Login Search
Sportsbook Review
SBR Odds
SBR Picks

MD's House of Winnerz

Last Post
#901

Default

Quote Originally Posted by Vaughany View Post
I've seen a lot more hype on Ellenberger on other forums. Granted we are the elite of the elite on here so is all that matters

Line has been out for ages, if Rory was that hyped he'd be at -300 to -400 range already but has actually only gone from -160 to -225 range since opening. Will probably stay like that until fight week
My book only puts out lines a few days before the fight. First time i ever saw them put lines out this early. I had my fill of overseas books to last ten lifetimes. I never got robbed but the shady shit they pull turns a guy off. Not sure if u remember Bowman's book. Great dog book until u win. I went from getting limits on me to having my own personal guy who sounded like he was in his own office taking my plays. He knew my style and shaded my lines terribly. Bodog another good dog book shaded my lines about the first month i started with them. Use to piss me off seeing guys say what their line was for a game( from the same Bodog)and mine was a point lower. Then i had a friend open a small account and use to compare lines with him and his were always better than mine for the game i wanted. Enough of them. This was right when they were having problems paying so that was a whole other circus.
Give Points
Reply with Quote
#903

Default

Quote Originally Posted by Vaughany View Post
I think tht was a combination of Rory still being very raw (at that time) and Condit being far more experienced and ridiculously good off his back. We should bear in mind that that fight was 3 years ago, Rory was only 20, was his second fight in UFC against an experienced fighter in Condit who was just reaching his prime and had already fought over 25 times in his career. He also wasnt training at Tristar full time at that point. It was a huge step up for Rory, going from a gimme fight against Guymon to having to fight Condit in only his second fight in UFC and had the added pressure of it being in British Columbia where Rory Mac is originally from. I believe Rory's sentiments to be true when he said that he was too hyped up for that fight and the pressure got too him and that is partly why he gassed out in third round - obviously the fact that he was fighting a killer with some of the best cardio in MMA played a big part, but still, the overall point remains that the Rory that folded in that fight isnt indicative of the Rory today IMO. The fact that he destroyed Mike Pyle after taking him down shows that Rory's top game is legit - Pyle is no joke off his back as he showed against Rick Story who is one of the strongest guys in the division.

IMO if Ellenberger gets put on his back then he will be in trouble and will find it hard to get back to his feet. I imagine that the Zahabi gameplan will be to do just that as Jake is going to offer zero threat off his back. I'll actually be looking to take Rory SOTN prop as I think he could rear-naked choke Jake
Belated response, but thanks for taking the time to break that down for me. I hadn't yet seen Rory's recent fights when I posted that and, now that I have, I completely agree with your analysis. Rory deserves to be the favorite in this fight for sure (although I do still fear a 1st round Ellenberger knockout). Hopefully we end up getting good odds on fight ends ITD.
Give Points
Reply with Quote
#904

Default

Quote Originally Posted by MD View Post
http://www.professionalgambler.com/debunking.html

This one is the most notable I've come across, although even I can see some of the issues with it.
Saw you stumbled across that, I found it interesting as well. I read Fixed Odds Sports Betting since, and it ran monte carlo simulations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_method) on level staking, fixed level staking, kelly, and even martingale and another variant of it.

The results on Kelly were that a large portion of the trials ended up with a small loss, while a very few experienced exponential gains. As you might expect based on its designed intent, its average gain was the highest. Also as expected for a percent-based system, few trials went bankrupt.

This would explain professionalgambler.com's assertion that the deck of cards experiment will result in a loss, presumably they tried the experiment several times and got the most likely result with kelly by the numbers - a small loss.

It's a shame the book didn't run a simulation on 1/4 kelly, cause it seems intuitively like that may smooth out results while still producing higher average results than some of the level staking variants.

Everyone on here seems to be disciples of Kelly and I still feel very ignorant, but what strikes me intuitively based off the math in that book is that if you're able to judge your edge adequately and have a substantial one, Kelly is the way to go. Otherwise, you may want to try a level staking variant.

Fixed Odds Sports Betting was clear on one thing: fixed returns staking, a level staking variant in which all bets are "to win x" (so +odds bets get smaller risk) smoothed out variance, reduced risk of bankruptcy, and still maintained similar profit performance to its cousin level staking.

And, trivially, martingale variants failed.
Give Points
Reply with Quote
#905

Default

Quote Originally Posted by Noleafclover View Post

Fixed Odds Sports Betting was clear on one thing: fixed returns staking, a level staking variant in which all bets are "to win x" (so +odds bets get smaller risk) smoothed out variance, reduced risk of bankruptcy, and still maintained similar profit performance to its cousin level staking.

And, trivially, martingale variants failed.
Very interesting to hear you say that. Think there is definitely some truth. I've been experimenting with my useless(because im not a pro) betpoints. I only wager mma, and either bet the limit or not at all. The limit on the sbr sportsbook is "to win 250pts". I would say that i have been much more consistent with this system than I have with my real bankroll, where I follow a kelly variation.

I have seriously been considering changing my real bets to a fixed returns staking since I can consistently win betpoints that way, even with significantly worse lines.
Give Points
Reply with Quote
#907

Default

Would like to discuss the Burger fight, so i will just copy/paste

Anyone else draw parallels from this Rory v Jake fight to the Rockhold/belfort fight?

One is clearly the technically superior fighter, better cardio and so forth, other has the power advantage and knows how to put hands on you. I bet Belfort Big, and in Rounds 1-2 in the other fight. The difference here is you're getting Ellenberger at even higher plus money, against a bit more unproven guy in Rory. On paper he certainly looks like a beast, and the kicking game he was pummeling BJ with looked much improved. If he can get The Burgers respect with those early, that might set the tone for the fight. However pummeling and old BJ who should be 2 weightclasses below you is hardly impressive.

I suppose Rory should roll here, but Im not sure i can back him at that price. Might do some sort of hedge thing.

Rorys takedown D has been pretty excellent so far, but then again, he has never faced a solid wrestler like Burger. I could certainly see Burger take him down and pound on his head to a stoppage ala Condit, or just steal rounds that way.

Technique wise standup is all Rory though
Give Points
Reply with Quote
#908

Default

I am more worried about Ellenberger getting take downs and stealing two rounds than I am about anything else.

Jake Ellenberger is seriously one of the worst strikers in the top ten of any division, but his power is scary and he can definitely KO MacDonald. Look at the sequence he dropped Kampmann with, the technique will make you cringe. His strategy is to go face-first, then just alternate hooks until the other guy drops. He's much worse than Hendricks.
Give Points
Reply with Quote
Back to Forum