Atrain over Tavares?

[v1y]

Ok ok, I understand you're upset you lost a lot of money tonight. I'll be nice and stop.

Btw, Amir Sadollah is definitely a fringe contender. His holes are realistically fixable (ie: it's conceivable to imagine them being fixed), so we can't write him off yet.

[Ladle]

Btw, Amir Sadollah is definitely a fringe contender. His holes are realistically fixable (ie: it's conceivable to imagine them being fixed), so we can't write him off yet.

I lost money, but I can take solace in the fact I'm not a total moron/laughingstock like you. I'll happily take a loss over that.

It is not REALISTIC to think that Sadollah could fix his wrestling deficiencies to the extent that he could beat the top wrestlers and challenge for a title. That will never be a realistic, and you know it. You've known that the whole time; you're just a stubborn moron. It's only possible; it's not realistic that he can get SO good at wrestling to compete with 170's top guys at the age of 30. It's not realistic to think that he could beat a string of top guys to get a title shot. POSSIBLE, NOT realistic.

You lose. I win, decisively. You did a great job of totally embarrassing yourself.

[v1y]

Dude, vaughny just called dos anjos a "big contender". Go bitch at him for a bit.

Looks like i'm not the only one who thinks that not being top 10 in a division doesn't disqualify you from being a contender.

Most people use the term contender in a much looser way, much more akin to the way I use it than you do. Get over yourself.

[Ladle]

Dude, vaughny just called dos anjos a "big contender". Go bitch at him for a bit.

I disagree with that, but at least he's not going around calling Vinicius Queiroz and Amir Sadollah contenders. I'll save my bitching for the hilariously ill-informed retards who go around saying stupid shit like that.

Most people use the term contender in a much looser way, much more akin to the way I use it than you do.

But no one calls Vinicius Queiroz a contender. Except retards.

Get over yourself.

Hypocritical. Reason I'm destroying you in this debate is because you're an obnoxious prick who's nowhere near as smart as he thinks he is. If you didn't go around calling posts "stupid" for no reason, I probably would have let your dumb comments slide.

[v1y]

I'm not saying Queiroz is a contender, he's lost any potential of having that (fringe) status that he might once have had. Sadollah hasn't, and is absolutely a fringe contender.

Hilariously uninformed... lol. How can one be hilariously uninformed in regards to semantics? What does that even mean?

Unless by hilariously uninformed you mean, "knowledge in MMA that has produced consistent winnings over the last year", then yes, I am hilariously uninformed.

[Ladle]

I'm not saying Queiroz is a contender, he's lost any potential of having that (fringe) status that he might once have had. Sadollah hasn't, and is absolutely a fringe contender.

Calling Vinicius Queiroz even a fringe contender for the UFC heavyweight title - at any point in time - is absolutely ridiculous.

Hilariously uninformed... lol. How can one be hilariously uninformed in regards to semantics? What does that even mean?

Very easily. You don't even understand simple words like "realistic" and "possible". That is as hilarious ill-informed as a person can get.

Unless by hilariously uninformed you mean, "knowledge in MMA that has produced consistent winnings over the last year", then yes, I am hilariously uninformed.

I think I smell bullshit. Start posting your plays and then I'll believe you. No photoshopped betting account screenshots.

[v1y]

Dude, the heavyweight division sucks. Stefan Struve was considered a contender, therefore it's not untenable to say Spartan could be.

I understand the difference between realistic and possible. What you fail to understand is that the MMA world has shown time and time again that the difference between "realistic" and "possible" is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to separate. We've looked at countless examples today. Stann's resurgence, Siver's resurgence, and Ortiz beating Bader. If your definition of "realistic" did not include these possibilities, then it is your definition of realistic that is wrong and needs to be changed, because it is clearly being under-inclusive. You don't seem to realize this yet.

Yeap, I'm totally bullshitting. You got me.

[Ladle]

Dude, the heavyweight division sucks. Stefan Struve was considered a contender, therefore it's not untenable to say Spartan could be.

You still don't understand how bad Vinicius Queiroz is. If you actually knew about his pre-UFC career, you'd realise. Calling him a "fringe contender" for the heavyweight title is so incredibly stupid. Words can't even explain how idiotic that is.

I understand the difference between realistic and possible. What you fail to understand is that the MMA world has shown time and time again that the difference between "realistic" and "possible" is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to separate. We've looked at countless examples today. Stann's resurgence, Siver's resurgence, and Ortiz beating Bader. If your definition of "realistic" did not include these possibilities, then it is your definition of realistic that is wrong and needs to be changed, because it is clearly being under-inclusive. You don't seem to realize this yet.

You're so stupid. If I had asked ANYONE is it realistic that Ortiz submits Bader this evening, they would have said NO. That's the difference between realistic and possible! But you just can't wrap your feeble mind around it!

Yeap, I'm totally bullshitting. You got me.

Thought so.

[v1y]

I would say that any MMA gambler who didn't take the same Bader/Ortiz hedge you did must have by definition thought Ortiz finishing Bader was realistic. Obviously you didn't think it was realistic since you took the hedge, but everyone else implicitly did think it was realistic, otherwise they would have placed the same bet in a heartbeat. (Ah, isn't it great how money talks.)

My feeble mind CORRECTLY PREDICTED that it was realistic, which is why I did not place the same bet you did. I understand that YOU didn't think it was realistic, but you were wrong. The fact that you believed it wasn't realistic doesn't make it so. The objective reality is that tito was being undervalued, and Bader overvalued. It was realistic in reality, even if it wasn't realistic in the minds of some people (who clearly have under-inclusive definitions of realistic.)

Again, heavyweight division is horrible. Anyone can be called a contender and it can be justified. Struve wouldn't be much more than -200 against Spartan, and he was very recently a 'heavyweight contender'. Also again, your insinuation that I am saying that Spartan would have been the same level of contender as a Cain Velasquez post-Nogueira is utterly laughable.

[Ladle]

I would say that any MMA gambler who didn't take the same Bader/Ortiz hedge you did must have by definition thought Ortiz finishing Bader was realistic. Obviously you didn't think it was realistic since you took the hedge, but everyone else implicitly did think it was realistic, otherwise they would have placed the same bet in a heartbeat. (Ah, isn't it great how money talks.)

ONCE AGAIN, not realistic, but POSSIBLE. People didn't throw everything on Bader at -500 because it was POSSIBLE that Ortiz could win. Ortiz winning by submission was not a REALISTIC outcome though, and that's why the line was ******* +2000. Still can't believe you don't understand two very simple words.

My feeble mind CORRECTLY PREDICTED that it was realistic, which is why I did not place the same bet you did. I understand that YOU didn't think it was realistic, but you were wrong. The fact that you believed it wasn't realistic doesn't make it so. The objective reality is that tito was being undervalued, and Bader overvalued. It was realistic in reality, even if it wasn't realistic in the minds of some people (who clearly have under-inclusive definitions of realistic.)

It was not realistic PRIOR to the fight, given everything we knew about both fighters at that point in time.

re·al·is·tic/ˌrēəˈlistik/Adjective
Having or showing a sensible and practical idea of what can be achieved or expected: "jobs are scarce, so you've got to be realistic

Assuming Ortiz was going to submit Bader before the fight took place wouldn't be sensible, given the evidence which we had. Definitely possible (indeed, it happened), but not sensible or realistic, given what we knew at the time.

Honestly, your definition of "realistic" is almost as retarded as your definition of "contender". You've made both words ridiculously inclusive to support your absurd claims like "Vinicius Quieroz was once a fringe contender for the UFC heavyweight title". "Realistic" is a synonym for "possible" for you. Just like "contender" is a synonym for "UFC fighter until he loses a fight". Absolutely mind-numbingly stupid.

Again, heavyweight division is horrible. Anyone can be called a contender and it can be justified.

No it can't, as you've proved. Once again, calling Quieroz a contender for the heavyweight title is absolutely preposterous. Anyone would agree with that, except you.

Also again, your insinuation that I am saying that Spartan would have been the same level of contender as a Cain Velasquez post-Nogueira is utterly laughable.

You're describing them both as contenders for the heavyweight title. That's laughable.

[v1y]

Again, you're talking from your own biases. You personally didn't think it was realistic, and I believe you -- BECAUSE YOU BET ON IT. I (along with many others) thought it was realistic enough to NOT BET ON IT. I was right, you were wrong, get over it.

The spectrum of what is realistic is very wide in MMA, as time has shown over and over. To take on a narrow view sets you up for the kinds of failures you experienced tonight.

[Ladle]

Again, you're talking from your own biases. You personally didn't think it was realistic, and I believe you -- BECAUSE YOU BET ON IT. I (along with many others) thought it was realistic enough to NOT BET ON IT. I was right, you were wrong, get over it.

Oh right, so we're including varying degrees of realistic now? Okay then, well it's realistic I'm gonna be UFC heavyweight champ. It's not that realistic at all - in fact, it's really unlikely (just like Tito winning) - but it's possible, so it's still realistic. Because possible = realistic. Right?

The spectrum of what is realistic is very wide in MMA, as time has shown over and over. To take on a narrow view sets you up for the kinds of failures you experienced tonight.

The spectrum of what is POSSIBLE. You're still confusing those two words again.

Let me illustrate why you're wrong. If you had cancer, and there was a 2% chance of you surviving, how would you feel about the doctor saying the words "it's realistic that you'll survive"?

Point made. Now shut the **** up.

[v1y]

Uhh yes, what is realistic depends on the subject matter.

When it comes to my personal health, if a doctor tells me i have a "realistic chance of surviving", I'm hoping he means I have at least a 60% chance of survival.

When it comes to fighting, I can realistically think of 20 guys who could get a title shot in the welterweight division, but maybe only 4 will. That's a 20% chance, but I have no problem calling that chance a realistic one.

The analogy doesn't apply at all. If you don't understand that requiring a fighter to have greater than a 60% chance of getting a title shot to qualify for a "realistic chance" is too narrow a standard, you're hopeless.

[Ladle]

Obviously cancer and fighting are two subjects which don't exactly dovetail into one another, but the principle is exactly the same. For something to be considered truly realistic, it's got to be sensible. Your definition of "realistic" is insanely broad. Saying Amir Sadollah is going to miraculously improve his defensive wrestling at the age of 30, and saying he'll then go on to beat all the top wrestlers in the division is NOT sensible. It's possible, but NOT sensible. NOT realistic.

Case in point:

Oh right, so we're including varying degrees of realistic now? Okay then, well it's realistic I'm gonna be UFC heavyweight champ. It's not that realistic at all - in fact, it's really unlikely (just like Tito winning) - but it's possible, so it's still realistic. Because possible = realistic. Right?

[v1y]

Uhh... of course there's varying degrees of realistic.

I consider it more realistic that Ellenberger gets a title shot than Johny Hendricks, but I consider both possibilities to be realistic. (And I wouldn't be entirely surprised at all if neither got a title shot)

The fact that I don't consider Amir to likely get a title shot does not change the fact that I acknowledge there is a realistic possibility that he could eventually get one. In the unlikely event that he does get one, you turn out to be wrong, and I turn out to be right. By giving Amir this chance, I insure myself against being wrong.

In the case of Duane Ludwig, I'm completely willing to throw away that insurance. The fact that I'm not willing to throw away that insurance for Amir tells me that I consider his chances realistic enough.

[Ladle]

The fact that I don't consider Amir to likely get a title shot does not change the fact that I acknowledge there is a realistic possibility that he could eventually get one. In the unlikely event that he does get one, you turn out to be wrong, and I turn out to be right. By giving Amir this chance, I insure myself against being wrong.

Unfortunately, you don't insure yourself against looking stupid.

But hey, you keep telling yourself that it's REALISTIC that Amir Sadollah could challenge for the welterweight title, despite the fact he has consistently shown zero defensive wrestling skills, and despite the fact that the division has 17 or more guys who would easily out-wrestle him, and despite the fact he's 30 years old. (Does what I just said sound realistic?)

This whole thing is just funny. You've lowered your threshold on what you consider to be realistic in a desperate attempt to accommodate for your nonsensical claims.

But, hey, you keep doing that. You keep calling every newcomer in the UFC a contender. Just don't complain when you get absolutely ripped apart.

You know what, I think we're done here. There's clearly nothing I can say that is going to make you alter your crazy definitions, and there's DEFINITELY nothing you can say to even begin to justify your claims in a way that I consider to be reasonable. Can we continue with our lives now?

[cheeese]

Gave you each a point as a fight of the night bonus.

[v1y]

Yes, it's definitely not reasonable that because MMA has proven itself to be incredibly variable and hard to predict, that one should lower his standard for what he considers to be a realistic possibility. Totally unreasonable stuff.

Good luck on your future betting!

[Ladle]

Gave you each a point as a fight of the night bonus.

<3

You've actually bestowed this argument with some meaning.

[Ladle]

Yes, it's definitely not reasonable that because MMA has proven itself to be incredibly variable and hard to predict, that one should lower his standard for what he considers to be a realistic possibility. Totally unreasonable stuff.

You lower it to an absurd level. I reiterate:

You keep telling yourself that it's REALISTIC that Amir Sadollah could challenge for the welterweight title, despite the fact he has consistently shown zero defensive wrestling skills, and despite the fact that the division has 17 or more guys who would easily out-wrestle him, and despite the fact he's 30 years old.

Yup, real realistic alright!

Best of luck betting on all those contenders.

[Educ8d Degener8]

Nostradamus right here.

So you think Tito is even gonna sniff title contention again???

Are you seriously suggesting that...?

After some , what, 5 years without a win, and now having beat Ryan Bader, you think Tito is now a UFC title contender -- yes or no? Simple question. Let's see if you can answer with a simple "yes" or "no".

[Ethan]

what are your plays then?