Bellator 101

[reigle9]

Hey, we just misunderstood each other. I didn't say mine clearly so you jumped on it. I'm used to talking to dudes that know what I mean.

Hey, eff you ha. My girl is being a super retard and i had to do some shit. My head is a mess.

[reigle9]

Drink black velvet or dui to the store, tough call.

[OracleAdam]

Some thoughts on Bellator 101

Bellator 101 was a huge success for me as I went 5 for 5. I bet on all 5 favorites on the main card.
Here are my thoughts on what I got right and how I could improve.


What I got right:

1. Like I predicted, Tirloni dominated Clementi on the feet, and was able to stuff his takedown attempts just like he did against Jansen.


2. Sarnavskiy has improved with his young age and looked great against Davis.


3. Sure enough, Awad rocked Stapleton in the first round similar to what he did against Brooks.


How I could improve:


1. The Warren fight was a gimme, however since he was a heavy favorite it tied up a lot of my bankroll. Sarnavskiy as well. I could've spread some of that money into other fights that weren't such a heavy favorite so I could make more money.


2. With Marcin Held's young age he is bound to improve substantially. At age 19, he was a pro, and at that age your body is still developing and is awkward. Now that he is fully grown at age 21, his coordination is bound to improve. His standup looked good against Jansen, and it got even better against Healy. I should've bet a little on Held and not as much on Warren. I should've done more research and looked at Healy's past fights to size him up. That's laziness on my part.


3. I could've bet the under in the Awad fight. I had the insight that Awad had the knockout power and a first round stoppage was a likely result.


4. I could've bet more on the Brooks fight. Brooks said in an interview that he doesn't go out anymore. He just goes to the gym and then goes home. He was well prepared for the mediocre Allesio. I could've spread more of my resources on Brooks since he was -300 while Sarnavskiy was -400 and Warren was -500.


5. I could've done a bigger parlay. All the favorites in Bellator 101 were extremely likely to win as they are all much superior fighters to their opponents. A 5 person parlay wouldn't have been bad, and possibly even a 6 person one to include Held. Although I'd probably leave the Clementi/Tirlusconi bet out of the parlay as that was a little more up in the air than the others since Tirlusconi isn't superstar potential like the other fighers are.

[ArchieUD]

[NunyaBidness]

Your hindsight analysis isn't very useful.

Yeah, you should've done a 6 person parlay after you saw all the fights. I should've taken the Ravens to win the superbowl at +5000 last year before the season started, too.

You're doing a good thing by doing post-event analysis, but most of what you're saying is, "I should've bet on the thing that won" which is pretty worthless.

Look up hindsight bias. I'll save you the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias

Also, many people don't like it when people show up and announce they're big winning nights afterwards, anyone can say they went 5-0 after its over.

[Beelzebubzy]

I went 3-0 last night and I only know intermediate gambling theory

[Luca Fury]

Love how you are playing this as if betting the favorites would be a good idea.

If you had bet all the bellator favorites in the last two cards you would have an awesome 14-3 record.

You would also be stuck around 7 units!

Guess its that advanced gambling theory you're talking about.

So because point out a bare bones fact of how favorites did the last 2 events, without adding any opinion to it, that means I'm saying you should bet favorites every card? Jesus christ, where do you people come up with this stuff?

All I did was point out an interesting stat and you jump on me, amazing.

If I tell you the earth is round, another bare bones fact with no opinion involved, you will find some way to bash me for that too.

[Luca Fury]

Your hindsight analysis isn't very useful.

Yeah, you should've done a 6 person parlay after you saw all the fights. I should've taken the Ravens to win the superbowl at +5000 last year before the season started, too.

You're doing a good thing by doing post-event analysis, but most of what you're saying is, "I should've bet on the thing that won" which is pretty worthless.

Look up hindsight bias. I'll save you the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias

Also, many people don't like it when people show up and announce they're big winning nights afterwards, anyone can say they went 5-0 after its over.

Say what you want about that guy pointing out he went 5-0, but him looking back and seeing what he did right/wrong is not worthless at all. In fact, that is a very important thing to do. Yes, hindsight bias exists, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't use hindsight at all.

I don't know Nunya, you claim to be some wiz who knows so much about gamblign theory and strategy, but there is a lot of evidence that says the opposite. I constantly see you on here bashing other people over their gambling theory, yet I often see you posting horrible advice regarding the topic and gambling in general.

Sure, you know the math behind betting,and I give you credit for that, but anyone who reads a few basic articles can pick that up. You say some truly clueless things when it comes to other aspects of betting, though.

I still can't believe you think that oddsmakers set lines based on how they personally cap the game/fight, and that they don't take public perception into account. You're so wrong and it doesn't even take some secret inside info to see it -- everyone knows this.

Now you say people shouldn't look back at their past bets an analyze them? What the hell?

[MD]

Say what you want about that guy pointing out he went 5-0, but him looking back and seeing what he did right/wrong is not worthless at all. In fact, that is a very important thing to do. Yes, hindsight bias exists, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't use hindsight at all.

I don't know Nunya, you claim to be some wiz who knows so much about gamblign theory and strategy, but there is a lot of evidence that says the opposite. I constantly see you on here bashing other people over their gambling theory, yet I often see you posting horrible advice regarding the topic and gambling in general.

Sure, you know the math behind betting,and I give you credit for that, but anyone who reads a few basic articles can pick that up. You say some truly clueless things when it comes to other aspects of betting, though.

I still can't believe you think that oddsmakers set lines based on how they personally cap the game/fight, and that they don't take public perception into account. You're so wrong and it doesn't even take some secret inside info to see it -- everyone knows this.

Now you say people shouldn't look back at their past bets an analyze them? What the hell?

Actually, despite Nunya's reputation around the board as a very knowledgeable individual, I have never seen him claim this, or anything similar.

I still can't believe you think that oddsmakers set lines based on how they personally cap the game/fight, and that they don't take public perception into account.

He didn't say this.

Now you say people shouldn't look back at their past bets an analyze them? What the hell?

Nor this.

You're doing a good thing by doing post-event analysis, but most of what you're saying is, "I should've bet on the thing that won" which is pretty worthless.

[rosietop]

Bellator 101 was a huge success for me as I went 5 for 5. I bet on all 5 favorites on the main card.
Here are my thoughts on what I got right and how I could improve.

excellent stuff and Im happy for you, but next time post this before the event so we can all be amazed at your great insight holy one.

[NunyaBidness]

Say what you want about that guy pointing out he went 5-0, but him looking back and seeing what he did right/wrong is not worthless at all. In fact, that is a very important thing to do. Yes, hindsight bias exists, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't use hindsight at all.

I don't know Nunya, you claim to be some wiz who knows so much about gamblign theory and strategy, but there is a lot of evidence that says the opposite. I constantly see you on here bashing other people over their gambling theory, yet I often see you posting horrible advice regarding the topic and gambling in general.

Sure, you know the math behind betting,and I give you credit for that, but anyone who reads a few basic articles can pick that up. You say some truly clueless things when it comes to other aspects of betting, though.

I still can't believe you think that oddsmakers set lines based on how they personally cap the game/fight, and that they don't take public perception into account. You're so wrong and it doesn't even take some secret inside info to see it -- everyone knows this.

Now you say people shouldn't look back at their past bets an analyze them? What the hell?

Did you read my post at all?

It appears you made some assumptions about what I said.

I stated very clearly that doing post hoc analysis of the types of mistakes you may or may not have made is a very good thing to do. Recognizing your biases is very important. The most important thing for most bettors to watch out for is favoring fighters they 'like'. I personally am a contrarian by nature, and need to reign that in when capping fights.

Statements such as:

"I could've bet the under in the Awad fight."

" I could've done a bigger parlay."

Have no useful takeaways.

Things like, I tend to overvalue people from my home state, or I wrestled in school therefore I probably overvalue wrestlers, or I overvalue dogs because I enjoy hitting longshots. Those are more useful, even more useful would be analysis related to line movement, etc.

I would love for you to post the 'horrible advice' I've given out in regards to gambling. Would love to see it. Your consistent straw man arguments bare no weight.

I never said that oddsmakers don't take perception into account; I have said that there is a conflict of interests in your scummy operation, however.

[MD]

excellent stuff and Im happy for you, but next time post this before the event so we can all be amazed at your great insight holy one.

Let's give the guy the benefit of the doubt. Retroposting is only a problem when people are doing it frequently.

Congrats on your 5-0 night by the way OracleAdam.

[NunyaBidness]

Actually, despite Nunya's reputation around the board as a very knowledgeable individual, I have never seen him claim this, or anything similar.

If I have not claimed it before, let me claim it now.

I am a wiz who knows a lot about gambling theory and strategy.

I once won a $1000 bet on the toss of a gatorade bottle. I'd say I know what I'm talking about.

[NunyaBidness]

All I did was point out an interesting stat and you jump on me, amazing.

If I tell you the earth is round, another bare bones fact with no opinion involved, you will find some way to bash me for that too.

If you told me the earth was round, I would be surprised you knew that fact. Most homeschooled children do poorly in science.

[MD]

If I have not claimed it before, let me claim it now.

I am a wiz who knows a lot about gambling theory and strategy.

I once won a $1000 bet on the toss of a gatorade bottle. I'd say I know what I'm talking about.

I'm surprised that SBR can hold both of our egos at once. You throw in Luca and Ron_Paul and I'm surprised that there's enough money in the USA to fund the server costs.

You guys should consider yourselves lucky. You have the greatest gambler of all time, and three people who are all the greatest MMA handicapper of all time on one forum.

[NunyaBidness]

Somewhat funny that I made a point to be nice and constructive to a new poster, and Luca jumps on my dick, but when I just tell them to penetrate off no one cares.

[Luca Fury]

Somewhat funny that I made a point to be nice and constructive to a new poster, and Luca jumps on my dick, but when I just tell them to penetrate off no one cares.

I jumped on you because you jumped on me first for no reason. Don't try and play the victim.

I stated that favorites went 14-3 the last card and nothing else. Then you jumped on me and tried to say that I was saying bettign all the favorites would have been a good strategy, and you bashed my knowledge of gambling theory because of it.

[Luca Fury]

He didn't say this.

He absolutely did say that oddsmakers set lines based on exactly how they see the fight. I couldn't believe it when he said it. He then reiterated it, so it wasn't just some misread on my part.

[NunyaBidness]

I jumped on you because you jumped on me first for no reason. Don't try and play the victim.

I stated that favorites went 14-3 the last card and nothing else. Then you jumped on me and tried to say that I was saying bettign all the favorites would have been a good strategy, and you bashed my knowledge of gambling theory because of it.

Jon Jones has lost 100% of the time when facing deaf opponents.

I'm not saying Glover should puncture his eardrums, but I'm just saying. ...

[MD]

He absolutely did say that oddsmakers set lines based on exactly how they see the fight. I couldn't believe it when he said it. He then reiterated it, so it wasn't just some misread on my part.

I dunno man, you have a tendency for extrapolation, even in this very thread.

[Luca Fury]

There is a conflict of interests in your scummy operation, however.

43.5 units of documented profits with a 59% win rate and an ROI of 18% = scummy.

Yep, god forbid I make people money via some of the best betting results you will find in any sport. Let's be honest, you would kill for those results -- every gambler would. Most pros aim for 55% win rate and 10% ROI. We're crushing those benchmarks yet you call us scum, LOL!

And you can try to say it's a conflict of interest all you want and that we're trying to steer people into losses so the books make more money, but that argument still holds no weight for a variety of reason. One being those stats, which are the exact opposite of losing.

As if books give a shit that 0.00001% of their customers tail us LOL… The fact that you think such a small % of people has any real affect on the book just shows how ignorant you are. Like we would go through all the trouble of running this service, just so we could steer a meaningless % of people into loss so the books make an extra 0.000000001% in profits on the year. Hilarious.

[NunyaBidness]

I dunno man, you have a tendency for extrapolation, even in this very thread.

You guys spell the word "lying" very strangely in Ireland.

[NunyaBidness]

43.5 units of documented profits with a 59% win rate and an ROI of 18% = scummy.

Yep, god forbid I make people money via some of the best betting results you will find in any sport. Let's be honest, you would kill for those results -- every gambler would. Most pros aim for 55% win rate and 10% ROI. We're crushing those benchmarks yet you call us scum, LOL!

So the arbiter of morality is whether or not it makes money?

Truly you're not this stupid are you? Really?

Had placed your IQ around 105 prior to this statement.

[Luca Fury]

So the arbiter of morality is whether or not it makes money?

Truly you're not this stupid are you? Really?

Had placed your IQ around 105 prior to this statement.

Considering you always say our goal is to steer people into losses so the books make more money, those stats single handily disprove your ridiculous theory. Don't try and turn this into a morality issue when that has never been your argument.

But even if the morality of it was your argument,that still is baseless. We've made huge profits for a small fee. It's no different than paying someone to invest in the stock market for you, or buying a book that gives you advice on how to win money playing at poker. You pay money to make more money, how is that morally wrong?

And for the people who don't want to pay, there are free bets that I give out too. In fact, I give out more free bets than paid.

And besides, if you're soooo against what we do and I'm so bad at betting despite the documented results, how come you go around asking people for our bets and then personally tail them? Oh, because you're a lying hypocrite, that's why.

[NunyaBidness]

Considering you always say our goal is to steer people into losses so the books make more money, those stats single handily disprove your ridiculous theory. Don't try and turn this into a morality issue when that has never been your argument.

Interesting that you would assume thats the way I'm leaning.

It's no different than paying someone to invest in the stock market for you, or buying a book that gives you advice on how to win money playing at poker. You pay money to make more money, how is that morally wrong?

There are two separate things here. Is there anything wrong with selling a book on how to play poker, of course not. What if you tell me someone is going to play you heads up poker, and you need a lesson on how to win, so I sell you a lesson on how to win. What if you get to the casino and find out I was your opponent all along? Can I trust your advice any more?

The stock market example is SO perfect, and illustrates your lack of knowledge of how stockbrokers work. When your stockbroker calls you and tries to get you to buy into an IPO, do you think he has your best interests at heart? Most likely his firm has underwritten the IPO, and he has a quota of how much of this stock he needs to dump. Do you trust what he says now?

This is the exact same argument I made in the previous thread. Either you're too dumb to understand it or too proud to admit it. I had previously thought it was the latter, I am beginning to suspect the former.

[Luca Fury]

Interesting that you would assume thats the way I'm leaning.

Uh, yeah, I said that because in the past you explicitly said that's what you think……

There are two separate things here. Is there anything wrong with selling a book on how to play poker, of course not. What if you tell me someone is going to play you heads up poker, and you need a lesson on how to win, so I sell you a lesson on how to win. What if you get to the casino and find out I was your opponent all along? Can I trust your advice any more?

That's a horrible example. Nick's job is to set lines so there is a certain amount of action on each side. Sometimes balanced, sometimes lopsided.

So why is it bad that he and I then tell a tiny % people where there is value in those lines for a fee?

That is completely different than your example of a 1 on 1 situation. We're give advice to 0.00001% of people who bet at the books. An accurate analogy would be asking if it's wrong for a person to coach someone who is going to be one of the 7,000 entrants in the WSOP main event. The answer there is no, because they are just 1 fish in a giant pond of other fish. Therefor helping them has essentially no affect on you.

Same as if you write a book to help other players out. Eventually you might run into one of them, but again, the readers are such a small % of players, it's a non issue.

[Luca Fury]

Not to mention, you never had any problem when Nick and I were giving advice for FREE for years before we started selling. So if your whole issue is morals, as you're now trying to "White Knight" your way into, then how come you weren't complaining before? If it's just about morals, even giving the advice out for free would be morally wrong. Charging for the advice has nothing to do with it.

More evidence you're full of shit.

[NunyaBidness]

I have no problem with people giving away picks.

I think people who sell picks are oysters, and the people who buy them are stupid.

My specific problem with your organization, and I use that term loosely is outlined above. Quit moving the goalposts.

[Luca Fury]

I have no problem with people giving away picks.

I think people who sell picks are oysters, and the people who buy them are stupid.

My specific problem with your organization, and I use that term loosely is outlined above. Quit moving the goalposts.

I didn't move them. You have a horrible, baseless argument and there are about 50 ways to prove it.

And again, at the end of the day there is one thing and one thing only that is needed to disprove your frail attempts at discrediting the service: the stats.

And considering the stats are exceptional and 100% documented, your argument is completely baseless and meritless.

[Luca Fury]

Oh, and I'll ask again since you conveniently dodged the question:

If our bets are aimed to direct people to losses (despite the great, winning results), then how come you go around asking for our bets and admit to tailing them yourself via private message? The only answer is that you're a lying hypocrite, but I'm curious to see what lies you come up with to try and circumvent this.

[NunyaBidness]

I didn't move them. You have a horrible, baseless argument and there are about 50 ways to prove it.

And again, at the end of the day there is one thing and one thing only that is needed to disprove your frail attempts at discrediting the service: the stats.

And considering the stats are exceptional and 100% documented, your argument is completely baseless and meritless.

Goddamn you're dumb.

You state you're not moving the goalposts, and then move them again by the end of your paragraph.

I am only arguing about whether or not your "service" has a conflict of interests. Whether you are winning or losing has no bearing.

You can't really be this feeble-minded? Are you playing dumb just so you don't have to own up to it? It seems the easier ploy would be to simply drop out of the argument. Conclusion, you must be a knuckle-dragging mouthbreather.

[rosietop]

Luca if your paid premium members make up such a small percentage of people who gamble then why do your premium bets always move lines so much??? take for example the thales leitis line, tim boetsch, etc so many more...

Surely you could use this to your advantage if you wanted to...

[NunyaBidness]

If our bets are aimed to direct people to losses

I have not said this. Think of another answer.

Post the message where I said this please. I'd love to see it.

[NunyaBidness]

Luca if your paid premium members make up such a small percentage of people who gamble then why do your premium bets always move lines so much??? take for example the thales leitis line, tim boetsch, etc so many more...

Surely you could use this to your advantage if you wanted to...

Bah bah bum!

[cheeese]

You guys should consider yourselves lucky. You have the greatest gambler of all time, and three people who are all the greatest MMA handicapper of all time on one forum.

The five greatest handicappers on the forum in order:

1. Gabe
2. Gabe
3. Gabe
4. Gabe
5. Gabe