Vaughany's MMA Picks...

**NunyaBidness** · 06-07-12, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by DublinMeUp

Out on a limb, please be nice Nunya =),

Except you're forgetting that nash's equilibrium assumes that all parties play or bet perfectly, meaning to deviate from it would cause you or others to lose EV.
Seeing as typically none of the above mentioned parties will be "playing" perfectly, nash is a sub optimal formula to use in this argument.

Equilibria doesn't mean that each party is making the best decision for themselves, but that they are making the best decision relatively to all other parties actions. In this case, it is in the best interest of the large bettors for everyone to wait until limits increase. It makes no difference to small bettors either way.

This would hold true if we could definite it as a 2x2 matrix. If we could think of Small Bettors as one collective group and Large Bettors as another.

In reality, lines move closer to parity with every dollar bet. If all players collude to wait for the limits to increase, then the one player who does NOT wait gains the most. Each additional player who does NOT wait gains less than the first, but more than the players who are waiting, and quickly we discover that the only equilibria is no players waiting.

The best town is the one in which no one is a thief. The best place to be a thief is a town without one.

**DublinMeUp** · 06-07-12, 06:48 PM

I don't have your way with words unfortunately but I'll try,

Nash based his theorem on zero sum games, ie solved games. In it he says that in such a game where each party makes the correct play/action in each given situation it is -EV to deviate from the correct play yourself. However if you or any other participant does deviate, the game is no longer in equilibrium and therefore it is -EV for you and/or others to continue to play as you had. Nash is not about optimal vs sub optimal at all as it only holds true in one situation.

Therefore, you are using nash incorrectly to rationalise your big bettor / small bettor scenario, Since there is never a point where a market is solved it cannot be proven one way or the other that it is in the best interest of either party to take a certain action.

"The best town is the one in which no one is a thief" true and this is nash
"The best place to be a thief is a town without one" also true in literal terms but in equilibrium terms its a contradiction onto itself in that the town stops becoming the best town as soon as you become a thief ie it is no longer in equilibrium.

**JAKEPEAVY21** · 06-07-12, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by Vaughany

Did you buy ttwarrior's shit towel on ebay, Vaughany?

**Chipp** · 06-07-12, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by DublinMeUp

Nash based his theorem on zero sum games,

Quite the contrary - he was the one to expand the scope of game theory beyond zero-sum games!

**NunyaBidness** · 06-07-12, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by DublinMeUp

I don't have your way with words unfortunately but I'll try,

Nash based his theorem on zero sum games, ie solved games. In it he says that in such a game where each party makes the correct play/action in each given situation it is -EV to deviate from the correct play yourself. However if you or any other participant does deviate, the game is no longer in equilibrium and therefore it is -EV for you and/or others to continue to play as you had. Nash is not about optimal vs sub optimal at all as it only holds true in one situation.

Therefore, you are using nash incorrectly to rationalise your big bettor / small bettor scenario, Since there is never a point where a market is solved it cannot be proven one way or the other that it is in the best interest of either party to take a certain action.

"The best town is the one in which no one is a thief" true and this is nash
"The best place to be a thief is a town without one" also true in literal terms but in equilibrium terms its a contradiction onto itself in that the town stops becoming the best town as soon as you become a thief ie it is no longer in equilibrium.

Are you stating that there can be no Nash equilibria in nonzero-sum games? Here is a typical non-zero sum game:

This is easily solvable by assigning probability to Henry's actions if you're Dave. We can move the equilibrium points from square to square by changing the payoffs and probabilities, however, but its solvable at every juncture.

Von Neumann showed that any non-zero sum game becomes a zero sum game when we add in another player (the player whom the losses (or gains) are attributed to), in our model we can include all other bettors or the juice lost to the book itself.

Either way, arguing game theory 101 isn't the point I'm trying to make (and I can't argue any deeper because I never took 102). My original point holds true, wishing and hoping that other players won't hit openers so we can get the good lines doesn't do us any good as the good lines are always going to be hit.

**DublinMeUp** · 06-07-12, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by NunyaBidness

Are you stating that there can be no Nash equilibria in nonzero-sum games?

Yes

Originally posted by NunyaBidness

We can move the equilibrium points from square to square by changing the payoffs and probabilities, however, but its solvable at every juncture.

I don't think i quite get the game lol, but if your summation is true then it is a solved game, zero sum. All potential actions are known along with all potential repercussions and/or reactions. There are no unknowns. So nash would/could apply.

Originally posted by NunyaBidness

Von Neumann showed that any non-zero sum game becomes a zero sum game when we add in another player (the player whom the losses (or gains) are attributed to), in our model we can include all other bettors or the juice lost to the book itself.

i'm gonna leave this one, while I don't necessarily agree i don't know enough about Von Neuman to argue either way. Wasn't he the guy to develop the first or one of the first computer architectures? lol

Originally posted by NunyaBidness

Either way, arguing game theory 101 isn't the point I'm trying to make (and I can't argue any deeper because I never took 102).

Haha same here mate, I'm only giving my point of view.. there is every chance one or both of us have it wrong.

Originally posted by NunyaBidness

My original point holds true, wishing and hoping that other players won't hit openers so we can get the good lines doesn't do us any good as the good lines are always going to be hit.

If you actually think about this it is a one sided blanket statement that doesn't have any mathematical basis. Who defines what a good line is? We can approximate yes but we cannot say for sure. You are also leaving out the other side of things, many fighters or any other sports prop also drift out in price whether they start favourite or not, the price is changed by the amount of money staked but does that in a vacuum affect the chances of it winning/losing? (by in a vacuum i mean assume all things are equal and that one fighter hasn't had his leg amputated etc)

Its a good example of selective memory, which I think i saw you discuss in regard to poker. People get annoyed when a line is cut but they are happy when odds improve.. which feeling do you think the human brain holds on to in most cases?

Ok lastly, although i enjoyed having a proper discussion rather than the usual flinging of racial or homophobic slurs at each other as seems the norm on here.

Do you agree with this statement;

You can prove nash by using perfect game strategy in a solved game, but you can't prove perfect game strategy by using nash in an unsolved game.

If nash was such an all knowing and self adjusting optimal strategy forecaster there would be no such thing as sports betting or even stock markets, these only exist because they are imperfect. In other words if they like say a game of dice where solved and we could use nash on them they would cease to exist as financial entities.

Anyway I hope you haven't taken this as me calling you out or picking a fight, Because it not that at all. Its more of a two sides of a coin type thing,

**Educ8d Degener8** · 06-07-12, 09:48 PM

Holy f*ck you dorks are gonna scare away all the posters from Vaughn's thread with this math/logic circle jerk... ;p

Vaughn -- any of your crazy books got props for Pierce v Rocha?

**gabe** · 06-07-12, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by Educ8d Degener8

Holy f*ck you dorks are gonna scare away all the posters from Vaughn's thread with this math/logic circle jerk... ;p

Vaughn -- any of your crazy books got props for Pierce v Rocha?

yeah, take that shit over to my thread.

**NunyaBidness** · 06-07-12, 09:58 PM

I appreciate the conversation as well, and am happy to admit when I'm wrong. Although I don't think I am here. It's been many years since Game Theory class, but I do play around with it from time to one (0,1 games in heads up poker simulations and what not).

There are definitely nash equilibria in non-zero sum games.

Originally posted by DublinMeUp

i'm gonna leave this one, while I don't necessarily agree i don't know enough about Von Neuman to argue either way. Wasn't he the guy to develop the first or one of the first computer architectures? lol

I believe that is true, but he did lots of other stuff as well. I think he is best known for 'Theory of Games and Economic Behavior'. If you think about the statement, that all non-zero sum games can be converted to zero sum games with the addition of a third player, it seems to obviously make sense, although in cases we might have to come up with a strange idea who this player is. Von Neumann was the one who proved it was true, however.

Originally posted by DublinMeUp

Do you agree with this statement;

You can prove nash by using perfect game strategy in a solved game, but you can't prove perfect game strategy by using nash in an unsolved game.

If nash was such an all knowing and self adjusting optimal strategy forecaster there would be no such thing as sports betting or even stock markets, these only exist because they are imperfect. In other words if they like say a game of dice where solved and we could use nash on them they would cease to exist as financial entities.

I'm not sure what I think of that statement, I'm pretty tired from playing way too much DayZ today, might have to give it another look tomorrow.

Regarding the rest however, I don't know that anyone thinks of Game Theory as being an actual predictor for anything. I think its usefulness comes in modeling problems only. Most matrices are incredibly simplifed. It would be impossible to make actual predictions with it, a la Asimov's Foundation, there are too many actors, too many variables.

The basic problems of game theory have few practical uses, but they make good thought experiments for working through related situations. Infrastructure usage is about the only real practical usage I can think of off the top of my head.

Originally posted by DublinMeUp

If you actually think about this it is a one sided blanket statement that doesn't have any mathematical basis. Who defines what a good line is? We can approximate yes but we cannot say for sure. You are also leaving out the other side of things, many fighters or any other sports prop also drift out in price whether they start favourite or not, the price is changed by the amount of money staked but does that in a vacuum affect the chances of it winning/losing? (by in a vacuum i mean assume all things are equal and that one fighter hasn't had his leg amputated etc)

I do think there is a mathematical basis there, if you believe in efficient markets. I'm not certain if MMA markets are efficient yet, but if not, they will be within a few years. As far as conditional probability like you mention in your last statement, no the line moving doesn't affect the chances of it winning or losing, but the chances of something winning or losing change the line.

5Dimes clearly believes that MMA markets are efficient, watching their lines bounce and sharpen is fascinating to me. I haven't personally parsed the data, but I am certain that if someone were to bet all vig-free closers over a few thousand events they would be very close to breaking even.

**NunyaBidness** · 06-07-12, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by DublinMeUp

Anyway I hope you haven't taken this as me calling you out or picking a fight, Because it not that at all. Its more of a two sides of a coin type thing,

Nothing offends me, certainly not rational discussion. I would say its not a two sides of a coin thing, though, Nash Equilibria either exist in non zero sum games or they don't.

It should be noted that these are the longest posts I've ever made on this forum without any sarcasm. . .

**NunyaBidness** · 06-07-12, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by Educ8d Degener8

Holy f*ck you dorks are gonna scare away all the posters from Vaughn's thread with this math/logic circle jerk... ;p

You know you're dying to jump in on this, but you're afraid of being called an aspy.

**gabe** · 06-07-12, 10:06 PM

I think Proposition Joe's bookie wacked him for not paying up on time.

**Educ8d Degener8** · 06-07-12, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by NunyaBidness

You know you're dying to jump in on this, but you're afraid of being called an aspy.

LOL... Nun - do you f*ck around in any financial market sh*t?

**NunyaBidness** · 06-07-12, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by Educ8d Degener8

LOL... Nun - do you f*ck around in any financial market sh*t?

Nothing serious, some longterm positions. Because of the higher edges and smaller liquidity in sportsbetting compared to traditional investments I think there's a tipping point with bankroll size where it makes more sense to do one than the other. I'm not sure where that number is, but I know I'm nowhere near it.

It would be a lot of work to make the changeover, I'm still learning this game. And I'm even less interested in business than I am sports.

**gabe** · 06-07-12, 10:57 PM

Originally posted by NunyaBidness

Nothing serious, some longterm positions. Because of the higher edges and smaller liquidity in sportsbetting compared to traditional investments I think there's a tipping point with bankroll size where it makes more sense to do one than the other. I'm not sure where that number is, but I know I'm nowhere near it.

It would be a lot of work to make the changeover, I'm still learning this game. And I'm even less interested in business than I am sports.

I'm gonna send u my NFL picks this season. Three huge seasons in a row!! I even had the Giants winning the Superbowl at +2500 before the playoffs started. To be fair, I also had the same bet on the 49ers at +2500. I felt one of them would win the Superbowl, they ended up facing each other (one game prior to the Super Bowl,) and one of them did win.

**NunyaBidness** · 06-07-12, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by gabe

I'm gonna send u my NFL picks this season. Three huge seasons in a row!! I even had the Giants winning the Superbowl at +2500 before the playoffs started. To be fair, I also had the same bet on the 49ers at +2500. I felt one of them would win the Superbowl, they ended up facing each other (one game prior to the Super Bowl,) and one of them did win.

Don't have any room for anymore NFL picks, I usually have all my books maxed during NFL season. It's the easiest sport to beat. Hopefully we both have a great season.

**Vitooch** · 06-08-12, 12:59 AM

Would like to see both of your football picks during the season. I only seemed to have success with teasers, but it wad my first year capping football

**gabe** · 06-08-12, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by Vitooch

Would like to see both of your football picks during the season. I only seemed to have success with teasers, but it wad my first year capping football

Every season I have a couple weeks where I hit every single game.

**NunyaBidness** · 06-08-12, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by Vitooch

Would like to see both of your football picks during the season. I only seemed to have success with teasers, but it wad my first year capping football

I won't have any picks. Just wongs.

**Vaughany** · 06-08-12, 01:51 AM

Originally posted by JAKEPEAVY21

Did you buy ttwarrior's shit towel on ebay, Vaughany?

ha no, but looks like Mike Pyle might have

**Vaughany** · 06-08-12, 03:39 AM

Originally posted by Educ8d Degener8

Holy f*ck you dorks are gonna scare away all the posters from Vaughn's thread with this math/logic circle jerk... ;p

Vaughn -- any of your crazy books got props for Pierce v Rocha?

haha Im confused as fuuck by all this Kevin Nash equilibrium!

Nooo nothing yet for Pierce/Rocha

**Vaughany** · 06-08-12, 04:37 AM

Pretty cool to see Faber on Joe Rogan podcast... http://vimeo.com/43646465

**Beelzebubzy** · 06-08-12, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by Vaughany

haha Im confused as fuuck by all this Kevin Nash equilibrium!

Nooo nothing yet for Pierce/Rocha

They are Talking about steve Nash the Canadian point guard.

What i understand from the conversation is that Nash lacks equilibrium and therefore could not continue playing hockey like his fellow canucks and had to play basketball.

So his game theory is if he sucks at one game he plays another

**Vaughany** · 06-08-12, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by Beelzebubzy

They are Talking about steve Nash the Canadian point guard.

What i understand from the conversation is that Nash lacks equilibrium and therefore could not continue playing hockey like his fellow canucks and had to play basketball.

So his game theory is if he sucks at one game he plays another

ha not this guy then?

I thought Steve Nash was Suth Africaaain

**DeFactoCrippler** · 06-08-12, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by NunyaBidness

I won't have any picks. Just wongs.

I wish that guy would write a book so I can understand what are the +EV moves at the Asian rub n tugs. Some sloot is like "you can cummi my eye fo ten dolla mo!". And I'm like fock is this +EV or not.

**Beelzebubzy** · 06-08-12, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by Vaughany

ha not this guy then?

I thought Steve Nash was Suth Africaaain

Holy hell he is south African. My sports knowledge is sucking

Maybe equilibrium and game theory has to do with big daddy cool diesel

Or maybe that tv show Nash
I'm so confused

**Vaughany** · 06-08-12, 09:29 AM

By Dan Downes June 08, 2012
Article
Comments (0)

UFC/WEC veteran Dan Downes talks strategy and predictions for UFC on FX 3, taking place Friday, June 8
The ancient Greeks had the Oracle of Delphi and UFC fans have me. Danny Boy Downes back again for another edition of the Downes Side. And while I can’t guarantee that my advice won’t lead to your ultimate destruction at the hands of Persians, I can promise that I definitely dance much more provocatively than the oracles from 300.

The UFC rolls into Sunrise, Florida for UFC on FX 3 at the BankAtlantic Center in sunny Florida. Hopefully this time we’ll get an actual result to the flyweight contest between Demetrious Johnson and Ian McCall and not be derailed by simple addition. Luckily, I hear all Florida officials are given calculators ringside. Let’s just hope they use them wisely instead of spending their time doing this.

Eddie Wineland vs Scott Jorgensen
The main card kicks off with a bantamweight contest between former WEC stars Eddie Wineland and Scott “Young Guns” Jorgensen. A former bantamweight champion, Wineland has had a rough introduction into the UFC, facing Urijah Faber and Joseph Benavidez in his first two matches. Jorgensen is also looking to shift his momentum after Renan Barao completely shut him down at UFC 143 in February.

While Wineland has both the reach advantage and the edge in standup striking, he lacks the speed and dynamic ability of Renan Barao that stifled “Young Guns” a few months ago. He’s also struggled against strong wrestlers in the past, which plays right into the former Boise State standout’s strengths. Jorgensen will mix up his punches and takedown attempts effectively, put Wineland on his back and control him for the UD win. It’ll be hard loss for him to take. I haven’t seen a champion fall this far from grace since Kobayashi got totally dominated by that Grizzly Bear. Fortunately, this loss comes with much less indigestion.

Mike Pyle vs Josh Neer

Next up is a battle between veterans Mike “Quicksand” Pyle and Josh “The Dentist” Neer as they both try to continue their recent career resurgences . Neer has won six in a row (all of them finishes) and seeks to make his third stint in the UFC his most successful one yet. A dangerous striker prone to brawling, he too has struggled against wrestlers. A UFC fixture for over three years, Mike Pyle comes off an impressive first round TKO of Ricardo Funch at UFC 142 which was almost as impressive as how badly he beat Alan Belcher and I at bowling one night in Vegas.

Neer is one of those “bully” strikers (no, not that type of bully). He likes to get in his opponents’ faces, and he has a hard time adapting if he’s not moving forward forward and doing damage. That could make him prone to takedowns. The coin-flip factor here is knockout power. Neer’s hands are much heavier than Pyle’s and that will allow him to put this one away in the 2nd. Sure, it will put the brakes on “Quicksand’s” resurgence, but there’s always bowling. Plus, he could totally kick Pete Weber’s ass.

Erick Silva vs Charlie Brenneman
After those guaranteed fisticuffs, we get another welterweight matchup as Erick “Indio” Silva looks to wade deeper into the 170-pound pool as he takes on Charlie “The Spaniard” Brenneman. SIlva has been quite impressive in his first two appearances in the Octagon with first round-finishes in both. Sure he got disqualified against Carlo Prater, but that’s like a person’s opinion on the internet -- it doesn’t really matter (yours truly obviously excluded). After a brutal knockout at the hands of Anthony Johnson, Brenneman rebounded nicely with a win over Daniel Roberts in January. He’s looking to get back to elite status in the division and not only be known as the guy that beat Rick Story that one time.

While people have been justifiably impressed with Silva’s striking, they generally don't mention that he also holds a BJJ black belt from Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira. Brenneman has excelled at getting his opponents down to the mat, but he has never grappled with someone as dangerous as Silva. Couple that with the fact that he hasn’t finished any of his UFC opponents, and this one is for Silva to end. Lil Nog takes out Brenneman in the third round and catapults himself up the welterweight ladder. At least Brenneman still has cool hair, though. That counts for something, right?

Demetrious Johnson vs Ian McCall
That brings us to the main event of the evening: the much anticipated rematch between Demetrious “Mighty Mouse” Johnson and Ian “Uncle Creepy” McCall. The winner of this fight earns the right to lose to Joseph Benavidez for the inaugural flyweight championship.

In their first fight, I underestimated McCall. Perhaps it was my subconscious reacting against one too many hipster ironic mustaches. Regardless of why, I thought Mighty Mouse was going to win. After seeing the first fight, I’m trusting in Uncle Creepy’s abilities (that just sounds odd...). In previous fights, Johnson’s greatest attribute has been speed. His ability to change levels and transition from striking to takedowns has given many top opponents difficulties. McCall, however, didn’t seem to struggle with this and he stuffed Mighty Mouse’s takedowns quite well. While equally matched on speed, McCall has distinct standup and power advantages. Johnson has never been finished, but just like Ecto Cooler, all good things must come to an end. Uncle Creepy gets the TKO in the third round and a date with Mr. Benavidez in the third quarter.

Well, that wraps up another awe-inspiring edition of the Downes Side. Be sure to follow me on Twitter@dannyboydownes and check out my blog here. Also, leave comments, thoughts, opinions and idle threats. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have more valuable calculator work to attend to.

**Vaughany** · 06-08-12, 10:14 AM

Review of plays so far:

29 units on Martinez at -140 to win 20.714 units;

31.4 units on Martinez at -151 to win 20.724 units;

32.84 units on Martinez at -159 to win 20.689 units;

23.86 units on Papazian at -115 to win 20.758 units;

20 units on Papazian at -123 to win 16.2 units;

12.9 units on Salas at +160 to win 20.64 units;

Parlay: 6.516 units Jorgensen (-200), Not Pyle by TKO/KO (-1245), & Wanderlei/Franklin to Not Go the Distance (-260) to win 8.104 units;

Parlay: 6.516 units on Silva/Brenneman Starts Round 2 (-400), Not Pyle by TKO/KO (-1245), Not Fisher Inside the Distance (-1275), & Bisping/Boetsch to Go the Distance (-185) to win 8.103 units.

Parlay: 6.371 units on Johnson/Struve to Not Go the Distance (-300), & Brenneman/Silva to Go the Distance (-135) to win 8.416 units.
Also these plays for EURO 2012 starting shortly:

Originally posted by Vaughany

Some EURO 2012 plays I've added:

Selection Poland @ 2/5

Market Draw No Bet

Event Euro 2012
Poland v Greece
2012-06-08 17:00:00

SELECTION 2

Selection 1X (Russia or draw) @ 2/7

Market Double Chance

Event Euro 2012
Russia v Czech Republic
2012-06-08 19:45:00

BET TYPE

Bet Type Win Double

Unit Stake £250.00

Number of Units x1

Total Stake £250.00

I will be really surprised if Poland lose to Greece and/or Russia lose to Czech Republic. The squads Greece and Czech Rep. have today are no way near as strong as they have been in the past whilst Poland and Russia may have the strongest sides they've had in a long time, plus Poland have home advantage.

Also bet £50 on Poland qualifying from their group at -125.

Also have this accumulator:

Selection Under 3.5 goals @ 1/7

Market Total Goals Over/Under

Event Euro 2012
Russia v Czech Republic
2012-06-08 19:45:00

SELECTION 2

Selection Under 3.5 goals @ 1/7

Market Total Goals Over/Under

Event Euro 2012
Poland v Greece
2012-06-08 17:00:00

SELECTION 3

Selection Under 3.5 goals @ 1/6

Market Total Goals Over/Under

Event Euro 2012
France v England
2012-06-11 17:00:00

SELECTION 4

Selection Under 3.5 goals @ 1/7

Market Total Goals Over/Under

Event Euro 2012
Ireland v Croatia
2012-06-10 19:45:00

BET TYPE

Bet Type Win Accumulator (4)

Unit Stake £100.00

Number of Units x1

Total Stake £100.00

Have risk-free play on Russia winning as well which will net me a further 25 units if they win.

**JAKEPEAVY21** · 06-08-12, 11:13 AM

gl V

**MMAbetMASTA** · 06-08-12, 11:26 AM

So are you sticking to your guns and big plays on papazian and martinez?? looks like you have the option to buy out / arb some since you got those nice openers yea???

Please tell me no, I'd feel a lot better about my martinez and papazian plays haha cause I'm having second thoughts about buying out some...

**gabe** · 06-08-12, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by MMAbetMASTA

So are you sticking to your guns and big plays on papazian and martinez?? looks like you have the option to buy out / arb some since you got those nice openers yea???

Please tell me no, I'd feel a lot better about my martinez and papazian plays haha cause I'm having second thoughts about buying out some...

Don't be a pu$$y. Ride or die. If one of them loses, I will more than likely die.lol #heartattack

**DeFactoCrippler** · 06-08-12, 12:29 PM

Lol, I don't want to sound like an asshole but I told you these polacks would shit the bed.

Polacks.

**DeFactoCrippler** · 06-08-12, 12:30 PM

holy shit he saved it

**fosho14** · 06-08-12, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by MMAbetMASTA

So are you sticking to your guns and big plays on papazian and martinez?? looks like you have the option to buy out / arb some since you got those nice openers yea???

Please tell me no, I'd feel a lot better about my martinez and papazian plays haha cause I'm having second thoughts about buying out some...

also curious about this

**The Fobfather** · 06-08-12, 12:40 PM

Poland completely lost their mojo. Lewandowski has been absolutely invisible in the 2nd.