My UFC on FX 7 Bets (and Others) - Post Yours! (Part II)

[MMA Goodfella]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say a mod got butthurt who is a Chuck fan.

Mods are getting absurd. the Sherdog forums are becoming a virtual North Korea. Piss off Dear Leader and end up exiled like Vanity & Wisdom/QTDD

 

[Starkaine]

Is there a way to tell what time the lines will close before each event? Or is it different for each book?

I'm hoping some props open up for other fights on this card, although I already have a punch of different bets in forms of parlays, which I'll have to wait until tomorrow to see if I did the right thing.

It all depends on how the public bets
but with how ridiculous the lines are i don't see the lines changing much

 

[MMA Goodfella]

The fact that you think I was actually comparing the fight between Benson/Diaz to Marquardt/Saff shows how bad your reading comprehension is, there is no point in talking to you.

Umm. Where was my reading comprehension off? You wrote:

"Doesn't this fight remind you a lot of Nate vs Benson? It does for me. I know they're different fighters and different fights, but I feel like the same principles apply here. I was blinded by the fact that Nate has looked so good against other fighters like Cerrone and Miller...."

Well, Nate Diaz is the only Nate I know that fought Benson, Miller and Cerrone. And the term "this fight" is meant to signal Marquardt/Saff. Right? But like Oblivian said, having a debate w/ a dude who caps Marquardt at 95% is pointless. So sure, you're right, there is no point in talking to me.

 

[macphee]

Im just curious, what will you do if Marquardt dominates Tarec in a way that Tarec looked like he absolutely did not belong in there with him? Would you actually admit you were wrong and that Nate would beat him more than 9/10 times or would you disappear?

Cain beat JDS 50-43. Cain should have been a -2000 favourite.

 

[IamJames]

Umm. Where was my reading comprehension off? You wrote:

"Doesn't this fight remind you a lot of Nate vs Benson? It does for me. I know they're different fighters and different fights, but I feel like the same principles apply here. I was blinded by the fact that Nate has looked so good against other fighters like Cerrone and Miller...."

Well, Nate Diaz is the only Nagte I know that fought Benson, Miller and Cerrone. But like Oblivian said, having a debate w/ a dude who caps Marquardt at 95% is pointless. So sure, you're right, there is no point in talking to me.

I honestly thought you were trolling me, but I guess you're actually serious. Ok now, I guess I'll have to explain since you're actually being serious. Wow....

When I said "different fighters and different fights..." I was clearing pointing to the fact that I didn't mean that Nate vs Tarec is a similar fight to Nate vs Benson. Are you with me so far? I was just pointing to the fact that I let Nate's well showings in his previous fights blind me to the fact that Benson was a complete mismatch for him. I don't think I was the only better to make this mistake, infact quite a bit of people made it, so I was just pointing that out.

If you still don't understand what I mean, I can't help you.

 

[UAK]

Anyone who plays straight Kelly on MMA is nuts, if you ask me. I used to do 1/4 and I've moved to 1/8. I might even switch to 1/10 in a bit. The variance is too wild and IMO the books or the public are often so wrong that you are risking too much every card.

But the guy is absoutely sure! Then it's nothing wrong with following kelly 100%!

On a serious note: I personally never follow kelly BUT kelly lets you know the ceiling. Making your bet sizes less than kelly criterion makes it very hard to go busto ( assuming you are a winning player ).

Betting more than kelly criterion -> disaster. <- Shitty bankroll management is a common mistake and I would say it's a very large part of the betting public that overbets.

Betting less than kelly -> not optimal but you never know your true edge so it leaves a margin of safety. When I choose to use kelly, I go 1/4th or maybe 1/2 when I feel extra confident. Normally I bet fixed amounts and completely ignore kelly criterion.

Quote form wikipedia:

"A natural assumption is that taking more risk increases the probability of both very good and very bad outcomes. One of the most important ideas in Kelly is that betting more than the Kelly amount decreases the probability of very good results, while still increasing the probability of very bad results. Since in reality we seldom know the precise probabilities and payoffs, and since overbetting is worse than underbetting, it makes sense to err on the side of caution and bet less than the Kelly amount."


Following kelly 100% is optimal for a mental shark who never goes on tilt and can afford to lose money. ( big assumption though: need to know edge ).

Edit: Something completely unrelated, I know some regression analysis and basic programming in R/SAS would it be difficult to build a predictive model ( not a winning one ) if I have a clue of what variables to use? Or do I* need a high level understanding of statistics?

 

[MMA Goodfella]

Im just curious, what will you do if Marquardt dominates Tarec in a way that Tarec looked like he absolutely did not belong in there with him? Would you actually admit you were wrong and that Nate would beat him more than 9/10 times or would you disappear?

No dude, I'll be right here. I told you I think Nate will win, but regardless of how he wins I'll never admit he was a -2000 favorite before he fight. That's simply ludicrous. Hell, JBJ is only -900 vs. an outmatched Sonnen. Even Barnett is only -1600 vs. Nandor. But I suppose you are smarter than all the books and everyone n this forum calling you absurd.

 

[macphee]

On a serious note: I personally never follow kelly BUT kelly lets you know the ceiling. Making your bet sizes less than kelly criterion makes it very hard to go busto ( assuming you are a winning player ).

Oh yeah, I agree with you there. If anyone is betting large amounts (~$500 a card) I would tell them to Google Kelly Criterion and learn it. It tells you the maximum possible bet you should place, if nothing else.

I'm pretty blown away that IamJames seemingly understands Kelly Criterion, yet still places Marquardt at 95%.

EDIT: Just saw your edit. No, it really wouldn't be that hard to build a regression model. I barely understand SAS and I can do it. The major hurdle is finding large amounts of relevant information. Seriously, it's like 20 hours of gathering and arranging data for every one hour of playing with your model.

 

[IamJames]

No dude, I'll be right here. I told you I think Nate will win, but regardless of how he wins I'll never admit he was a -2000 favorite before he fight. That's simply ludicrous. Hell, JBJ is only -900 vs. an outmatched Sonnen. Even Barnett is only -1600 vs. Nandor. But I suppose you are smarter than all the books and everyone n this forum calling you absurd.

When did I claim to be smarter or better than everyone here? I didn't even imply it. I'm just sharing my opinion on a bet. You've never had an opinion that people didn't share with you? You seem to be grasping for straws here.

You know, this is MMA, and my 95% exaggeration is probably off quite a bit on a sport where anything can happen. When I wrote that number I wasn't thinking of possible injuries during the fight, before the fight and flukes happening like DQ's. Once you factor all those in, the percentage should lower. I should recap the fight to 85%-90%. When I give this opinion, I am not claiming to be better than you, do you have an inferiority complex by any chance? This is just how I feel about a fight, feel free to disagree.

I'm not sure if you have an SBR account, but my original post was that even though Tarec may or may not look competitive at some moments in the fight, there is no way for him to win against Marquardt, and the only reason why I cap the fight at such a high percentage is that I feel Tarec (despite being a good fighter) has no chance of outclassing Marquardt for the majority of the fight nor getting the finish.

 

[Starkaine]

no fighter has a 95% chance of winning on any given fight
Nog was a -2500 favorite over soku and guess what happened?
he lost
Andy doesnt even have a 95% chance of winning against ANY of his opponents (EVEN BONNAR)

 

[MMA Goodfella]

I honestly thought you were trolling me, but I guess you're actually serious. Ok now, I guess I'll have to explain since you're actually being serious. Wow....

When I said "different fighters and different fights..." I was clearing pointing to the fact that I didn't mean that Nate vs Tarec is a similar fight to Nate vs Benson. Are you with me so far? I was just pointing to the fact that I let Nate's well showings in his previous fights blind me to the fact that Benson was a complete mismatch for him. I don't think I was the only better to make this mistake, infact quite a bit of people made it, so I was just pointing that out.

If you still don't understand what I mean, I can't help you.

Dude don't get that erudite attitude with me. I know how to read and comprehend quite well -- especially when the quote is directly in front of my face in b&w.

Once again, in reply to a post by EZ regarding the Marquardt/Saff fight you said, "Doesn't this fight remind you a lot of Nate vs Benson? .......... It does for me. I know they're different fighters and different fights, but I feel like the same principles apply here."

Good fucking God you're as obtuse as they come. You wrote the post and cannot even understand your own rant.

On pg.1 EZ actually responded to your post and said, "honestly i just don't see what you mean w/the comparison.. not remotely. benson is a hell of a wrestler, nate is not. in fact, tarec's wrestling might be just as good as nate's. he's been at team quest for years and has developed a really good wrestling game, tdd and td's. i will be even more flabbergasted than you are professing (if nate loses) -- if nate is able to ragdoll tarec. i just don't see it at all."

Get it? EZ was saying that he doesn't see the comparison. Comparison meaning Nate/Benson fight to the Marquardt/Saff fight. Indeed, you made a comparison. You made it when you said, "Doesn't this fight [Marquardt/Saff] remind you a lot of Nate vs Benson?

 

[macphee]

Goodfella and James, you both have SBR accounts? Go bang it out over there. On Sherdog we only have one thread for betting, not a whole forum, so petty arguments like this take up too much space and make these threads a pain to read.

 

[UAK]

When did I claim to be smarter or better than everyone here? I didn't even imply it. I'm just sharing my opinion on a bet. You've never had an opinion that people didn't share with you? You seem to be grasping for straws here.

You know, this is MMA, and my 95% exaggeration is probably off quite a bit on a sport where anything can happen. When I wrote that number I wasn't thinking of possible injuries during the fight, before the fight and flukes happening like DQ's. Once you factor all those in, the percentage should lower. I should recap the fight to 85%-90%. When I give this opinion, I am not claiming to be better than you, do you have an inferiority complex by any chance? This is just how I feel about a fight, feel free to disagree.

I'm not sure if you have an SBR account, but my original post was that even though Tarec may or may not look competitive at some moments in the fight, there is no way for him to win against Marquardt, and the only reason why I cap the fight at such a high percentage is that I feel Tarec (despite being a good fighter) has no chance of outclassing Marquardt for the majority of the fight nor getting the finish.

I knew it, you really didn't believe youself it was 95%. Finally we can put an end to the debate.

I think MMA GoodFella was spot on, you should practically never give anyone a 95% winrate unless it's a ridiclous skill gap. The chance of flukes, DQ, freak injuries, etc.

Btw, if Cain vs JDS III would happen next week, what do you think the correct line on Cain should be? Asking you James. He won 50-43, dominating jds for 25 minutes.

I would even put Cain at -500 yet Cain owned JDS.

macphee, you use excel? I was thinking about doing this in R.

 

[IamJames]

no fighter has a 95% chance of winning on any given fight
Nog was a -2500 favorite over soku and guess what happened?
he lost
Andy doesnt even have a 95% chance of winning against ANY of his opponents (EVEN BONNAR)

I understand, that's why I said I recap the fight at 85-90%. Please read the post above you for why I think this is true. You can find more information in the earlier pages as well.

90% victory rate isn't as absurd as you make it sound. I'd expect Anderson to win close to 100% of the time barring injuries/dq/fouling vs Chris Leben. What about you?

 

[macphee]

macphee, you use excel? I was thinking about doing this in R.

Yeah, almost exclusively. You can probably do whatever you need to do in excel.

 

[IamJames]

I knew it, you really didn't believe youself it was 95%. Finally we can put an end to the debate.

I think MMA GoodFella was spot on, you should practically never give anyone a 95% winrate unless it's a ridiclous skill gap. The chance of flukes, DQ, freak injuries, etc.

Btw, if Cain vs JDS III would happen next week, what do you think the correct line on Cain should be? Asking you James. He won 50-43, dominating jds for 25 minutes.

I would even put Cain at -500 yet Cain owned JDS.

macphee, you use excel? I was thinking about doing this in R.

JDS has a clear way to win the fight, he can KO anyone on the planet with a punch. I personally wouldn't touch Cain beyond -300, even then I'd be a bit hesitant since Junior has shown that he can last quite a while.

Tarec vs Marquardt will look pretty competitive in many parts of the fight, I've stated this ever since the 1st post I made on SBR. Its just that I don't think he has any path of victory. I don't think he can come anywhere close to outclassing Marquardt for the majority of the fight and I see no possiblity of a finish.

This is the best way I can explain it, so please try and follow.

Let's say Fighter A has a skill level of 7 and fighter B has a skill level of 9. This is a close fight, right? But let's say fighter with the 7 skill level has no knockout power, has almost no chance to submit the opponent, and is smaller with no distinct physical or specific skill advantage. For me, I'd cap fighter B at an 80% or more winnable percentage, regardless or not the fight may look competitive at times. Is this a reasonable line of thinking? I don't know, feel free to disagree.

 

[Goreds1994]

Mods are getting absurd. the Sherdog forums are becoming a virtual North Korea. Piss off Dear Leader and end up exiled like Vanity & Wisdom/QTDD

I wouldn't go that far, but a lot of mods are a bit too trigger happy with the dubs.

 

[macphee]

I think people understand what you are trying to say. The problem is that you are wrong. Tarec has made a career out of being elusive and scoring points in the stand-up from the outside. That is his way to win.

List of elusive strikers Marquardt has looked dominate against:

 

[MMA Goodfella]

When did I claim to be smarter or better than everyone here? I didn't even imply it. I'm just sharing my opinion on a bet. You've never had an opinion that people didn't share with you? You seem to be grasping for straws here.

You know, this is MMA, and my 95% exaggeration is probably off quite a bit on a sport where anything can happen. When I wrote that number I wasn't thinking of possible injuries during the fight, before the fight and flukes happening like DQ's. Once you factor all those in, the percentage should lower. I should recap the fight to 85%-90%. When I give this opinion, I am not claiming to be better than you, do you have an inferiority complex by any chance? This is just how I feel about a fight, feel free to disagree.

I'm not sure if you have an SBR account, but my original post was that even though Tarec may or may not look competitive at some moments in the fight, there is no way for him to win against Marquardt, and the only reason why I cap the fight at such a high percentage is that I feel Tarec (despite being a good fighter) has no chance of outclassing Marquardt for the majority of the fight nor getting the finish.

Listen, when literally EVERY poster itt is telling you are being extremely hyperbolic and/or delusional, and EVERY sportsbook across the globe has Nate at under -400 while you have him at -2000; well, whether you come right out and say it or not., you are implying that you are smarter than everyone else.

I mean, i don't now hat else to tell you; 95% or even 90% is insane.

But I digress. No use in arguing. Like a wise man once said, You can't argue with an idiot b/c they'll bring you down to their level and then beat you w/ experience.

I tap out.

 

[rille31]

JDS has a clear way to win the fight, he can KO anyone on the planet with a punch. I personally wouldn't touch Cain beyond -300, even then I'd be a bit hesitant since Junior has shown that he can last quite a while.

Tarec vs Marquardt will look pretty competitive in many parts of the fight, I've stated this ever since the 1st post I made on SBR. Its just that I don't think he has any path of victory. I don't think he can come anywhere close to outclassing Marquardt for the majority of the fight and I see no possiblity of a finish.

This is the best way I can explain it, so please try and follow.

Let's say Fighter A has a skill level of 7 and fighter B has a skill level of 9. This is a close fight, right? But let's say fighter with the 7 skill level has no knockout power, has almost no chance to submit the opponent, and is smaller with no distinct physical or specific skill advantage. For me, I'd cap fighter B at an 80% or more winnable percentage, regardless or not the fight may look competitive at times. Is this a reasonable line of thinking? I don't know, feel free to disagree.

If it will be competitive you have to take into account that the judges today often only see the last minute of a round, nate could win all rounds except for the last 30 sec and with the bad judging they could easyly give saff the win, atleast 2 out of 3 judges could.

Point being that with the judging today you cant make somebody that big of a favourite, atleast definately not in a title fight.