Prop betting correlation to spreads/totals

**Optional** · 03-13-19, 12:17 AM

Originally posted by TPowell

Dumb question here but this has the best collection of gambling minds that I know of currently. In MMA, the last couple days before fights begin, props are released like Fighter A by Decision or Fighter B ITD (not by decision). Am I right in thinking that if Fighter A is a -200 favorite and the fight is +100 to go the full distance, I should be getting at least +200 to bet Fighter A by decision (+100 and -200 parlayed is +200)? I know that some of this hinges on the market being efficient or not, but would playing Fighter A by decision at +150 be -EV since you could just play the +100 on both fighters winning a decision essentially? Sorry if this is convulated, I can explain more if needed.

What odds do they offer on Fighter B winning by decision?

**TPowell** · 03-13-19, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by Optional

What odds do they offer on Fighter B winning by decision?

We'll say that he is a +180 dog and him by DEC is +460 which is the exact parlay amount

**Optional** · 03-13-19, 12:29 AM

Oh, I was wondering if there was an obvious correlation in the vig difference on both sides. And if so, you could imply that your logic was correct and it is just a case of big juice in the prop.

**TPowell** · 03-13-19, 12:31 AM

Originally posted by Optional

Oh, I was wondering if there was an obvious correlation in the vig difference on both sides. And if so, you could imply that your logic was correct and it is just a case of big juice in the prop.

No, my question is more general about betting props that have been beaten down like Fighter A by decision compared to what the rate should be/might have been earlier (parlay rate between FGTD at +100 and ML -200)

**Optional** · 03-13-19, 12:36 AM

Originally posted by TPowell

No, my question is more general about betting props that have been beaten down like Fighter A by decision compared to what the rate should be/might have been earlier (parlay rate between FGTD at +100 and ML -200)

I understand the question, and am interested in the answer.

I've been thinking about it and think your logic is correct, but same as you, I'm not 100% sure.

So was just looking for another angle to look at it.

**TPowell** · 03-13-19, 12:40 AM

Originally posted by Optional

I understand the question, and am interested in the answer.

I've been thinking about it and think your logic is correct, but same as you, I'm not 100% sure.

So was just looking for another angle to look at it.

I gotcha. Re-read your post again and makes sense. I think in theory playing the +100 FGTD or -200 ML would be the more +EV play than playing the reduced line on Fighter A by DEC

**semibluff** · 03-13-19, 12:47 AM

Zero juice examples:

Example 1: Fighter A has a 66.7% chance of winning. He has a 40% chance of winning inside the distance and a 26.7% chance of winning on points. His opponent fighter B has a 33.% chance of winning with a 10% chance of winning inside the distance and a 23.3% chance of winning on points. There would be a 50% chance of the fight going the distance.

Example 2: Fighter A has a 66.7% chance of winning. He has a 30% chance of winning inside the distance and a 36.7% chance of winning on points. His opponent fighter B has a 33.3% chance of winning with a 20% chance of winning inside the distance and a 13.3% chance of winning on points. There would be a 50% chance of the fight going the distance.

In both examples Fighter A is -200 to win but in the 1st example he's +274.5 to win on points and the 2nd example he's +172.5 to win on points.

Some fighters are knockout artists and some are technical fighters who rack up points. Thus an overall win % won't directly correlate to a points decision %. There are some other things you need to consider. The more possible outcomes the more juice a book will normally add. A 2 outcome event is likely to be around 105%. Inside the distance and points makes it a 4 outcome event and subject to juice around 110%. Books almost always add proportionally more juice to the underdogs' outcomes in combat sports. You might possibly find value in the favourite on 1 outcome if the other possibility is overvalued. Very rarely will you find value on an underdog outcome even if the other underdog outcome is overvalued.

**TPowell** · 03-13-19, 12:49 AM

Originally posted by semibluff

Zero juice examples:

Example 1: Fighter A has a 66.7% chance of winning. He has a 40% chance of winning inside the distance and a 26.7% chance of winning on points. His opponent fighter B has a 33.% chance of winning with a 10% chance of winning inside the distance and a 23.3% chance of winning on points. There would be a 50% chance of the fight going the distance.

Example 2: Fighter A has a 66.7% chance of winning. He has a 30% chance of winning inside the distance and a 36.7% chance of winning on points. His opponent fighter B has a 33.3% chance of winning with a 20% chance of winning inside the distance and a 13.3% chance of winning on points. There would be a 50% chance of the fight going the distance.

In both examples Fighter A is -200 to win but in the 1st example he's +274.5 to win on points and the 2nd example he's +172.5 to win on points.

Some fighters are knockout artists and some are technical fighters who rack up points. Thus an overall win % won't directly correlate to a points decision %. There are some other things you need to consider. The more possible outcomes the more juice a book will normally add. A 2 outcome event is likely to be around 105%. Inside the distance and points makes it a 4 outcome event and subject to juice around 110%. Books almost always add proportionally more juice to the underdogs' outcomes in combat sports. You might possibly find value in the favourite on 1 outcome if the other possibility is overvalued. Very rarely will you find value on an underdog outcome even if the other underdog outcome is overvalued.

Very true. Fighter A may be a point fighter that doesn't finish guys so it could be juiced more (by decision prop). I just like to know I'm playing a good line when I play props and I tend to judge it by parlay prices which I just wondered if that was a dumb idea to give a baseline

**Optional** · 03-13-19, 12:58 AM

Thanks for the clear examples and explanation Semibluff.