So the theory goes, if you play the odds in the long run, and you are right the assumption is, you will make profit off that. Since the bookies are putting out odds that aren't true, so theoretically speaking, you need to be picking fighters who can even perform better than the odds that's put out by the oddsmakers. If the fighter A has a +200 line to win it, the real winning odds could be closer to + 230, but your own odds may stand at + 180. Of if the fighter B has a -200 to win it, the real winning odds could be closer to - 180, but you may think that fighter has a winning odds of -250. Or the theory seems to goes, in the long run, if you play the odds, you will eventually make money off you betting on fights. That's my understanding anyways. However, not everyone has the luxury of betting on fights in the long run. So in the short run, it must be imperative that you pick fights based on who you think will win, not who you think has the wrong odds and has better chance to win that fight than people give credit for, bettors or the bookies. So, to bet or not to bet on fighters you think will win, or on the betting odds that you think is wrong and thus has a better chance to win than people give credit for, 'tis the question. What says you Sherbros?