[MD]

Should be -1200. GOGOGO.

[MD]

Well that didn't last long.

Got a piece of that sweet Lauzon -180 too.

[Beelzebubzy]

Nice grab.

[Grabaka]

Should be -1200. GOGOGO.

does it?

[Crassus]

Should be -1200. GOGOGO.

I'm avoiding this fight, I train at the same gym as Doomsday, he's good people.

[Grabaka]

I feel he will have some value. Specially when reduced line hits.
What you say? Cant take him down?

[Beelzebubzy]

Doomsday will look TINY next to hall.

Anyone else hit the under on brown Pyle

[Grabaka]

Doomsday will look TINY next to hall.

Anyone else hit the under on brown Pyle

hmmmm si & si.

[Grabaka]

Also did Brown and JLau

[MD]

Doomsday will look TINY next to hall.

Anyone else hit the under on brown Pyle

Yeah, got it +140.

I feel he will have some value. Specially when reduced line hits.
What you say? Cant take him down?

Watch Leandro Silva vs Doomsday Howard. Howard had trouble with all of Hall's best attributes, against a guy who does those things far worse than Hall, is smaller than Hall, and has worse cardio and wrestling than Hall.

[Crassus]

Watch Leandro Silva vs Doomsday Howard. Howard had trouble with all of Hall's best attributes, against a guy who does those things far worse than Hall, is smaller than Hall, and has worse cardio and wrestling than Hall.

I'm fairly sure he took that fight on short notice and regardless he'd had a fight like two weeks before and went to Brazil later than he'd hoped. I wouldn't put too much stock on that fight.

[MD]

I'm fairly sure he took that fight on short notice and regardless he'd had a fight like two weeks before and went to Brazil later than he'd hoped. I wouldn't put too much stock on that fight.

I would. Howard looked completely lost against Silva's footwork and resorted to just following him around the cage throwing wild hooks. It's more a defect in his fighting ability than a matter of unfortunate circumstance.

[Crassus]

I would. Howard looked completely lost against Silva's footwork and resorted to just following him around the cage throwing wild hooks. It's more a defect in his fighting ability than a matter of unfortunate circumstance.

Fair enough, I didn't see the fight just thought it was pertinent info.

[NunyaBidness]

Should be -1200. GOGOGO.

You mean that guy who just lost to a welterweight as a 5-1 favorite?

[MD]

Fair enough, I didn't see the fight just thought it was pertinent info.

It is, and I didn't know it. Thanks for the headsup buddy.

You mean that guy who just lost to a welterweight as a 5-1 favorite?

Yes. I was on that welterweight to beat him.

[mmaed]

Where do you cap conor mcgregor?

[Beelzebubzy]

Not silva by dec -570 a pound line?

[mirinquads]

Well that didn't last long.

Got a piece of that sweet Lauzon -180 too.

Did he open -180? Holy penetrate would have pounded

[sideloaded]

just sharpening up the the bookies line with low limits

[Thor4140]

just sharpening up the the bookies line with low limits

[MD]

Should be -1200. GOGOGO.

Bumping for awfulness. Gave Uriah the fight 29-28 but I clearly horribly miscapped it.

[mmaed]

I am praying right now.

[DoggyStyle]

I thought Uriah was going to win but -450 was rediculous. Value was on Howard.

[PunisherIND]

Bumping for awfulness. Gave Uriah the fight 29-28 but I clearly horribly miscapped it.

Same here brah. Mad at myself for only partially arbing live at +460.

[Wanna Bet On It?]

You're a good dude MD so I just wanna touch on something you've debated/admitted in the past and hope it fine tunes your game for even sharper success. Fights like this one and the Machida one (yes, shitty judging & inactivity mean Machida had no business being >70% to win) IMO suggest that you overestimate your perceived edge or at least your opportunities to seize off that perceived edge. In other words, -400 vs -1100 isn't much in percentage terms (80% vs 91% to win in implied odds); Shogun's swing from +120 to -150 is more significant quantitatively . There's FAAAAAR more downside in thinking a fighter has a 91% chance to win when the books cap it at 80% (and that's already an intentionally overly chalky line by the books due to the expected heavier action on the favourite) and betting it heavy to profit anything of substance than thinking that an underdog at say +300 (~25%) still loses more often than not, but wins say 40% of the time due to various reasons (hype on the fav, appropriate gameplanning, etc.), thus having a higher degree of +EV and far less BR risked.

Chalky favs are rarely +EV. Come to the dark side: 10% win rate +EV crew.

[Wanna Bet On It?]

That was a clusterpenetrate of a paragraph but the sharps will get what I'm tryina say

[MD]

You're a good dude MD so I just wanna touch on something you've debated/admitted in the past and hope it fine tunes your game for even sharper success. Fights like this one and the Machida one (yes, shitty judging & inactivity mean Machida had no business being >70% to win) IMO suggest that you overestimate your perceived edge or at least your opportunities to seize off that perceived edge. In other words, -400 vs -1100 isn't much in percentage terms (80% vs 91% to win in implied odds); Shogun's swing from +120 to -150 is more significant quantitatively . There's FAAAAAR more downside in thinking a fighter has a 91% chance to win when the books cap it at 80% (and that's already an intentionally overly chalky line by the books due to the expected heavier action on the favourite) and betting it heavy to profit anything of substance than thinking that an underdog at say +300 (~25%) still loses more often than not, but wins say 40% of the time due to various reasons (hype on the fav, appropriate gameplanning, etc.), thus having a higher degree of +EV and far less BR risked.

Chalky favs are rarely +EV. Come to the dark side: 10% win rate +EV crew.

I appreciate the advice, and I probably do overestimate fighters in certain situations. I've been tightening up in regards to it recently, however. When I posted my Twitter plays, I didn't recommend a play on Hall because I had reevaluated the fight a bit and didn't like the bet anymore (EDIT: dunno why I thought I didn't post this on Twitter, I did. Derp.). Regardless, I think that EV is EV. I cashed Siler ITD +510 and some other big underdog props tonight, I don't just play chalk. I just have no problem playing chalk if I see value. I was wrong about Hall, completely, but I don't think I was wrong about Machida.

Your logic is a bit flawed by the way. There's a huge difference between having a 10% edge over -400 and a 10% edge over 20%.

[Wanna Bet On It?]

I appreciate the advice, and I probably do overestimate fighters in certain situations. I've been tightening up in regards to it recently, however. When I posted my Twitter plays, I didn't recommend a play on Hall because I had reevaluated the fight a bit and didn't like the bet anymore. Regardless, I think that EV is EV. I cashed Siler ITD +510 and some other big underdog props tonight, I don't just play chalk. I just have no problem playing chalk if I see value. I was wrong about Hall, completely, but I don't think I was wrong about Machida.

Sorry, I wasn't implying that you always chase chalk. I know you hit deep +money props. My advice is to curtail your overestimates on heavily chalky favs; it's rarely a sharp play in MMA in my experience.

Your logic is a bit flawed by the way. There's a huge difference between having a 10% edge over -400 and a 10% edge over 20%.

Care to explain? I think you're mincing my words. As I understand it, a 10% edge over -400 would be 8% and a 10% edge over 20% would be 2%. I didn't specify 10% edges on each respective bet. I'm clearly stating a +300 dog who should be +150 (25% to 40%; there are a few of 'em every card, win or lose) versus a -400 fav who should be -1100 (almost unheard of in true implied odds for MMA).

I haven't crunched the hypotheticals but as I imagine it, BR growth would be greater with the underdog at 15% edge than heavy fav at 11% edge using (modified) Kelly methods. And there's far less BR risk on taking a flier (where you at Gabe?) on a +300 dog with upside than laying a huge portion of your BR (OK, "moderately massively large" bet) on a chalky fav.

[Vaughany]

Simple answer is always small print every play with "this iz a flier"

[MD]

Sorry, I wasn't implying that you always chase chalk. I know you hit deep +money props. My advice is to curtail your overestimates on heavily chalky favs; it's rarely a sharp play in MMA in my experience.



Care to explain? I think you're mincing my words. As I understand it, a 10% edge over -400 would be 8% and a 10% edge over 20% would be 2%. I didn't specify 10% edges on each respective bet. I'm clearly stating a +300 dog who should be +150 (25% to 40%; there are a few of 'em every card, win or lose) versus a -400 fav who should be -1100 (almost unheard of in true implied odds for MMA).

I haven't crunched the hypotheticals but as I imagine it, BR growth would be greater with the underdog at 15% edge than heavy fav at 11% edge using (modified) Kelly methods. And there's far less BR risk on taking a flier (where you at Gabe?) on a +300 dog with upside than laying a huge portion of your BR (OK, "moderately massively large" bet) on a chalky fav.

I know you weren't implying that. I appreciate the advice.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that the difference between a -300 favourite who should be -900 (75% to 90%) and a +300 underdog who should be +130 (25% to 40%) is huge. The expected growth of that -300 bet is far, far higher than the +300 underdog. In your example, by the way, the -400 favourite has a much higher expected growth.

[Wanna Bet On It?]

I know you weren't implying that. I appreciate the advice.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that the difference between a -300 favourite who should be -900 (75% to 90%) and a +300 underdog who should be +130 (25% to 40%) is huge. The expected growth of that -300 bet is far, far higher than the +300 underdog. In your example, by the way, the -400 favourite has a much higher expected growth.

Really? I'll have to look into this. Maybe it was you that taught me something valuable tonight

[Vaughany]

Wer is nunya at? Wer u aT nunya, wer u at muthafucka

[THE_LOCKSMITH]

yea this one stung, like i said he crushed a 20 team fight open parlay, had 5 to go after tonight

pathetic display against a blown up welterweight

[Noleafclover]

I know you weren't implying that. I appreciate the advice.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that the difference between a -300 favourite who should be -900 (75% to 90%) and a +300 underdog who should be +130 (25% to 40%) is huge. The expected growth of that -300 bet is far, far higher than the +300 underdog. In your example, by the way, the -400 favourite has a much higher expected growth.

Really? I'll have to look into this. Maybe it was you that taught me something valuable tonight

Here's a calculation I would use. At MD's numbers (assuming he means +150, 40%), risking 300 to win 100 and risking 100 to win 300 over 100 bets, both bets will profit 6k. The favorite will win 90 times for 9k total and lose 10 times for 3k total. The dog will win 40 times for 12k total, and lose 60 times for 6k.

Now, I'm not sure how exactly "bankroll growth" is defined. As you can see we've risked much more on the favorite, so you might say the dog had better growth expectency per dollar risked?

Here's a look at some other numbers that somewhat helps to complete a rough valuation of percentages across different ranges.
at 10% (written) and 20% (true):
+900 +400 = 20x900 - 80x100 = 10000 profit on 100 bets
80%/90%
-400 -900 = 90x100 - 10x400 = 5000 profit
50%/60%
+100 -150 = 60x100 - 40x100 = 2000 profit

Basically, percentage points are worth the least around 40-60%, and continue to become worth more at the higher extremes. Kind of like an inverted pyramid. Seems like percentages are actually worth more on dogs at equal amounts (MD's 75 to 90% and 25 to 40% example is kind of misleading, since one is moving away from the low point at 50% and the other towards, that + dogs having more ... growth potential? is why they end up equal), so I suppose the pyramid's somewhat lopsided.

Kinda the way I see it anyway.... would love to hear confirmation/disagreement.

[Ron_Paul_2012]

Should be -1200. GOGOGO.

No words are necessary. You should have tailed me on my 80% of bank roll play on McGregor. Then you would have known what it feels like to receive the prize!