[sideloaded]

[sideloaded]

knocked out cold from inside a guy's guard = glass f-cking jaw

[Rubber Guard]

vaughan lee all day.

and are you really faulting santiago for getting laid on by maia after what maia just did to fitch?

I'm not faulting him. I'm saying it happened. As I said I'm not saying Gunnar is Maia. But Jorge was controlled all fight by a pure grappler who himself was undersized for 185. It isn't like he got owned in a grappling match vs. Roger Gracie. Isn't like Jorge was failing at 185 in the UFC because of size. He is desperate and going to 170, may work for him like it did for Maia, I'm not sure.

But if Gunnar's only way of winning is out grappling/subbing a decent and experienced blackbelt. And if Jorge has many more ways to win like MD said....then I would expect anyone who shares those views to have been all over Jorge at the +220 to +240 he was. Should be a straight steal in the minds of people who feel this way.

[NunyaBidness]

Anyone else like Nedvok?

I like him, but I don't 'like him' like him.

[v1y]

watson looked really good against tavares. winnable for nedkov, but not at evens.

[Rubber Guard]

Then I see MD in his thread is on Gunnar. Sure at ridiculously great odds because of weird Euro books. Probably very limited. Why not hedge with Dimes and would have gotten Jorge at +240?

The -170 or whatever ridiculous line you got Gunnar by aside. Why would you even play Gunnar if you don't think his striking is good and he is at a disadvantage there? And when you say Jorge has many more ways of winning. Jorge is experienced and has never been sub'd in his life. So why bet on a guy who basically only has a chance of taking him down and controlling him? Why take a guy like that at minus odds?

I'm just curious. I am no pro gambler. I just can't make sense of a lot of things said on this forum. People say 1 thing, then bet different. MD had a great chance to hedge. He says the dog has many more ways of winning. He says the fav isn't a good striker. Yet his bet is on the fav? I don't get it.

[Wanna Bet On It?]

Swanson is a good bet even though he's favorited now.

Don't bet too much here. Both guys have the advantage in speed.

Amirite?

[Vaughany]

lol

[MD]

Edgar also landed more strikes than Aldo in round 3 and 5, yet I wouldn't gave him those rounds exactly. Rampage has been a slow striker for a while now, and hasn't shown KO power in years. Glover took his shots and landed just as hard if not harder on Page. Yes, he did take him down. That is his game, he incorporates everything. But Rampage didn't look like a better striker that night. And the fact that he was rocked once when he got over-confident vs. Fabio was completely irrelevant.

Do I think Gunnar is a good striker? I think is is decent and ever improving. I think he has good technique and you can tell he works on it. He just is a grappler at heart, his striking will pale in comparison to his grappling for a while. But I think his striking is good enough to hang with Jorge.

If you think the only chance Gunnar has what was -390 at one point is to take down and sub a decent blackbelt then why not go large on Jorge? Or does his motivation or other Rampage factors not make it a huge bet for you?? I think Gunnar will be fine wherever the fight goes and will ultimately sub Jorge.

Hard to bet on or against guys making a debut in a new weight class. Some guys look like shit because it is too much of a cut. Other like Maia are much better off. It probably isn't the best fight to bet on, but I think Gunnar will be comfortable wherever the fight is fought.

The point is that you claimed Texeira won a mostly standup affair, which is not the case. It's the takedowns which won him rounds and the threat of the takedown which opened Rampage up to Glover's boxing. Not that it would have made much of a difference, I'm sure, with how poor Rampage looked.

I'm not going large on Santiago because I believe that Gunnar has the advantage in this fight, and should win a majority of the time. Also, Aldo landed more head strikes in those rounds, by a significant margin, which is one of the reasons I gave Aldo all but the fourth round. I didn't think that fight was controversial at all, and gave Aldo a competitive but clear decision.

I'm not faulting him. I'm saying it happened. As I said I'm not saying Gunnar is Maia. But Jorge was controlled all fight by a pure grappler who himself was undersized for 185. It isn't like he got owned in a grappling match vs. Roger Gracie. Isn't like Jorge was failing at 185 in the UFC because of size. He is desperate and going to 170, may work for him like it did for Maia, I'm not sure.

But if Gunnar's only way of winning is out grappling/subbing a decent and experienced blackbelt. And if Jorge has many more ways to win like MD said....then I would expect anyone who shares those views to have been all over Jorge at the +220 to +240 he was. Should be a straight steal in the minds of people who feel this way.

Out-grappling Santiago isn't Gunnar's only way of winning. He has knockout power and he evolves quickly, the guy is a phenom; plus, Santiago has a questionable chin. The issue is that Santiago should have a technical striking edge.

Then I see MD in his thread is on Gunnar. Sure at ridiculously great odds because of weird Euro books. Probably very limited. Why not hedge with Dimes and would have gotten Jorge at +240?

The -170 or whatever ridiculous line you got Gunnar by aside. Why would you even play Gunnar if you don't think his striking is good and he is at a disadvantage there? And when you say Jorge has many more ways of winning. Jorge is experienced and has never been sub'd in his life. So why bet on a guy who basically only has a chance of taking him down and controlling him? Why take a guy like that at minus odds?

I'm just curious. I am no pro gambler. I just can't make sense of a lot of things said on this forum. People say 1 thing, then bet different. MD had a great chance to hedge. He says the dog has many more ways of winning. He says the fav isn't a good striker. Yet his bet is on the fav? I don't get it.

I didn't say Gunnar Nelson isn't a good striker. Would you please quote where I said that? Thanks.

The fact that Santiago has more ways to win isn't indicative of an increased likelihood of him actually winning. How many ways did Karl Ammousou have of winning against Ben Askren? Far more than Aksren had of winning against Ammousou. I didn't see many people pounding that line, though.

I didn't hedge because of my degree of advantage over the market. I'm willing to take the added risk for a chance at a greater payout. I certainly think Nelson wins a majority of the time, but it's a winnable fight for Santiago. Demian Maia put Santiago on his back for the majority of their fight, and yet could do nothing from within his guard. With the number of variables concerning Nelson that we have no idea about, I wish I had your confidence that an undersized Gunnar Nelson is going to take down and submit a guy who Demian Maia could do nothing with on the ground.

[Rubber Guard]

I can't even talk about this like a regular person with you. Tex looked just as good standing as Rampage did. You bet Moderate on Page....you said it wasn't a huge bet because of Page's heart/cardio/will to succeed at this point. You still made a moderate bet on Page because he is technically better in your eyes....yet he hasn't KO'd anyone since 2008 KOing old washed up guys. You bet him because you said Glover is mediocre at best striking and Rampage clearly had an advantage. I saw no advantage on the feet. Rampage did hit him...and Tex (and his awful chin) walked through them. Tex won basically 30-27. Tex takes people down....you bet Moderate on Page why? Because you didn''t think Tex would try a TD? Page did nothing to show he was a better striker. he is more predictable, he is slower, he has less power. Only thing Page still has that is even close to his prime days is his chin. He can still take a punch. Everything else has deteriorated and has been for years.

So you didn't say Gunnar isn't a good striker. yet you point blank asked me "so do you think Gunnar is a goood striker?".

How the F else am I supposed to take that question? You laughed at my original post where I said Gunnar is a decent striker and good enough to hang with Jorge. Then you ask me if I think he is a good striker. But somehow you want to pull the "I didn't say Gunnar isn't a good striker"?

You make no sense.

[Rubber Guard]

So you have little confidence that Gunnar will sub Jorge....because Maia wasn't able too.

So how do you see "undersized" Gunnar winning? You say he certainly wins a majority of times. So you are laying -170 because you think he will take him down and control him....being undersized. Ok. I'm still not seeing the logic.

Maybe I am missing your whole point. But I would think +240 on a guy with more ways to win and more experience is more value than Gunnar who basically has to control him in your eyes at -170.

So is it safe to say you recommend a no play on that? At current odds. You can't bet one guy. Talk that guy down and say a +240 dog has a real chance of winning. And it be a no play all at once. You've said a bunch, but I still have no clue where you stand on the fight.

If you don't want to put yourself out there again like Rampage, then don't. Just say you are on the fence and your peanuts bet on a Euro book doesn't mean anything. I'm cool with that. You can always make bank on live betting Gunnar as he is whooping that ass all night. Live betting seems like a 95% lock 95% of the time.

[Vaughany]

Glover has an "awful chin"???!

[MD]

I can't even talk about this like a regular person with you. Tex looked just as good standing as Rampage did. You bet Moderate on Page....you said it wasn't a huge bet because of Page's heart/cardio/will to succeed at this point. You still made a moderate bet on Page because he is technically better in your eyes....yet he hasn't KO'd anyone since 2008 KOing old washed up guys. You bet him because you said Glover is mediocre at best striking and Rampage clearly had an advantage. I saw no advantage on the feet. Rampage did hit him...and Tex (and his awful chin) walked through them. Tex won basically 30-27. Tex takes people down....you bet Moderate on Page why? Because you didn''t think Tex would try a TD? Page did nothing to show he was a better striker. he is more predictable, he is slower, he has less power. Only thing Page still has that is even close to his prime days is his chin. He can still take a punch. Everything else has deteriorated and has been for years.

So you didn't say Gunnar isn't a good striker. yet you point blank asked me "so do you think Gunnar is a goood striker?".

How the F else am I supposed to take that question? You laughed at my original post where I said Gunnar is a decent striker and good enough to hang with Jorge. Then you ask me if I think he is a good striker. But somehow you want to pull the "I didn't say Gunnar isn't a good striker"?

You make no sense.

You said it yourself: you asked me why I wasn't betting big on Rampage, and it was for that reason. His motivation and his desire to succeed are questionable, and it showed in his performance. What percentage of the time does Rampage show up to that fight with the mindframe and effort necessary to fight someone of Glover's calibre? I don't know, but the percentage of the time that he does, I fully believe he'd out-strike Glover comfortably.

As far as Glover trying to take Rampage down, I fully expected it to happen, but Glover's wrestling isn't particularly strong, and Rampage, two fights ago, stuffed Jones with relative ease. Which is more likely to you: that Glover out-wrestled the same Rampage who stuffed Jon Jones four out of six times until he gassed, or that Rampage wasn't in good enough condition to be fighting Glover, and so got taken down at will?

You said Gunnar isn't a good striker, Rubber. You said yourself that you think he's "decent".

So you have little confidence that Gunnar will sub Jorge....because Maia wasn't able too.

So how do you see "undersized" Gunnar winning? You say he certainly wins a majority of times. So you are laying -170 because you think he will take him down and control him....being undersized. Ok. I'm still not seeing the logic.

Maybe I am missing your whole point. But I would think +240 on a guy with more ways to win and more experience is more value than Gunnar who basically has to control him in your eyes at -170.

So is it safe to say you recommend a no play on that? At current odds. You can't bet one guy. Talk that guy down and say a +240 dog has a real chance of winning. And it be a no play all at once. You've said a bunch, but I still have no clue where you stand on the fight.

If you don't want to put yourself out there again like Rampage, then don't. Just say you are on the fence and your peanuts bet on a Euro book doesn't mean anything. I'm cool with that. You can always make bank on live betting Gunnar as he is whooping that ass all night. Live betting seems like a 95% lock 95% of the time.

I didn't say that I have little confidence that Gunnar will sub Santiago, but I find it unlikely. It's possible, but not the most likely route to victory for Gunnar in my eyes. Nelson is a different type of grappeler to Maia, also, which has to factor in; he's far more aggressive with his guard passing, for better or worse, which could lead to both a greater chance of finding a submission and a greater chance of getting swept.

What I recommend? I don't know, I wouldn't recommend Gunnar at -260, as I think that if there's any value, it's minimal. I don't base my plays on what I would recommend to others, I wager in response to the market and react accordingly. I bet Gunnar at -175, on which I felt there was value, and then did not hedge out when Gunnar opened offshore at -360 because I had too big an edge over the market. What about that is difficult to understand? If you're asking me what I would recommend with the current lines, yes, I'd recommend a no play. Not enough value for my liking on Gunnar -260. The props will likely be a different story.

I have no problem "putting myself out there". You act like I have something to feel ashamed or bad about because I gave Rampage a good chance to win and he lost. He didn't come in well-prepared enough to win, and that is something which I figured into my betting, which is why I didn't wager larger on him. In case you haven't figured it out yet, most bettors lose more often than they win, and the very best bettors win only slightly more often than they lose, so I have no problem taking a loss on a +300 dog that I thought had a good shot at winning. Also, I can bet more on props on Paddy Power than I can bet on straight lines on a lot of books. Would hardly call my bet on Gunnar peanuts, under my classification of wagers it falls under moderate-large, and I bet fairly respectable amounts. The line was at -175 for days, there's plenty of ways to get money down on it. They are extremely quick to limit, though.

[Thor4140]

If Grispi can't beat Ogle then it is time to hang them up.

[Beelzebubzy]

@GamblingFury: The prelims odds are out now for UFC on Fuel 7. Here's how my line predictions stacked up. Spoiler Alert! I did great: http://t.co/MDpbvH2w
I have never seen one person toot his own rooster as much as this guy

[Vaughany]

Word up homiez...Grispi's wife is preggerz at moment and is currently in hospital due to complications or sumin. This doesn't bode well for somebody with a fragile mental-state like Grispi

[Vaughany]

@GamblingFury: The prelims odds are out now for UFC on Fuel 7. Here's how my line predictions stacked up. Spoiler Alert! I did great: http://t.co/MDpbvH2w
I have never seen one person toot his own rooster as much as this guy

lol thinking tht Castillo would be -215 ruins it all!

[Rubber Guard]

Lets move past the Rampage fight, I am sick of talking about it. He couldn't KO Jardine or Hamill...he was even older. He wasn't going to KO Tex.

Yes I said he is decent and can hang with Jorge or even better him on the feet. What people consider "good" is all their own opinion. You said Tex is a mediocre striker....that may be way different than what I consider mediocre.

But I got a "Oh lawd" from you went I said he is the better grappler and may even be better on the feet....so the big number is warrented. Now I'm not hip to what these text message phrases all mean....but I assumed it was a roll of the eyes or a laugh. So what about that do you find ridiculous? That I said he may better Jorge on the feet? That I said Jorge hasn't beat any real good talent yet he was ranked top 10 MW?

You say Jorge has more ways to win. What are those ways? You think he has a chance to sub him? Control him on the ground? Beat him with his uber gas tank? What other ways than a KO or a dec win via striking where Gunnar cannot get him down do you see possible?

The way you have talked in this thread just leads me to believe that +240 on Jorge is a much better value bet than -170 on Gunnar...probably at a tiny limit. You say the +240 has a decent chance of winning this. You said he has more ways of winning. But you would rather throw moderate at -170 on the guy with less ways of winning? Less proven.

[Rubber Guard]

I meant more for those betting on Gunnar; no value to be found in the current line.

Santiago on the other hand, may be worth wagering on. He has too many ways to win this fight I think.

Also check your PM's you bum. <3

Could you just explain what this means? Which ways does he have of winning that Gunnar doesn't?

At what price is Jorge worthy of a bet?

It makes this all confusing with books like Paddy. Guys like me don't get gift lines. And from what I understood from this forum is Paddy has low ass limits for many decent gamblers. What do you cap Gunnar at?

[MD]

Lets move past the Rampage fight, I am sick of talking about it. He couldn't KO Jardine or Hamill...he was even older. He wasn't going to KO Tex.

Yes I said he is decent and can hang with Jorge or even better him on the feet. What people consider "good" is all their own opinion. You said Tex is a mediocre striker....that may be way different than what I consider mediocre.

But I got a "Oh lawd" from you went I said he is the better grappler and may even be better on the feet....so the big number is warrented. Now I'm not hip to what these text message phrases all mean....but I assumed it was a roll of the eyes or a laugh. So what about that do you find ridiculous? That I said he may better Jorge on the feet? That I said Jorge hasn't beat any real good talent yet he was ranked top 10 MW?

You say Jorge has more ways to win. What are those ways? You think he has a chance to sub him? Control him on the ground? Beat him with his uber gas tank? What other ways than a KO or a dec win via striking where Gunnar cannot get him down do you see possible?

The way you have talked in this thread just leads me to believe that +240 on Jorge is a much better value bet than -170 on Gunnar...probably at a tiny limit. You say the +240 has a decent chance of winning this. You said he has more ways of winning. But you would rather throw moderate at -170 on the guy with less ways of winning? Less proven.

Fair enough. I'm happy to agree to disagree about the Rampage fight if that's what you wish; it's all opinions, after all.

Yes, but "good" is relative. And a "decent" striker is not a "good" striker by your measurements.

Yes, I would rather go moderate-large on a guy with less ways to win if his likelihood of winning is significantly higher than that of his opponent, and I think the intangibles are in his favour.

You say Jorge has more ways to win. What are those ways? You think he has a chance to sub him? Control him on the ground? Beat him with his uber gas tank? What other ways than a KO or a dec win via striking where Gunnar cannot get him down do you see possible?

Could you just explain what this means? Which ways does he have of winning that Gunnar doesn't?

At what price is Jorge worthy of a bet?

It makes this all confusing with books like Paddy. Guys like me don't get gift lines. And from what I understood from this forum is Paddy has low ass limits for many decent gamblers. What do you cap Gunnar at?

You understand that "ways to win" doesn't literally describe the ways a fighter can win a fight like a "rules of the Octagon" segment, right? It describes the ways which are likely and practical. For example, Jake Shields technically could knock out GSP, but the odds of it are extremely low. I would not consider knock out one of Shields' ways to win in that fight.

Anyway, I think Santiago can win by submission, decision, or knock out with decent probability (relative to his actual probability of winning). Of those, knock out and decision seem most likely, with submission being less of a likelihood, although possible due to Gunnar aggression on the ground. Gunnar could knock Santiago out and he could submit him, but both seem less likely than a decision win to me. That's not to say that Gunnar couldn't take Santiago down, take his back and choke him out in under a minute, because he could. Probability-wise, it's not the most likely scenario in my eyes, however. It's also not unlikely on the level of a Jakes Shields-GSP knockout, and a lot of the likelihood has to do with how Santiago handles the weight cut and other variables concerning Gunnar.

Paddy does cap people extremely quickly. That's not much of a problem if you're persistent enough, though. What does "guys like me don't get gift lines" mean, anyway? Do you just gamble on one or two really bad books?

Next time you decide to bombard me with questions, try and make sure they aren't about things that have already been covered in this thread.

[Rubber Guard]

Also, Jackson came in at 204 and said he was in great shape. Just because he got whooped on doesn't mean he was in terrible shape. He never had amazing cardio. He came in with just as good of a tank as he had vs Machida, Evans, Jardine, Hamill. MMA fighters gas. Little Aldo gasses. 170s gas. You couldn't expect Rampage to have Frankie Edgar cardio.

I didn't think Rampage had that bad of cardio for what is his norm. Just because the guy got beat down, doesn't auto mean he must have came in out of shape. He looked great at weigh ins and had no problem cutting weight. Probably the easiest weigh in I have ever seen him have.

No I'll move on from the Page fight. I just had to say that. Because it seems like people say how bad he looked. When I don't think he was capable of coming in at much better shape at this point. He was never a cardio machine. He was till throwing hard in the 3rd.

[Rubber Guard]

I am generally through 5Dimes. A great MMA book. I cannot bet on Paddy. Paddy comes out with off lines every single event. I can't get -170 or even close to it.

I bombard you with questions because you mocked my first post about the subject. Which was a pro Gunnar post. Then come to see you have a moderate play on him. You like to play both sides of the fence often.

What do you cap Gunnar at?

[MD]

Also, Jackson came in at 204 and said he was in great shape. Just because he got whooped on doesn't mean he was in terrible shape. He never had amazing cardio. He came in with just as good of a tank as he had vs Machida, Evans, Jardine, Hamill. MMA fighters gas. Little Aldo gasses. 170s gas. You couldn't expect Rampage to have Frankie Edgar cardio.

I didn't think Rampage had that bad of cardio for what is his norm. Just because the guy got beat down, doesn't auto mean he must have came in out of shape. He looked great at weigh ins and had no problem cutting weight. Probably the easiest weigh in I have ever seen him have.

No I'll move on from the Page fight. I just had to say that. Because it seems like people say how bad he looked. When I don't think he was capable of coming in at much better shape at this point. He was never a cardio machine. He was till throwing hard in the 3rd.

Welp, if you want to continue to discuss Rampage, suit yourself.

Oh he looked in great physical shape, no doubt about that. But his skills just weren't there. His takedown defence was off, he mentally faltered very easily, and most importantly, his timing was completely and utterly shot. His timing was far worse than we've ever seen it. He looked absolutely horrible.

It has nothing to do with his cardio (which was also worse than the Jones fight), and it has nothing to do with his six-pack; it has to do with his body's ability to properly utilize his skill-set. In that area, he was sorely lacking, and that was plain to see.

[MD]

I am generally through 5Dimes. A great MMA book. I cannot bet on Paddy. Paddy comes out with off lines every single event. I can't get -170 or even close to it.

I bombard you with questions because you mocked my first post about the subject. Which was a pro Gunnar post. Then come to see you have a moderate play on him. You like to play both sides of the fence often.

What do you cap Gunnar at?

5Dimes have a lot of gift lines, make no mistake. Especially in regards to live betting. Try live betting on 5Dimes for the next card and see how off some of the lines are, best advice I can give you. They had Little Nog at +230 after two rounds, when I had him winning both rounds and Evans was gassing. They had Bigfoot at +1500 when he rocked Overeem at the end of round two and Overeem was completley gassed.

Just because I believe Gunnar is the rightful favourite doesn't mean that I think any pro-Gunnar post is correct. That's not "playing both sides of the fence", that's logical thinking.

I cap Gunnar in the 65-75% range, approximately. I capped him higher when I made my wager, though.

[sideloaded]

Welp, if you want to continue to discuss Rampage, suit yourself.

Oh he looked in great physical shape, no doubt about that. But his skills just weren't there. His takedown defence was off, he mentally faltered very easily, and most importantly, his timing was completely and utterly shot. His timing was far worse than we've ever seen it. He looked absolutely horrible.

It has nothing to do with his cardio (which was also worse than the Jones fight), and it has nothing to do with his six-pack; it has to do with his body's ability to properly utilize his skill-set. In that area, he was sorely lacking, and that was plain to see.

rampage has been canned out since 2009. Faded his ass ever since.

[Rubber Guard]

5Dimes have a lot of gift lines, make no mistake. Especially in regards to live betting. Try live betting on 5Dimes for the next card and see how off some of the lines are, best advice I can give you. They had Little Nog at +230 after two rounds, when I had him winning both rounds and Evans was gassing. They had Bigfoot at +1500 when he rocked Overeem at the end of round two and Overeem was completley gassed.

Just because I believe Gunnar is the rightful favourite doesn't mean that I think any pro-Gunnar post is correct. That's not "playing both sides of the fence", that's logical thinking.

I cap Gunnar in the 65-75% range, approximately. I capped him higher when I made my wager, though.

I have trouble live betting because I usually don't watch the fights in a sober state and many times not by a computer. Unless I want to look at my phone with 1 cocked eye and see if I press the right wager. I am not a gambler. I gamble on MMA for fun, sometimes I am more inclined to bet some cards and not others.

I understand that you are betting for value. But all the value talk goes almost over my head. When you laugh at a post I make saying Gunnar may be better everywhere. Then say Jorge has more ways you could see him winning. I come to tthe conclusion that you think Jorge is a very live dog.

I have came to the conclusion that you believe -170 for Gunnar is about right maybe a little value. And +240 on Jorge wasn't enough value. You bet Rampage at nice dog odds when his heart and other factors were so much more uncappable. So I figured +240 on Jorge would have warranted a bet for you. But then again you thought Page had the much better standup over Tex. And I guess you think Jorge and Gunnar are pretty even on the feet. Or at least that is what I gather from this giant mess.

[MD]

I cap Gunnar in the 65-75% range, approximately. I capped him higher when I made my wager, though.

I have trouble live betting because I usually don't watch the fights in a sober state and many times not by a computer. Unless I want to look at my phone with 1 cocked eye and see if I press the right wager. I am not a gambler. I gamble on MMA for fun, sometimes I am more inclined to bet some cards and not others.

I understand that you are betting for value. But all the value talk goes almost over my head. When you laugh at a post I make saying Gunnar may be better everywhere. Then say Jorge has more ways you could see him winning. I come to tthe conclusion that you think Jorge is a very live dog.

I have came to the conclusion that you believe -170 for Gunnar is about right maybe a little value. And +240 on Jorge wasn't enough value. You bet Rampage at nice dog odds when his heart and other factors were so much more uncappable. So I figured +240 on Jorge would have warranted a bet for you. But then again you thought Page had the much better standup over Tex. And I guess you think Jorge and Gunnar are pretty even on the feet. Or at least that is what I gather from this giant mess.

Oh lawd.

[Rubber Guard]

SO in other words your -170 bet on him is nonsense and you wish you didn't bet it?

[Rubber Guard]

your betting style and the way you post it is confusing.

small moderate. moderate small. Small medium. small large. large. large large.

if you lose, you Gabe it with Live betting.

You bet moderate on Gunnar at -170. He is now much worse than that. But you don't like the bet. How often do you make a bet one day...then hate it the next? Often? Or moderately often?

[MD]

SO in other words your -170 bet on him is nonsense and you wish you didn't bet it?

No. Can you read?

[MD]

your betting style and the way you post it is confusing.

small moderate. moderate small. Small medium. small large. large. large large.

if you lose, you Gabe it with Live betting.

It's not confusing. Small, moderate, large. Then interpolated versions; small-moderate, moderate-large.

I posted my live bets for one event, and during that event I posted all of my live wagers in the thread between rounds, where plenty of others also posted their live wagers, at often the same odds I posted.

Also, I don't really care what you think of my betting style, or if you think it's "confusing". No concern of mine. I'm not here to enlighten you.

[Beelzebubzy]

lol thinking tht Castillo would be -215 ruins it all!

Did he bet Castillo at -115 or so?

[Rubber Guard]

There is no use in talking fights with you anyway. You are all over the map. When you don't want to take a real stance you throw out your value numbers. You can make a bet one day, then not like it 8 hours later. You can bet Moderate on Page say not large because of his desire questions....then when he loses say how sharp you are because he lost because of his desire to fight. And you saw it coming or something. You are almost like V. But V doesn't try to act like a sharp of all sharps. You make a bunch of plays, bunch of parlays, no real insight on who will win or what you think about a fight. A guy could have more ways to win in your eyes...but that doesn't mean anything because according to their % of winning is what you are talking about. You laugh at a post made about how Gunnar could hang with him anywhere. Then later you say he probably has a better grappling game and could certainly KO him. And he is a good striker. None of it makes any sense.

Why don't you just live bet? Seems automatic. You straight sucked on your plays and random Gabe parlays lately. But then you sweep up with Live betting. Why not just try to live bet a card and make bank? Instead of 20 props and a couple 8 team parlays.

[MD]

There is no use in talking fights with you anyway. You are all over the map. When you don't want to take a real stance you throw out your value numbers. You can make a bet one day, then not like it 8 hours later. You can bet Moderate on Page say not large because of his desire questions....then when he loses say how sharp you are because he lost because of his desire to fight. And you saw it coming or something. You are almost like V. But V doesn't try to act like a sharp of all sharps. You make a bunch of plays, bunch of parlays, no real insight on who will win or what you think about a fight. A guy could have more ways to win in your eyes...but that doesn't mean anything because according to their % of winning is what you are talking about. You laugh at a post made about how Gunnar could hang with him anywhere. Then later you say he probably has a better grappling game and could certainly KO him. And he is a good striker. None of it makes any sense.

Why don't you just live bet? Seems automatic. You straight sucked on your plays and random Gabe parlays lately. But then you sweep up with Live betting. Why not just try to live bet a card and make bank? Instead of 20 props and a couple 8 team parlays.

LOL @ throw out value numbers. What do you think betting is? You bet according to value. That's how you make money. Where I think the value is is where I place my bet, generally. What is difficult to understand about that? My stances are generally very clear. I don't hold back on my opinion and I make it very clear who I'm backing.
I never said I was sharp for betting 'Page, bro. Feel free to quote where I did. Having more ways to win means something, but it isn't the be-all-end-all. Sounds like someone's been following a certain Buffet-loving twitter goon. You seem to have some severe issues with your reading comprehension, nothing I post is particularly hard to follow, and it doesn't even take good reading comprehension to see who I'm backing.

I've had one card in recent memory in which I finished in the negative on plays posted before the event (excluding my Aldo moderate-large wager, which I posted before the Aldo/Edgar fight began, but didn't post prior to the beginning of the event, so I suppose I'll include it in this category for reasons of semantics), and I finished up due to live bets posted between rounds, not after the event. Other than that, I've been very consistent. If you don't like my plays or respect my analysis, as always, my position is that I don't care. My plays are there for people to check if they wish. If someone wants my analysis on a fight, they have only to ask, or PM me. If not, that's fine. If you want to get butthurt because someone disagreed with you on an internet forum and you don't have the reading comprehension to understand it, that's fine, too.

[Sacrelicious]

MD > Rubber Guard.