[bjpenn85]

Your interpretation of Enfuego's comments doesn't improve anything much. The part you bolded is the most indicative of your and Enfuego's misunderstanding.

Do you bet every line at +101 if you have a subjective opinion of having 50/50 shot?

[PaperTrail07]

Nobody has a crystal ball....its ok to hop on the other side if you feel the odds are overinflated......Like this fight....Arce should cruise to a win so I THINK he will.....but I might toss a few bucks on Erosa bc I feel he has better than a 5:1 w his back to the wall (2 losses )....

Sat 5/18	24191	J. Erosa		+565	O 2½ +100
0:00AM (PST)	24192	J. Arce		-740	U 2½ -120

..

So, Fighter A is -185 and Fighter B is +135. You cap Fighter A to win the fight. You don’t like laying -185 so you’ll play Fighter B just because you’re getting + odds even though you think Fighter B loses?

That’s my point. If you don’t want to lay the -185 but you think Fighter A wins the fight, why not just leave it alone and not make a play on that particular fight?

My point is I just can’t put money on a Fighter I don’t think will win a fight.

I’m talking about -200 and lower types of lines. Of course playing a +650 is better than laying -800 etc.

Also, I’m not sure how this turned personal? I didn’t insult you two did I?

[PaperTrail07]

Its the internet-its never personal LOL...

So, Fighter A is -185 and Fighter B is +135. You cap Fighter A to win the fight. You don’t like laying -185 so you’ll play Fighter B just because you’re getting + odds even though you think Fighter B loses?

That’s my point. If you don’t want to lay the -185 but you think Fighter A wins the fight, why not just leave it alone and not make a play on that particular fight?

My point is I just can’t put money on a Fighter I don’t think will win a fight.

I’m talking about -200 and lower types of lines. Of course playing a +650 is better than laying -800 etc.

Also, I’m not sure how this turned personal? I didn’t insult you two did I?

[Wohlford]

So, Fighter A is -185 and Fighter B is +135. You cap Fighter A to win the fight. You don’t like laying -185 so you’ll play Fighter B just because you’re getting + odds even though you think Fighter B loses?

That’s my point. If you don’t want to lay the -185 but you think Fighter A wins the fight, why not just leave it alone and not make a play on that particular fight?

[...]

If give Fighter A a 55% chance of winning and Fighter B a 45% chance of winning, I will take Fighter B at +135. I don't just leave it alone as you suggest because, if I'm right, this bet is going to give me an ROI of 5.75%.

On the other hand, you'll leave that money on the table because of your ignorant betting philosophy.

Sometimes i think people misunderstand the math.

MMA-betting is not an exact science like taking a blood test to measure some substance in your blood. Nor like a coin toss where you can toss a coin 10.000 times and slowly see the statistic" work in your favour", if you looses that is. Your money is gone.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make, but if it's anything other than, "Be careful putting too much confidence in the probabilities you assign to things", you're wrong. Bettors on any sport should be careful not too put too much faith in their numbers, even if they have incredibly sophisticated quantitative models.

Do you bet every line at +101 if you have a subjective opinion of having 50/50 shot?

No, that wouldn't be enough edge for me to justify the risk, unless it was some proposition like a Super Bowl coinflip where I know to a certainty that the probability is 50%. But even then, I wouldn't bother. That tiny return isn't worth the volatility to me.

[t dog]

Just a quick question mr. wolford. How much money have you won on mma the past few years? You have all the vocabulary and betting mma theories down to call this guy a “simpleton” but have not listed one winning play. Absolutely nothing matters if you aren’t picking the right winner and have the Discipline to pick your spots. Guys I train with laugh at you degenerate types thinking you will make a living off betting mma.

[PaperTrail07]

You could change that word MMA to NFl, NBA, MLB ect.....and it would still be true.....but the cold truth is bookies have a harder time capping fights than MLB, NFL ect.....it is getting sharper by the day....but the #'s don't always tell the tale in MMA....and the #'s is what keep linesmakers 1 step ahead....

Just a quick question mr. wolford. How much money have you won on mma the past few years? You have all the vocabulary and betting mma theories down to call this guy a “simpleton” but have not listed one winning play. Absolutely nothing matters if you aren’t picking the right winner and have the Discipline to pick your spots. Guys I train with laugh at you degenerate types thinking you will make a living off betting mma.

[Enfuego]

If give Fighter A a 55% chance of winning and Fighter B a 45% chance of winning, I will take Fighter B at +135. I don't just leave it alone as you suggest because, if I'm right, this bet is going to give me an ROI of 5.75%.

On the other hand, you'll leave that money on the table because of your ignorant betting philosophy.





I have no idea what point you're trying to make, but if it's anything other than, "Be careful putting too much confidence in the probabilities you assign to things", you're wrong. Bettors on any sport should be careful not too put too much faith in their numbers, even if they have incredibly sophisticated quantitative models.




No, that wouldn't be enough edge for me to justify the risk, unless it was some proposition like a Super Bowl coinflip where I know to a certainty that the probability is 50%. But even then, I wouldn't bother. That tiny return isn't worth the volatility to me.

So, you think fighter A will win the fight but will place money on fighter B simply given he has a 45% chance of winning? You cap fighter A to win but will place a wager on a fighter you think will lose the fight?

I just don't operate in that fashion.

[bjpenn85]

If give Fighter A a 55% chance of winning and Fighter B a 45% chance of winning, I will take Fighter B at +135. I don't just leave it alone as you suggest because, if I'm right, this bet is going to give me an ROI of 5.75%.

On the other hand, you'll leave that money on the table because of your ignorant betting philosophy.





I have no idea what point you're trying to make, but if it's anything other than, "Be careful putting too much confidence in the probabilities you assign to things", you're wrong. Bettors on any sport should be careful not too put too much faith in their numbers, even if they have incredibly sophisticated quantitative models.




No, that wouldn't be enough edge for me to justify the risk, unless it was some proposition like a Super Bowl coinflip where I know to a certainty that the probability is 50%. But even then, I wouldn't bother. That tiny return isn't worth the volatility to me.

45 %= +122
+135= 42%

3 % edge over the bookies?

Do you mean that taking a fighter a +135 and then having a 3% advantage over the bookies is a significant return?

[bjpenn85]

sorry, you mean he has a 55 % chance of winning, which equals = -120, but you get him at a 45% chance of winning which equals = +122.

Yeah, absolutely, thats a good enough margin.

[Wohlford]

Just a quick question mr. wolford. How much money have you won on mma the past few years? You have all the vocabulary and betting mma theories down to call this guy a “simpleton” but have not listed one winning play. Absolutely nothing matters if you aren’t picking the right winner and have the Discipline to pick your spots. Guys I train with laugh at you degenerate types thinking you will make a living off betting mma.

Absolute pig ignorance. "Just pick winners!" RIP your bankroll.

So, you think fighter A will win the fight but will place money on fighter B simply given he has a 45% chance of winning? You cap fighter A to win but will place a wager on a fighter you think will lose the fight?

I just don't operate in that fashion.

That's because you don't understand probability. Good luck.

45 %= +122
+135= 42%

3 % edge over the bookies?

Do you mean that taking a fighter a +135 and then having a 3% advantage over the bookies is a significant return?

Yeah, that is a pretty decent return. What kind of returns do you actually think are possible in sports betting? If you think dramatically better mispricings than this are common, you're sadly mistaken.

For the record, you're right that the difference between 45% and the implied price of +135 is less than 3 percentage points, but that's not what matters. What matters is that the expected ROI is 5.75%. If you're foolhardy enough to bet Full Kelly on this, you'd put down 4.3% of your bankroll.

Let me say it again: if you scoff at this return as tiny, it's because you have no idea what kind of returns are actually possible to find on a regular basis in a market.

[bjpenn85]

Absolute pig ignorance. "Just pick winners!" RIP your bankroll.

I play 10% advantage, thats approx where im at as a minimum.

3% i will actually scoff by. I operate with a margin of error here. Im no jesus christ, i dont have THAT big of a faith.



That's because you don't understand probability. Good luck.



Yeah, that is a pretty decent return. What kind of returns do you actually think are possible in sports betting? If you think dramatically better mispricings than this are common, you're sadly mistaken.

For the record, you're right that the difference between 45% and the implied price of +135 is less than 3 percentage points, but that's not what matters. What matters is that the expected ROI is 5.75%. If you're foolhardy enough to bet Full Kelly on this, you'd put down 4.3% of your bankroll.

Let me say it again: if you scoff at this return as tiny, it's because you have no idea what kind of returns are actually possible to find on a regular basis in a market.

10% is a good deal, and thats perhaps at an average when i decide to wager in, on average.

As of 2019, i would say the lines has been so insanely good, i would say that i have had the luxury to only play lines at a 10% advantage or higher.

But this may be a year a little bit out of the ordinary, i agree i agree...

[t dog]

Sounds great mr. wolf. My bankroll is doing great because I play when I see great mismatch at the right odds( maybe every few months or so) List your picks so we can see all your mma money that you have won. I want to see your plays.

[Wohlford]

Sounds great mr. wolf. My bankroll is doing great because I play when I see great mismatch at the right odds( maybe every few months or so) List your picks so we can see all your mma money that you have won. I want to see your plays.

No. There are a variety of reasons I don't make a habit of posting my plays. In this case, it's completely irrelevant. I'm not telling anyone what to bet; I'm telling some very misguided people, you chief among them, how to think about betting.

What I'm saying is equally true for all sports. I could be the worst MMA capper of all time, and it would still be true.

[Sanity Check]

Also that fight was pre USADA. If you watch RDA was an absolute monster from 2014-2016 and if he was still at that level now I would not bet against him. His physique and conditioning changed so much his strength and conditioning coach became famous during that run. He then lost two of his first post USADA fights and changed weight classes. I'm not going to get into if he was on PEDs but my point is he is no longer that guy or hasn't looked like it. If he looked as sharp as he did back then Lee would be toast.

I hope this fight highlights RDA being the same guy post USADA he was pre USADA.

Like I said before this fight happened, the journalist who said RDA is a completely different person after USADA cuz he was using "steroids" is not the best source to be quoting.

USADA went into effect july 1st 2015. RDA won his fight with Cowboy Cerrone december 2015. Just by looking at RDA's record you can refute the fake news story of RDA losing every fight after USADA went into effect.

RDA using steroids is CNN/MMA journalist Jeremy Botter's claim and Jeremy Botter has been wrong on many things he's said over the years.

The "evidence" for RDA using steroids is: one of his former teammates spread that rumor. RDA used to train out of King's MMA but left for a different gym, Evolve MMA. There might have been some type of dispute there.

[Thrilla]

Sounds great mr. wolf. My bankroll is doing great because I play when I see great mismatch at the right odds( maybe every few months or so) List your picks so we can see all your mma money that you have won. I want to see your plays.

He's a fukking idiot. Guy picked McGregor just because Nurmagomedov is a muslim.

[Wohlford]

He's a fukking idiot. Guy picked McGregor just because Nurmagomedov is a muslim.

You lying about me or someone else?

[Enfuego]

Curious how the lock worked out?