I don't get the argument? Do we have people that post here that don't get using the odds on props to bet on both on the first most likely outcome and then the second (or a higher paying prop etc.) When I see someone say make up your mind on who you think will win that just screams rookie to me...
for example: he showed he had 125 to win 100 on Rousey by sub, a very likely outcome based on history.
then you have 100 to win 960 on McMann by TKO. I would also agree that if Sara is to upset the face of the UFC yada yada yada that she will have to do it ITD, she's not taking this decision. KO being much more likely than a sub in my opinion. Do some people hate this kind of gambling? I do it all the time...do some of you really feel like you must absolutely pick one over the other in a straight bet? Odd shit
for example: he showed he had 125 to win 100 on Rousey by sub, a very likely outcome based on history.
then you have 100 to win 960 on McMann by TKO. I would also agree that if Sara is to upset the face of the UFC yada yada yada that she will have to do it ITD, she's not taking this decision. KO being much more likely than a sub in my opinion. Do some people hate this kind of gambling? I do it all the time...do some of you really feel like you must absolutely pick one over the other in a straight bet? Odd shit