I just bet $1000 on Bisping, Leites, and Amirkhani

Never been a big fan of parlays but best of luck to ya.
 
Ballsaque said:
You should have bet 300$ on each and 100 on the parlay. You're mathematically decreasing your chances of making money doing that. Though individually there's no bad bets here, imo.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I was thinking. People see the big payout but all those plus $300 days add up compared to 1k losses. But who knows, I like the bets individually as well. Hope he hits it.
 
Davemeddlehed said:
Anecdotal evidence is not evidence.

The odds of winning one of those bets:

Bisping at +235 = 30%
Leites at +255 = 28%
Amirkwani at -190 = 65.5%

So two bets with a 1 in 3, and essentially a 1 in 4 chance of hitting in a three line play? Math says it's a fools bet. Not to mention that parlays offer literally no added value to the lines. Would have been better off betting that $1,000 on Makwan only.
Click to expand...
Parlays only increase variance. Like you say, it adds no value from the lines, but it subtracts no value either. Basically, if you bet parlays instead of singles, you'll see bigger upswings and downswings. Higher highs and lower lows. That makes it largely about personal preference, in how the person enjoys betting and how they can handle the swings.

The one way you could argue that a parlay is inferior mathematically is if the bettor was gonna either bet $1000 on 3 singles bets or bet $1000 on a parlay, one way or the other. In that case, it's probably better to make the singles bet due to bankroll management: If the bettor is willing to bet $1000 on the singles bets, then he should be betting less than that on the parlay. Maybe JagWar's bankroll is more than $1000 and he would have bet more than that had he made singles bets.

Ballsaque said:
You should have bet 300$ on each and 100 on the parlay. You're mathematically decreasing your chances of making money doing that. Though individually there's no bad bets here, imo.
Click to expand...
He isn't mathematically decreasing his chances of making money. He is increasing his variance though
 
johncola said:
Parlays only increase variance. Like you say, it adds no value from the lines, but it subtracts no value either. Basically, if you bet parlays instead of singles, you'll see bigger upswings and downswings. Higher highs and lower lows. That makes it largely about personal preference, in how the person enjoys betting and how they can handle the swings.

The one way you could argue that a parlay is inferior mathematically is if the bettor was gonna either bet $1000 on 3 singles bets or bet $1000 on a parlay, one way or the other. In that case, it's probably better to make the singles bet due to bankroll management: If the bettor is willing to bet $1000 on the singles bets, then he should be betting less than that on the parlay. Maybe JagWar's bankroll is more than $1000 and he would have bet more than that had he made singles bets.

He isn't mathematically decreasing his chances of making money. He is increasing his variance though
Click to expand...

The variance in this case is inherently linked to his chances of making money, though. Law of averages says that he won't lose all his parlay bets, but he won't win nearly as many 3 line parlays as he will single line bets either. The only saving grace is that the parlay, if it hits, gives him a huge cushion in this case, to break the fall of future losses(assuming he bets with any kind of regularity).

I would hope his bankroll is more than $1,000. Going all in on a three line parlay sounds like a strategy that crosses the line from "bold" to "wasteful" in a hurry.
 
Davemeddlehed said:
There is no added juice to a parlay. Never. It's one of the many ways bookies sucker people into giving over their money.

Even using the calculator I linked, you can see for yourself that there is no added money for a parlay win. If you bet the principle, and take the principle + profit and lay it on the sequential lines, you'll come out to the same figure at the end.
Click to expand...


Yes there are % boosts, and yes they are promotions designed to sucker people in, not a permanent feature.
That does not mean some people wouldn't be able to take advantage of it in a similar way they do "deposit bonuses"

Bookies have and always will rely on the uninformed and casual gamblers to make money just like casinos do, the minority that can make money gambling know how to factor odds and manage risk.
 
Last edited:
JagWar said:
iw861h.jpg


Conor McGregor's confidence has rubbed off on me. He came in my dream, looked me in the eye, and said "Do it."

I have done it. Lets get it.
Click to expand...

Ballsy bet, I think you're going to win.
Posted betting slip.
Admitted that you dreamt about Conor & he came in your eye. That took balls too.

10/10 for your post good sir!
 
$1000 down the drain.

Hope you're loaded and that was just pocket change. :D
 
Leites? Mousasi should cruise to a comfortable UD.
 
JagWar said:
Because Anderson keeps saying this fight is more mental then physical which tells me he's not taking bisping seriously, and he is not ready for the pace bisping will put on him.
Click to expand...
actually that means that he knows he's miles ahead of Bisping physically, even at 40 years of age. The physical superiority isn't at question here, for Anderson it is a mental bridge to get that spark in his eye after an exhausting last few years.
 
I'm sure Conor's confidence wasn't the only thing he was rubbing off on you.

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
 
JagWar said:
iw861h.jpg


Conor McGregor's confidence has rubbed off on me. He came in my dream, looked me in the eye, and said "Do it."

I have done it. Lets get it.
Click to expand...

Well, Makwan Amirkhani is a safe bet. Mike Wilkinson is out since 2014 and is basically just a heavy handed brawler.
Amirkhani's stand-up has improved in almost every bout and his ground skills are exceptional.
I expect Amirkhani to win via submission in the first round or to win a decision with his grinding wrestling style.

I like the Thales Leites bet as well. Not as safe as the Amirkhani bet, but I can see Leites win against "The Moose".
This is as much a coin flip to me as any fight between any top-notch contenders. Thales Leites is almost 3 to 1 underdog, that's crazy.
Gegard Mousasi, although primarily a striker, has good offensive wrestling and top control skills. But he did get dominated in the past on the ground, for instance against Ronaldo Souza.
Leites has a similar skill set like Souza. A high level BJJ competitor with decent takedowns and ever-improving striking skills.
I can see Leites win a decision with takedowns and top control. But he's also fallen in love with his striking, I just hope he will try to implement a more takedown-heavy grappling game.

But I can't see Michael Bisping win. Michael has no punching power to end the fight like Chris Weidman did and doesn't have the wrestling skills to control Silva on the ground like Chael Sonnen.
Silva was always a bad match up for Bisping and it will show. Silva via knockout.
I would have chosen Yaotzin Meza instead of Michael Bisping. Same odds but a better chance of winning. Just my two cents!

I wish you the best of luck.
 
That's unfortunate.
 
You just lit 1,000 bucks on fire. Leites?
 
HAHAHAHAHA

youre crazy

now im having some laughs at your expense
 
Fucked up brah. Better luck next time. Never doubting Mousasi comming off a loss again I'm sure.
 
Better luck next time, O' bold and dashing one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,047
Messages
55,463,597
Members
174,786
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top