So it turns out a lot of huge betting favorites have been losing lately. As a bettor, it only goes to confirm what I have always believed: Betting lines often get out of control and rarely should you bet a fighter at exhorbitant odds. Consider the following: Between May 10 and May 24, we've seen the following upsets: Johnny Eduardo over Eddie Wineland, a -935 favorite Will Brooks over Michael Chandler, a -1000 favorite Mitch Clarke over Al Iaquinta, a -450 favorite TJ Dillashaw over Renan Barao, a -1215 favorite That's one very large favorite and three MASSIVE favorites over the course of three major MMA events. So here's the question I have: Who is it that's continuing to bet these fighters at -600, -700, -800 and beyond, driving the line higher and higher? In a sport as volatile in MMA, why are we seeing odds like this on any fights that aren't total, absolute squash matches? And furthermore, will losses like this teach the betting public a lesson, leading to more conservative approaches and more reasonable betting lines in the long run?
You're right. The lines do ebb and flow. For a very long time, you didn't really see outrageous favorites. Then the lines on favorites started creeping up. Then, lil nog lost to sokoudjou, gsp lost to serra, and crocop lost to gonzaga. Then for a long while we didn't see many massive favorites. Now again, we're seeing lines creep up, but once again, big favorites are getting slaughtered. Bubba jenkins, michael chandler, shlemenko, wineland, fallon fox, barao being some recent ones. I think you're right that the ufc won't be seeing another 10-1 favorite for a while.
Oddsmakers don't need to watch MMA. They just need to predict what the public thinks, and then move the line in accordance with how the money is coming in. No actual watching required.
Not to nit pick but Barao closed at -900 I'm not sure about the other 3. Just shows that anything can happen. It what's most impressive is 3/4 of those underdogs dominated their opponent and didn't just land a "Hail Mary" shot to win.
Remember that there are multiple books. I got my info from BestFightOdds. Apparently some book out there had him that high at fight time, though it doesn't say which.
Nope. I literally have no money. Still, there was no reason for Dillashaw to be such a big underdog. There were people on this forum cursing this fight for the last 2 months and journalists bitching about how this was a wash main event because it featured such a big underdog in the lower weight classes. There were hardcore fans who had no clue who Dillashaw was despite him being around for a couple years now. They never even bothered to look him up. I have no problem with Barao as a favorite, but when fans make bold predictions without putting anytime in and criticizing matchmakers for it, it boggles my mind.
That's true, but goddamn, 12 to 1? Again, who are these people out there who are betting lines like that, saying, "Yes, it makes sense to risk $1200 to win $100?" Personally, I think it almost never makes sense to bet a fighter over -500. The only time that I can remember ever doing that was when I bet Aldo over Manny when Aldo was something like -600.
This. I always study fights before placing bets. I picked both eduardo and dillashaw to win. No idea why either were such massive underdogs. Oh well, all the better for me
Agreed. This sport has SOO MANY upsets and underdogs come through so regularly that except in the most extreme examples it really is foolish to be absolutely certain about any fight's outcome.
It depends. A lot of huge favorites are huge favorites for a reason. Take Cormier over Hendo for example. After that type of domination, whomever took Cormier at -800 got great odds. Hendo wasn't winning that fight in 100 attempts. Every time Rousey fights and you get her between a huge favorite and massive favorite, it's still easy money as soon as the fight starts.
