What style of betting do you use?

[Kyle Stephens]

In betting there are as many styles to use as there are people. Some use spray and pray - just betting on every fighter they think will win without doing much research. Some snipe early lines, some only bet during the fights...
Describe your style and share with us how effective it is. Be honest, it will be helpful to other bettors.

 

[MMAOracle]

well, I rely on 3 things. My analysis, the wisdom of the crowd combined with texas shooter fallacy.
So in a nutshell, it is a convoluted BS.

I first look at the tapes and then I write down my predictions. I decided to now only go with fighters with tapes. No more fucking blind bets. I learned this the hard way when staropoli beat the shit outta Aldana.

Second, I listen to kamikaze overdrive and mmajunkie.

Third, I refer back to their winning chart. This is where pseudo science comes in.

Imagine this, Brain Garcia, the winner of 2017 mma junkie prediction guy has a 55% winning rate. On the other hand, the crowd favorite has a 60% winning rate.
I did alotta cross analysis and looked for patterns of wins and losses. Based on that, I confirm it with my own initial predictions. I did it this time and I won all the parlays and bets. Prolly luck but we will see next time.

 

[buckwheatloaf]

i like to stick in the range of +250 to -150 when i think its a good deal. dont bet on many big favorites since the losses are too big and winning is too small, and dont throw money away on hopeless dogs.

 

[PolarBearPaulVarelans]

I like to bet big on only a few fights each card (sometimes just one) as opposed to multiple smaller bets across a number of fights.

I do considerable research on each fighter. I've missed out on some winning bets (but also avoided some losses) because I don't put money down unless I do my full due diligence in scrutinizing tape on both fighters.

I'm willing to bet any number of props and odds, so far as I think the real ones should be different.
I've bet a fighter who was -430 and also bet props that were +300. I do like to avoid extreme long-shots.

 

[Cockadoodle]

I like to look at the fight card & watch some tape to form an initial feel for value prices. Then I like to see your guys opinions and let that wash through my mind.
After that I will probably have 2-3 bets I am keen on and will put between 2-4u on each.
Unlike Paul (probably due to my inexperience in betting MMA) that leaves me feeling a little exposed so I like to make around 3-4 stabs at dogs who have a good chance or higher risk prop bets.
Normally I make these on the day.

So far it is working pretty well, have tripled my modest bank roll in a couple of months but I think going forward that I would like to bet more money on less fights, just not quite there yet!

 

[Kyle Stephens]

Great responces! I was using some of you guys methods in different stage of my betting career.
I now settled into strategy that I really don't think much bettors do or do exclusively.
I call it the underdog veteran fighter...
I think it's a betting niche that has not been developed, yet.

In short, what is "the underdog veteran fighter"? This is betting on a fighter who is much more experienced, technical, smart, and so on, from his opponent, but the bookmakers put him as an underdog because he is in a losing streak, for example, or the opponent has advantages such as athleticism, age or just is hyped up by media and fans, or other reasons that are not real or sufficient for win, but the audience and/or the bookmaker thinks so.

I think that such bets are some kind of "hole in the system" because we actually put money on a fighter who is much better than the opponent, but we get it as a big underdog. That way here we have an advantage over the bookmaker. Of course, not every underdog veteran fighter wins. We need to know where to hit, where the chance is really on our side. The good of these bets is that they are relatively low-risk, a small bet is needed for good profit, even if we don't win - we don't lose much. And it's not like we are choosing the worse fighter in the hope that the opponent will make a stupid mistake and lose an easy fight. As for example with Elkins' fight with Bectic. He won, but it was not because the bookie made a mistake with the odds, the odds were right, just one of these freak things that happens from time to time in MMA.

To not talk out my ass I will put below some examples in recent history of underdogs that really should not have been (from all of these I only put money on Miller, tho and was seriously thinking about Nog):

James Krause (+200 win over Warlley Alves)
Court McGee (+150 win over Alex Garcia)
Lil Nog (+230 win over Sam Alvey)
Jim Miller (+130 win over Alex White)
(If Overeem was disrespected by the bookie more, I would have put him in this strategy, but he was barely an underdog, maybe I should given how the fight went, but still it's the Reem he could lose to literally anyone at this point in his career)

As a side note I want to mention that A LOT of Factory X fighters (including some who just spent their fight camp there) are winning as an underdogs recently. The aforementioned McGee and Krause. But we got long time Factory X A.Smith with a big win over Volcan and Ian Heinisch just won his fight with Mutante last week (was the underdog).
Factory X is a good place with competent coaches. I have also been impressed for quite some time how good and accurate advice they give their fighters between the rounds, their work in the corner is top level I think.

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

Great responces! I was using some of you guys methods in different stage of my betting career.
I now settled into strategy that I really don't think much bettors do or do exclusively.
I call it the underdog veteran fighter...
I think it's a betting niche that has not been developed, yet.

In short, what is "the underdog veteran fighter"? This is betting on a fighter who is much more experienced, technical, smart, and so on, from his opponent, but the bookmakers put him as an underdog because he is in a losing streak, for example, or the opponent has advantages such as athleticism, age or just is hyped up by media and fans, or other reasons that are not real or sufficient for win, but the audience and/or the bookmaker thinks so.

I think that such bets are some kind of "hole in the system" because we actually put money on a fighter who is much better than the opponent, but we get it as a big underdog. That way here we have an advantage over the bookmaker. Of course, not every underdog veteran fighter wins. We need to know where to hit, where the chance is really on our side. The good of these bets is that they are relatively low-risk, a small bet is needed for good profit, even if we don't win - we don't lose much. And it's not like we are choosing the worse fighter in the hope that the opponent will make a stupid mistake and lose an easy fight. As for example with Elkins' fight with Bectic. He won, but it was not because the bookie made a mistake with the odds, the odds were right, just one of these freak things that happens from time to time in MMA.

To not talk out my ass I will put below some examples in recent history of underdogs that really should not have been (from all of these I only put money on Miller, tho and was seriously thinking about Nog):

James Krause (+200 win over Warlley Alves)
Court McGee (+150 win over Alex Garcia)
Lil Nog (+230 win over Sam Alvey)
Jim Miller (+130 win over Alex White)
(If Overeem was disrespected by the bookie more, I would have put him in this strategy, but he was barely an underdog, maybe I should given how the fight went, but still it's the Reem he could lose to literally anyone at this point in his career)

As a side note I want to mention that A LOT of Factory X fighters (including some who just spent their fight camp there) are winning as an underdogs recently. The aforementioned McGee and Krause. But we got long time Factory X A.Smith with a big win over Volcan and Ian Heinisch just won his fight with Mutante last week (was the underdog).
Factory X is a good place with competent coaches. I have also been impressed for quite some time how good and accurate advice they give their fighters between the rounds, their work in the corner is top level I think.

As someone who is at the pre-noob stage of his betting career, I am thankful for this post.

Maybe the following will not interest you because I don't have experience, but when I start betting I will look for the few fights where I think that the market is irrational. And when I mean irrational, I mean a fight where there is obviously a lot of hype coming into the odds and where the odds represent alot of speculation and disregard facts.

When I look at the upcoming lines, one where I think that the market is out of its mind is Askren vs Lawler, with fuckin Askren a -300 favourite? Market, seriously? Okay, maybe Askren will win but you guys are going to pay that -300 ????

In my opinion, and I find some overlap with what you described about the veteran underdog, I think that there is no existing fight in which Lawler should be a +265 underdog. Now, against a guy like Askren, I see this a free lunch, if there is such a thing in MMA betting.

So all in all in my opinion this is one play where I have the feeling that I know with certainty that I am better than the market at pricing those odds.

 

[Kyle Stephens]

And when I mean irrational, I mean a fight where there is obviously a lot of hype coming into the odds and where the odds represent alot of speculation and disregard facts.

These odds are just stupid. I don't think the public knows that even shopworn Lawler is better than all of Askren's previous opponents. And is not like we will see prime Askren, he is in his mid 30's. Another such fight with a lot of hype influencing the odds is the rematch between Al and Kevin. Iaquinta is such a big underdog I don't know what to say.

But why I like big discrepency in the skill levels? Because a fighter that is way better can (I am not saying he will, but can) still win even if the opponent applies the right gamplan and is prepared well, or the fighter I bet suffered some injury during the fight. This big difference in skill levels covers for the things that are just out of our hands to control or to know beforehand. I cannot possibly know that fighter B is gonna push the tempo for the first time in his life and all I saw on tape was the opposite. But I can count on the experience of the veteran fighter that he or she can react on the spot and come up with right responce. Veteran fighters often are with same coaches and cornermen for years who know how to motivate and make their guy perform in such situations. They've been deep in tough fights, know what changes should be done between rounds. They even know how and when to skirt the the rules in order to win (Another reason to love to bet on Romero, especially on a dog odds.)

 

[onC]

I cap the fight (assign %'s to each fighters chance to win) and bet every +ev line using Kelly/6-10 for MMA.

Wtf's with these walls of text? TLDR but surely it's not that complicated lmao.

 

[ill800]

Tiger style. Effective in short range combat

Mix in crane to attack eyes and groin areas of vulnerability

 

[MMAOracle]

As someone who is at the pre-noob stage of his betting career, I am thankful for this post.

Maybe the following will not interest you because I don't have experience, but when I start betting I will look for the few fights where I think that the market is irrational. And when I mean irrational, I mean a fight where there is obviously a lot of hype coming into the odds and where the odds represent alot of speculation and disregard facts.

When I look at the upcoming lines, one where I think that the market is out of its mind is Askren vs Lawler, with fuckin Askren a -300 favourite? Market, seriously? Okay, maybe Askren will win but you guys are going to pay that -300 ????

In my opinion, and I find some overlap with what you described about the veteran underdog, I think that there is no existing fight in which Lawler should be a +265 underdog. Now, against a guy like Askren, I see this a free lunch, if there is such a thing in MMA betting.

So all in all in my opinion this is one play where I have the feeling that I know with certainty that I am better than the market at pricing those odds.

well, in some fights, the odds has gone up to -1200 like Khabib vs Darrel Horcher. People actually bet that much on Khabib. If you knew 100% he was gonna win, why not bet? I mean, this is like 8% interest in one night.

Having said that , I am going be an asshole for a minute so I apologize. Please don't be offended. I think the market is neither rational nor irrational. The market is simply always efficient. When you judge the market, then you are claiming that your view trumps the collective views of many and that simply cannot be right. The market is efficient and it is what it is. If you feel that you can take advantage of that situation, you are simply speculating as well.

On a related note, I also share your risk averse tendency as well. So I always shy away from fights that are worse than -300 odds. I do whole heartedly agree with your rationale. A fight simply cannot be more than a certain amount when it is a fight between two professionals.

I am wondering tho, can someone do some statistical analysis on the fight? Polar, can you help us out?

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

well, in some fights, the odds has gone up to -1200 like Khabib vs Darrel Horcher. People actually bet that much on Khabib. If you knew 100% he was gonna win, why not bet? I mean, this is like 8% interest in one night.

Having said that , I am going be an asshole for a minute so I apologize. Please don't be offended. I think the market is neither rational nor irrational. The market is simply always efficient. When you judge the market, then you are claiming that your view trumps the collective views of many and that simply cannot be right. The market is efficient and it is what it is. If you feel that you can take advantage of that situation, you are simply speculating as well.

On a related note, I also share your risk averse tendency as well. So I always shy away from fights that are worse than -300 odds. I do whole heartedly agree with your rationale. A fight simply cannot be more than a certain amount when it is a fight between two professionals.

I am wondering tho, can someone do some statistical analysis on the fight? Polar, can you help us out?

If I am not mistaken, one of the premises of market efficiency is that participants are rational.
All markets experience episodes of irrationality and are therefore inefficient. That applies to financial markets, especially the stock market, which chronically experiences episodes of going full-retard. I think an efficient market would be immune to panics and bubbles and would always represent the best pricing of securities. Anyone who understands the world outside of academic nitpicking knows that this is a bad joke. So no, I personally disagree with you statement that the market is efficient.

Now, MMA odds is a market that has to be less rational than financial markets, due to the very limited number of praticipants, the absence of pro betters, and the emotionality of bettors.

Also, let's be blunt, the collective stupidity of MMA fans is high, so I don't trust them to calculate odds properly.

This is just my perception, though, and MMA odds is a market that is almost impossible to model and back-test.

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

I cap the fight (assign %'s to each fighters chance to win) and bet every +ev line using Kelly/6-10 for MMA.

Wtf's with these walls of text? TLDR but surely it's not that complicated lmao.

I personally find these topics to be the most intellectually challenging on Sherdog. Ok, the bar is not very high, but in my taste it does warrant a wall of text.

I am glad that I discovered this subforum because I think it is hands-down where people who truly understand MMA convene.

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

well, in some fights, the odds has gone up to -1200 like Khabib vs Darrel Horcher. People actually bet that much on Khabib. If you knew 100% he was gonna win, why not bet? I mean, this is like 8% interest in one night.

That is absolutely retarded.
You talk like someone who understands finance, maybe I am wrong. But if I am right then you will absolutely agree that the Sharpe ratio on that 8% payout is a piece of shit.


On such a high variance event like an MMA fight I don't have my mind made up yet but I would venture that anything below - 500 is a piss poor bet. I wouldn't bet -1200 on Jon Jones vs Renan Barao. Ok I would, but just to illustrate.

 

[jojoRed]

That is absolutely retarded.
You talk like someone who understands finance, maybe I am wrong. But if I am right then you will absolutely agree that the Sharpe ratio on that 8% payout is a piece of shit.


On such a high variance event like an MMA fight I don't have my mind made up yet but I would venture that anything below - 500 is a piss poor bet. I wouldn't bet -1200 on Jon Jones vs Renan Barao. Ok I would, but just to illustrate.

Im not a huge gambler but most of the world works like this. People bet on safe things, banks do this, finance managers do this etc. You give me those odds on a Mcgregor/Mayweather, Ill take that all day. Id put 30-50k on it, because like everything, there is risk but the risk here is super low. Same thing with Horcher/Khabib. What did Horcher have for Khabib? Absolutely nothing.

 

[Ryan Kelly]

I know this doesn’t really answer the question posed, but something that has positively influenced my results is just trusting my instincts. I used to read what a bunch of other people thought about the matchups first and then would go from there. Now I look at the lines, watch some tape, and go with my gut. Nothing worse than being talked out of the right side.

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

Im not a huge gambler but most of the world works like this. People bet on safe things, banks do this, finance managers do this etc. You give me those odds on a Mcgregor/Mayweather, Ill take that all day. Id put 30-50k on it, because like everything, there is risk but the risk here is super low. Same thing with Horcher/Khabib. What did Horcher have for Khabib? Absolutely nothing.

I disagree with your statement.
The variance in boxing is much lower and outcomes are more easily predictable.

And even then, I know I am going to get some shit for saying that but people forget that Conor actually won the first rounds of that fight and it's easy in hindsight to laugh at the Ginger but I am pretty sure that the people who bet on Floyd won't admit it but they got a little chill down their spine up until round 4-5...

 

[Sharkey]

I know this doesn’t really answer the question posed, but something that has positively influenced my results is just trusting my instincts. I used to read what a bunch of other people thought about the matchups first and then would go from there. Now I look at the lines, watch some tape, and go with my gut. Nothing worse than being talked out of the right side.

I would think this would be one of the last things a person should do just because one potentially opens themselves up to a form of confirmation bias after doing so. Not everybody, though, and perhaps you're one of the ones who can remain objective even after seeing the lines, Ryan, which is hard to do. But for those who have issues with staying as objective as possible I would think looking at the lines would be one of the last things a person should do.

Your point about trusting yourself above all others is spot on, though, whether that opinion ends up right or wrong in the end. If you do your homework then there's no way someone else should sway you because you don't know the process they went went through to come up with their own opposite opinion. The guy influencing you may be a sharp and successful capper, but perhaps this was one of those times that he didn't put as much work in as maybe he usually does in the past. We've all done it and came up with opinions based on our own "lazy capping" even if we don't want to admit it. At best, an opposing view may influence the amount you're willing to risk and that's not a bad thing (or the opposite, and perhaps a similar opinion from someone you trust may give you some extra confidence to risk just a bit more). But if you put the work in, and formed what you believe is a good opinion in advance then there is no way someone else should influence you off that opinion no matter who they are.

 

[GrantSorenson]

I disagree with your statement.
The variance in boxing is much lower and outcomes are more easily predictable.

And even then, I know I am going to get some shit for saying that but people forget that Conor actually won the first rounds of that fight and it's easy in hindsight to laugh at the Ginger but I am pretty sure that the people who bet on Floyd won't admit it but they got a little chill down their spine up until round 4-5...

I bet on Floyd and never had a moments worry. He was totally carrying Conor. Keep in mind I've seen pretty much every Floyd fight so I knew what I was watching. He was fighting so uncharacteristically. He looked absolutely terrible in the fight by his own standards because he was actively fighting in a lazy way just walking forward with his high guard. If you watch his fight with Zab Judah, another southpaw, and compare it to how he fought McGregor, you can see how much he was carrying McGregor. He fought Judah with a similar hands up style but with much more skill, using angles, counters, head movement, better footspeed, throwing sharper right hands. He was throwing shoe shine punches and actively missing on purpose vs McGregor. You have to watch his previous fights to see this and it really shows how little know when they say that fight was even remotely competitive. Mayweather was seen trying to get large bets on himself by KO in the week of the fight in casinos.

As for the thread, I think the best answer has to be that you have to be flexible as a bettor. Bet on good value favs, bet on good value dogs. Straight bets. Some parlays. Bankroll management is the absolute key because you have to stay in the game. ALWAYS look at the underdog and try to talk yourself out of backing a favourite. If you cannot talk yourself out of it, look back on fights like Rockhold vs Bisping 2 (where everybody and their grandmother was on Luke) and think about that before you start going in big. I'm not saying don't back big favourites, just be careful and look for any avenue the dog has and cap that in relation to his price. Look at the props and see if you can see something. FADE THE PUBLIC.

The market gets it wrong as we saw with Ngannou last week. Iaquinta shouldn't be as much of a dog as he is and Kelvin Gastelum shouldn't be as much of a dog either.

 

[jojoRed]

I disagree with your statement.
The variance in boxing is much lower and outcomes are more easily predictable.

And even then, I know I am going to get some shit for saying that but people forget that Conor actually won the first rounds of that fight and it's easy in hindsight to laugh at the Ginger but I am pretty sure that the people who bet on Floyd won't admit it but they got a little chill down their spine up until round 4-5...

If you have an inkling of boxing knowledge you'd know what Mayweather is like, he has some of the highest fight IQ in boxing history, he barely threw a punch in round one.
Im a huge conor stan, and I knew it was the end when he couldnt do shit after round 1.