[fitguy67]

i wrote this earlier...and thought, why not run with the idea myself...

baseball dogs in the range +135-200 historically hit higher than their prices imply...

i'm getting the feeling that the same thing could be true of ufc-dogs in the range from 200-400...and auto-playing them small (i like "to win" a set $-amount) is money over time...

and is a hell of a lot more enjoyable way to watch a card...
surprises are wins, and you only need a small % of 'em to throw a party...
with big faves...surprises are losses...and only ONE can have you contemplating :

the key to my approach is to bet all your dogs "to WIN" (not to risk)...aka. fixed target
will greatly conserve capital over the periods when dogs go very cold...as they will
______________
starting investment = I =10,000

after each card, B will be re-defined as B = I + N, where N = net gain, which starts out obviously at 0, so until any card#01 results register, B = I

will be employing flat-1% (but varying in $-terms)
of latest bank (as of end of previously-completed card) as my
set "twinit" ("to win it") amount, "t" which will vary from card to card, but be constant for each bet at a any given card...it's formula is B/100

the fixed-$ "unit" or "u" on the other hand will be defined by the unchanging amount $100= I/100

so, right now, after card#00, we sit with

I=10,000 --> u = 100, B=I +N = 10,000---> t= 100

and of course W-L, N-----> 0-0, 0

___________________

first card ready, a lot of the basic set-up parameters i mentioned above become clearer by looking at it...

especially note how each play is to win exactly one fixed "twinit" amount, "t" which appears in the bottom-right cell...set at 1% of the latest (in this case=starting) bank, B...it necessarily starts out this very first card being the same amount as the fixed-$ unit, u (but henceforth it will vary...and its size will always indicate precisely the health of the Bank, B...versus the initial investment, I)

all numbers represent "generic $" (which would equal "actual $" if the investment I =$10,000)...generic-$ here do the same job as "units" but have the considerable advantage of having a more "intuitive" feel (precisely why people seldom tell you the "proportion" of something as 0.625....62.5% seems to hit the "meaning" nail on the head so much better)

any figure can, of course be instantly "converted" into standard-concept units by moving the decimal point 2 places to the left

card#01	sat	28-Jun	initial values at top/card#01 chnges & new totals at bottom
10,000.00		0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
100.00	+prices	Ventured	Targeted	status	#days	Add'ns	Subtrac'ns	N=A-S
rhodes	257.00	38.91	100.00	U
barbrena	217.00	46.08	100.00	U
stephens	210.00	47.62	100.00	U
musoke	318.00	31.45	100.00	U
∆	243.81	164.06	400.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Σ	243.81	164.06	400.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
171	prev	21-Jun	0	lnq=	10,000.00	10,000.00	B=	10,000.00
178	this	28-Jun	7	171	100.00	100.00	t =	100.00

[fitguy67]

before new cards, i'm more likely to post up a quick "shopping list" of the plays...like this

skdld	178			launch
st. time	28-Jun		+price	jun21=#171
(edt)	selection	opponent	actual	day#	bk.date	book	status
500	rhodes		257	172	22-Jun	pin	U
2200	barbrena		217	172	22-Jun	pin	U
2359	stephens		210	172	22-Jun	pin	U
2359	musoke		318	172	22-Jun	pin	U

your mileage, of course, may vary...dimey prices are a tad worse than this

[fitguy67]

rhodes	257.00	38.91	100.00
barbrena	217.00	46.08	100.00
stephens	210.00	47.62	100.00
musoke	318.00	31.45	100.00
∆	243.81	164.06	400.00

Now for the fun part of the project...where you'll see why i kept the bet-size SO small...it's to make room for the really hi-pop part...a chance to hit the the odd "lottery" on the nights rich with the sounds of breaking parlays...works like this...

if i were doing things the "standard american way" (aka. SAW), i'd have risked $400...but because i do things Frank Sinatra's Way (FSW, aka. "My Way") instead, there's $235.94 (=400 - 164.06) in "savings".

So take whichever part of this SAW-FSW "savings" you feel comfortable with and use it to finance a full round-robin of 2-leg parlays...

in this case, with 4 selections, there'll be 6 2-leg parlays (aka. "doubles")...with an average across-the-fleet payout of over +1000 on each of the parlays...meaning if just one hits it'll more than cover the round-robin project's total stake...anything more than that, it'll create varying levels of wonderfulness...

and if (the most likely result of all) happens...either 0 or just-1 of the night's dogs hit...the parlay-portion of the nights' stake disappears...if you got shutout, you're no worse than if you were a knee-jerk SAW "to risk" bettor...only way you come out worse than the SAW dog-hunter is if one hits...you'll get the considerably smaller payout on the single bet...

me, I'm happy to eat a few-additional $ on an otherwise not-bad night (1 of four at +250-ish odds ain't dreadful)...and i like the idea of REALLY being able to if 3 or more of my dogs come in

___________________

this is the optional part of fitguy's program...and it ain't for the feint of heart

anyhow, it's up to you, if you want to put some of the $ you'd have normally bet on these dog plays into a seriously-leveraged/reduced-frequency-of-payout version of the same thing with zilcho return unless at least two come in...it's an option...

with MLB....typical dog price is +150, so typical "saving" is much less...it's easy to plunk it into a parlay-program...

here, with +250 pricing the saving is so large, you might want to earmark just half of it...in this example, $118...and divide it into a half-dozen 2-leg plays of about $20 each in round-robin format...meaning a profit of about $100 if only 2 fighters/1 parlay win(s) (200 - 5*20)...but chances at $540 if 3 fighters/3 parlays hit (3*200 -3*20)) or, get this, +$1200 if all 4 of our big dogs hit (6*$200)

________________

i think i'll run this (for the purposes of thread record) in the "half of savings go into a round-robin side-bet" mode as just outlined above......that combined with the fact that in the straight-up or "singles" mode bet-sizes are very restrained (we're always risking well-less than 0.50% on any single play) means things'll stay sane...until one good "Three (or hopefully More) Dog Night" makes things right.

given the micro-betsizes of the basic "singles" part...he method can afford the calculatedly-wild extravagance of the sort i've outlined above...

________________

anyhow, i'll be shopping for each of these 6 "double" plays one at a time over the days leading up to the event and report them as part of this ongoing experiment...

why go thru the trouble of shopping for them one at a time, when you can simply select "round robin" at any one book... because just a few points saved/lost on each leg of a combo are multiplied (literally) into much more important benefits/penalties...

eg. 255*255 --> +1160 ($232 paid on a $20 bet)

vs. 250*250 --> +1125 (225 paid on a $20 bet)...

may not seem so alarming in $ terms on a small $20 bet...but $7 more on a $20 bet is more than 33% higher payout on the stake...and over the haul will make a difference, especially if 3, 6 or even 10 of the parlays all pop at the same time which they will--more than once, over the course of a year

[fitguy67]

underlying idea to this project

On each and every card...buying the sides that "MOST bettors" avoid the MOST is a winning strategy ...because we all know how "MOST bettors" do over the haul.

The trick is to stay in the game =not get killed by the $-erosion caused by a succession of losing cards, so that when the winning cards come, we're in a position to claim the rewards of our foresight and patience.
______________

[Keyboard Warrior]

[fitguy67]

nice image-response there KBW...you've sussed out the essence of my approach...theoretical...no matter how much tape you watch, how much you know whatever game it is you're betting on...you know not the distribution of W's and L's...hence for me...

successful sports betting is FAR more an exercise in applied statistics/probability (two sides of the same coin, in fact: the first one is the backward-looking version and the second one is the forward-looking version) than it is an exercise in applied sports-knowledge

[Keyboard Warrior]

why dont you just back test this data set and give us the results?

[fitguy67]

if you know how to do that...t'would be appreciated greatly...but i have no idea how to get/handle the masses of data required...

i'd rather just put my capital "in harms way"...in the service of curiosity-satisfaction...

would make a dandy project, tho'...especially with the wrinkle of $(Targeted-Risked)/2 auto-invested into a round-robin of the card's dogs

the occasional "3 or more" dog nights propping up the $-equity, until the VERY-occasional sweep or even near sweep (5 of 6 would be similar to 4-0, i'd guess) kicks in, as it will a few times a year

[Keyboard Warrior]

i have a database 2009-2013, should i post a mega link? What if the poorzies dl it too?

[PaperTrail07]

haha interested to see how this turns out

[Das Jax]

if you know how to do that...t'would be appreciated greatly...but i have no idea how to get/handle the masses of data required...

i'd rather just put my capital "in harms way"...in the service of curiosity-satisfaction...

would make a dandy project, tho'...especially with the wrinkle of $(Targeted-Risked)/2 auto-invested into a round-robin of the card's dogs

the occasional "3 or more" dog nights propping up the $-equity, until the VERY-occasional sweep or even near sweep (5 of 6 would be similar to 4-0, i'd guess) kicks in, as it will a few times a year

I like what you're trying to do... but your approach is sloppy and needlessly risky. There's no "masses of data" involved. Depending on how much you want to feed into your model, all you have to do is go look at the archived odds listed at bestfightodds.com. Look up the fights going back as far as you want, pick the dogs your system predicts, and then go to Sherdog or wherever and compare/contrast your picks with the actual results. Why risk money when the prudent approach is so easy?

I can tell you from personal experience, when I went and did something similar I found that the favorite in UFC fights wins about 70% of the time. If you can get dog-odds that are at least three to one, there's a chance that it could be successful strategy (albeit with small margins)... particularly if you throw out the -1000 type outliers that obviously throw off the results.

Regardless, be sure to let us know what you come up with. I'm curious to know the results.

[Das Jax]

i have a database 2009-2013, should i post a mega link? What if the poorzies dl it too?

Yes, yes you should.

[Wilbo86]

I like the ambition, but I don't think the data exists in the required detail or quantity. You can't bet macro trends when fighters fight 2 to 3 times a year and maybe 20 times in their entire career against similarly varied opponents with different contexts and strategies in each fight.

Still, good luck with it, interested in how goes. Reckon you should back test like these guys are saying, don't know how you chose which odds to take, maybe the closing odds?

[fitguy67]

haha interested to see how this turns out

the parlay part of it is actually inspired by your amazing "all-dogs rolled into one" micro-probability/mega-payout many-legged single parlays (the ones you put together over a good smoke)...one hit, i know...and several came within one leg (funny how it's usually the last leg that eff's those up, eh?)

anyhow...this is a "horseshoes" set of parlays (...i've made it so close really will count quite substantially)...5 of 6 would be about as good as going 4-0, i reckon...

main thing is i'll really need at least 1 parlay to hit...so at least two guys gotta win for me, or i lose my whole stake...which'll be much higher than the $10 bucks you need on yours to make it rain $

[Das Jax]

You can't bet macro trends when fighters fight 2 to 3 times a year and maybe 20 times in their entire career against similarly varied opponents with different contexts and strategies in each fight.

I don't see why not. Regardless of the seeming complexity of the micro aspects of each fight, if there's a trend... then there's a trend. Also, yes, just take the closing odds. For simplicity if nothing else.

[Das Jax]

Why in the world would you bet your entire stake on a risky, unproven model you haven't even bothered to back test...

[Wilbo86]

I don't see why not. Regardless of the seeming complexity of the micro aspects of each fight, if there's a trend... then there's a trend. Also, yes, just take the closing odds. For simplicity if nothing else.

Just my opinion but I don't think its possible, even less likely when you consider you need enough of an edge to beat the vig.

[fitguy67]

I like the ambition, but I don't think the data exists in the required detail or quantity. You can't bet macro trends when fighters fight 2 to 3 times a year and maybe 20 times in their entire career against similarly varied opponents with different contexts and strategies in each fight.

Still, good luck with it, interested in how goes. Reckon you should back test like these guys are saying, don't know how you chose which odds to take, maybe the closing odds?

to be honest...i'm happy to be buffeted along, one card to the next...

the way i bet...the non-greedy "try to sneak a unit out on the cheap" when one of my dogs hit...rather than the usual "risk one whole unit to return a big amount i can bragg about" keeps me in the game...i can go 0-5 and drop less than 2 units...

combine that with regularly $-adjusting my "to win" amount...means my betsize magnifies the $-benefit of heaters and dampens the $-pain of coolers...

that's the backbone from which i operate...i just started dabbling in "round robins" recently...vs. a card of straight-ups they're hi-variance...cuz no pay for 1 winner...but once you meet or exceed 3 winnaz things escalate exponentially on the wonderfulness-scale...and i can habitually put myself in a position to hit the jackpot if dogs do really well (and my card sweeps or nearly so) ...with just a fraction of what I saved by being a "fixed target" bettor...

also, the $-erosion on the downside of several consecutive less-than 2-winner cards is quite bearable, relative to the reward of "being there" when lotsa parlays are breakin' (each parlay in a RR will risk about 1/5 of a "twinit" but payout more than 2t as they typically pay at least 11-1..and if 3 guyz hit, 3parlays pay...if 4fighters hit, 6 parlays click...so a good dog-night can easily offset/overwhelm several consecutive bad ones..)

so i thot' i'd start a thread to serve as a blog for what i learn along the way...cuz the questions "in real time" are real questions about what you will do when such and such happens...with "back testing" everything gets hypothetical "what you THINK you WOULD have done"...and you're never REALLY sure even what you REALLY WOULD HAVE known back then at UFC46 to even make the sort of betting decision that in retrospect would have made a big difference...

muddling thru the next 6 cards real time is more revealing than what you think you would have done over the last 60 cards

[NunyaBidness]

if you know how to do that...t'would be appreciated greatly...but i have no idea how to get/handle the masses of data required...

You could put this together with brute force in an hour.

That's the advantage we have as sports bettors, we can test things without having to risk money on them.

[Dwil125]

ellenberger isnt fighting that guy anymore

[Jim_Gunn]

Interesting discussion here. FYI- by coincidence I already did something very similar to this recently by back testing betting 1.00 units on all underdogs at or over +100 in every fight in every one of the last fifty (50) UFC cards starting backwards from UFC 173 using 5Dimes closing lines as recorded from BestFightOdds.com. I already did the tedious job of going over the information and have all the data already collected in detail and summarized and would be happy to share in full.

Some interesting highlights going backwards in time:

If one had bet the most recent 10 UFC cards (TUF China Finale through UFC 173, the last card I included) where 41 underdogs won out of 117 fights one would be 32.60 units in profit.

If one had bet the 20th most recent UFC card through the 11th most recent (TUF 18 Finale through UFC 170) where 35 underdogs won out of 111 total fights one would have lost 16.88 units. Cumulative for 20th-1st most recent UFC cards would be 15.72 units profit.

If one had bet the 30th most recent UFC card through the 21st most recent (UFN 27 through UFC 167) where underdogs won 38 out of 119 total fights one would have lost 10.65 units. Cumulative for 30th-1st most recent UFC cards would be 5.07 units profit.

If one had bet the 40th most recent UFC card through the 31st most recent (UFC on Fox 11 through UFN 26) where 30 underdogs won out of 119 total fights one would have lost 27.12 units. Cumulative for 40th-1st most recent UFC cards would be a 22.05 units loss.

If one had bet the 50th most recent UFC card through the 41st most recent (UFC 155 through TUF 17 Finale) where 39 underdogs won out of 117 total fights one would have 0.36 units profit. Cumulative for 50th-1st most recent UFC cards would be a 21.69 units loss.


Note- Fights that ended in No Contests were not counted and fights where both fighters closed at negative lines on 5Dimes like both at -105 or one at -110 and one at -101 or the like would have no bet made.

Also Note- This is just going back in time strictly using the closing lines on 5Dimes, not optimizing trying to bet the best underdog lines at + odds possible either at the openers or peak value or using better lines at different sportsbooks. So it may be possible to do much better or worse theoretically.

[Vaughany]

[fitguy67]

...I already did something very similar to this recently by back testing betting 1.00 units on all underdogs at or over +100 in every fight in every one of the last fifty (50) UFC cards starting backwards from UFC 173 using 5Dimes closing lines as recorded from BestFightOdds.com. I already did the tedious job of going over the information and have all the data already collected in detail and summarized and would be happy to share in full.

Excellent, Jim.

1. over the 50 cards ending UFC#173...ml-bets on ALL dogs (anything closing at/north of +100 at 5d) did thusly

183-400, aka. 31.38%, implying an "across the entire fleet" average price of +219 would be required to "break even"

note: my decision to put a +200 floor on my otherwise-indiscriminate dog purchases, pretty-well guarantees that no card will sport average odds less than that

_____________

i've done a similar thing over in the MLB forum, where it's long been known that ALL dogs win almost exactly 40% of the time over the very long haul...converting that to the "price required to break even" gives +150...and i've set a lower threshhold of +135 to get onto a card...making it theoretically possible, but practically a very rare occurrence to fall short of +150 (haven't seen it yet in 14 cards...and, even if it does happen from time to time...it never puts the the long-term average in any danger of falling below that benchmark)

__________________


2. the volatility seems horrendous: dropping 44 units over the first 20 cards...before a huge come-back of 52 units to leave anyone who hadn't actually died of a heart-attack up 8 whole-units to put toward medical expenses

note: the difference in volatility between betting 1u on dogs the "normal" way (ie. to risk 1u)...and the "fixed target" way (ie. risking fractional, sometimes miniscule units to win just 1 measly unit) is huge...

fixed-target vs american-hybrid betting on dogs
on the upside: much smaller $-upmoves result from a winning card
on the downside: much small $-downmoves result from a losing card

much-smaller upmoves + much-smaller downmoves = much lower volatility

how much smaller: the answer my friend is in the price...take the target "fleet average" price I'm aiming at and will easily hit almost every single card...+219...this means my $ swings will be this factor smaller on both the
upside (i'm winning just $100 when the hybro-bot wins $219...)
downside (i'm losing just $45.67 when the hybro-bot loses a full $100)

so, my kiddie-volatility version of your -44/+52 roller-coaster ride would be considerably moderated to just -20 / +23.74...so i'd end up with just 46% (=1/2.19) of the profit...but with only 46% of the peak-to-trough volatility (my 43.74unit swing...vs. the 96unit swing) you're talking about

________________________

So...i'm intrigued by this...could you look back again in three stages with the following modifications

1. replace your "to risk 1unit" protocol with the fixed-target "to win 1unit" protocol that I advocate

i expect at-most half of the the peak-to-trough volatility and similarly at-most half the ultimate 8u profitability

2. then, cut out all dogs included in the study that closed at 5d below +200

wouldn't take nostradamus to see that the number of plays would drop drastically from damn-near 11 to something like 4 per card...further keeping the "massive variance" bugaboo at bay

3. finally, keeping the previous 2 tweaks in place, also disqualify anything 5d-closing over +400

note: these sorts of "upper bounds" on the wonderfulness of the payout are necessary with knee-jerk "to risk" betting protocols...but i actually wonder if removing the small handful of these (eg. bye bye sweet "dillashaw over barao") would do me any good at all...

in baseball, the standard formulation of the "BigDogs" has always been [+135,+200], because the underlying assumption has always been the dog-half of the American-hybrid (dogs to risk/faves to win) protocol

with my "fixed target" approach, i now doubt the long-term wisdom of limiting the fun and potential fabulousness of the few astronomical-price situations (for normal bettors they're 1unit donations...for me they're "pennies on the dollar" lottery tickets...on terms FAR better than any lottery)
________________




finally, if "gabe" is out there reading, and has anything of substance to add...please PM me but DON'T post here...cuz "Rocky"'s web-alarm will go off and this will turn into a "how many different ways can you spell faaaagggoootttt" thread

[NunyaBidness]

183-400, aka. 31.38%, implying an "across the entire fleet" average price of +219 would be required to "break even"

That implies that dogs at all prices would cover equally, which obviously they don't.

[PaperTrail07]

this should say MMA not UFC....dogs have been cashing in Bellator....cant forget that

[fitguy67]

That implies that dogs at all prices would cover equally, which obviously they don't.

agreed...

my post was merely "back of the envelope" scribbling to establish ballpark "orders of magnitude"...

to which i concluded "intriguing"...and asked Jim, who has all the data handy...to actually run all the numbers thru to see how closely they actually come out to my musings

[NunyaBidness]

I've done this in the past, FWIW, and there were some subsets that worked (not nearly as broad as what you're doing), but not worth it IMO as capping these is pretty easy.

Think about some filters.

[fitguy67]

this should say MMA not UFC....dogs have been cashing in Bellator....cant forget that

you're 100% correct...but this is what I call a "bullwinkle looking for a cufflink" situation...

says Rocky, to Bullwinkle who is fumbling around on all fours under a street-lamp..."did you lose it over here?"...

"no", says Bullwinkle...lost it over there"

"then why you looking here???" says Rocky...

drumroll for the punchline: "cuz here...the light's better!!!"

________________

gotta couch everything in UFC terms for now cuz them's the figures JimGunn has handy for the last 50 cards

note: on my earlier post, i originally included "sweet Brooks over Chandler" along with the "Dillashaw over Barao" reference...then had to remove it...to keep things focused...

___________

as a practical matter...i'm going to keep betting dogs the way i've outlined above (along with "half of the considerable savings from "fixed target" vs. "fixed risk" betting...invested into a full round-robin of the card" proviso)...and do so for both UFC and Bellator

two of the biggest MMA-dogs i ever hit ("Brooks over Chandler" and "Newton over Mo#1") were Bellator...so i hear ya'...

[Jim_Gunn]

You guys are correct that there are many ways to run the numbers to try different betting strategies. I only included the last 50 UFC cards in my study, but I do bet every Bellator and many other promotions as well. I made some nice money on Tito Ortiz at +440 and a nice little payout on Will Brooks at +900 in his last fight. But I only included the UFC cards for this study because it's the biggest promotion.

I think it would be very interesting to re-run the study only betting on dogs at +200 or better since those have bigger upsides and less overall losses I would think.

I'm a little less motivated to re-run the numbers using 1 unit to win rather than 1u risk even with the lesser volatility since that severly limits the upside. Same idea for eliminating the over +400 underdogs. You'd be missing all those juicy payouts on big upsets.

I'll try to run this data betting all +200 and up dogs and see how that works first.

[fitguy67]

I'll try to run this data betting all +200 and up dogs and see how that works first.

excellent

[fitguy67]

card#01	sat	28-Jun	initial values at top/card#01 chnges & new totals at bottom
10,000.00		0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
100.00	+prices	Ventured	Targeted	status	#days	Add'ns	Subtrac'ns	N=A-S
rhodes	257.00	38.91	100.00	U
barbrena	217.00	46.08	100.00	U
stephens	210.00	47.62	100.00	U
musoke	318.00	31.45	100.00	U
∆	243.81	164.06	400.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Σ	243.81	164.06	400.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
171	prev	21-Jun	0	lnq=	10,000.00	10,000.00	B=	10,000.00
178	this	28-Jun	7	171	100.00	100.00	t =	100.00

Note to anyone following along with the home version of "Someone can't REALLY do THAT...can they???!!!"

an update...
notice how we've only risked 164.06 generic-$ in pursuit of 400...

meaning there's 235.94 less at risk than if you were a knee-jerk American-hybrid style bettor...that's one of the key points for me...containing the downside $-erosion over several consecutive cards when the chalky-picks reign supreme (and RonPaul is wearing his swaggeriest of "told you guyz this was easy" swaggers)


on the other hand...I still want to get rewarded nicely when the longer-shots come thru in force...(and Ron/other "serial chalk-eaters" are deep into their teeth-gnashing lamentations)...you know..."Night of the Living Busted Multi-Overlapped Parlays"...those rare,yet inevitable nights where the tragedy of the conformist-majority becomes the good fortune of the well-positioned-few

...so i split the difference...literally...put half to work in a hi-pop full round-robin of the card in 2-leg parlays...safe in the knowledge that even in the (quite likely, really) case of being shut out...i still lose considerably less unit-wise than my identically-minded twin who follows "white-bread" bet-sizing

___________

a 4-selection card like this (A,B,C, and D) begets a 6-combo parlay ticket...that i'll risk $118.02 = half of the $235.98 "saved" by "fixed target" betting (rounded up to the nearest cent that'll take division by 6 evenly , the number of combos evenly) on...meaning $19.67 for each of the 6 plays

A*B
A*C
A*D
B*C
B*D
C*D

[fitguy67]

continuing on

			pin	pin	fdm
			su	pa	pa=su
A	500	rhodes	257	253	250
B	1000	barbrna	217	213	210
C	2400	musoke	313	313	310
D	2430	stphns	210	206	210

is the current state of prices to consider for purchasing these 6 parlays...

lazy-types might be tempted to put all 6 of 'em on at once using the "round robin" subfeature...but if a few ticks make a difference on SU plays...they REALLY make a difference on the multiplied-price nature of parlays...

so, notice in the table how pinny's crappier-than-SU prices still beat 5d's prices in 3 of the 4 selections...

so i went ahead and locked in half of the plays as indicated at pinny...don't want to take 5d's better price on Stephens and combine it with crappier prices on each of the other three...nor do i want to take each of pinny's three other better prices and combine it with their relatively-crappy price on Stephens

that's one of the many beauties of MMA betting...plenty of time to shop...our day has 168 hours

________________

so i locked in the first 3 two-fighter combos of my 6 combo card...a la

		p1	p2	p1*p2	V	T
rho*bar	AB	253	213	1004.89	19.67	197.66
rho*mus	AC	253	313	1357.89	19.67	267.10
rho*stf	AD
bar*mus	BC	213	313	1192.69	19.67	234.60
bar*stf	BD
mus*stf	CD
					59.01	699.36

notice the sweet payout if we just happen to go 3-1 on our card with rhodes, barbarena, and musoke all hitting...

"not bloody likely!" as the buttertooths like to say...but we all know far fukkin' stranger things have happened...and when they do, i'll be holding a ticket to profit from it...

stay tuned for the three remaining 2-fighter combo's involving Stephens which i'm free to lock in anywhere/anytime until 5:00 EDT on fight day

[NunyaBidness]

I guarantee that Barbarena doesn't win. Not at any price.

[fitguy67]

dogs winning are like jesus coming...we know not the hour nor the day at which it comes...

and following FrankSinatra'sWay...the less likely a dog is...the less it costs me to hold his ticket...so all works out in the wash...

all sorts of bizarre ways (especially injuries) for the highly-improbable to occur...

here i'm forcing (by systematizing it=making it involuntary) the purchase of these tickets that nobody wants (that i'd never even consider, TBPH if i didn't make it automatic like this)...because our risk-averting brain always confuses "very very low" with "zero"...

nobody wants to make a donation to the bookie on a play "likely" to pay out a ridiculously low percentage of the time...when in fact it'll pay out considerably less-ridiculously-infrequently (and with a concommitantly even-more-ridulously-massive payout) than their "are you fukkin' kiddin' me" mechanism auto-dismisses


configuring things automatically AND comprehensively as i've outlined...with no attempt to "filter" anything out...keeps me automatically always holding tickets on the cheapest fliers on the most ridiculously-improbable (with the biggest payouts of course...especially when i've auto-parlayed them with similar lightning bolts...with money left over from following FrankSinatra's rather than everyone else's bet-sizing)...

_______________

I'll follow my "auto-buy what MOST betters avoid MOST" plan...with the fun little "Magnify the Miracles" Round-Robin side-bet program financed with the savings from my Fixed-Target Bet-Sizing...

______________



if anyone wants to tag along with or fade any part of it...enjoy...

this is a curiosity-driven project...so let's just see how it goes...

[fitguy67]