoppage easily.

[plekz]

Jon Jones reach: 84.5"
Gustafsson's reach: 76.5"

84.5 - 76.5 = 8

Thus, Jon Jones has an 8" reach advantage. Nice job embarrassing yourself.


And before you try and say the UFC lies about the reach, Jones was reported as having an 84.5" reach since his first UFC fight and Gustafsson was reported at 76.5" since his first. There are no reports of their respective reaches being anything different before or after the came to the UFC. Not to mention, just by looking at the two of them you can easily see Jones' arms are much longer. Also look at how Gustafsson had no visible reach advantage vs Shogun yet when Jones fought him, Jon clearly had a massive reach advantage.

But you're saying we should throw away all the facts, evidence and logic and instead go by some baseless conspiracy theory you've come up with that doesn't have a single shred of evidence to support it? That we should agree with you that Jones will only have a 1-2" reach advantage simply because you said so based on literally nothing? LOL, cool story bro...

Again, though, look at Jones and Gustafssons' fights vs Shogun. Gustafsson appeared to have no reach advantage on Shogun at all. This makes sense since Gus is listed at 76.5 and Shogun is 76,

But then look at Jones vs Shogun and it's clear as day that Jones has a near double digit reach advantage over him. Again, this makes sense since Jones is listed as having an 8.5" reach advantage over him.

It's also clear just by looking at the 2 of them that Jon's arms are much longer than Gus'.

The reason people figured out Anderson was listed as being shorter than reality and Carwin being taller than reality was by doing what I just did: comparing the listed measurements to what their own eyes tell them. Like in that picture, it's clear Anderson is taller than Leben. It was also clear he was taller than Franklin.

As for Carwin, you could see by his stardowns vs guys listed around 6' than he was about the same height as them, not 6'5".

So those lies were discovered by the listed measurements not lining up to what people saw with their own eyes. However, Jones' reach lines up perfectly with what is seen in picture and videos.

Not to mention, as it turned out, it was actually Anderson who lied to the UFC about his height because he wanted his opponents to think he was shorter than he was, so they'd be surprised by his size on fight night. He also did this back in Pride and did so to gain the advantage of surprise. Now why would Jones lie about his reach being longer? Wouldn't he want to lie about it being SHORTER, so he would have the element of surprise like Anderson? And if it was the UFC's choice to lie, why would they lie about some unknown guy that they brought in to lose to an undefeated prospect that they were trying to build? No one expected Jones to be even 1/10th as good as he is, so don't try and tell me they planned it all along. He was supposed to get owned by Gusmao and probably go 0-2 in the UFC and get cut.

Jon Jones reach: 84.5"
Gustafsson's reach: 76.5"

84.5 - 76.5 = 8

Thus, Jon Jones has an 8" reach advantage. Nice job embarrassing yourself.

--------

[Vaughany]

One day il mee Fury and im gonna bow at his feet thn play with his ballz. Guy is a God

[21jumpstreet]

Oh, and I publicly picked Jones to win a decision as well. LOL at you making up this shit about me saying Jones would win by stoppage easily.

Give it a rest already. You picked some winners so did a lot of people. I went 2-1. Just lost Ricci last night for my big dog play, but you don't see everyone coming on here saying look at my stats and talk about being documented. The reason why is because we don't care and we don't sit there and try and sell picks so we don't post every single play. If you are making so much money then why not bet 50k a fight and not worry about peddling $50 subscriptions or whatever you charge?

[Luca Fury]

Give it a rest already. You picked some winners so did a lot of people. I went 2-1. Just lost Ricci last night for my big dog play, but you don't see everyone coming on here saying look at my stats and talk about being documented. The reason why is because we don't care and we don't sit there and try and sell picks so we don't post every single play. If you are making so much money then why not bet 50k a fight and not worry about peddling $50 subscriptions or whatever you charge?

Well than that just proves my point even more.

Every successful gambler tracks their bets. It's important to look back and analyze them. If you're not tracking bets, you're into a serious gambler. And if you're not a serious gambler, you;re not winning much, if at all.

[21jumpstreet]

They guy is a tool. I use to follow him on twitter before, but it was constant tweets of the same stuff on here trying to sell his picks.

[21jumpstreet]

Well than that just proves my point even more.

Every successful gambler tracks their bets. It's important to look back and analyze them. If you're not tracking bets, you're into a serious gambler. And if you're not a serious gambler, you;re not winning much, if at all.

I didn't say I don't track or the rest don't track our bets our self. We just don't do it publicly. So if I tried to tell you I was hitting X % you and no one else would believe it or would I really care because it only affects me.

[Noleafclover]

Last 3 months combined, ROI is 18%

In September alone, ROI is 66%.

What about that is is inconsistent? Those are ROI stats for 2 separate periods, which is why they're different. What is so hard to understand about that?

Nothing really, just haven't been following your percentage religiously. Not sure if it's hubris that you'd assume I'd know that, or that most people who challenge you to any extent do? Anyway, I get it, you had a bad couple months but are up still past 3.

So 18% ROI to you means you increased your bankroll by 18%? LOL, that's not what ROI is. ROI is profit made divided by the required number of units risked to make that (the investment). For example, if you risk 10 units and make 1 unit in profit, you're ROI is 10%.

You're bragging about your ROI while also discrediting mine when you don't even know what ROI is.

If we're going by your method (% increase in bankroll) then my "ROI" is much higher than 18% over the last 3 months. It's closer to 100% (nearly doubled it on MMA alone). If you only increased your bankroll 18% over the last 3 months and have been betting most cards, your ROI is WAY lower than 18%.

ROI (real ROI not your random, incorrect way of doing it) is the most important gambling stat. Really, it's the only one that matters. It gives by far the truest representation of a gamblers skill. Pros aim for 10% longterm and I've been hitting over 20% going back to last September when I started tracking my own ROI.

See, this is still what's most interesting to me. Call me an impetuous upstart, but I really don't see why ROI would not be based on your set-aside investment. In parallel, someone I know who does not bet sports recently withdrew his money from the stock market for the summer and put it in money markets (there's some addage about selling in early summer, and I think this was a good move on his part based on this summer's stock results, but that's beside the point). Now his money isn't doing much, but it seems by your method he could preserve the higher profit percentage from early in the year by simply counting this as a period of time where 0 money is being invested. However, the amount of money he set aside has not changed (aside from profits earlier in the year, which is his ROI by my method). Conceivably with a great amount of effort he could make some separate use of it and then reinvest in the fall, but practically, not so.

So my (non-standard, I suppose) method seems to draw better parallels to long-term investments. Admittedly, looking at bets as a liquid short-term investment (I question the liquidity) more favors your depiction of ROI. But I still see ROI as best measured as a yearly-stat based on return on a set aside investment. edit: mainly for comparison to mainstream investments, which seems more than worthwhile, especially seeking investors or customers as a tout.

I have heard plenty of people speak as you do of ROI, but I question the why of it, practically.

Also, to highlight your bolded portion, not even sure I've invested 100% of my bankroll to this point, I tend to play more dogs than favorites at to win 3.33% (or 6.66% for 2u, etc). So not sure it's lower on your method. edit: some very rough math suggests I've bet close to 100% of my BR, so pretty similar FWIW. second edit: actually imagine closer to 150 TBH. But I don't know.

I have repeatedly challenged people to post a documented trackrecord that is better than mine but no has. Even if they can find someone who sells MMA beets or gives them out for free on Twitter or another site would count, it doesn't have to be someone on SBR.

]As of yet, no one chase disproven me. So until they do, my claim that my results on MMA are better than anyone else's stands.

Fair enough I suppose. Still come across as arrogant, IMO, but I shall have to endeavor to do that. If I can, will my posts in these threads and my blog (which admittedly is editable, unfortunately) be sufficient? I would welcome the competition. Give me something to work for.

[Luca Fury]

--------

Where in those posts did I say Gus has t-rex arms and that Jones would finish him easily?

Oh, that's right, I didn't. Thanks for proving my point.

Also, I said Jones has an 8.5" reach advantage because that's what the stats have had them listed at for years. I never said Gus has t-rex arms.

You said he has a no reach reach advantage or 1" at most.

Gus ended up saying a week later that he will be at a 4.25 inch reach disadvantage, which is exactly half way in the middle. So you were every bit as off as I was and then some, becauseJones still had a sizable reach advantage while you said he didn't.

[Luca Fury]

They guy is a tool. I use to follow him on twitter before, but it was constant tweets of the same stuff on here trying to sell his picks.

Do you know how many times I advertised my service on twitter in the last 3 weeks? 1 time. Just once, on fight day.

1 tweet in the last 3 weeks = constant, I guess.


You trolls are all the same. I post my results win or lose and you bash me either way. You hate just to hate.

I post that I lost a bet, you bash me endlessly for it even if I have a winning night.

I post that I won a bet, and the same people bash me for bragging LOL!

And if at some point I posted that I pushed on a bet, you'd probably bash me for getting lucky… Oh, wait! That DID happen and that was the trolls' exact response (Bowling +120 No Contest which was actually a bad beat push, not a lucky one)

[Noleafclover]

Also don't get how last 3 months +42ish units + you saying earlier your unit size was 1% = more than doubling your bankroll? Am I misquoting somewhere, I seem to recall you saying all 3 things (latter is in previous post). Again, seeking clarity.

[Luca Fury]

I get it, you had a bad couple months but are up still past 3.

No, I didn't have a bad couple months. I won both of the previous months on both free and premium plays. I was around 10% ROI for the 2 of them combined, if I recall correctly.

See, this is still what's most interesting to me. Call me an impetuous upstart, but I really don't see why ROI would not be based on your set-aside investment. In parallel, someone I know who does not bet sports recently withdrew his money from the stock market for the summer and put it in money markets (there's some addage about selling in early summer, and I think this was a good move on his part based on this summer's stock results, but that's beside the point). Now his money isn't doing much, but it seems by your method he could preserve the higher profit percentage from early in the year by simply counting this as a period of time where 0 money is being invested. However, the amount of money he set aside has not changed (aside from profits earlier in the year, which is his ROI by my method). Conceivably with a great amount of effort he could make some separate use of it and then reinvest in the fall, but practically, not so.

So my (non-standard, I suppose) method seems to draw better parallels to long-term investments. Admittedly, looking at bets as a liquid short-term investment (I question the liquidity) more favors your depiction of ROI. But I still see ROI as best measured as a yearly-stat based on return on a set aside investment.

I have heard plenty of people speak as you do of ROI, but I question the why of it, practically.

Because your incorrect way of calculating ROI is useless information. Someone could bet 100% bankroll per bet and go a measly 3-0, tripling their bankroll, and their ROI would be 200%? That's useless and doesn't say anything about the gambler's skills. That just shows they have terrible money management, if anything. Then if someone else bets only 1% bankroll per bet and tails that person, their results will be far different.

The whole point of ROI (when calculated using the proper method) is it's universal. If I make 18% ROI and you tail me, so will you. It doesn't matter what % of your bankroll you bet -- for every dollar you risk on my bets, you make 18 cents back -- it's simple. Each individual bet it its own investment and you can use ROI to determine what longterm results will be.

Say person A and person B both have 10% ROI using the real method. They can see that they are equally skilled gamblers, because ROI is universal applicable.

Now say we use their method for both of those 2 people but person A bets much more % of bankroll than person B. They both still have a real ROI of 10%, but because of the difference in % of bankroll risked, person A's ROI is say 25%. It doesn't say that person A is a better gambler, it just says they bet a higher % of bankroll more per bet. That is misleading and useless information, whereas the proper ROI calculation is actually useful and telling.


Win % doesn't mean anything since you can hit 80% on -1000 favorites and lose huge cus of the lack of value in the lines.

Units won doesn't mean much since for some people a standard sized bet is 2.5% bankroll and they call that 5 units, while to others a standard size bet is the same 2.5% but they call it 1 unit.

ROI is the ONLY stat that shows the true skill of a gambler since it's universal. It cant be misleading like win % or units won can be.

Knowing the actual ROI of someone is useful whether you want to know if their opinion is worth listening to, if they're worth tailing, or if you're just curious of their skills.

[21jumpstreet]

Do you know how many times I advertised my service on twitter in the last 3 weeks? 1 time. Just once, on fight day.

1 tweet in the last 3 weeks = constant, I guess.


You trolls are all the same. I post my results win or lose and you bash me either way. You hate just to hate.

I post that I lost a bet, you bash me endlessly for it even if I have a winning night.

I post that I won a bet, and the same people bash me for bragging LOL!

And if at some point I posted that I pushed on a bet, you'd probably bash me for getting lucky… Oh, wait! That DID happen and that was the trolls' exact response (Bowling +120 No Contest which was actually a bad beat push, not a lucky one)

I guess I was just dreaming of all your other tweets. You prolly only count it if you say buy my picks. But it was just the same as on here.

[21jumpstreet]

No, I didn't have a bad couple months. I won both of the previous months on both free and premium plays. I was around 10% ROI for the 2 of them combined, if I recall correctly.



Because your incorrect way of calculating ROI is useless information. Someone could bet 100% bankroll per bet and go a measly 3-0, tripling their bankroll, and their ROI would be 200%? That's useless and doesn't say anything about the gambler's skills. That just shows they have terrible money management, if anything. Then if someone else bets only 1% bankroll per bet and tails that person, their results will be far different.

The whole point of ROI (when calculated using the proper method) is it's universal. If I make 18% ROI and you tail me, so will you. It doesn't matter what % of your bankroll you bet -- for every dollar you risk on my bets, you make 18 cents back -- it's simple. Each individual bet it its own investment and you can use ROI to determine what longterm results will be.

Say person A and person B both have 10% ROI using the real method. They can see that they are equally skilled gamblers, because ROI is universal applicable.

Now say we use their method for both of those 2 people but person A bets much more % of bankroll than person B. They both still have a real ROI of 10%, but because of the difference in % of bankroll risked, person A's ROI is say 25%. It doesn't say that person A is a better gambler, it just says they bet a higher % of bankroll more per bet. That is misleading and useless information, whereas the proper ROI calculation is actually useful and telling.


Win % doesn't mean anything since you can hit 80% on -1000 favorites and lose huge cus of the lack of value in the lines.

Units won doesn't mean much since for some people a standard sized bet is 2.5% bankroll and they call that 5 units, while to others a standard size bet is the same 2.5% but they call it 1 unit.

ROI is the ONLY stat that shows the true skill of a gambler since it's universal. It cant be misleading like win % or units won can be.

Knowing the actual ROI of someone is useful whether you want to know if their opinion is worth listening to, if they're worth tailing, or if you're just curious of their skills.

Wait don't you always come here and say I'm up 10 units! Now it's units don't mean anything lmao

[Luca Fury]

Also don't get how last 3 months +42ish units + you saying earlier your unit size was 1% = more than doubling your bankroll? Am I misquoting somewhere, I seem to recall you saying all 3 things (latter is in previous post). Again, seeking clarity.

As bankroll increases in terms of dollar amount, the % per bet stays the same. So after each winning week when I adjust unit sizes, I'm betting more dollars per unit but the same % over bankroll.

For example:

Say bankroll is 10k.
1% would be $100.
Then you have a +15 unit week.
Now bankroll is 11,500.
1% of the current bankroll is now $115, which would be 1.15% of the starting bankroll.

As you can see, as long as you're winning, profits increase more and more each week, even if you;re winning the same number of units.

Let's say that trend continues for 7 weeks and you make 15 units each week:

You made 105 units, which would be 105% bankroll and put you at $20,500 after starting out at $10,000, if you didn't adjust unit sizes each week. But since you DID adjust units after each winning week, in this example you are now at $26,600, which is an actual increase of 160% on your starting bankoll.

So I'm up 41.5 units last 3 months on MMA alone. That would be an increase of bankroll of 41.5% if I didn't update unit size after each winning week, but I did. It was spread out through several weeks that took place after a winning previous week and I only adjust unit sizes after a winning week. Because of this, my MMA bankroll now compared to where it was 3 months ago, is now increased nearly 100% of where it was back then, rather than only 41.5%.

[21jumpstreet]

And ROI % is also relative just like the stock market. It is very easy to have a high ROI % with a small account size. People who trade with little accounts like 10k and under can easily have a ROI of 100% over the course of a few months because you can be more aggressive and your risking a higher percent of your account balance with each trade over a guy with a million. Then when you have a guy with million dollar accounts your not going to see that and he will be happy with 10%. So ROI is all relative as well. A guy with $500 to gamble is more likely to take shots and have a higher ROI than a guy with 50k.

[Luca Fury]

Wait don't you always come here and say I'm up 10 units! Now it's units don't mean anything lmao

I say the amount of units won or lost per bet and also say my updated overall ROI.

Saying the ROI for each individual bet would be pointless, since that information is already given when you say the odds and units won.

For example:

I won a bet on Fighter A at -200 for 1 unit, that says the ROI right there. The odds are 2-1 so the risk was 2 units for that 1 unit of profit. 1 divided by 2 = 0.50. So the ROI is 50%, the information is right there just by saying the odds of the bet and the units won/lost.

However, stating the ROI for a large sample size of bets IS necessary so people don't have to go through tons of bet and do the math themselves.

[Luca Fury]

And ROI % is also relative just like the stock market. It is very easy to have a high ROI % with a small account size. People who trade with little accounts like 10k and under can easily have a ROI of 100% over the course of a few months because you can be more aggressive and your risking a higher percent of your account balance with each trade over a guy with a million. Then when you have a guy with million dollar accounts your not going to see that and he will be happy with 10%. So ROI is all relative as well. A guy with $500 to gamble is more likely to take shots and have a higher ROI than a guy with 50k.

Did you even read my post? What you said would ONLY be true if you use NoLeafclover's INCORRECT method of tracking ROI. That was the whole point of me pointing out how that method is incorrect and useless.

If you use the PROPER method of calculating ROI, it's not an issue when one person is betting a higher % of bankroll per untit than another person. This is true for the stock market and sports betting since it's the same principal.

[21jumpstreet]

I say the amount of units won or lost per bet and also say my updated overall ROI.

Saying the ROI for each bet would be pointless, since that information is already given when you say the odds and units won. But I guess you're not smart enough to realize that and like say "lmao" when you THINK you've made a point, but really just are embarrassing youself.

Riiiiiigghhhhht. I'm the one trying to peddle $50 subscriptions. How embarrassing. I don't have to tell my kids daddy is begging people to pay him $50 for some bs. If your up so much units or ROI then I don't see how maybe 50 subscribers helps you. Its because 18% of 100k which I doubt your bankroll is. Is only 18k. Chump change my friend. That's below poverty.

[Luca Fury]

Riiiiiigghhhhht. I'm the one trying to peddle $50 subscriptions. How embarrassing. I don't have to tell my kids daddy is begging people to pay him $50 for some bs. If your up so much units or ROI then I don't see how maybe 50 subscribers helps you. Its because 18% of 100k which I doubt your bankroll is. Is only 18k. Chump change my friend. That's below poverty.

LOL, so I completely disprove you and your response it to turn this into a completely different argument of how I'm a bad person for selling $50 subscriptions on WINNING bets? LOL, what a joke.

Also LOL at you sayign makign 18k in a 3 month span would be "below poverty." Math really isn't your strong suit, eh? I guess I'll have to spell it out for you.

18k across 3 months = 6k on average per month.

There are 12 months in the year.

6k x 12 = 72k

i'd like to know what country you live in where making $72,000 a year is "below poverty." Jesus, you're dumb.

[Vaughany]

Re-match in Sweden possibly. And hahaha at Dana's Ariel impression!

[Vaughany]

LOL, so I completely disprove you and your response it to turn this into a completely different argument of how I'm a bad person for selling $50 subscriptions on WINNING bets? LOL, what a joke.

Also LOL at you sayign makign 18k in a 3 month span would be "below poverty." Math really isn't your strong suit, eh? I guess I'll have to spell it out for you.

18k across 3 months = 6k on average per month.

There are 12 months in the year.

6k x 12 = 72k

i'd like to know what country you live in where making $72,000 a year is "below poverty." Jesus, you're dumb.

haha dude is clearly in Singapore or the Emirates!

[Luca Fury]

Oh, and as for you trying to say if I was making good money on betting, I wouldn't sell my bets… LOL at that too. Again, since you;re too dumb to do basic math, I guess I'll have to break it down for you.

We charge $50 an event.
Say we go by your number of 50 members (it's actually more than that).
$50 x 50 members = $2,500.
There are usually 3 events a month.
$2,500 x 3 = $7,500.
There are 12 months in a year.
$7,500 x 12 = $90,000.

So you're telling me that even if someone made say $1 million a year on their bets, they would turn down an opportunity to make an easy extra 90k a year for little extra work? Seriously, how dumb can you be?

Like, "Oh hey, I could increase my yearly pay by 9% basically by just snapping my fingers. Should I do this? Nah………"

[Luca Fury]

I've argued with some dumb people on here but that's usually because they're just a troll who spews lies. This is one of the few times I've argued with someone because there is literally no logic to what they're saying.

It's not a case of disproving a liar, it's a case of trying to talk some sense into someone who probably doesn't even know what the word means.

[Vaughany]

Eddie Wineland


Early stoppage to a title fight in my honest opinion. Have rewatched the kick over again, all tho it had me staggered I was no where near out. I'm an honest man and would admit a good stoppage but I'm uneasy about this one! I'm a durable man and was able to continue. Refs discretion was to stop the fight, unfortunately it was the wrong choice in my own opinion. Sucks to train for 6 months for something of this caliber to have it taken away by a ref...it's an unfortunate thing.

[21jumpstreet]

Did you even read my post? What you said would ONLY be true if you use NoLeafclover's INCORRECT method of tracking ROI. That was the whole point of me pointing out how that method is incorrect and useless.

If you use the PROPER method of calculating ROI, it's not an issue when one person is betting a higher % of bankroll per untit than another person. This is true for the stock market and sports betting since it's the same principal.

It doesn't matter how you calculate it smaller accounts will have higher ROI all the time ask Warren Buffet said "It's a huge structural advantage not to have a lot of money. I think I could make you 50% a year on 1 million. No I know I could. I guarantee that.". Anymore questions ask one of the richest men in the world instead of trying to get people to pay you $50.

[21jumpstreet]

So your 18% ROI is every 3 months? Sorry if I didn't see that, but people usually calculate that as a yearly thing. Good luck going 72% ROI every year. And yes people making a million a year would give up 90k for their time and not being a tool.

[Luca Fury]

Noleafclover? Never seen that in my years on the street. It doesn't matter how you calculate it smaller accounts will have higher ROI all the time ask Warren Buffet said "It's a huge structural advantage not to have a lot of money. I think I could make you 50% a year on 1 million. No I know I could. I guarantee that.". Anymore questions ask one of the richest men in the world instead of trying to get people to pay you $50.

LOL at you taking his quote out of context.

He's NOT saying smaller accounts can have a higher ROI just because they're smaller.

He's also NOT saying smaller accounts can have a higher ROI per play.

He's saying smaller accounts (relative to your overall wealth) allow you to be more risky and bet more per play, thus at the end of a year your overall bankroll can see a higher increase from where they started initially.

Again, dude, how dumb can you be? I'm starting to think I'm arguing with a drunk person.

[Luca Fury]

So your 18% ROI is every 3 months? Sorry if I didn't see that, but people usually calculate that as a yearly thing. Good luck going 72% ROI every year. And yes people making a million a year would give up 90k for their time and not being a tool.

Holy shit, this just takes the cake LOL!!!!

You think if you have an average ROI over a 3 months span, that since there are 12 months in the year, you multiple the 18% ROI by 4 to get 72%? LOL!!!!!!!!!!

The average ROI would still be 18% as long as the average holds true. My god, I don't even know what to say anymore. You have to be drunk or high right now, it's the only explanation.

[21jumpstreet]

It is funny talking to a guy who THINKS he is in a position to advise people when he might have 2 nickles to rub together. Put your money where your mouth is. Bet 10k and up per bet and show the ticket. Let's see the proof your making any real money.

[21jumpstreet]

LOL at you taking his quote out of context.

He's NOT saying smaller accounts can have a higher ROI just because they're smaller.

He's also NOT saying smaller accounts can have a higher ROI per play.

He's saying smaller accounts (relative to your overall wealth) allow you to be more risky and bet more per play, thus at the end of a year your overall bankroll can see a higher increase from where they started initially.

Again, dude, how dumb can you be? I'm starting to think I'm arguing with a drunk person.

That's what I said from the begining read my earlier post! Small accounts can be more aggressive!

[Luca Fury]

It is funny talking to a guy who THINKS he is in a position to advise people when he might have 2 nickles to rub together. Put your money where your mouth is. Bet 10k and up per bet and show the ticket. Let's see the proof your making any real money.

I've already posted screen grabs on here in the past that show dollar amounts. I'm sure some people remember WannaBet bashing me endlessly for losing 5k on a fight last year and acting like I lost every penny to my name. Since, then I just say my bets in units (1u = 1% bankroll) so if I lose say 5 units on a bet, people know I only lost 5% bankroll and can't act like I lost everything.

[Luca Fury]

That's what I said from the begining read my earlier post! Small accounts can be more aggressive!

So? That has nothing to do with proper ROI stats, which is my point. You're still wrong.