[Vaughany]

My 3 points were actually for Elkins.

[Grabaka]

How can you be so sure man? I mean....how can you be so sure that 93% of the time or whatever Mendes wins. I respect your capping ability but come on!! Have you never been incorrect? Is it worst to be incorrect about implied probability to win on a -900 than a +900?

I, for one, will be betting Elkins. May be a dumb play but it wont be my first dumb play nor my last one.
I think you are underestimating Elkins. Yeah, he doesnt have advantages but hes a cat and will fight like one when needed.

[Grabaka]

I think you are one of the best at prices but feel you got carried away a tiny bit in this one bro.

[MD]

How can you be so sure man? I mean....how can you be so sure that 93% of the time or whatever Mendes wins. I respect your capping ability but come on!! Have you never been incorrect? Is it worst to be incorrect about implied probability to win on a -900 than a +900?

I, for one, will be betting Elkins. May be a dumb play but it wont be my first dumb play nor my last one.
I think you are underestimating Elkins. Yeah, he doesnt have advantages but hes a cat and will fight like one when needed.

I'm sure because I watched footage on the fight and handicapped it, and I think Mendes wins far more than 90% of the time.

How do you think Elkins wins that fight? How does he do it? He can't take Mendes down, Mendes can take him down at will, and on the feet, good chance Elkins gets KO'd. I think Elkins is a terrible bet, personally. If you like the odds, though, I respect your opinion, I just disagree strongly.

[Grabaka]

I'm sure because I watched footage on the fight and handicapped it, and I think Mendes wins far more than 90% of the time.

How do you think Elkins wins that fight? How does he do it? He can't take Mendes down, Mendes can take him down at will, and on the feet, good chance Elkins gets KO'd. I think Elkins is a terrible bet, personally. If you like the odds, though, I respect your opinion, I just disagree strongly.

I respect you too man. But let me say its wrong to feel that just because you watched tape you are bound to be correct.
You watched tape on Zingano vs Miesha and capped Zingano at -200 and it was not a -200 good play. You capped Blanco at -2800 or whatever and was not correct again.
So you do are incorrect often.....just like me.

[TheCalculator]

BOOOOOM! I get the silent treatment from Vaughany.

[TheCalculator]

As far as who's right or wrong -- we will know fight night.

At -900 it should be total dominance from minute 1 to the end.

[MD]

I respect you too man. But let me say its wrong to feel that just because you watched tape you are bound to be correct.
You watched tape on Zingano vs Miesha and capped Zingano at -200 and it was not a -200 good play. You capped Blanco at -2800 or whatever and was not correct again.
So you do are incorrect often.....just like me.

Where did I say I'm bound to be correct? What does that even mean? All I said is that I 'capped Mendes as more than a 90% favourite. That doesn't mean I'm more or less confident in my prediction than when I said I 'capped Zingano at -250. I'm equally confident betting on Mendes as what I think is a 95%+ favourite as I am betting on Beltran over Pokrajac as what I think is a 30% underdog, because there's value there.

You're wrong in telling me my plays weren't good. How the fight did go doesn't dictate how the fight can go, which is why I didn't talk any shit to anyone when Curran finished Shamhalaev in two minutes. For all I know, if they fought ten times, he could beat Shamhalaev in two minutes once, and get KO'd in a minute the other nine times. We don't know what would happen if Zingano and Tate rematched nine times.

[MD]

As far as who's right or wrong -- we will know fight night.

At -900 it should be total dominance from minute 1 to the end.

That is, also, not how handicapping works.

[Beelzebubzy]

I thought Mein vs brown would get the most debate here instea of the possible slaughtering of Manlet Elkins

[Grabaka]

You said to The Calculator that he "needed" to reassess his capping ability because he like a 9-1 dog. I asked how can you be so sure and you said "I'm sure because I watched footage on the fight and handicapped it, and I think Mendes wins far more than 90% of the time".

[MD]

I thought Mein vs brown would get the most debate here instea of the possible slaughtering of Manlet Elkins

I took Brown +240 small. Huge fan of Mein, all the talent in the world, but that line is unbelievably silly. Wonderboy is as good a striker than Mein and Brown destroyed him, Mein's grappling should be better than Wonderboy's, although good enough to justify that price? I think not.

[Grabaka]

I thought Mein vs brown would get the most debate here instea of the possible slaughtering of Manlet Elkins

You need muscles to be a manlet.
This is No manlet vs Manlet

[MD]

You said to The Calculator that he "needed" to reassess his capping ability because he like a 9-1 dog. I asked how can you be so sure and you said "I'm sure because I watched footage on the fight and handicapped it, and I think Mendes wins far more than 90% of the time".

Oh, no, I didn't say that to him because he thought Elkins shouldn't be that big a dog, I said that because he said that Elkins can KO Mendes and Mendes is very unlikely to finish Elkins. I think we can both agree that's silly.

[Grabaka]

Well, yes. Thats silly the way he said it. But still i think he just tried to say Elkins is durable, has skills and anybody can get lucky. Specially if you offer some skills. Elkins is obviously outmatched but he isnt some mega can. Hes may be outmatched in every area but not by a really wide margin on most.
Im not saying this is a 50/50 fight but i may be able to get the +800 to +900 on Betfair and ill take it.
Foooooooooooooookk iiiiiit!

[TheCalculator]

That is, also, not how handicapping works.

Sure. Who said it was? However -- it is one of the better ways to assess how "off" or "on" you were in your handicapping.

[TheCalculator]

Well, yes. Thats silly the way he said it. But still i think he just tried to say Elkins is durable, has skills and anybody can get lucky. Specially if you offer some skills. Elkins is obviously outmatched but he isnt some mega can. Hes may be outmatched in every area but not by a really wide margin on most.
Im not saying this is a 50/50 fight but i may be able to get the +800 to +900 on Betfair and ill take it.
Foooooooooooooookk iiiiiit!

Grabaka's on my team! Grabaka's on my team! TAKE THAT DARK FORCES! HA HA HA

[cheeese]

How can you be so sure man? I mean....how can you be so sure that 93% of the time or whatever Mendes wins. I respect your capping ability but come on!! Have you never been incorrect? Is it worst to be incorrect about implied probability to win on a -900 than a +900?

I, for one, will be betting Elkins. May be a dumb play but it wont be my first dumb play nor my last one.
I think you are underestimating Elkins. Yeah, he doesnt have advantages but hes a cat and will fight like one when needed.

[Grabaka]

Grabaka's on my team! Grabaka's on my team! TAKE THAT DARK FORCES! HA HA HA

Lets get lucky amigo! We do need it! I hoping i get lay´d saturday night or elkins wins. One or the other.

[Grabaka]

That would be fine.

[Hannibal]

Brown is undervalued again.
Wonderboy is a worse striker that mein. Mein is more effective, physical, and devastating.
Mein needs to lay a standing beating on brown to win.
Brown has lots of ways to win

[sideloaded]

lmao

[Grabaka]

Mur is all mouth! I hate his guts

[MD]

Sure. Who said it was? However -- it is one of the better ways to assess how "off" or "on" you were in your handicapping.

It's almost always contradictory in logic to believe in value while simultaneously using the results of a fight to determine that value was there. There's always new information that you can use to reassess your opinions, but there's too much variance in the grand scheme of things to know how that information would factor in were the fight repeated ad infinitum.

I think Nunya's going to come at me for this comment, though.

[Grabaka]

You're wrong in telling me my plays weren't good. How the fight did go doesn't dictate how the fight can go, which is why I didn't talk any shit to anyone when Curran finished Shamhalaev in two minutes. For all I know, if they fought ten times, he could beat Shamhalaev in two minutes once, and get KO'd in a minute the other nine times. We don't know what would happen if Zingano and Tate rematched nine times.

Yes but i feel like Zingano @ -200 or -250 its a price without factoring in the octagon jitters.
I would bet on Zingano again like most of us would but she was def. starstruck and too happy to be fighting for a bit.

[Grabaka]

I respek brah, not trying to pull you down for that -250 or whatever. Like i said, im wrong pretty often.
Sicilia did had a bit of value IMO. I agree its not the results what determines if there was value but the fight as a whole. You could see that a) Blanco is kinda dumb at gameplans, b) Blanco is kinda dumb for training in jjapan, c) Sicilia improved a tiny bit bla bla bla. Not a blowout by any means.

I would bet Zingano in a rematch a the same odds, i would bet sicilia in a rematch at the same odds. One perceived as a "lucky" win....another one the loser.
I mean we really are preaching to the choir.

[sideloaded]

not suprising zingano looked so bad if you factor in miesha trying to fight like ronda now. Miesha has never come out that hard in the first her whole career. She was going to gas 10 out of 10 times. I think zingano always had a fairly good chance of finishing her late in the fight.

[MD]

I respek brah, not trying to pull you down for that -250 or whatever. Like i said, im wrong pretty often.
Sicilia did had a bit of value IMO. I agree its not the results what determines if there was value but the fight as a whole. You could see that a) Blanco is kinda dumb at gameplans, b) Blanco is kinda dumb for training in jjapan, c) Sicilia improved a tiny bit bla bla bla. Not a blowout by any means.

I would bet Zingano in a rematch a the same odds, i would bet sicilia in a rematch at the same odds. One perceived as a "lucky" win....another one the loser.
I mean we really are preaching to the choir.

I don't believe that either, though. I think it's contradictory to think like that.

[Nick Papageorgio]

Anyone capping Njokuani vs Bowling yet?

[Grabaka]

I don't believe that either, though. I think it's contradictory to think like that.

Are you nit-picking? You dont think it gives you an idea and answer some questions? I failed to wrote that in a more proper way but come on!

[MD]

Are you nit-picking? You dont think it gives you an idea and answer some questions? I failed to wrote that in a more proper way but come on!

No, I'm not nit-picking dude. I explained this in one of my earlier posts in this thread. This has nothing to do with your spelling or grammar or sentence structure, or anything like that.

I'll send you a PM about it, sec.

[MD]

Done. Do you understand what I'm saying now? Hope my PM wasn't too long-winded.

[TheCalculator]

It's almost always contradictory in logic to believe in value while simultaneously using the results of a fight to determine that value was there. There's always new information that you can use to reassess your opinions, but there's too much variance in the grand scheme of things to know how that information would factor in were the fight repeated ad infinitum.

I think Nunya's going to come at me for this comment, though.

As one of my friends like to say "You've never been so penetrating wrong in your entire life." Just kidding (kind of).

In all seriousness -- I'm shocked that you're not reviewing your handicapping DURING a fight to see how right or wrong you were? That's mindblowing to me.

Every fight provides A LOT of new information about a fighter. Maybe they have an off night (bad weight cut , injury, etc..) and that gets factored into the adjustments.

Most of the time we can learn and adjust our handicapping by watching the fights and looking at our numbers. How else do you provide yourself feedback? Your profitability? Sure that's important. But there has been lots of fights that we've lost, but we were still on the right side of the value equation.

[Dwil125]

not suprising zingano looked so bad if you factor in miesha trying to fight like ronda now. Miesha has never come out that hard in the first her whole career. She was going to gas 10 out of 10 times. I think zingano always had a fairly good chance of finishing her late in the fight.

Yeah Ive never seen anything like that except when she came out in the first round against honda.

[Grabaka]

I just read that. I do agree about your definition of value but only problem i see may be your cocky nature. My humble ass would tell me "look, maybe im wrong....i capped tha shit wrong" while your cocky nature ass would tell you "hmmm Elkins had 1% chance of winning and it was his best night ever, perfect fight, etc....yeah, he took that one in a million chance because i saw footage and my capping was just fine".
Think about it...... can there be a possibility that my argument holds a tiny bit of truth?