- Aug 25, 2005
- 5,974
- 352
edit: whoopsOriginally Posted by khoshabasfinest23
does anyone remember what the money line was on silva vs belfort? just curious
and i knew i shoulda done that 6 point teaser PIT +9 with Over 39
Depends on the book. On 5Dimes I believe it closed around Silva -250, Belfort +220
JCH3 wrote:
There is no way I would feel comfortable enough to lay -290 on Jones. Don't get me wrong - I think he is going to win, I have a hard time taking odds like this on an MMA fight. Too much stuff can happen.
Understandable. A lot of my friends who aren't into sportsbetting are equally baffled when I talk to them about my MMA betting. The way my partner and I break it down is by trying to analyze what we feel are the true odds and assign a percentage value to it. For the Bader v. Jones fight, we reasonably expected Jones to win the fight ATLEAST 90% of the time (so would be -900 true odds). The -290 line indicated that the books expected probability for Jones to win was closer to 74.3%. Our 90% vs. books 74.3% means that there is a TON of real value at the stated prices (if we assume our analysis is not flawed, and since we bet with our money based on our analysis, we assume 100% of the time that it is not flawed). Obviously the HUGE variable here is determining what we feel the true odds/probability should be.
TBH, I sometimes still struggle with it myself. The biggest odds I've ever personally laid was on Machida v. Shogun 1. I believe it was around -550 range. I've had to reduce my betting amount and bankroll considerably since then, but that was a tough sweat. Me and my partner had over a G on Machida at -550 range and once it went to the scorecards we thought we had just taken a significant hit to our bankroll. Luckily Cecil Peoples bailed us out. It basically comes down to a numbers game. Some you win, some you lose. We took a fairly tough loss on the Marquardt v. Sonnen fight where we laid -475 (i think) on Marquardt and he was completely dominated. Obviously our analysis was waaaaaay off the mark on that one.