UFC on Fox 31 Iaquinta vs Lee II

MMA Oracle and Kyle Stevens have really brought this betting forum down. Shame really

And, not surprisingly, both are terrible in betting. And both have been around for like 2 or 3 months only. Disgusting.
 
kevin-lee-al-iaquinta-ufc-on-fox-31.jpg


edson-barboza-dan-hooker-ufc-on-fox-31.jpg


rob-font-sergio-pettis-ufc-on-fox-31.jpg


jim-miller-charles-oliveira-ufc-on-fox-31.jpg


zak-ottow-dwight-grant-ufc-on-fox-31.jpg


bobby-green-drakkar-klose-ufc-on-fox-31-2.jpg


jared-gordon-joaquim-silva-ufc-on-fox-31.jpg


gerald-meerschaert-jack-hermansson-ufc-on-fox-31.jpg


trevor-smith-zak-cummings-ufc-on-fox-31.jpg


dan-ige-jordan-griffin-ufc-on-fox-31.jpg


opponents-adam-milstead-and-mike-rodriguez-face-off-during-the-ufc-picture-id1073344864


chris-de-la-rocha-juan-adams-ufc-on-fox-31.jpg
 
I think there is a big opportunity with Rodriguez-Milstead here.

I bet 3 units for Rodriguez to win by TKO/KO at +280 and also 1.25 units on Milstead to win by decision at +246.

I think these are by far the most likely results, with Rodriguez winning by knockout being the most likely. In terms of fight analysis, MT6ix's post was quite good

I finished watching tape on Rodriguez/Milstead last night and I'm taking Rodriguez ML @+125 for 1u.

Rodriguez doesn't have the best takedown defense and best way to beat him is take away space and negate his reach and length and muay thai skills. Milstead has a wrestling background but after watching tape on him, he is a brawler at heart and I'm pretty sure for most of the fight he is going to trade at range with Rodriguez which is where Rodriguez excels. I watched Milstead's last 3 fights and I saw probably only 1 partial takedown attempt.

Milstead (76 inch reach) is a meat and potatoes orthodox brawler with a jab and overhand right with some hooks in the mix, some power but can get pretty sloppy and no real leg kicks and porous defense.

Rodriguez tall and long southpaw (82.5 inch reach) with a muay thai background, good swing kick, push kick, jab and straight left with some real pop.

Every fight, any of his opponents that established a jab was landing on Milstead pretty easily and Milstead's legs are there to be chopped, Rodriguez just has to worry about the overhand right counter.

If the fight stays standing which I think it will because Milstead likes to bang instead of wrestle, Rodriguez has him outclassed with his technique, length and him being a southpaw. I wish I got Rodriguez at better odds but +125 is a decent line for 1u.

I will add that Milstead's main form of defense, ducking his head, is especially poor against Rodriguez's dangerous jumping knee. And it bears noting how insanely vulnerable Milstead is to the jab, being busted up by wrestler Jordan Johnson's merely competent one. As well as how bad Milstead's cardio is, fading badly in the third round even as a 205 pounder. Or that Rodriguez's strength and takedown defense has been steadily improving.

I might hate myself tomorrow...for not betting way more than 3 units on Mike Rodriguez by KO/TKO.
 
I think there is a big opportunity with Rodriguez-Milstead here.

I bet 3 units for Rodriguez to win by TKO/KO at +280 and also 1.25 units on Milstead to win by decision at +246.

I think these are by far the most likely results, with Rodriguez winning by knockout being the most likely. In terms of fight analysis, MT6ix's post was quite good



I will add that Milstead's main form of defense, ducking his head, is especially poor against Rodriguez's dangerous jumping knee. And it bears noting how insanely vulnerable Milstead is to the jab, being busted up by wrestler Jordan Johnson's merely competent one. As well as how bad Milstead's cardio is, fading badly in the third round even as a 205 pounder. Or that Rodriguez's strength and takedown defense has been steadily improving.

I might hate myself tomorrow...for not betting way more than 3 units on Mike Rodriguez by KO/TKO.
Too many units on the prop and none on the moneyline for an underdog. I hate to see that.
 
Ottow vs Grant has flew over everybody's radar so far.

You guys don't see any value on Ottow by sub? Definitely know Ottow is going to shoot for takedowns.

Hows Dwight's TDD and jiu jitsu defense? I know he does train at AKA but that doesn't say much. If he gets taken down does he drown or can he defend Ottow's takedowns and find Ottow's chin like his recent opponents have? His striking is really sloppy as well.

Not to mention this is a pretty big step up in competition for Grant.
 
Value picks: Hermansson, Gordon, Hooker

Crazy value picks: Green, Kevin (lay all the money)
 
Adams, Hermansson, Gordon, Hooker, Green, Kevin pays + 1600
 
Too many units on the prop and none on the moneyline for an underdog. I hate to see that.

Do you understand the math behind that piece of advice and why, based on my stated reasons, it's not applicable here, or are you just blindly following/reciting it?
 
Do you understand the math behind that piece of advice and why, based on my stated reasons, it's not applicable here, or are you just blindly following/reciting it?
Don't like the reasons. You bet both sides with a prop only. It doesn't have to go only one of those two ways. I hope Rodriguez gets a KO/TKO too, but as far as I am concerned not betting the dog moneyline is foolish.
 
Don't like the reasons. You bet both sides with a prop only. It doesn't have to go only one of those two ways. I hope Rodriguez gets a KO/TKO too, but as far as I am concerned not betting the dog moneyline is foolish.

In other words, you have no clue what the math behind any of this is, and are just regurgitating what you read somewhere, like a puppet. Got it.

If I put the odds of Rodriguez winning a decision or getting a sub at something very low, like 10%, and him getting a KO at 50% or more, then it's actually "foolish" to bet Rodriguez's moneyline instead of him getting a KO/TKO at the respective odds.

Incidentally, my biggest fear for losing both bets is actually Milstead by TKO/KO, since Rodriguez has shown a weakness to strikes in the clinch, while Milstead throws solid punches and a nice, sneaky elbow from that range.

And guess what? Betting Rodriguez ML would only compound my losses if that happens.
 
In other words, you have no clue what the math behind any of this is, and are just regurgitating what you read somewhere, like a puppet. Got it.

If I put the odds of Rodriguez winning a decision or getting a sub at something very low, like 10%, and him getting a KO at 50% or more, then it's actually "foolish" to bet Rodriguez's moneyline instead of him getting a KO/TKO at the respective odds.

Incidentally, my biggest fear for losing both bets is actually Milstead by TKO/KO, since Rodriguez has shown a weakness to strikes in the clinch, while Milstead throws solid punches and a nice, sneaky elbow from that range.

And guess what? Betting Rodriguez ML would only compound my losses if that happens.
Whenever someone says "In other words...", whatever follows is usually silly like your puppet comment. I personally would break the Rodriguez action between moneyline and KO prop, not one or the other since I don't think you can predict those outcome percentages that well. But it's your money.
 
In other words, you have no clue what the math behind any of this is, and are just regurgitating what you read somewhere, like a puppet. Got it.

If I put the odds of Rodriguez winning a decision or getting a sub at something very low, like 10%, and him getting a KO at 50% or more, then it's actually "foolish" to bet Rodriguez's moneyline instead of him getting a KO/TKO at the respective odds.

Incidentally, my biggest fear for losing both bets is actually Milstead by TKO/KO, since Rodriguez has shown a weakness to strikes in the clinch, while Milstead throws solid punches and a nice, sneaky elbow from that range.

And guess what? Betting Rodriguez ML would only compound my losses if that happens.
You could have left out that sentence and you still would have completely communicated the core of your message. Unless one of your points is that the people in this betting thread are far beneath you level and intellect. You're certainly not the only one, but you consistently put a lot of unnecessary snark in your comments. You post a decent amount here so I'm assuming you at least get something from this topic, perhaps just casual betting banter, but generally you try not to pee in the pool you're drinking from.
 
Whenever someone says "In other words...", whatever follows is usually silly like your puppet comment. I personally would break the Rodriguez action between moneyline and KO prop, not one or the other since I don't think you can predict those outcome percentages that well. But it's your money.

Dude, you lost just under $950 on Bellator 212 with some of the most insane, self-sabotaging, undisciplined betting I've ever seen. I didn't say anything because it apparently kind of sort of works for you overall and "it's your money".

However, someone who blew money on the insane plays you did (losing $150 on a wild chase, losing $100 on a nearly blind bet without knowing either fighter well or at all, going $650 on washed-up, fragile Mir, going $338 on a ridiculously overjuiced 2-fight parlay) really shouldn't be advising anyone else on their bankroll management or understanding of plays.
 
You could have left out that sentence and you still would have completely communicated the core of your message. Unless one of your points is that the people in this betting thread are far beneath you level and intellect. You're certainly not the only one, but you consistently put a lot of unnecessary snark in your comments.

If you're going to call someone out for a perceived mistake (something that I avoid doing myself towards others, UNLESS they called me out first), like JimGunn did, you had better come with actual concrete reasoning. Logic. Numbers. Arguments.

Not "LOL that's foolish and people don't do that!", which is juvenile, insulting, and adds nothing of value ot the conversation.

And there is absolutely no reason why I should treat such a worthless call-out with anything more than the contempt it deserves.
 
, going $650 on washed-up, fragile Mir,
You bet Mir as a favourite (1u @-115). JimGunn had him at +115.

Also lmao at you using dollar amounts as a way to emphasize your point. They might seem high to you, but If JimGunn capped the fight as 50/50, and his BR is 100k$, the optimal stake based on Kelly criterion would've been ~6500$.
 
You bet Mir as a favourite (1u @-115). JimGunn had him at +115.

Yeah, I squeezed the trigger too early on that one. Thought Mir wasn't going to get any higher. Would have saved a whole 0.15u had I waited. Would have made 0.65u profit on the event instead of 0.5u.

onC said:
Also lmao at you using dollar amounts as a way to emphasize your point. They might seem high to you, but If JimGunn capped the fight as 50/50, and his BR is 100k$, the optimal stake based on Kelly criterion would've been ~6500$.

You're completely ignoring the overall point to nitpick one of the details I mentioned. (Also, if you've read as far as the Kelly Criterion, you should know that it's considered way too aggressive by most bettors, who use a fractional version of it, nevermind how much it falls apart with higher-level monetary amounts when considering online sportsbook limits, the logistical difficulty of keeping/transferring larger cash amounts, etc.)

Anyways, if JimGunn's approach works for you, then great. That has nothing to do with my point, though.
 
(Desk crew commentating the official weigh-ins, Bisping on the Meerschaert v Hermansson fight)
You know what Tyron, earlier I was looking at the stats, I was looking at the range, the reach and all these things... And I thought you know what - it doesn't matter, it's just a... mere chart.
 
Back
Top