The $100 Experiment: UFN Diaz vs. Neer

by Carl P on Sep 16, 2008 10:00 PM EDT Comment 12 comments

This is a card full of live underdogs, and hopefully I can take advantage of that. I bet exclusively on underdogs on the last UFN, Silva vs. Irvin, and was punished badly for it. I think my picks here are better than last time overall. I was pretty surprised by the opening lines. Here's a breakdown of my bets:

Houston Alexander vs. Eric Schafer, $1 on Schafer @ +225. I'm surprised that Schafer is that big of a dog, especially considering Houston's apparent lack of ground game. If Schafer can weather Alexander's power and get him on the ground, its his game. At +225, the bookies give him a 31% chance of victory, which I think is selling him short in a big way.

Ed Herman vs. Alan Belcher, $1 on Belcher @ +205. Again, I'm surprised that Belcher is a 2 to 1 underdog here. Belcher's got a clear striking advantage, and he should be able to exploit that to win the bout. (it appears my draft wasn't complete here. I apologize for publishing it a bit early...)

Joe Lauzon vs. Kyle Bradley, $1 on Bradley @ +600. Bradley's being overlooked because no one knows who he is. Bradley's got a size advantage over Lauzon, which may be problematic for Joe, as he usually relies on overwhelming his opponents to get the victory. Bradley's definitely the underdog here, but not THAT much of a dog.

Drew McFedries vs. Mike Massenzio, $2 on McFedries @ -190. This is a classic matchup of striker vs. grappler. Massenzio definitely does NOT want to stand with McFedries, but I'm not impressed enough by Massenzio's wrestling to convince me that he can take this fight.

Hit me up with comments, questions and criticisms!

The FanPosts are solely the subjective opinions of Bloody Elbow readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bloody Elbow editors or staff.

5 recs | Comment 12 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

how many units are you up or down? or dollars are you up/down?

"No one makes me bleed my own blood."

by monkeyfightclub! on Sep 16, 2008 10:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I count dollars, but my units are $1, so they are effectively the same. As of UFC 88, I am down $2.54, mostly because of a large play on Chuck

by Carl P on Sep 16, 2008 11:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

that killed me too. I was 3-1 on the night and that 1 loss made it a breakeven night.

"No one makes me bleed my own blood."

by monkeyfightclub! on Sep 17, 2008 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for keeping us updated Carl.

by Nick Thomas on Sep 17, 2008 9:55 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I got Danzig for 2.5x at +120, Schafer for 1x at +215, Sakara for 1x at -135, and Brad Morris for 2x at +205. I passed on Belcher due to Herman never being KO’d before. I agree with your assessments of everything though, there is definite value in all your bets.

by Beer Monster on Sep 17, 2008 10:03 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I like Bradely

at +600. And Schafer at +225 is a great bet. I have money on both of those and I’m feeling pretty confident.

On another note I really like what your doing by betting statistically rather than based on who will win. We all know Bradley is a big dog but at those odds he’s got a better shot than the odds suggest.

by B Money on Sep 17, 2008 2:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I ended the night about even. I actually put a last minute $1 bet on Mac Danzig @ +110, because I thought he could take advantage of Guida’s one-dimensional style. Unfortunately, I was night.

I was 2-3 on the night, up $0.30. Not great, but I’m not disappointed either. Most of the fights, with the exception of McFedries vs. Massenzio, ended up how I expected. Schafer weathered an early beating (which had me quite nervous) and easily dominated Houston on the ground. Belcher squeaked out a split decision with his superior stand-up. Bradley lost pretty soundly to Lauzon, but at +600, I still think it wasn’t the worst of plays.

by Carl P on Sep 18, 2008 3:14 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

For the record, I’m 15-13-1 on my picks, down $0.24 over 2 months.

by Carl P on Sep 18, 2008 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My bad, I meant down -2.24.

MMA Sportsbetting Record: 15-13-1, -0.24u
Biggest Win: Marquardt vs. Kampmann, bet 5u on Marquardt @ -125. Won 4u.
Biggest Loss: Liddell vs. Evans, bet 9u on Liddell @ -260. Lost 9u.

by Carl P on Sep 18, 2008 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Still nothing to be ashamed of

Above .500 (in terms of winning pick %) when gambling is not bad. I think that a good strategy at this point would be to even out your bets. Rather than putting so much on Chuck ($8 or $9 I think it was), keep your risk amounts low. You seem to have a way above average understanding of MMA and if you were to bet on live underdogs the same amount you bet on a heavy favorite it could even out very quick.

by B Money on Sep 18, 2008 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It’s nothing to be ashamed of because it’s a small sample size.

However, I do take issues with “Above .500 (in terms of winning pick %) when gambling is not bad.” Winning percentage means nothing. Your net win/loss in dollars is the only thing that matters.

by Mike Fagan on Sep 21, 2008 2:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I get that...

the point that I was trying to make is that it seems as though his bet on Chuck was a little bit “gut feeling” driven, which in gambling does not pay off in the long run. If he were to even out his bets and put a proportional amount of money on each fight he would be up right now. It’s a great experiment none the less and your right, at the end of the day dollar won/lost is all that matters.

by B Money on Sep 21, 2008 3:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs