Man that replacement therapy really got him back in title contention.
No problem buddy, glad I could help.Originally Posted by LiveAction916
GREAT HEDGE I PUT $100 to win $325 on Vitor Belfort for rd 1!!!! Thanks for the advice MD much appreciated!!
Nice plays MD. Youre def one of the brighter guys on this forum!
Points Awarded:
MD gave bjpenn85 2 SBR Point(s) for this post.
Thanks man, appreciate it. Just wish Dunham hadn't gotten Jewed or Rockhold had come through, would have been a much more rewarding night.Nice plays MD. Youre def one of the brighter guys on this forum!
I took the risk of live-betting on a decision fighter in Brazil, and betting on a guy I knew had a solid chance of getting KO'd, though, so it's completely my own fault. Variance, etc.
Well done pouto!
i was on dos anjos even though i knew it could be very close that was my mistake. Dos anjos who seemed so on the rise was totally gone after round 1. I asked the lord, plese dont let me loose my bankroll, i know i ****** up. Please only this one time, and the winner is...hafael dos anjos.My best mma betting moment seriously, although so faaking undeserved. Maybe your rockhold play was correct, we never know, because we never see fights happen 10 times. But vitor on roids is on an another level. very unfair, but very entertaining. He behave like a 19 years old collage douchebag.
How much of your bankroll did you have on RDA?i was on dos anjos even though i knew it could be very close that was my mistake. Dos anjos who seemed so on the rise was totally gone after round 1. I asked the lord, plese dont let me loose my bankroll, i know i ****** up. Please only this one time, and the winner is...hafael dos anjos.My best mma betting moment seriously, although so faaking undeserved. Maybe your rockhold play was correct, we never know, because we never see fights happen 10 times. But vitor on roids is on an another level. very unfair, but very entertaining. He behave like a 19 years old collage douchebag.
The problem with Dos Anjos is that he looked awful in that fight. He looked like he had taken multiple steps backwards as a fighter. Atrocious performance, no reason Dunham should have been taking him down almost at will. It was fortunate, but the fact that the fight was in Brazil is something you have to take into account when betting on a fight that's likely to go the distance, so I wouldn't feel too bad about it. May even have been a good bet.
As for Rockhold, maybe. I don't think it's possible for me to get much out of that fight. I thought Vitor had a good shot of an early KO, and almost no shot after a round and a half. I thought Vitor got the KO around 30% of the time; maybe it happened more often, maybe it happened less, but I'd make the Rockhold bet again and I'd be almost exactly as confident. I wasn't expecting Vitor to throw kicks that often, though, so I suppose I'd account for that and adjust my odds a bit. People don't like to hear that because they think "lol victor blefort was ez money" and "DID U SEE THAT KICK???", in reality it was a fight with a lot of variables, and how it did end doesn't affect how it can end. Amazing finish though; it also opens up Vitor as a title contender. Anderson and Weidman would both brutalize him, and Weidman would probably only be in the -200 range, with Anderson in maybe the -350 range, so there's going to be plenty of value.
maybe 25% of my current bankroll. I have payed out a lot due to bills though so its not like it was 25% of everything i have won last year and this year combined. It was anyway to much on such a close fight. But rafael looked solid in round one except for the takedown of dunham at the end. If he had built on that and kept going he should have won comfortably. But -200 on a figher that is on the same level as another fighter is stupid bet anyway. I though dos anjos had rised and become a contender. I banked on that and did wrong. As of rockhold, that was a bad bet.against a fighter with proven KO record, exclusively a record based on 1 or 2. round finishes, why bet against that? In another context where both fighter now each other, for instance cerrone and melvin guillard. I thats something different.Cerrone have many times probably made adjustments and know how guillard fights but even then, we saw that cerrone struggled in the first minutes. When you then get +200 almost you have to go with that side in my opinion. Its easy to say afterward, but that was my assessment, and belfort ended up being one of my plays for that reason. Im with you that rockhold is the overall better fighter and that is tempting to go with him partly just because of that, but from a betting stand point that isnt always the most effective way to win money. People often say what if this guy fight this guy fight 10 times he will lose the majority of the times, but i think vitor may be a guy that win that first fight very often, maybe because of quickness, weird timing.
I have put a moderate bet on weidman btw. I believe we have a new middle weight champion this summer.
Hey MD could you share any insight into your bankroll management or share any good links or books on the matter?
I use a system of bankroll management called the Kelly criterion, which decides my bet-sizing. It's one of the reasons I don't post my wager amounts, because posting "$405.84" would get boring after a while, and I'm too OCD to just round down. Those are my $5.84, dammit!Hey MD could you share any insight into your bankroll management or share any good links or books on the matter?
It's pretty common amongst more experienced gamblers. It's a mathematical forum proposed by a man named John L. Kelly, with the idea being that, when used while gambling on horse racing, the formula would ensure optimum growth of any amount of money when compared to any fundamentally different system of money management. It's been mathematically proven repeatedly and is a very reputable way to measure your bets. One of the reasons I like it so much is that it takes a lot of guess-work out of bet sizing. If you're always betting according to Kelly, it's difficult to go on tilt and lose funds unnecessarily, or make an inappropriately-sized bet.
If you want to read up on it more, check the Wikipedia article.
Just as a note, using "full Kelly", or exactly what the criterion suggests betting is generally considered very aggressive, so most people will use a fraction of what Kelly suggest. 1/4 Kelly is very common. SBR itself actually has a Kelly calculator, if you'd like to play around with it.
As with all money management systems, it won't make you money, but it will maximize the amount of money you can make if you're a winning gambler, compared to any other system. It's mathematically optimal.
As for books, Sharp Sports Betting has aged pretty well, I actually only read it fairly recently myself, and it has a lot of useful information. There'll probably be quite a bit that you won't find useful though, especially if you don't bet on NFL.
Hope that helps. If you have any follow-up questions or if I explained anything badly, feel free to ask.
Wow. Maybe it isn't such a bad thing I got robbed then.maybe 25% of my current bankroll. I have payed out a lot due to bills though so its not like it was 25% of everything i have won last year and this year combined. It was anyway to much on such a close fight. But rafael looked solid in round one except for the takedown of dunham at the end. If he had built on that and kept going he should have won comfortably. But -200 on a figher that is on the same level as another fighter is stupid bet anyway. I though dos anjos had rised and become a contender. I banked on that and did wrong. As of rockhold, that was a bad bet.against a fighter with proven KO record, exclusively a record based on 1 or 2. round finishes, why bet against that? In another context where both fighter now each other, for instance cerrone and melvin guillard. I thats something different.Cerrone have many times probably made adjustments and know how guillard fights but even then, we saw that cerrone struggled in the first minutes. When you then get +200 almost you have to go with that side in my opinion. Its easy to say afterward, but that was my assessment, and belfort ended up being one of my plays for that reason. Im with you that rockhold is the overall better fighter and that is tempting to go with him partly just because of that, but from a betting stand point that isnt always the most effective way to win money. People often say what if this guy fight this guy fight 10 times he will lose the majority of the times, but i think vitor may be a guy that win that first fight very often, maybe because of quickness, weird timing.
What happened to put you in that kind of spot? Tilt, or did you see a lot of value and over-bet a bit?
I thought Dos Anjos would be a bit better than Dunham everywhere, too, to be honest with you. It surprised me how much better Dunham seemed to be. If I had bet on that fight, I would have been on RDA, but I took Dunham pretty heavily live after the first round. I thought he was destroying Dos Anjos. Dos Anjos looked like he was having a bad night, or possibly a bad camp.
Ha ha. Well, i clearly over estimated his abilities because of his last two fights. He looked sharper because of his opponents, not because he improved. A fighter like dunham makes people fight a bit different. He puts the pressure, and very few fighters are any good back pedaling.But the major issue with my bet is that i kind of wanted dos anjos to win because i liked his style. Looking back i can see i was pretty biased. Made a rookie mistake.
Nah i never wager so much of my bankroll. One time thingy were i had to win because of some crazy bills. God bless RDA and his faulty dec.
Nice job MD, i also had RDA and live bet dunham.
I am ready for Saturday. TeamMd Lol
