Hougigo's boxing/MMA picks

**Ron_Paul_2012** · 08-09-13, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by hougigo

Better fight on Showbox... It's good if it wasn't for all of Bennett's holding

Wow! This is some brown on black violence! Vargas is knocking banana boys hair straight!

**hougigo** · 08-09-13, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by Ron_Paul_2012

Wow! This is some brown on black violence! Vargas is knocking banana boys hair straight!

The ref is retarded... gave a warning twice and still doesn't deduct a point

**hougigo** · 08-09-13, 10:20 PM

Hernandez needs to stop throwing all those wide ass hooks, he's getting caught every single time... sooooo open

**Das Jax** · 08-09-13, 10:24 PM

Ka-ching!

+190 baby

**hougigo** · 08-09-13, 10:25 PM

Wow, he was battered

**Ron_Paul_2012** · 08-09-13, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by Ron_Paul_2012

I have Nugaev in a 6 team parlay.

1 down 5 more to go!

**Ron_Paul_2012** · 08-09-13, 10:26 PM

Let's go Wilder!

**hougigo** · 08-09-13, 10:28 PM

White Wolf looks retarded

**Ron_Paul_2012** · 08-09-13, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by Ron_Paul_2012

Let's go Wilder!

La Hoe B*tch ain't gettin' out of the 1st round.

**hougigo** · 08-09-13, 10:31 PM

Bloom... crushed

**Ron_Paul_2012** · 08-09-13, 10:31 PM

Originally posted by Ron_Paul_2012

1 down 5 more to go!

2 down 4 more to glory!

**hougigo** · 08-09-13, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by Ron_Paul_2012

2 down 4 more to glory!

Who's your other 4?

**Das Jax** · 08-09-13, 10:39 PM

Ka-ching #2!

+110

Up three units for the night... maybe I should give up this MMA stuff and stick with boxing. Sure seems to treat me better.

**Ron_Paul_2012** · 08-09-13, 10:47 PM

Originally posted by hougigo

Who's your other 4?

Moreno/Spong/Moraes/Kovalev. I feel very confident with all 4.

**hougigo** · 08-09-13, 10:56 PM

Morena and Kovalev shout hit... dunno about the other two

**Das Jax** · 08-09-13, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by hougigo

Morena and Kovalev shout hit... dunno about the other two

Other than Kovalev, they're all absurdly huge favorites (as were the other two). I'm not knocking the bet, but it's hardly something to brag about if it hits.

**Ron_Paul_2012** · 08-09-13, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by hougigo

Morena and Kovalev shout hit... dunno about the other two

They're fighting tomorrow in WSOF MMA on NBC.

**hougigo** · 08-09-13, 11:06 PM

Never seen WSOF. I know Fitch fought on it once and lost.

**Ron_Paul_2012** · 08-09-13, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by Das Jax

Other than Kovalev, they're all absurdly huge favorites (as were the other two). I'm not knocking the bet, but it's hardly something to brag about if it hits.

You must be new to gambling. So let me explain. When those hit. And trust me they will. It will be @+320. Where I'm from that's not too bad. In fact I would say it's definitely something to celebrate. No brag, just fact.

**Ron_Paul_2012** · 08-09-13, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by Ron_Paul_2012

You must be new to gambling. So let me explain. When those hit. And trust me they will. It will be @+320. Where I'm from that's not too bad. In fact I would say it's definitely something to celebrate. No brag, just fact.

I hit parlays such as this one on a regular basis.

**Das Jax** · 08-09-13, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by Ron_Paul_2012

You must be new to gambling. So let me explain. When those hit. And trust me they will. It will be @+320. Where I'm from that's not too bad. In fact I would say it's definitely something to celebrate. No brag, just fact.

Hah, if you say so old timer. I'll give you credit for hitting Nugaev at -200 or so and Kovalev at -110 is also a worthy hit if it does indeed go down that way, but don't kid yourself. The value of that parlay is built off those two fights. The risk/reward ratio skews against your position pretty heavily when you start betting -2000 favorites. It just takes one fluke incident (say, a Jones toe or an Aldo foot) and your ass is busted. You already cleared 2 of your six hurdles (including one of the two actual tough calls), and, for your sake, I really do hope it hits... but regardless of the outcome I think it was a foolish bet.

Of course, having said that, I've been known to act the fool myself from time to time so I certainly do get the appeal of the play.

**hougigo** · 08-09-13, 11:38 PM

No need to fight here gentlemen, this is a friendly zone of friends.... and lovers

**Ron_Paul_2012** · 08-09-13, 11:39 PM

Originally posted by Das Jax

Hah, if you say so old timer. I'll give you credit for hitting Nugaev at -200 or so and Kovalev at -110 is also a worthy hit if it does indeed go down that way, but don't kid yourself. The value of that parlay is built off those two fights. The risk/reward ratio skews against your position pretty heavily when you start betting -2000 favorites. It just takes one fluke incident (say, a Jones toe or an Aldo foot) and your ass is busted. You already cleared 2 of your six hurdles (including one of the two actual tough calls), and, for your sake, I really do hope it hits... but regardless of the outcome I think it was a foolish bet.

Of course, having said that, I've been known to act the fool myself from time to time so I certainly do get the appeal of the play.

Honestly I have been hitting parlays like this for the past year. All I can say is that you just develop a feel for what chalk is worth playing & what chalk to leave alone. I don't bet chalk just for the sake of it being chalk.

MD · 08-09-13, 11:44 PM

Betting big favourites is no more -EV than big dogs. Or pick 'ems.

Value is value.

**Das Jax** · 08-10-13, 12:02 AM

Originally posted by MD

Betting big favourites is no more -EV than big dogs. Or pick 'ems.

Value is value.

Value... is a curiously subjective word. I prefer to think in terms of risk vs. reward. It may well be that a play priced at -2000 could arguably have been realistically priced at -2500 (which would presumably indicate "value"), but my own opinion is that combat sports are inherently unpredictable enough that making 20:1 plays on just about anything is foolish. "Locks" that warrant the level of confidence needed to make plays like that simply don't exist in this game. I think this is ESPECIALLY true when they're chained together in parlays.

**Das Jax** · 08-10-13, 12:05 AM

Actually, the more I think about it, the more sense I think it makes to avoid anything south of -1000 simply on principle... I'll have to give that some more thought.

MD · 08-10-13, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by Das Jax

Value... is a curiously subjective word. I prefer to think in terms of risk vs. reward. It may well be that a play priced at -2000 could arguably have been realistically priced at -2500 (which would presumably indicate "value"), but my own opinion is that combat sports are inherently unpredictable enough that making 20:1 plays on just about anything is foolish. "Locks" that warrant the level of confidence needed to make plays like that simply don't exist in this game. I think this is ESPECIALLY true when they're chained together in parlays.

This has been discussed to death already, and if you want to avoid laying heavy chalk, that's your decision, and something that many gamblers choose to do, but I find it funny that you call laying 20:1 "foolish" as if you're not the one missing out on profit.

**Das Jax** · 08-10-13, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by MD

This has been discussed to death already, and if you want to avoid laying heavy chalk, that's your decision, and something that many gamblers choose to do, but I find it funny that you call laying 20:1 "foolish" as if you're not the one missing out on profit.

Hah, what a ludicrous statement. You're assuming 20:1 plays always hit. If they did, you'd be correct in thinking me foolish for missing out on profit. The problem is that they don't always hit. They just usually hit and when they don't, they cost far more than the meager payout are worth.

I equate making plays like that to snatching cheese from a mouse trap. You'll get away with it most times, but when you don't it costs you big. It's obviously a judgement call (as is this entire game as a whole if you want to get right down to it), but I think one line of reasoning is more rational than the other.

MD · 08-10-13, 12:52 AM

Originally posted by Das Jax

Hah, what a ludicrous statement. You're assuming 20:1 plays always hit. If they did, you'd be correct in thinking me foolish for missing out on profit. The problem is that they don't always hit. They just usually hit and when they don't, they cost far more than the meager payout are worth.

I equate making plays like that to snatching cheese from a mouse trap. You'll get away with it most times, but when you don't it costs you big. It's obviously a judgement call (as is this entire game as a whole if you want to get right down to it), but I think one line of reasoning is more rational than the other.

...

You must have no idea how ignorant you sound. Do you know what the term "expected value" means?

**Das Jax** · 08-10-13, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by MD

...

You must have no idea how ignorant you sound. Do you know what the term "expected value" means?

Hah, you should do a better job articulating a counter-argument before deigning to whip out the ol' condescension card. I know that you're convinced you're right... I'm just not sure what it is you think you're right about. So far, you just come across as someone in favor of making stupid plays.

MD · 08-10-13, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by Das Jax

Hah, you should do a better job articulating a counter-argument before deigning to whip out the ol' condescension card. I know that you're convinced you're right... I'm just not sure what it is you think you're right about. So far, you just come across as someone in favor of making stupid plays.

I'll take that as a "no". If you understood gambling the way you think you do, you would have understood my argument perfectly.

Pretty much everyone who's been on this board a while understands what I am saying. It is also difficult not to come off as condescending in this argument, as you lack some basic understanding of gambling (not intended as an insult, obviously), but yet you are calling good gambling practice "foolish".

**Das Jax** · 08-10-13, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by MD

I'll take that as a "no". If you understood gambling the way you think you do, you would have understood my argument perfectly.

Pretty much everyone who's been on this board a while understands what I am saying. It is also difficult not to come off as condescending in this argument, as you lack some basic understanding of gambling (not intended as an insult, obviously), but yet you are calling good gambling practice "foolish".

It's cute that you feel qualified to speak for everyone, but I still maintain that you haven't argued your position well. Given that I took the time to clarify mine, I think the balls in your court. It may well be that we actually agree, but your poor articulation skills give me little to go on. I've respected your analysis in the past, but it's going to take more than blustered arrogance about my supposed lack of gambling acumen to convince me that betting -2000 favorites (not to mention stringing them together in parlays) is good SOP.

MD · 08-10-13, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by Das Jax

It's cute that you feel qualified to speak for everyone, but I still maintain that you haven't argued your position well. Given that I took the time to clarify mine, I think the balls in your court. It may well be that we actually agree, but your poor articulation skills give me little to go on. I've respected your analysis in the past, but it's going to take more than blustered arrogance about my supposed lack of gambling acumen to convince me that betting -2000 favorites (not to mention stringing them together in parlays) is good SOP.

Why would I do any more to argue my position? 'Do you know what the term "expected value" means?' is about all that needs to be said. The one thing that I can guarantee you is that we do not "actually agree", if you actually believe what you're saying, because it's silly and shows a complete lack of knowledge about gambling. You're defending a position that is clearly wrong and which you're clearly ignorant about. You also say "to convince me that betting -2000 favorites (not to mention stringing them together in parlays) is good SOP", as if you don't understand how parlays work.

You're completely wrong, and if you don't understand why, then I don't know why you're betting on MMA. Stuff like this gets brought up every other week in this very sub-forum.

**Das Jax** · 08-10-13, 01:30 PM

Dude, your attitude is getting old. I know what expected value means and I know how parlays work. I was a math minor and my stats classes were a big part of what got me into the gambling scene. I'm new to this message board, but I've been gambling for years. It's clear we disagree that betting 20:1 favorites is a good idea (which is fine), but what isn't fine is that you're unable to defend your position and are, instead, exhibiting behavior that is equivalent to a child sticking his fingers in his ears and saying "I'm right, you're wrong" over and over while rocking back and forth. I was willing to attempt a mature discussion with you, but you're clearly not having it and, frankly, I'm now over it as well. You're an ass.

MD · 08-10-13, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Das Jax

Dude, your attitude is getting old. I know what expected value means and I know how parlays work. I was a math minor and my stats classes were a big part of what got me into the gambling scene. I'm new to this message board, but I've been gambling for years. It's clear we disagree that betting 20:1 favorites is a good idea (which is fine), but what isn't fine is that you're unable to defend your position and are, instead, exhibiting behavior that is equivalent to a child sticking his fingers in his ears and saying "I'm right, you're wrong" over and over while rocking back and forth. I was willing to attempt a mature discussion with you, but you're clearly not having it and, frankly, I'm now over it as well. You're an ass.

If you know what expected value means, then you should know why I find your assertion that betting 20:1 favourites is "foolish" to be ridiculous. I don't care if you think I'm an ass, this is the kind of discussion that is had pretty much bi-weekly on SBR, where some guy shows up not understanding gambling properly, and then argues a clearly incorrect position. If I argued that the sun revolved around the earth, would you be dismissive? I think you would.