Crassus' Combat Sports Thread

[Crassus]

All the cool kids were doing it...

Plus I feel like it's just good karma for my bets.

So here's how it works just for future reference. 1U=1% of bankroll. I have two bankrolls going.

Regular Betting- this is ~95% of my total bankroll. (100U)

Stupid Betting-this is the remaining ~5% of my total bankroll. (100SU)

The stupid bets are not to be tailed, they're sort of for fun. They'll be lots of large parlays and 100% of bankroll bets on huge favorites. I dunno, just sort of appeals to me for some reason.

So my current plays are this

risking 6.28U
Lyoto Machida
Mauricio Rua
to win 4.05U

10U parlay of
Mauricio Rua
Phil Davis
to win 4.79UU

10U parlay of
Mauricio Rua
Phil Davis
Lyoto Machida
to win 9.72U

notice those are U and not SU because I'm a god damn idiot sometimes. I think they'll pull off and I think I actually have the advantage statistically but...the numbers in terms of bet size don't add up.

For Stupid bets

I'm throwing 60SU on Phil Davis straight up at the steal odds of -600 to win 10SU. If anyone wants to know WHY I'm so stupidly confident in these guys I'll throw it out there.

[DocPolish]

Since it is just a stupid bet why not split the 60 into two bets, something like 40 on Davis and 20 on Vera. This way if Vera does pull off the upset and all your parlays lose you'll at least walk with something or is this not a smart way to bet?

[Crassus]

Since it is just a stupid bet why not split the 60 into two bets, something like 40 on Davis and 20 on Vera. This way if Vera does pull off the upset and all your parlays lose you'll at least walk with something or is this not a smart way to bet?

I was thinking about putting some stuff on Vera and Bader straight up, but I just can't see them winning. MAYBE Bader can but I really doubt it.

[NunyaBidness]

Since it is just a stupid bet why not split the 60 into two bets, something like 40 on Davis and 20 on Vera. This way if Vera does pull off the upset and all your parlays lose you'll at least walk with something or is this not a smart way to bet?

It's pretty smart, it can't lose. Sometimes I bet with my kids. I lay the one -110 that a coinflip is going to be heads, and I lay the other -110 that its going to be tails. I collect 100% of the time, not sure why the kids are so bad at gambling.

[Crassus]

It's pretty smart, it can't lose. Sometimes I bet with my kids. I lay the one -110 that a coinflip is going to be heads, and I lay the other -110 that its going to be tails. I collect 100% of the time, not sure why the kids are so bad at gambling.

I'm not sure if that's an entirely apt analogy Nunya.

[DirtyX]

All the cool kids were doing it...

Plus I feel like it's just good karma for my bets.

So here's how it works just for future reference. 1U=1% of bankroll. I have two bankrolls going.

Regular Betting- this is ~95% of my total bankroll. (100U)

Stupid Betting-this is the remaining ~5% of my total bankroll. (100SU)

The stupid bets are not to be tailed, they're sort of for fun. They'll be lots of large parlays and 100% of bankroll bets on huge favorites. I dunno, just sort of appeals to me for some reason.

So my current plays are this

risking 6.28U
Lyoto Machida
Mauricio Rua
to win 4.05U

10U parlay of
Mauricio Rua
Phil Davis
to win 4.79UU

10U parlay of
Mauricio Rua
Phil Davis
Lyoto Machida
to win 9.72U

notice those are U and not SU because I'm a god damn idiot sometimes. I think they'll pull off and I think I actually have the advantage statistically but...the numbers in terms of bet size don't add up.

For Stupid bets

I'm throwing 60SU on Phil Davis straight up at the steal odds of -600 to win 10SU. If anyone wants to know WHY I'm so stupidly confident in these guys I'll throw it out there.

Good luck man, and no offense, but I wouldn't recommend ever throwing 100% of your bankroll on any bet, period. I wouldn't even throw 50% of it on anyone, but that is just me. Statistics show, if you throw 100% down, you are almost garanteed to lose eventually. However, everyone does it different, so do your thing player. GL man.

[Crassus]

the 100% bankroll bets are from a much smaller bankroll I made. So it's like I have 2 bankrolls, one has 95% of the money I plan to bet with and is done smartly (sort of) and the other 5% is really reckless and stupid. It's sort of a test really, I want to see where things go wrong with the stupid bets.

[NunyaBidness]

I'm not sure if that's an entirely apt analogy Nunya.

To betting Rua and Vera, yes I think it is.

[Crassus]

To betting Rua and Vera, yes I think it is.

I spose...does it make a difference if Rua's in a parlay and Vera SU? It seems a common enough strategy.

[PunisherIND]

I spose...does it make a difference if Rua's in a parlay and Vera SU? It seems a common enough strategy.

it doesnt make a difference. you are paying the juice twice, regardless of whether its in a parlay or SU. but i do think this is a common strategy, at least it seems.

[NunyaBidness]

I spose...does it make a difference if Rua's in a parlay and Vera SU? It seems a common enough strategy.

It actually makes it worse than playing it SU vs SU. You're paying the juice both ways and now you have a chance to lose all bets, if for example Rua wins but your parlay goes down on another fight.

[NunyaBidness]

but i do think this is a common strategy, at least it seems.

Yeah, you're definitely right, I think it stems from people not understanding how parlays actually work.

If the play doesn't make sense straight up it doesn't make sense in a parlay. This is almost always true.

[DirtyX]

the 100% bankroll bets are from a much smaller bankroll I made. So it's like I have 2 bankrolls, one has 95% of the money I plan to bet with and is done smartly (sort of) and the other 5% is really reckless and stupid. It's sort of a test really, I want to see where things go wrong with the stupid bets.

I see, two bankrolls is something I haven't heard before, but seems like you have it well thought out. It's funny dude, because I have wanted to throw it all down (100%) a couple times, but couldn't pull the trigger. Bendo vs Edgar is one fight where I really want to put it all on Henderson, but I just can't do it. I also want to throw it all on Rory Mac over Penn, but samething, can't. Bankroll Management is the reason why I am still here betting today, otherwise I would have lost all my $$$ years ago. Again, GL with your plays. This weekend is the first card where I am not making any plays. Imo, the lines are too high (beside Lauzon vs Varner) and I am just not confident in anything. Also, I am saving the $$ for the next couple cards, as I really like a couple plays coming up.

[NunyaBidness]

This weekend is the first card where I am not making any plays.

I agree. I just can't seem to find any value on this card at all. Not sure if its not there, or if I'm just too tied up with the olympics.

[Crassus]

Good to know about the double plays haha.

Dirty, I actually think a lot of the lines are steals. Rua and Machida should be -500 and Davis should be -1000 so I'm pretty happy I got em. I just went overboard with the bet sizes haha.

[PunisherIND]

It actually makes it worse than playing it SU vs SU. You're paying the juice both ways and now you have a chance to lose all bets, if for example Rua wins but your parlay goes down on another fight.

yea, if anything, i would wait until after the machida/bader fight. if the parlays are still alive, then you make the play on vera. assuming its feasible for you to make a last minute wager.

[PunisherIND]

Yeah, you're definitely right, I think it stems from people not understanding how parlays actually work.

If the play doesn't make sense straight up it doesn't make sense in a parlay. This is almost always true.

i think this is a very common misconception. people tend to feel that a parlay is somehow more than the sum of its parts. that you are somehow getting better odds by putting it in a parlay. i'll admit, i had this misconception for a long time until you explained it.

although, can you give me an example of when it doesnt make sense straight up but DOES make sense in a parlay?

[NunyaBidness]

i think this is a very common misconception. people tend to feel that a parlay is somehow more than the sum of its parts. that you are somehow getting better odds by putting it in a parlay. i'll admit, i had this misconception for a long time until you explained it.

Glad I could help the rich get richer.

[NunyaBidness]

although, can you give me an example of when it doesnt make sense straight up but DOES make sense in a parlay?

If you find a line that has huge value (Dantes vs Vila for example), and you can't bet any more on it, you can add slightly -EV parlay legs to increase your exposure. If the line is far enough off you could even do something like Dantes/Vera and Dantes/Rua. (although you'd be better to do a fight that was -110/-110, but sticking with the example in this thread for clarity).

This also factors prominently in NFL teaser strategy.

[Crassus]

If you find a line that has huge value (Dantes vs Vila for example), and you can't bet any more on it, you can add slightly -EV parlay legs to increase your exposure. If the line is far enough off you could even do something like Dantes/Vera and Dantes/Rua. (although you'd be better to do a fight that was -110/-110, but sticking with the example in this thread for clarity).

This also factors prominently in NFL teaser strategy.

why did you remind me about Dantes vs Vila...

[NunyaBidness]

why did you remind me about Dantes vs Vila...

Was going to say Maia/Weidman, but then I figured some knucklehead would say that there was no value in the Maia line.

[Crassus]

was going to say maia/weidman, but then i figured some knucklehead would say that there was no value in the maia line.

he lost yo no value in lozers son!

[PunisherIND]

If you find a line that has huge value (Dantes vs Vila for example), and you can't bet any more on it, you can add slightly -EV parlay legs to increase your exposure. If the line is far enough off you could even do something like Dantes/Vera and Dantes/Rua. (although you'd be better to do a fight that was -110/-110, but sticking with the example in this thread for clarity).

This also factors prominently in NFL teaser strategy.

gotcha. makes sense.

[cheeese]

Nunya,

If you have a small bankroll and Rua is the last leg of a high paying parlay, wouldn't it be correct to hedge at least partially on Vera for eg reasons? Then when you get baller to where limits don't contrain you, you take the full exposure? Maybe I am misunderstanding the concept.

[NunyaBidness]

Nunya,

If you have a small bankroll and Rua is the last leg of a high paying parlay, wouldn't it be correct to hedge at least partially on Vera for eg reasons? Then when you get baller to where limits don't contrain you, you take the full exposure? Maybe I am misunderstanding the concept.

If it was correct to do so, then it wouldn't have been correct to add Rua to the parlay in the first place. (Assuming no wild line moves).

To clarify, yes, theoretically, it may be correct to make that hedge due to bankroll concerns. But, if you find yourself in that situation your mistake occurred earlier, and one way or another you're flushing money down the toilet.

[gabe]

Good luck man, and no offense, but I wouldn't recommend ever throwing 100% of your bankroll on any bet, period. I wouldn't even throw 50% of it on anyone, but that is just me. Statistics show, if you throw 100% down, you are almost garanteed to lose eventually. However, everyone does it different, so do your thing player. GL man.

Huh? Weren't you talking about going all-in on Bendo?

[cheeese]

If it was correct to do so, then it wouldn't have been correct to add Rua to the parlay in the first place. (Assuming no wild line moves).

To clarify, yes, theoretically, it may be correct to make that hedge due to bankroll concerns. But, if you find yourself in that situation your mistake occurred earlier, and one way or another you're flushing money down the toilet.

So if there was a theoretical bet of "Rua wins a title shot in August of 2012" and I got it at 50-1, I would be justified hedging with Vera and sacrificing some EV in order to grow my roll and make more bets. But if I sell my chopper and have a huge roll I would just let it ride and start shopping for a new one?

[NunyaBidness]

So if there was a theoretical bet of "Rua wins a title shot in August of 2012" and I got it at 50-1, I would be justified hedging with Vera and sacrificing some EV in order to grow my roll and make more bets. But if I sell my chopper and have a huge roll I would just let it ride and start shopping for a new one?

We're not really talking about the same thing anymore. Sure, you can justify that the tail end of a parlay looks like that, but it had many opportunities to lose that had nothing to do with the bet you're now claiming it is.

You're not getting 50-1 on a bet, you're getting 3-1 on a bet and using all the money that you won from your prior bets to make it. If you wouldn't take 3-1 on Rua from all your prior winnings in the parlay then you made a mistake.

The only justification would be going the other way, say you were a $1,000 a unit bettor, and you are now getting 50-1 on your parlay on 5Dimes for $1000. You had $100k in a dirty book, which has now absconded with all your funds. Your can scrape together another $5,000 from selling your grandmother. Should you hedge? Yes, of course. If the situation is any less dire, no you shouldn't.

[cheeese]

Thanks for taking the time to explain.

[DirtyX]

Huh? Weren't you talking about going all-in on Bendo?

Ya dude, I was. LOL... I am throwing $1000.00 down on Bendo, or about 30% of my bankroll, not $2500.00 like I wanted to originally. But ya you're right I was talking about going all in on Bendo. What I was trying to say above is if one throws down 100% of their Bankroll on a consistent basis on fights that they consider "locks", they are almost garanteed to lose eventually. I do think a much bigger bet is warranted once in awhile on a fight that you love, but 100% or even 50% of my bankroll on any fight (no matter how much I like it) is too scary for me. I obviously changed my mind on going all in, or in other words, I pussed out. lol. Gabe, who you like this weekend? I am not making any plays myself, but was just curious what action you got on Saturday...?

[DirtyX]

Gabe, nevermind dude, I just saw your new August thread.

[GunShard]

I wouldn't bet against undefeated fighters, but that's just me. Davis should win his fight, but I wouldn't lock it.

[Kaladarus]

I'm not really a fan of your parlays. I think you would be better off paying the juice on each separately. If anyone loses you will lose big and your one or zero parlays left will barely bring back any money. If you like a parlay on high priced fighters like this I would recommend doing the 3 way parlay and then hitting them straight up as well rather than having 3 individual parlays. You would probably want to risk a little more hitting them straight bets, but you are far more likely to break even or come close to breaking even if one loses.

Either way good luck with your bets.

[Crassus]

I'm not really a fan of your parlays. I think you would be better off paying the juice on each separately. If anyone loses you will lose big and your one or zero parlays left will barely bring back any money. If you like a parlay on high priced fighters like this I would recommend doing the 3 way parlay and then hitting them straight up as well rather than having 3 individual parlays. You would probably want to risk a little more hitting them straight bets, but you are far more likely to break even or come close to breaking even if one loses.

Either way good luck with your bets.

Fair nuff. I'm not the biggest fan of parlays either but it just didn't work out in the best way possible. Thanks though.

I wouldn't bet against undefeated fighters, but that's just me. Davis should win his fight, but I wouldn't lock it.

You can see my posts in the UFC on Fox 4 thread, but if you look into it, Prado's faced absolute jokes of competition.

[DeFactoCrippler]

I spose...does it make a difference if Rua's in a parlay and Vera SU? It seems a common enough strategy.

it doesnt make a difference. you are paying the juice twice, regardless of whether its in a parlay or SU. but i do think this is a common strategy, at least it seems.

Yeah, you're definitely right, I think it stems from people not understanding how parlays actually work.

If the play doesn't make sense straight up it doesn't make sense in a parlay. This is almost always true.

Lock McLoughlan is an immortal lock, but they is NO WAY I can pay that -600 price because laying that much chalk is a losing proposition in the long run.


The only value is in parlaying him with the Yankees at -200.