Bellator 194 - Nelson vs Mitrione - Connecticut

How could I be justified betting a big underdog who is as garbage as Julaton is any circumstance? Of course you should feel square in hindsight when she proved she is very, very low level. IMO I think thats a lesson to be learned rather than being OK with a bet like that. Those are the type of fighters you should absolutely never have your money on in any situation. No skills, no iq = no justification ever.

Rose vs JJ is not even close to the same. Julaton is complete garbage and will never have a winning record. Thats a far cry from someone like Rose who is very good and was a completely new style for JJ.

Since I didn't watch any tape on either pre fight (and thus didn't bet the fight), I should ask: Did Julaton show such brutal fight IQ in previous fights too? I mean, her lack of grappling skills are obvious. Has she shown in the past the same proclivity for initiating grappling exchanges despite her horrible grappling? If so, I can see your point. That makes laying the juice on Hardy far more understandable. But if in her previous fights Julaton mostly stuck with her background (striking), I don't know how you could cap the fight before it happened and use her fight IQ as a reason why.

Like I said, I don't know the answer. To me, that would determine a lot of the direction of this discussion.
 
How could I be justified betting a big underdog who is as garbage as Julaton is any circumstance? Of course you should feel square in hindsight when she proved she is very, very low level. IMO I think thats a lesson to be learned rather than being OK with a bet like that. Those are the type of fighters you should absolutely never have your money on in any situation. No skills, no iq = no justification ever.

Rose vs JJ is not even close to the same. Julaton is complete garbage and will never have a winning record. Thats a far cry from someone like Rose who is very good and was a completely new style for JJ.

You used hindsight. And Hardy was barely a tick up on the garbage scale. Therefore, Julaton is and was the right side. Now that we know what happened, obviously that's wrong. Doesn't change the fact that betting heavy (especially) fav's will not serve long term.

I think we're getting tangled here. Maybe you're talking just this single fight and that's it where I'm talking long-term over multiple fights.

Again, JJ vs. Rose was meant only as a case study, not as a fighter-to-fighter comparison of two trash barely-Bellator fighters. That being: bet the dog who has a path to victory. I stand by the Julaton bet because she had a path to victory: her opponent sucks.
 
I gave a long explanation as well as a disclaimer about the way I handicapped the fight earlier in the thread. Julaton went for a wrestling heavy gameplan instead of the kicks and boxing she did in previous fights which was unexpected, but the result easily could have went the other way if she kept Hardy on the bottom at some points when she was on top. Despite winning a lame decision, eating the chalk on a slightly less awful Hardy was clearly the worse bet than losing money on Julaton as a 3 to 1 underdog if one is a long term bettor who bets a lot of fights and isn't desperate to win or pass on this particular fight strictly on its own merits. Hardy barely has a winning record herself after losing to a debuting fighter and letting the likes of Julaton make it competitive.
 
Honestly its more sucking really, really bad than an IQ problem. Her IQ to start wasn't bad, right? Try to wrestle the lesser experienced boxer. Makes sense. It faultered when she didn't stop, even when it showed she was an even more garbage grappler. But the biggest problem, as it seemed with tape as well, is just that she is absolutely beyond horrible. She'll never have a winning record imo, and it just never seems good to lay money on someone that bad.

I won my bets, and I feel square for even going with the over and HH dec. If Hardy wasn't the biggest novice ever on the ground, she had the fight finished at least twice.

I mean, yeah, she sucks. I'd agree that before the first grappling exchange that trying that route maybe wasn't horrible fight IQ. But after that? HELL YES it was. But how would anyone know she'd be that dumb? Hardy did literally NOTHING standing. NOTHING. Now, neither did Julaton, I get that. But the ONLY reason Hardy clearly won that fight was due to grappling. And if nobody knew how much Julaton sucked on the mat, how do you cap that pre fight, THEN cap that she'd continually initiate grappling exchanges? You are saying the tape shows how horrible Julaton is. Do you mean with her grappling as well? Because striking-wise, Hardy looked equally as lost.

Basically, I'm saying there's a bunch of unknowns with two shitty fighters and included in those unknowns is what strategy Julaton would use. IDK, this is too much time spent for me discussing a fight I didn't even bet. It's more a philosophical discussion I guess. Congrats on winning your bets.
 
I mean with everything dude. She is someone who is going to finish her career with a losing record. Like I said and like you saw, you're dealing with the bottom of the barrel. You ask how would anyone know shed be so dumb? Cause she is beyond low level. If UFC low level chicks make mistakes galore, how could you be surprised in the slightest when someone much worse doesn't do what you thought they would or could? You can't bet every dog. And a dog like that is a perfect example of one to avoid imo.

But if there's no evidence her grappling sucks from tape (or that she'd keep trying to grapple) how would anyone know? Saying she sucks and is low level sounds great, but basing it off just striking, Hardy looked equally as bad (which you haven't addresssed). So there's lots of tape showing Julaton with terrible grappling? @JimGunn said the tape showed her mostly striking. IDK man...
 
Even if I agree and say it was a complete unknown she'd be atrocious at grappling, why would you bother going anything but small on a chick who is complete garbage AND has unknowns? Julaton has had clinch exchanges in the past though iirc

You can't look equally as bad when you almost sink a RNC twice and arguably win 30-27 depending on whether or not you wanna give Ana the third round for literally just hugging on the cage. Julaton was clearly worse. We just watched them fight and she should've been RNC'd twice, so not sure on what basis you can argue Hardy looked equally as bad

Equally as bad STRIKING. Not trying to be a dick here at all (seriously I'm not), but you have to actually read what I type when you reply.

As for "why would you bother going anything but small...", I completely, TOTALLY agree actually. And to my knowledge, nobody here DID go anything but small. (And again, I didn't bet the fight at all).
 
Fwiw Hardy admitted publicly that before the Williams loss she was just trying turn every scenario into boxing and that loss taught her "oh you need more tools in mma". That kind of mindset is worse than the sub par fight iq julaton displayed. In the end it's gambling, the outcome is uncertain and we're not here to ridicule and fight each other we're here to take money from the bookies. Just 2 cents from a noob here but w/e
 
Oooh sorry, didn't realize you meant previously looked just as bad in striking. But yeah, idk about that. I bet Hardy dec for a reason, cause I'd disagree, but pointless argument at this point.

All good man. I don't mind good back and forth. And obviously everyone isn't gonna agree on everything here. Otherwise it would be pointless and boring right?
 
Back
Top