UFC Fight Night 22

Discussion in 'MMA Wagering' started by ThrowingWagersDown, Aug 15, 2010.

  1. Haven't seen a thread regarding this event.

    I jumped on Tibau at +200 for $50. He's bigger, stronger, more athletic, and their strengths are quite similar. Bodog now has him at +150, I know I am not the only one to think there is great value on Tibau there, as the odds dropped quickly. I think +150 is still good, imo.

    Tibau and Miller both have bjj backgrounds, so I expect that neither will get an advantage there, but Tibau is the stronger, faster, and better grappler. I see Tibau controlling for the decision. Miller is too flat-footed and lacks the wrestling skills to keep Tibau off him.

    I was highly impressed with Pearson in his last fight. He moved so well, put together sharp and quick strikes. I think Cole is in trouble here. Not enough disparity between where the line is and where it should be, though, to justify a play.

    Nate will beat Palhares. Got a small play on him. Palhares has one way to victory, and Nate has the experience and abilities to exploit his one-dimensional skills. I don't see Palhares getting Nate to the ground, and if he fails to do so, how does he win?

    I don't see much value anywhere but Nate and Tibau.
  2. I strongly disagree on Nate. Sonnen is one-dimensional and Nate couldn't handle it. Palhares is extremely strong and he should get Nate to the ground the same way he threw Mr. Henderson all across the octagon. Palhares has only lost one fight in his UFC career, granted Nate will be a step up but at +190 all the value lies in RP IMO. I can see him manhandling Nate all night to a decision and perhaps even get a heelhook in.

    Pearson should have no trouble whatsoever getting rid of Miller.

    I think Miller has a clear edge in striking on Tibau and he will probably own him in the grappling department too. Tibau is stronger and his TDs are on pure strength (just like Palhares). Perhaps he is worth the play
  3. Well, Sonnen is one-dimensional, I agree with that. But when that one dimension is wrestling sufficient enough to become an Olympic alternate, I think it's a mistake to compare Palhares TD's to Sonnen's and think he can replicate Chael's performance against Nate. It's true Palhares is a strong, stocky guy. However, his striking is amateurish. Nate has KO power, has demonstrated it in the UFC, and on the feet it won't be close. So, Palhares has to keep the fight on the ground to win, or submit Nate. That's a tall order imo.

    I don't recall Palharaes throwing Dan all over the octagon. Perhaps I should watch that fight again.

    Nate has fought and beat better competition, he has far more tools in his arsenal, has a substantial edge in experience, he trains with better camps, and I feel confident his sub defense will prove sufficient if needed.

    Watch Miller throw strikes. He plants, and lacks the movement he will need to keep this fight standing. It will be difficult for Miller to strike effectively and keep away from the clinch and Tibau's TD's the way his stance is when he's throwing punches (he won't be kicking, unless he wants to go for a ride). Unless he can adapt, exercise mobility, and utilize angles. Personally, I don't see that. Carefully evaluate his opponents and watch his foot movement.

    Tibau has more speed and he's bigger. Tibau has also fought better competition and you should never discount this. It's all in the way guys match up against the other's strengths and weaknesses. I think there is still value in Tibau at +150 (Bodog). It will be a close fight, but Tibau will take the UD.
  4. Nate is indeed the far better striker, more complete, better opposition but I simply don't like his current odds because I envision Palhares using his superior power to get the TDs and work from top control to win rounds. Perhaps the fact I lost $300 on Nate's last fight is clouding my judgement.

    Good points on Miller. I'm going to check out some tape on him
  5. Watch Bocek get Miller down, control the clinch, close the distance. I honestly thought Bocek won that fight. I believe Tibau can accomplish that as well. I know Tibau has more losses, but the competition difference is substantial. So, don't let the loss/win record influence you. It's much more important to evaluate the skills of their opponents and how they matched up against them (to properly evaluate strengths and weaknesses, I mean, so you can reasonably make the comparison between the two guy's skills and determine who is likely to prevail).

    It's worth noting the Guilliard decision was controversial, as most thought Tibau won that fight.



    Tibau is always under-rated, not sure why. I have made money off him before when I bet him big against Uno, so I feel I have a decent grasp of his abilities. Those odds were way off the mark in that match.

    gl and please don't curse me if Miller pulls out a victory. :D

    And so are these in this fight with Miller.
  6. For the record, I increased my bet on Tibau to $100.
  7. I now have $125 to win $200 on Tibau. Watched hours of video yesterday. Becoming more confident. As you guys will notice, I bet toss-ups or + money for the most part.

    The win % may not be as high as when I used to bet almost entirely big favorites I felt had no significant chance of losing; however, the profits are larger and it seems a natural progression of wagering skill to make that adjustment. Gone are the days I would consistently bet $200 or $300 ( or more) to make $50 or $100.

    I like to think I am chasing after the better value now although it does take much more confidence and work to bet the way I do now, as opposed to relying upon strong favorites. I read an analysis once that basically said if you had bet $100 on all the favorites over so many UFC events (can't remember the exact number), you would have lost over $1,500. I thought about that for a long time, and turned it over many ways in my head.

    What lessons and insights do you take away from that?

    Ever since then, I have attempted to train my mind to focus on toss-ups and + money. So much more time-consuming but at the same time much more gratifying and profitable.
  8. Increased my wager to $175 on Tibau. See a lot of weaknesses in Jim's game that don't exist in Tibau's. Tibau wins on the feet or with takedowns, it's his fight.
  9. I'd be careful on the amounts you play on single fights. I made the mistake taking RDA heavy and he broke his facking jaw, money down the drain. Tibau might win this fight most of the time but he could injure himself, slip somewhere/somehow, and boom money gone.

    Good decision on your approach. Personally, I don't even consider placing bets on anyone over -200 and preferably I bet dogs only (the live ones ofcourse but lately I've been seeing quite a few).
  10. Thanks for the advice, man.

    Yeah, I load up a few fights, don't spread my money around much. I used to bet many fights every MMA event. I didn't have very consistent results. I used to bet all the major organizations, such as Dream, UFC, Strikeforce, and WEC. Nowadays, 98% of my wagers in the UFC. There are a few reasons for this.

    1. When you bet many fights as opposed to a few, you are fighting many spreads. Each spread is a disadvantage, you must overcome the Book's advantage each and every time.

    2. We have limited info on each match. So, I feel if you spread yourself out too much, each wager receives an incrementally smaller amount of your time. However, if you only bet a few fights, you can concentrate your mental energies with much more focus. This leads me to a higher prediction accuracy rate.

    3. By betting many fights, you are betting on guys you cannot know as well. If you are betting few fighters, you will of course know these guys much more thoroughly. I choose to focus on guys I have a very deep knowledge of. I want to know these guys from top to bottom....their psychology, training partners, I want to read/watch all the interviews, I want to watch every one of their fights 5 times each so that I have a good understanding of their strengths and weaknesses (which is the essence of a match-up).

    If I am betting every organization and many fighters, how is this depth of knowledge even possible? IT ISN'T. The result is you spread your time and analysis far too wide to get the complete grasp you require to consistently profit. Betting many fights and orgs can cause you to become intellectually spread too thin, attempting to do too much, utilizing so much data from so many fights it is easy to become confused.

    However, if I focus on the fewer guys whose skills and info come easy to me, and I limit my analysis and predictions to the fighters I understand almost completely, my edge increases by tenfold. My consistency in profiting grows, I make far less errors, and I am able to predict far more accurately.

    This has made all the difference to me. The first year, I bet everything. Then I began to "specialize", narrowing and restricting my betting to one org and to the fighters I feel I know as thoroughly as I am able. As a result, my knowledge is comprehensive so I make far less errors and my profits have gone through the roof. I have achieved a high degree of consistency in the last 2 years.

    Also, I fight against the Book's edge less often by betting fewer fights, but for more money. I capitalize big when I am confident. And my confidence is derived from being able to spend a lot of time on my predictions, because I am making far fewer of them than most bettors. If a bettor makes 100 wagers a year, and I make 25, who has the advantage? Assuming we spend the same amount of time watching video and analyzing data?

    The answer is obvious. I spend 4 times the concentration, energy, and focus on each prediction. My knowledge is levels above his. My win rate will be, too.

    Also, this is why I am able to bet accurately so many underdogs. I know these guys well enough to do so. To bet and win consistently on underdogs and toss-ups (which is where I get most of my profits) you must have a very complete and deep knowledge of your fighters. This is not possible if you making a large number of wagers across multiple organizations. How can it be otherwise? There are only 24 hours in a day.

    This is why I only bet the UFC now, primarily. I specialize, and I don't bet unless I am extremely confident. And I have enjoyed an increasing consistency and profitability as a result.

    I hope there is something in this post that helps you. You seem like a cool dude, Sherriff. GL with your bets.
  11. I would like to add one final point. I have mentioned this in a previous post, but it's worth reiterating.

    Remember, the true value in MMA is the underdogs/toss-ups. You get far more kick for your money, and favorites are often over-valued due to name recognition, their win/loss records, etc. With favorites, your room for error is greatly reduced. Your return as a result is far worse. It's high risk, low return. Last night's Strikeforce proved this once again.

    There is only way to accurately take advantage of mistaken perceptions in MMA: bet more underdogs. You must train your mind to be able to objectively analyze the fighters regardless of their name recognition or the general public's perception. Remember, the general public loses money at MMA wagering. Do not follow their money, or you will lose yours.

    I have worked hard every day for 3 years to develop the skills necessary to accurately analyze and predict underdogs. It takes objectivity, an awareness of the pitfalls of name recognition and familiarity, an ability to recognize errors in your analysis and adapt, and the ability to accurately weigh the skills of your fighter's former opponents against them.

    I think these 4 things cause more bettors to lose money than any other mistakes.

    Of course, betting too many fighters across too damn many organizations, too, but I covered that already. :D

    Also, for the record, I now have $196 on Tibau to win $300. That is my final wager on him.
  12. You make solid points TWD. As a matter of fact, my criteria pretty much matches yours. This isn't like boxing or K-1 where there are far fewer upsets.

    Putting your focus on specific fighters and betting those instead of betting on many fights without too much knowledge should be a whole lot more returning. Tibau should be able to throw Miller around for 3 rounds the more I think about this fight.
  13. MikeyHatTrick OG Featherweight

    I think Miller could squeak out a decision here. But I think the play is on Tibau
    I have .74u on him to win 1u, wish I would have jumped on his line earlier
  14. Palhares is a scary scary man. Often strength is the largest factor in a fight, and it may be here. Also, Palhares learning curve on striking/wrestling should be steep at this point in his career. Hes my main bet in this event.
  15. Damn right. I'm liking Tibau just as much. Ross Pearson cannot lose this fight.
  16. I think the TDs and incredible strenght of Paul Harris will be a big factor in this fight. Strength alone can overcome a lot lacking elements. Marquardt is the more technical striker but Palhares has the footspeed to close the distance and from there he should have no trouble picking Nate up and bringing him down.

  17. I laid down 15 more units just because of that bottom video. Scary.
    Ditto on Pearson. Is there any way Miller gets this down? I don't think it would matter anyways, but he can finish guys out of nowhere. Gotta watch a bit of video before I commit to that one.
  18. Yea Rousimir is a scary dude with a lot of strength but I don't think that his shots compare to sonnens. I'm going too have to watch a lot of video before I make any decisions about betting for or against him since nate is one of my favorite fighters. Also coles real strength is on the ground but I think that pearsons footwork and strriking is leagues above coles so it will be hard to get it to the mat. Every time Pearson fights I become more and more impressed with him because he seems to be a 100% better than the last time he fought.
  19. Marquardts got this. Palhares shoul;d not be able get him down, and cant keep him down for sure. Nate will outstrike him to a UD.
  20. Wiseman, didnt you see that video up there? Hes a scary beastman. 18 more units.

Share This Page