Originally posted on 04/21/2014:

You pretty much nailed it when you said to only bet when you see a very clear advantage and that may not come on every event. I'm pretty much a sucker and bet on each fight even though I know its bad. The thing is though, I am good at recognizing when a fighter is completely outclassed and can get -300 or less.

An example was the Chad Mendes vs Clay Guida fight. I knew Guida had not even a punchers chance of winning as he had no punching power and there was no way he was going to out wrestle Chad and the initial odds were ridiculous. I knew it would be very clearly one sided. The thing is that it takes great discipline to only bet on sure winners and just sit and watch when you aren't sure.

I knew GSP was going to be a force that no one could touch for a long time and made some nice bank on him. He was actually a dog when he fought Hughes the second time and I loaded up. The trouble is that those sure wins don't make up for the all the "action" bets over the long run.

Discipline is really what separates the good gamblers from the bad.

Just for some help when capping a fight. Ask yourself.

Does the person you are betting against have a punchers chance? If so, bet lightly as MMA is much more offensively oriented than boxing.

Does the person you are betting against have a solid wrestling background and is fighting "knockout" artist? Bet lightly as wrestling is the predominant discipline in this sport.

Whats the cardio of the fighter you are betting against? MMA is still relatively new and a lot of these fighters are really cans and not really athletes. The classic example was Belfort against Couture waaay back in the day. No one thought Randy had a chance as Vitor looked unstoppable, but that wrestling background and cardio for days Randy punished him. And no, I'm not saying Belfort is a can, he is clearly not.

Anyway, just some thoughts.