[fitguy67]

straight-up "singles" program, cd#01 resuilts: 1-6, -1.5217u


hi-variance "doubles" program, cd#01 results: -4.1307u

_________________


card#01 overall: 1-6, -5.6524u

[Lick496]

brutal, nearly every favorite won right?

[fitguy67]

brutal, nearly every favorite won right?

After-card notes
1-6...but could have easily won O'Connell, which would have been enough to get us up much closer to flat...

dogs are a hi-variance game...and dog-parlays even moreso...but it's a grind...that's why bet-sizing relative to total bank is so important...

patience, discipline and staying driven by curiosity (not greed) is the key...and when dogs overperform their 30% win-rate on any given card...there'll be a nice bonus-payout from the program of small-risk/hi-payout "lightning striking twice" parlays to make the
patience & discipline worth it

next card i'm going to wait till the final few hours to do everything...much more effective and efficient to wait till all the dust settles on the card before hitting it

[NunyaBidness]

straight-up "singles" program, cd#01 resuilts: 1-6, -1.5217u


hi-variance "doubles" program, cd#01 results: -4.1307u

_________________


card#01 overall: 1-6, -5.6524u

The good news for you is that although Barbarena didn't win, he didn't lose either.

[fitguy67]

yeah, i picked up on that "Philadelphia Lawyer" angle probably about 36-hours after you first posted your assertion...when i did, i thought..."that pedantic bastard, lol"...and didn't even have to go back and check on your wording (that "will not win" <> "will lose")

precisely because of this sort of thing...leading to the hi-probability that the eventual slate of fights will not match what books are selling even just a few days earlier, i've modified the m.o. to wait till the final 6 hours before first-leather to do anything...will keep me from having a bunch of extra "1-leg parlays" formed when someone you've prematurely "locked in" scratches...

if i did so, i probably would have ended up with even two more losers tonight (moontarsi--who definitely shouldn't have been graded as such...and craig--who, despite being outclassed all fight, could very easily have escaped his fate in dramatic last-minute fashion)...

but it all works out in the wash over a year...just pisses me off that the judging is such a ridiculously high (and increasingly so with each passing card, it seems) source of variance

[Jim_Gunn]

So for this weekend's cards, only one dog hit on the Auckland, New Zealand card, but he came through for me in a big way as Nate won at +185 and I also correctly picked Nate winning in round 1 at +700! I did lose small bets on Sean O'Connell (controversial), Roldan Sangcha-An, Mike Rhodes & Hatsu Hioki. On the San Antonio card I won nice underdog bets on Marcelo Guimaraes, Cody Gibson and Clint Hester (plus Clint Hester by decision at +475) while losing small dog bets on Shane Howell, Colton Smith, James Moontasri (controversial) Nicholas Musoke, and Jeremy Stephens.

What you guys have to remember though- at least with televised fights- is that with live betting one can often remove the risk associated with a lot of underdog bets by betting more on underdogs that look like they are winning or wagering on the favorites as they take over. I was able to double down with live bets on Cllint Hester and Marcelo Guimaraes for example on the San Antonio card to win more money but also to bet Kelvin Gastelum as the obvious winner after the final bell rang in his fight with Nicholas Musoke at steep odds to at least get my money back on my Musoke bets.

So I don't see a lot of downside to making a lot of underdog bets, at least on cards with live betting. I personally made $25 wagers on both Alex Caceres and Alexis Davis at the ridiculous odds of +1000 in their upcoming fights at UFC 175. I don't see a downside as I can probably bet the other side to get my $25 back easily if they get dominated as expected.

[fitguy67]

So I don't see a lot of downside to making a lot of underdog bets, at least on cards with live betting. I personally made $25 wagers on both Alex Caceres and Alexis Davis at the ridiculous odds of +1000 in their upcoming fights at UFC 175. I don't see a downside as I can probably bet the other side to get my $25 back easily if they get dominated as expected.

we're on the same page...

for live betting i find it's extremely helpful to have a "converstation starter" bet in place before the event...with a high potential payout which can be used as green-out "ransom money" (or, if things go south for your dog from the get-go, the recovery of your small stake can at least be used as a reasonable "target" to focus your other in-play punts...in effect turning your dog-play into a free-roll)...either way, a small pre-game splash on a big favorite is an ideal starting point for in-play betting

a "trading approach" like this also works well in tennis and baseball

this sort of thing is usually touted for soccer...but THAT's like sitting thru a merril streep movie waiting for anything substantial to push the price along...so very often you're stuck holding an "option" with value adjusting to nothing more than "time till expiry"...

this is the only way i'll operate in-play...and only for MMA, MLB, and Tennis...dogs are the ideal "starter position"...a better than expected performance by your live dog can of course be used to merely green out...but if you like the fave to come back and win the match, by over-hedging you can get a much better entry-price on it at the same time that you've just locked in some profit on your greened-out dog...on the other hand, if you've become keener on your dog you can always under-hedge to get yourself into a free-roll situation