Originally <a href='/showthread.php?p=17203724'>posted</a> on 12/21/2012:

Recently I've been reading a lot as to why JDS is such a favourite over Velasquez; in truth, it's an ultra-competitive fight that will leave the winner with almost no remaining viable challengers. Overeem is the only immediate threat, with Cormier being widely considered a darkhorse. Let's make two propositions, first, before we begin, which we will assume to be true: 1) Junior dos Santos has not improved significantly more than Cain Velasquez has improved in the time since their first fight, and 2) the results of the first fight do not have much, if any, influence on the likelihood of either fighter winning this fight. For the purpose of this thread, we have to assume that both of these are true. If you think that one of these two isn't true (or, most importantly, that you believe that the second is not true), then this thread probably won't interest you very much. This thread specifically addresses those who are betting on Dos Santos, with the belief that the first fight did not influence their handicapping of the fight.

We'll assume that, given the betting lines, the betting public believes that Dos Santos' win over Cain in the first fight was no fluke and is likely to be repeated in their rematch. Most sharps don't believe this, presumably, and neither do most of the posters on this forum, from what I've seen. From those I've spoken to on the boards and through PM, most seem to agree that the results of the first fight won't be a factor in handicapping this fight. There are psychological aspects to consider, but who they favour is a matter of opinion. Regardless, most of the heavy JDS backers believe Dos Santos will win convincingly, and not due to the outcome of the first fight, but due to the stylistic matchup, which they believe to favour Dos Santos.

If this is true, the sharp money is, theory-wise, almost always on Cain Velasquez.

If we assume that these things are true, that the first fight is irrelevant due to the multiple injuries (Cain was coming off of a 90% rotator cuff tear, and a video recently surfaced of him supposedly blowing out his ACL shortly before the fight; there were also rumours that Cain attempted to pull out of the fight, but was told he could not), and if it is true that Junior Dos Santos has not improved significantly more than Cain Velasquez, then the only possible reason for the shift in odds is that the betting public is driving the money in the wrong direction due to misinterpretation of the available information. I'll simplify this last part as best I can, as otherwise I'll just go on a math-based ramble, but consider this: if we assume that Cain Velasquez vs Junior dos Santos is almost exactly the same as it was the first time, as if the first fight had never happened and the results of it have no impact on this fight, then you are receiving a fighter who, in the first fight, was at very best -120, for odds upwards of +160, and a fighter who was available at +135 in the first fight at odds of -180. Consider if the lines for St-Pierre vs Matt Sera were opened immediately after the first fight, with Serra close to even money, or a favourite. If the results of the first fight truly do not matter, how can you pass on getting a line at +164, on which the true market value, when we remove these variables which we consider to be irrelevant, is -120? Conversely, how can we wager on a fighter whose true market value was considered to be +135 at -180?

I'm not making a statement as to who I think will win (it's Cain, solidly), but the point is not about who I think will win, it's about the fact that if we exclude these variables as irrelevant (which many of you will), you're getting Junior dos Santos, a fighter whose market value is +135, at -180, and you're getting Cain Velasquez, a fighter whose market value is -120, at +164, and likely better closer to fight night. Make of that what you will.