UFC/MMA Gambling. NO AFTER-TIMING

Devastator · 27-10-2014 10:10pm

Axwell wrote: »

But Glover was the favourite, his price reflected that. Bad price is a bad price, but Davis was 5/2 because he wasnt expected to win. Dont see why anyone would bet on a fighter they think is going to lose because he has better odds. If you are having a punt just based on odds and a nice multiple sure, but if you are basing it on the fighters and performance etc most would have bet on Glover.

I'm glad I done my bet before coming on here or I might have changed my mind! I can't stand Phil Davis but I thought he would do what I've seen him do in other fights and thankfully(for me) he did. I don't always bet on UFC because odds generally are not great so its hard to find value but v.happy with my 1st win in a wee while

weemcd · 27-10-2014 10:28pm

Scratching my head now as to why I picked Glover. He's a one trick pony and not a very good one at that. A poor man's LHW Shane Carwin.

Can't gamble to save my life, though sometimes I put my picks on twitter for fun without betting. Of course those nights I can pick every fight ffs!

Was also stupid putting Ferriera in when he was a short notice replacement

Mellor · 28-10-2014 12:13am

John_D80 wrote: »

Obviously as a single there was no value in in him but In fairness Teixera was a big favourite here (not just on paper either) and including him in a multiple made a lot of sense to increase a payout. He would have been the anchor on a lot of accumulators over the weekend and would have increased value for these bets. Not massively but he would have.

If there was no value in the single bet, then you can't create value by putting it in a multi. That's basic maths behind betting.
I think you are confusing adding value with increasing payout.

Axwell wrote: »

But Glover was the favourite, his price reflected that. Bad price is a bad price, but Davis was 5/2 because he wasn't expected to win.

I appreciated that its a confusing concept. It can sound counterintutive, but its a pretty important concept.
I'm aware Glover was the favourite. That's not irrelevant.
Being a bad price has nothing to do with being short odds, I'm saying he was a bad price because it was a negative value bet.

A short odds bet, can just as easily represent good value as bad.

Axwell wrote: »

Don't see why anyone would bet on a fighter they think is going to lose because he has better odds. If you are having a punt just based on odds and a nice multiple sure, but if you are basing it on the fighters and performance etc most would have bet on Glover.

I think you are misunderstanding. I didn't back Davis just because he was a better price. I backed him because I felt he chances of winning were better than the bookies gave him credit for.

I agreed that Teixeira was the rightful favourite.
What did you think his chances of winning were? That's the key info you need to look at. I had it at 55%/45% in favour of Teixeira.

John_D80 · 28-10-2014 12:45am

Mellor wrote: »

If there was no value in the single bet, then you can't create value by putting it in a multi. That's basic maths behind betting.
I think you are confusing adding value with increasing payout.

.

No, certainly not. And from reading back my own posts, I find it difficult to see how you came to this conclusion. You were the one who brought up the 'value', whereas my point all along was that, I believed most bets on Teixera were part of multiples. He was as safe a bet as you were going to find on that card and many people backed him for a higher payout on their multiples.

You were surprised that so many people were backing Teixera and this was the the reason I offered as a possibility as to why this was the case. It was just my opinion. I never disputed that there was little to no value in betting on Teixera as a stand alone wager.

Mellor · 28-10-2014 1:19am

John_D80 wrote: »

No, certainly not. And from reading back my own posts, I find it difficult to see how you came to this conclusion

It was due to the fact you said this;

John_D80 wrote: »

He would have been the anchor on a lot of accumulators over the weekend and would have increased value for these bets.

He would have increased the payout, if he won, of course. That's not the same as increasing the value. If there's no value in him as a single (which you agree with), then adding him to a multi doesn't increase the value.

I believed most bets on Teixera were part of multiples. He was as safe a bet as you were going to find on that card and many people backed him for a higher payout on their multiples.

That might be the reason, but it doesn't change what I am saying regarding value.

I think confusion comes from idea of value here. To clarify, "value" in a betting sense, means the expected value of a bet in the long run, or on average. A bet has either a positive or negative expected value.

It's a lot easier explain with numbers/money. As I asked Aswel above, what did you think Teixeria's chance of winning was?

John_D80 · 28-10-2014 1:47am

So you're saying that adding Teixera to a multiple would not have increased the value of that bet??

Mellor · 28-10-2014 4:38am

John_D80 wrote: »

So you're saying that adding Teixera to a multiple would not have increased the value of that bet??

It would increase the payout, obviously, as any bet would.
But it doesn't increase the expected value of the bet, if its price doesn't represent value on its own.

It's much easier to highlight this with numbers rather than words.
What did you think each guys chances were pre-fight?
(I could use my own 55/45%, but people have a different opinions)

John_D80 · 28-10-2014 8:23am

Mellor wrote: »

It would increase the payout, obviously, as any bet would.
But it doesn't increase the expected value of the bet, if its price doesn't represent value on its own.

It's much easier to highlight this with numbers rather than words.
What did you think each guys chances were pre-fight?
(I could use my own 55/45%, but people have a different opinions)

I don't need a lesson in recognising what's right in front of my face thanks. I've been betting on sports long enough to understand the concept. Adding Teixera to a multiple would have increased value (small as it is) in THAT particular multiple. To say otherwise just doesn't make sense.

You were suprised at the amount of money/bets going in on Teixera when he was priced so short. I merely offered a POSSIBLE explanation for you. Sorry I bothered now.

califano · 28-10-2014 8:59am

John_D80 wrote: »

I don't need a lesson in recognising what's right in front of my face thanks. I've been betting on sports long enough to understand the concept. Adding Teixera to a multiple would have increased value (small as it is) in THAT particular multiple. To say otherwise just doesn't make sense.

You were suprised at the amount of money/bets going in on Teixera when he was priced so short. I merely offered a POSSIBLE explanation for you. Sorry I bothered now.

FYP:

John_D80 wrote: »

Ive been backng other peoples tips in the horseracing tipping thread long enough to understand the concept

Mellor · 28-10-2014 9:09am

John_D80 wrote: »

I don't need a lesson in recognising what's right in front of my face thanks. I've been betting on sports long enough to understand the concept. Adding Teixera to a multiple would have increased value (small as it is) in THAT particular multiple. To say otherwise just doesn't make sense.

I've no idea how you can say you understand the concept, then say he adds value to the multiple.

Enlighten me so. How does a -EV single add value to a multiple? Because I'm missing sonething.

We should be able to have a intelligent discussion on gambling without it turning into nonsense. I stopped posting on the gambling forum because on that sort of thing.

Mr. Manager · 28-10-2014 10:47am

Mellor wrote: »

I've no idea how you can say you understand the concept, then say he adds value to the multiple.

Enlighten me so. How does a -EV single add value to a multiple? Because I'm missing sonething.

We should be able to have a intelligent discussion on gambling without it turning into nonsense. I stopped posting on the gambling forum because on that sort of thing.

I think this is the bit that's going over his head. Net value vs. Expected value appear to be the same thing

John_D80 · 28-10-2014 11:08am

Lol I see you've brought out the heavies now. Haha.

@califano: fyi 90% of what's tipped in the horse racing tips thread is absolute dirt. I bet very little on horse racing by comparison to other sports actually. You know SFA about me. Would appreciate you not deliberately misquoting me in future. Thank you.

Axwell · 28-10-2014 12:31pm

Mellor wrote: »

I agreed that Teixeira was the rightful favourite.
What did you think his chances of winning were? That's the key info you need to look at. I had it at 55%/45% in favour of Teixeira.

Hey, just seeing this now was away over the weekend. I get what you are saying but I guess this point above is where we differ. I would have given the fight to Glover beforehand at easily 60/40 to Glover to win it so didnt see any value in Davis as I just didnt see him winning it at all. I dont really rate him to be honest, I dont really rate either of them that highly when it comes to it but I felt Glover had this one easy enough. Of course Davis had a good gameplan and **** all over that but there ya go, thats gambling on UFC for ya. Cant get a break as of late, need to reduce my bets to smaller multiples where I am confident enough of the outcome. Been putting trebles and 4 bet accumulators on lately on some of the cards and theres always one fighter letting me down that should have won. Gunni shafted me a few weeks back for example.

Mellor · 28-10-2014 2:39pm

Axwell wrote: »

I guess this point above is where we differ. I would have given the fight to Glover beforehand at easily 60/40 to Glover to win it so didnt see any value in Davis as I just didnt see him winning it at all.

Thanks for the reply. We differ on our opinion of each fighters chances, but that's fine of course.

The just of my think was;
Glover was 1/3, in order to show a profit he'd need to win >3 out of 4 times. Or 75%
Davis was 5/2, he only needs to >2 out of 7 times. Which is 29%.

So even at 60% you said, Glover doesn't win enough. But Davis does.
And that's why I was happy to bet on Davis even though I thought Glover would more likely win.

mailburner · 08-11-2014 1:12am

went with this double at 17/10

silva to beat brenneman
mc call to beat linekar

happy to oppose brenneman who doesnt belong in the ufc imo
mc call will have a big speed advantage of lineker who wont have much success unless it turns into a slugfest, mc call too smart for that
should be a good fight though

struggling with rockhold...dec or ko
both couldve been backed at 9/4 midweek so the value on on the ko long gone

mailburner · 08-11-2014 1:14am

single on pearson also at 8/11 (boyles)

that price is wrong imo, really think pearson is a league above iaquinta here

surely I can't get this one wrong

EuskalHerria · 08-11-2014 1:57am

Iaquinta, Bisping and Lineker as an outside treble. €10 wins €250ish.

That's a bet I tried to place. If it happens, fcuk unibet.

mailburner · 08-11-2014 7:06pm

mailburner wrote: »

single on pearson also at 8/11 (boyles)

that price is wrong imo, really think pearson is a league above iaquinta here

surely I can't get this one wrong

may as well stick to just watching this sport

Devastator · 09-11-2014 3:25pm

mailburner wrote: »

may as well stick to just watching this sport

Think quite a few people would have lost money on Pearson. Even after watching the fight I still think 8/11 are good odds

If he's similar odds next fight lump on him, he'll bounce back

Mellor · 10-11-2014 2:32am

Devastator wrote: »

Think quite a few people would have lost money on Pearson. Even after watching the fight I still think 8/11 are good odds If he's similar odds next fight lump on him, he'll bounce back

Yup

Locomotion · 10-11-2014 10:46am

Bermudez and Gastelum are both coming in as favourites on Best Fight Odds.

Think a double on Ellenberger/Lamas is a MASSIVE bargain at 5/1

10-11-2014 11:20am

Locomotion wrote: »

Bermudez and Gastelum are both coming in as favourites on Best Fight Odds.

Think a double on Ellenberger/Lamas is a MASSIVE bargain at 5/1

How does Ellenberger win that fight? Can't see it.

mailburner · 10-11-2014 11:42am

Javion Faint Ufo wrote: »

How does Ellenberger win that fight? Can't see it.

struggling to make a case for him also
he's one to avoid and has been for a while, gastelum a fighter on the up
along with bermudez

the double of gast and bermudez looks pretty good to me at 6/4

Mellor · 10-11-2014 11:59am

I wouldn't go near Ellenburger in this one, not when it's in Mexico.

Lamas v Bermudez for me is a 50/50 fight. So I'm leaning towards Lamas at 6/5. FWIW, he's half mexican.
If you get on early, the line could move here imo.

Edit: A double on Lamas, Gastelum pays 10/3

ASOT · 10-11-2014 12:59pm

Wouldnt touch Ellenberger with a barge pole either, Kelvin has this all day long imo. Hes been slowly but surely getting the Ws and going slightly under the radar. Decent double Mellor but imo the Lamas/Bermudez fight is way to close to call. Wouldnt chance it.

Locomotion · 13-11-2014 12:49pm

Tito opened as -175 favourite over Bonnar (+135).

mailburner · 15-11-2014 6:33pm

took the gastelum bermudez double,works out best at almost 6/4 boyles

confident of gast, think bermudez maybe by dec but close one, surely goes three tho

both by dec also at 7.2 (888)

accum @ 5.85
werdum
gastelum
tito
king mo
manhoef
888 sport

gl to all, could do with some myself

15-11-2014 11:58pm

Why can't I find MOV for the Tito Bonnar fight!! Tito by Sub!

mailburner · 16-11-2014 12:25am

Javion Faint Ufo wrote: »

Why can't I find MOV for the Tito Bonnar fight!! Tito by Sub!

only betvic doing mov, usually most dont do this for bellator events

12/1
hope you have a betvic ac

http://www.oddschecker.com/ufc-mma/tito-ortiz-v-stephan-bonnar/method-of-victory

16-11-2014 1:17am

Nice one a worthy bet for opening a new account!

UFC/MMA Gambling. **NO AFTER-TIMING**

Comments

UFC/MMA Gambling. NO AFTER-TIMING