Boxing Weekend of 10/5 - 10/7: Barreria v. Pacquiao
 

Lots of good fights this weekend with a HBO PPV and a ShoBoxing First Saturday of the Month Card. Lets its started with the biggest fight this weekend.

Manny Pacquiao -331
Marco Antonio Barrera +301

This is a great fight, the only thing it is needed to happen about 1-2 years ago. When Pacquio was coming off 2 defeats of Morrales and Barrera was coming off a dismantling of Rocky Juarvez, but since both fighters have different promoters (Golden Boy and Top Rank) and those promotions had a hatred for each other not that long ago, we all should be happy just to get this rematch.

Barrera at +300 is a good deal. I believe Pacman is a great fighter, but I am never sure which one will always show up. Pacman is known to become distracted during fight training which I believe hinders some of his performances, but when one he is one of the toughest fighters to beat. I believe Pacman will win this fight, but I don't think he should be 1-3 against a legend who is a bigger fighter and still a very skilled fighter. Barrera at +300 screams value. He might not win this fight, but would you ever feel more confident betting a 3-1 in a fight. MAB (Marco Antonio Barrera) has been counted out a few times in the last few years. The first being after Pacman destroyed him in 2002. This fight brough Pacquio to boxing's forefront and at the same time was supposed to the fight to signal the end MAB's career. But MAB bounced back and fight as good as ever. Then 18 or so again MAB won a very close and controversial fight against Rocky Juarvez, in their rematch people figured Rocky would school the older MAB, but MAB again proved people wrong and dominated Rocky over 12 rounds. It just seems when everyone counts MAB out he comes out and surprises them.

MAB has let it be known that his boxing career is just about over and his fight might be his last one. This is one of the reasons people believe that Pacman should be a huge favorite. It would seem Pacman the undisputed champ will pummel the "old" MAB. I wouldn't be surprised if it happened. In MAB's last fight against Juan Manuel Marquez, it seemed like a decisive win for Marquez (but not according to HBO who though MAB won a close fight). I believe Marquez won that fight with his more powerful punches, the thing that stands out in that fight about MAB is the phantom knock down. Anyone who say that fight know Marquez was hurting MAB when MAB turned it out and knocked Marquez down. The ref ruled it a slip and let the fight go on. The thing I take from that is MAB still has some punching power and unlike MAB's rival Morrales(recently), when MAB is hurting and in trouble he can still and will unload with a punch that can hurt and opponet.

In this fight I see MAB being more assertive with his boxing style. Pacquio will come out right after MAB and look to blow him out in the first few rounds. I see MAB moving a lot laterally to keep the hard charging Pacman off his chest. I don't know if MAB can take the punishmen Pacman will dole out, but I believe MAB will come prepared for this fight a excellent gameplan. Will that gameplan be enough to stop Pacman is the question.

I just can't touch a fighter at 1-3 against MAB, so unless your really like to gamble on bad odds (and if you do it only a matter of time before you go busto) then feel free to jump all over Pacquio, but there are other better bets out there to bet on.

Enjoy the Fights and Look for my Other Fight Write-Up for this weekend.

Tuds

Peters v. McCline
 

Samuel Peter -826
Jameel McCline +746

Total Rounds (Peter vs McCline)
10.5 rounds
OVER +141
UNDER -151

This fight is the forgotten/overlooked fight of this weekend. Basically it pits 2 fighters who scheduled opponents have pulled out due to injury. I guess in that sense it makes sense for these two to fight.

Peters was supposed to be fighting one-belt champ Oleg Maskiev, but Maskiev pulled out 3 weeks ago due to a injury and McCline was supposed to fight Vitalai Klitschko at the end of September, but Klitschko also pulled out with an injury (stop me if you have heard that one before). So Peter was giving the interm belt and McCline was brought in to fight Peter on short notice, but it works out for all parties involved.

Peters in making a name for himself as one of top heavyweights in boxing today. He is young, powerful, and can take a punch. From his previous couple of James Toney fights it looks like Peter's learned how to box, throwing jabs and using defensive techniques like parring and slipping punches. McCline on the other hand is an old boxer (37), but relatively young in boxing terms due to time spent in jail. I have watched my share of McCline fights and never seen a thing I liked in his fights. He is a huge heavyweight, but really doesn't have much power. He doesn't jab, his footwork is decent for man his size, but he doesn't use it to his advantage. He has a so so chin and very little heart. But for some reason McCline keeps getting big name fights. Really don't see how McCline can beat Peters and the odds reflect that.

The best boxing bet this weekend is the UNDER in this fight. Peters in his last 2 fights looked like he wanted to box instead of just KO his opponent with a single punch. He actually jabbed, A LOT. I think that was because Peters was fighting James Toney, a slick heavy that Peter was taught to box because KOing him would be very very tough. McCline is a close to perfect opponent for Peters. McCline will come foward and not run from Peters. McCline might actually try to exchange with Peters. Peter has always shown good body work and McCline's 6'6'' give Peters a lot of body to target. McCline will either take a beating and just end-up surviving for a lot of rounds which the fight will be stopped by the ref/doctor/or corner or he will get caught and finished early. I am going to go with the later. I see Peters jabbing for the first couple of rounds to soften McCline up and then going for the kill in round 5-6 when McCline is beat down mentally and physically.

Just one more thing about this fight. You think there is a reason McCline was the chosen opponent for Vitali Klitschko's return after going 2+ years without a fight? Sure there was. The Klitschko handlers knew McCline would stand in front of Vitali and trade punches, but McCline's power didn't worry them. Think about it, wouldn't Klitschko's handlers choose the best possible opponent for their man to look good against in his first fight in over 2 years. Just some food for thought.

Take the UNDER and Enjoy the fights,
Tuds

Re: Peters v. McCline
 

Thanks for the analysis on both fights. MAB looks like a great value bet to me. Especially considering he will be much better prepared and have a full training camp prior to this fight with PacMan then in the first fight.

Q. Bodog has the o/u on the Peters/McCline fight at 9 1/2 rounds over -125 under -115. Do you consider the under at these terms to be a better/worse/even bet than what you quoted above?

Thanks.

Re: Peters v. McCline
 

i watched the barrera-hamed match on hbo last night from 2001. i remembered watching prince naseem hamed during his glory days, where he knocked some fool out in 1 or 2 rounds with a devastating uppercut, but the fight with barrera was an ass whooping. afterwards i wiki'ed up both fighters and was shocked to learn that barrera was a 3-1 dog in that fight because hamed was "considered invincible" going in, even though his last few fights had been close. anyway, this has very little to do with the bets on the table this weekend, but it drove home the point that in a sport like boxing with its gambling-rich history and current second tier status, there are occasional spots for a sharp to pound incredibly soft lines for large limits.

Re: Boxing Weekend of 10/5 - 10/7: Barreria v. Pacquiao
 

I'm surprised you guys like MAB here. I expect another one-sided beating. Pacquiao is a better fighter now than he was in their first bout.

Also, I don't consider Barrera to be the bigger man. It's true that Pacquiao has fought as low as 106 (!), but he was only 16 years old at the time. He has really filled out, and he looks good at 130.

In his third fight with Morales (Nov 06), he weighed 144 lbs on fight night after weighing in at 129. Barrera weighed 139 on fight night his last time out. Pacquiao is bigger and stronger, and that is one of the keys to the fight for me.

Another key is punching power. Barrera has't shown any power at this weight. Pacman's power has definitely come up with him to 130. Pacman can take Barrera's best punch. Barrera can not take Pacquiao's best shots.

Also key is that Manny is the fresher fighter. He is younger, faster and stronger. He will set an amazing pace, and won't slow down even if he is way ahead late. I could see Barrera possibly keeping it respectable early, but I don't see how he could go a hard 12 rounds with Manny. I expect him to fade down the stretch. Manny never lets up, and he has a great killer instinct, so he has a great chance for a stoppage.

I don't think Barrera can hurt Pacquiao. If he pulls out a win, it will have to be through outboxing Manny. I don't see that happening though. Pacman has improved his fundamentals since that first fight, and uses his right hand a lot better now. It's tough to beat him by counterpunching.

Sure, Barrera will hit him with counterpunches, but Manny will walk right through them. He's like a buzzsaw - he hits so hard, his hands are very fast and he sets a furious pace. At this stage in Barrera's career, I don't think he can stand up to this kind of pressure. That's not to say I definitely think he is going to get knocked out, but he will lose the latter stages of the fight by a wide margin (if he survives).

Bets I like:

Pacquiao -285 and -290 (Sportsbook and Bodog respectively, arb-able on 5Dimes, where MAB is +300)

Pacquiao -17.5 pts -150 (KO is a winner) on 5Dimes

Re: Peters v. McCline
 

For the Peter fight, you can get Under 10.5 -130 at Skybook or BetJamaica (arb-able against 5Dimes Over 10.5 +140).

I didn't take that under only because McCline has been durable (when he's not blowing out his patella tendon mid-fight).

Sam Peter is a murderous puncher, and he gets some highlight real type knockouts, but he hasn't show the same kind of knockout ability against better competition. He also hasn't shown much power late in fights. He has really bad stamina, and may look to pace himself if it doesn't seem McCline is ready to go early.

I was close to betting the under, but couldn't pull the trigger. So if I had to bet, I would take the under, but I am not going to.

Instead I laid a lot of chalk and took Peter at -750 at BetJamaica, the best price I have seen (I don't check Pinnacle though since I am in the US).

I agree with your assessment of McCline. I can't see him beating Peter. McCline has decent power, but Peter has an amazing chin. He can't win by knockout, and his chance of winning a decision is negligible. Peter has too much of an advantage in youth, power and hand speed (although Peter's stamina is pretty bad).

McCline is 37 and there is a good chance he had been using steroids in the past (a news story just came out about him). In his last fight, he blew out his patella tendon in the 3rd round, and so was TKOed. His body may be breaking down a bit, which is not surprising considering his age, size and possible steroid abuse.

Another good thing is that Peter weighed in at 250. I would still like to see him lose some more weight, but he looked good in the second Toney fight when he came in at 249. He had more energy in that bout, which isn't saying much, considering he seemed exhausted after about 4 rounds in their first fight.

Re: Peters v. McCline
 

If you want to bet -750 on a fighter go ahead, but I have been burned a few times doing so (Once I even bet a bonus on a site on -600 on McCline vs. Zuri Lawerance how ironic is that)

This is boxing all it takes is one perfectly landed punch to end a fight or a twisted knee and injured patella.

Not to discredit you Post, but it doesn't take a whiz to tell people that you like a -750 fighter or that a -750 fighter has a good chance to win. That is clearly reflected in the odds.

The only time I would even think about laying odds like -600 and above on a fighter is if that said fighter is someone like Mayweather or Bernard Hopkins who has impeccable defense and even then they have to be taking on a total can.
Peter and McCline do not fit into each category.

I think Peter will win, I think Peter will blow out McCline and totally school him, but I DO NOT recommend betting on Peter on the moneyline.

Also Post you are right about Peter looking good. I saw pictures of him at the weigh-in and he looks in great shape (not overly muscled like in some of his earlier fights). On the other hand McCline looked like sh!t. Its obvious he has taken steroids, but he looks like he has wasted away. He used to be really muscle bound, looking more like a D-line man then a boxer, now he looks like a sicker version of himself (which who knows might be a better thing).

Tuds

Re: Peters v. McCline
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to bet -750 on a fighter go ahead, but I have been burned a few times doing so (Once I even bet a bonus on a site on -600 on McCline vs. Zuri Lawerance how ironic is that)

This is boxing all it takes is one perfectly landed punch to end a fight or a twisted knee and injured patella.

Not to discredit you Post, but it doesn't take a whiz to tell people that you like a -750 fighter or that a -750 fighter has a good chance to win. That is clearly reflected in the odds.

The only time I would even think about laying odds like -600 and above on a fighter is if that said fighter is someone like Mayweather or Bernard Hopkins who has impeccable defense and even then they have to be taking on a total can.

Peter and McCline do not fit into each category.


[/ QUOTE ]

If this is your reasoning, then you should take McCline on 5Dimes, where he is +700 (Peter is -1000).

In order to beat a -750 line, you have to win the bet more than 88.24% of the time. That is all that matters. You can't say "never lay X amount of chalk".

Regarding your comments, Peter has an absolute iron jaw and simply cannot be knocked out by a lucky punch from McCline. If McCline does get a stoppage, it will be because Peter is exhausted and is getting hit repeatedly. This is obviously a very unlikely scenario.

Wladimir Klitschko (a much bigger puncher than McCline) hit Peter with all kinds of big punches, and Sam showed zero effects, until a huge left hook finally buckled his legs in the 12th round (he did not go down). I am not saying it is 100% impossible for McCline to score a one punch knockout, but it really is almost impossible.

I think Peter wins this fight 95%+ of the time. Since he is only at -800 at many books, I have to revise my estimated edge downward a bit (I am not 100% certain of my analysis). Still, if I think I have an edge, I won't pass it up - even it means laying a lot of chalk.

One other thing to mention is that Peter is the defending "Champion", is expected to win, and is considered a possible future star. McCline, on the other hand, is a 37 year old who has already had multiple (unsuccessful) title shots. We all know that McCline is not gonna get the benefit of the doubt on the scorecards.

Re: Boxing Weekend of 10/5 - 10/7: Barreria v. Pacquiao
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm surprised you guys like MAB here. I expect another one-sided beating. Pacquiao is a better fighter now than he was in their first bout.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Pacman WILL win, I just said MAB is full of value. How often do you find such a great fighter at +300 while he is still only 33 (but there is a lot wear on MAB). +300 is nice number for a former champion who has beaten some of the best. MAB might have lost to Marquez, but the fact he fought him for 12 rounds so well goes to show everyone MAB is not washed up. Juan Manuel Marquez might be a top 10 p4p fighter. No shame in losing to him.



[ QUOTE ]
I could see Barrera possibly keeping it respectable early, but I don't see how he could go a hard 12 rounds with Manny. I expect him to fade down the stretch. Manny never lets up, and he has a great killer instinct, so he has a great chance for a stoppage.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, Barrera will hit him with counterpunches, but Manny will walk right through them. He's like a buzzsaw - he hits so hard, his hands are very fast

[/ QUOTE ]

All this could have said about MAB against Prince Naseem Hamed. Prince was this fighter with dynamite in both fists and people expected Prince to blow out MAB out of the ring. Mind you that fight was a few years ago and we can be sure MAB is not quiet the same fighter, but MAB has shown he can beat bigger punchers (also Morrales, Marquez and Kevin Kelly).

I think Pacman is on a tear right now, but do I consider him unbeatable? Hardly. Pacman's defense is always questionable. With his "buzzsaw" come forward attitude he neglects his defense to try and get his punches in. Watch the first Pacman/Morrales or Pacman/Marquez. Even a smaller Oscar Larios was landing on Pacman. It should also be noted Pacman has been involved in politics in the Phillipeans. This was a distraction in his last fight. It might just show that Pacman's mind is not 100% on boxing.

Just to clarify, I think Manny will win this fight, but if I was going to bet on this fight. I would lay a small amount on Barrera because he is laying a good price. If I wanted to win money I would bet on another fight this weekend (Peters/McCline OVER..see other post).

Tuds

Re: Peters v. McCline
 

[ QUOTE ]

Q. Bodog has the o/u on the Peters/McCline fight at 9 1/2 rounds over -125 under -115. Do you consider the under at these terms to be a better/worse/even bet than what you quoted above?


[/ QUOTE ]

With O/U I would rather have rounds over odds, but giving up a single round is not that big a deal in this fight. If this fight goes more then 7 rounds I would be surprised.

** Just to clarify: A 10.5 round OVER wins when the fight goes past the 1:30 mark of the 11th round. The rounds must be completed not just started. So the Bodog O/U you mentions means the fight would have to go past 1:30 in the 10th round.

Tuds

Re: Peters v. McCline
 

The fact Peters loves to hit behind the head and has been warned numerous time in numerous fights give the chance of a possible DQ of Peter. While I'll admit the chance of that happening are slim, but still very real. What about the freak injury aspect. I think when you have guys who are this size fighting a simple slip could lead to a fight ending injury (you mentioned McCline's against Valuez).

These are heavyweights. The majority of them are big punchers. The chance of one of them landing a really damaging punch exists for everyone (expect Chris Byrd who have a hard time injuring a fly if he connected on the fly). McCline is a big guy (6-6 260) and while I believe he is not a big puncher, he can put some real weight behind a punch.

Peter will/should win this fight, but in the chance something freak happens somebody really want to lose $750 just trying to win a quick hundred. Sports betting is littered with bodies of people who figured this game/fight was "sure thing" only to see the big underdog pull it out.

If anyone wants to lay Peters at -750 feel free, but be warned they are starting a trend of betting big faves that will come back to burn them big time, I am can attest to this since I was one of them.

Tuds

Re: Peters v. McCline
 

[ QUOTE ]
The fact Peters loves to hit behind the head and has been warned numerous time in numerous fights give the chance of a possible DQ of Peter.


[/ QUOTE ]

What chance do you give this actually happening? One percent?

It's funny because the biggest bet I have ever placed was on Mayweather over Gatti. I said to my brother "Only way he loses is if he punches Gatti while he is down and is DQed". First round he hits Gatti after the referee said "STOP!" and Gatti is hurt! Luckily, the ref just pretended he never said anything.

[ QUOTE ]

What about the freak injury aspect. I think when you have guys who are this size fighting a simple slip could lead to a fight ending injury (you mentioned McCline's against Valuez).


[/ QUOTE ]

McCline is 37, Peter is late 20's. The chances of Peter quitting due to a freak injury are less than 1%.

[ QUOTE ]

These are heavyweights. The majority of them are big punchers. The chance of one of them landing a really damaging punch exists for everyone (expect Chris Byrd who have a hard time injuring a fly if he connected on the fly). McCline is a big guy (6-6 260) and while I believe he is not a big puncher, he can put some real weight behind a punch.


[/ QUOTE ]

You can get 25 to 1 (+2500) on McCline inside the distance. I didn't line shop, so maybe you could find better. So if you are serious about these chances of a freak accident, a DQ, or a KO/TKO, then this is the bet for you.

On 5Dimes you can bet against McCline inside the distance:

McCline wins inside distance +2275
Not McCline inside distance -4550

The market is saying that the actual chance of a McCline stoppage is ~4%. If these 5Dimes lines were considered efficient, it would be 4.13%. Personally, I think it is actually lower. Peter has an incredible chin.

[ QUOTE ]

Peter will/should win this fight, but in the chance something freak happens somebody really want to lose $750 just trying to win a quick hundred. Sports betting is littered with bodies of people who figured this game/fight was "sure thing" only to see the big underdog pull it out.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you either think -750 is +EV or it is not.

What I don't understand about your type of thinking is, why aren't you on the other side then? You can already get McCline at +700 on at least one site. Come fight time, you might get an even better price. Why not bet the underdog if this is how you feel?

Also, why not take McCline to win inside the distance at +2500 or better? If you believe:

1. Peter habitually hits behind the head and has a chance of getting DQed
2. with two heavyweights fighting there is always a chance of a freak injury
3. McCline hits hard enough to knock out Peter if he lands a good punch

shouldn't you be betting on McCline to score a stoppage at 25 to 1?

Re: Boxing Weekend of 10/5 - 10/7: Golota v. McBride
 

Andrew Golota -373
Kevin McBride +343

Total Rounds: 5.5
OVER -112
UNDER +102

Fist off let me say, Yuck. I don't want to watch or think about either of these fighters. Golota is well past his prime and who knows about this guy anymore and Kevin McBride can place his name next to Evander Holyfield and Lennox Lewis as Mike Tyson conquers, that should make you a little sick.

This is Don King fight and he loves Gotola and anybody who have beat his former cash-cow, Mike Tyson. McBride is one of the least talented heavyweights fighting. Kevin McBride is tall and that is end of the positives about him. He is slow with his punches and with his feet. He has no real power, no real sense of how to box, no defense, no chin. He just should not be a boxer. The fact he beat Mike Tyson still boggles my mind. Yes Tyson was old and didn't care and on drugs during the fight and a faded figher. McBride is so bad Mike Tyson should have beaten him and Cicely Tyson would give McBride a good fight. Basically if Goloata can make it to the ring and not implode in the first few rounds he should be able to take care of McBride pretty quickly.

Golata had skills for a heavy, key word had, but that is more then you can say for McBride. McBride will come foward and stand in front of Golota and this is exactly what Goloata wants and loves for a fighter to do. McBride will look to hold, but McBride believes he can can KO Golota. This fight will go about 3 rounds. No way it goes 6, unless each the fighters mutually agree to take naps during rounds 4-7. Both guys will be winging punches looking for an early KO. Look for Golota to connect and finish McBride in 3 or fewer.

Yes this is not a big name fight or a sexy fight, but its all about making money and finding good bets and the UNDER is a good bet.

Tuds

Re: Boxing Weekend of 10/5 - 10/7: Golota v. McBride
 

[ QUOTE ]
Andrew Golota -373
Kevin McBride +343

Total Rounds: 5.5
OVER -112
UNDER +102

Fist off let me say, Yuck. I don't want to watch or think about either of these fighters. Golota is well past his prime and who knows about this guy anymore and Kevin McBride can place his name next to Evander Holyfield and Lennox Lewis as Mike Tyson conquers, that should make you a little sick.

This is Don King fight and he loves Gotola and anybody who have beat his former cash-cow, Mike Tyson. McBride is one of the least talented heavyweights fighting. Kevin McBride is tall and that is end of the positives about him. He is slow with his punches and with his feet. He has no real power, no real sense of how to box, no defense, no chin. He just should not be a boxer. The fact he beat Mike Tyson still boggles my mind. Yes Tyson was old and didn't care and on drugs during the fight and a faded figher. McBride is so bad Mike Tyson should have beaten him and Cicely Tyson would give McBride a good fight. Basically if Goloata can make it to the ring and not implode in the first few rounds he should be able to take care of McBride pretty quickly.

Golata had skills for a heavy, key word had, but that is more then you can say for McBride. McBride will come foward and stand in front of Golota and this is exactly what Goloata wants and loves for a fighter to do. McBride will look to hold, but McBride believes he can can KO Golota. This fight will go about 3 rounds. No way it goes 6, unless each the fighters mutually agree to take naps during rounds 4-7. Both guys will be winging punches looking for an early KO. Look for Golota to connect and finish McBride in 3 or fewer.

Yes this is not a big name fight or a sexy fight, but its all about making money and finding good bets and the UNDER is a good bet.

Tuds

[/ QUOTE ]

i'll book your bet right now giving you +110 on the under 5.5, bet limit is 500;

edit: i bumped the odds 5 more cents as they're offer +106 on pinny
let me know if there is interest

Re: Peters v. McCline
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact Peters loves to hit behind the head and has been warned numerous time in numerous fights give the chance of a possible DQ of Peter.


[/ QUOTE ]

What chance do you give this actually happening? One percent?

It's funny because the biggest bet I have ever placed was on Mayweather over Gatti. I said to my brother "Only way he loses is if he punches Gatti while he is down and is DQed". First round he hits Gatti after the referee said "STOP!" and Gatti is hurt! Luckily, the ref just pretended he never said anything.

[ QUOTE ]

What about the freak injury aspect. I think when you have guys who are this size fighting a simple slip could lead to a fight ending injury (you mentioned McCline's against Valuez).


[/ QUOTE ]

McCline is 37, Peter is late 20's. The chances of Peter quitting due to a freak injury are less than 1%.

[ QUOTE ]

These are heavyweights. The majority of them are big punchers. The chance of one of them landing a really damaging punch exists for everyone (expect Chris Byrd who have a hard time injuring a fly if he connected on the fly). McCline is a big guy (6-6 260) and while I believe he is not a big puncher, he can put some real weight behind a punch.


[/ QUOTE ]

You can get 25 to 1 (+2500) on McCline inside the distance. I didn't line shop, so maybe you could find better. So if you are serious about these chances of a freak accident, a DQ, or a KO/TKO, then this is the bet for you.

On 5Dimes you can bet against McCline inside the distance:

McCline wins inside distance +2275
Not McCline inside distance -4550

The market is saying that the actual chance of a McCline stoppage is ~4%. If these 5Dimes lines were considered efficient, it would be 4.13%. Personally, I think it is actually lower. Peter has an incredible chin.

[ QUOTE ]

Peter will/should win this fight, but in the chance something freak happens somebody really want to lose $750 just trying to win a quick hundred. Sports betting is littered with bodies of people who figured this game/fight was "sure thing" only to see the big underdog pull it out.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you either think -750 is +EV or it is not.

What I don't understand about your type of thinking is, why aren't you on the other side then? You can already get McCline at +700 on at least one site. Come fight time, you might get an even better price. Why not bet the underdog if this is how you feel?

Also, why not take McCline to win inside the distance at +2500 or better? If you believe:

1. Peter habitually hits behind the head and has a chance of getting DQed
2. with two heavyweights fighting there is always a chance of a freak injury
3. McCline hits hard enough to knock out Peter if he lands a good punch

shouldn't you be betting on McCline to score a stoppage at 25 to 1?

[/ QUOTE ]


The juice ate Tuds' ability to bet on Sam Peter. Else he should lay a nice $30 on peter...that's what betting tells him to do. Not bet the other side.

Re: Peters v. McCline
 

The reason I don't bet on McCline is because I don't like throwing money away. I hate McCline and I think he will be outclassed in this fight, but I can find better +700 fighter bets to take (Nino Donaire against Vic Darchinyian which I called, just to name one).

I don't find a whole lot of value in betting either fighter straight up. So why would I bet either?

But I have to admit McCline winning inside the distance at 22-1 is a tempting bet. Those are very high and freak stuff happen. Really McCline doesn't need one punch to finish Peter because I don't see that happening, McCline just needs one punch on the temple or ear that shakes Peter up enough so McCline and pounce a wounded Peter and thus getting a ref stop. If McCline KO'ed Peter down, Peter would get 10 seconds to regroup which will help him recover.

Anyway its a moot point because I don't really see that happening.

Enjoy the fights.
Tuds

Re: Peters v. McCline
 

Tuds,

I think you'll find your posts will get more respect if you base your analysis on mathematics and probability rather than platitudes.

Re: Boxing Weekend of 10/5 - 10/7: Golota v. McBride
 

Golata KO'ed McBride in the 6th at 2:42. So I missed the under by 73 seconds. Oh well those things happen.

Tuds

Re: Peters v. McCline
 

[ QUOTE ]
Tuds,

I think you'll find your posts will get more respect if you base your analysis on mathematics and probability rather than platitudes.

[/ QUOTE ]

you have got to be [censored] kidding.

he shouldn't have to expend any energy explaining why he doesn't want to bet on a -750 favorite. your notion that evaluating the EV of a -750 favorite is a math question rather than a boxing knowledge question is really stupid. didn't you learn anything about betting huge moneyline favorites after your retarded chess picks last year?

Re: Peters v. McCline
 

It's a boxing knowledge question that translates into a math question. How is that even a debate?

Re: Peters v. McCline
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's a boxing knowledge question that translates into a math question. How is that even a debate?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL @ you.

Re: Peters v. McCline
 

[ QUOTE ]
The reason I don't bet on McCline is because I don't like throwing money away.

[/ QUOTE ]
Tuds, at what odds would you consider McCline a play?

Re: Peters v. McCline
 

i've seen one of the sharpest bettors anywhere write that he doesn't bet moneyline favorites of -200 or more, ever. there is so little profit to be found in them. the vast majority of people would be better off if they never got involved with betting huge favorites.

you tried to take a shot at tuds because he didn't give a rigorous enough analysis of why he's passing on a -750 favorite? give me a break.

Re: Peters v. McCline
 

[ QUOTE ]
i've seen one of the sharpest bettors anywhere write that he doesn't bet moneyline favorites of -200 or more, ever. there is so little profit to be found in them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess those are the same NL live players that "fold and wait for a better spot".

I'm on the under bet that Tuds posted. gl

Re: Peters v. McCline
 

This is either really pathetic on all parts or just sick level after level.

Re: Peters v. McCline
 

I'm not attempting to level anyone

Re: Peters v. McCline
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tuds,

I think you'll find your posts will get more respect if you base your analysis on mathematics and probability rather than platitudes.

[/ QUOTE ]

you have got to be [censored] kidding.

he shouldn't have to expend any energy explaining why he doesn't want to bet on a -750 favorite. your notion that evaluating the EV of a -750 favorite is a math question rather than a boxing knowledge question is really stupid. didn't you learn anything about betting huge moneyline favorites after your retarded chess picks last year?

[/ QUOTE ]

I seem to remember commenting on the poor choice of wager on that chess line.

Re: Peters v. McCline
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tuds,

I think you'll find your posts will get more respect if you base your analysis on mathematics and probability rather than platitudes.

[/ QUOTE ]

you have got to be [censored] kidding.

he shouldn't have to expend any energy explaining why he doesn't want to bet on a -750 favorite. your notion that evaluating the EV of a -750 favorite is a math question rather than a boxing knowledge question is really stupid. didn't you learn anything about betting huge moneyline favorites after your retarded chess picks last year?

[/ QUOTE ]

I seem to remember commenting on the poor choice of wager on that chess line.

[/ QUOTE ]

I went back and took a look at this, and you never once posted in any of my two chess threads.

I guess you remembered wrongly.

Re: Peters v. McCline
 

[ QUOTE ]
i've seen one of the sharpest bettors anywhere write that he doesn't bet moneyline favorites of -200 or more, ever. there is so little profit to be found in them. the vast majority of people would be better off if they never got involved with betting huge favorites.

you tried to take a shot at tuds because he didn't give a rigorous enough analysis of why he's passing on a -750 favorite? give me a break.

[/ QUOTE ]

you don't get anywhere in the fight game if you refuse to touch short-priced favs

Re: Peters v. McCline
 

meh, i bet on ten different sports. simplicity is a good thing.

Re: Peters v. McCline
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tuds,

I think you'll find your posts will get more respect if you base your analysis on mathematics and probability rather than platitudes.

[/ QUOTE ]

you have got to be [censored] kidding.

he shouldn't have to expend any energy explaining why he doesn't want to bet on a -750 favorite. your notion that evaluating the EV of a -750 favorite is a math question rather than a boxing knowledge question is really stupid. didn't you learn anything about betting huge moneyline favorites after your retarded chess picks last year?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks Hank.

The numbers are exactly that. Why do I need to break down was -250 means or +480? I'll give you my boxing opinion on the fight at hand and what are good/bad odds on a fighter or how a line will move as a fight nears. There are tons of other people on this site who are very good at math who can break down the percentages for me. I'll stick to boxing.

Tuds

Re: Boxing Weekend of 10/5 - 10/7: Barreria v. Pacquiao
 

If anyone saw the Peter/McCline fight there is a good example of why you stay away from -750 and similar type heavy favorites, but it all worked out in the end.

I feel if I am going to lay such odds (-450 and above) I definately don't want my fighter down 3 times in 3 rounds and I don't want to sweat a decision. I just hope you learned Post-Oak that betting those big/heavy favs will come back to burn you eventually. Good to see you still were able to cash a ticket.

Tuds

Re: Boxing Weekend of 10/5 - 10/7: Barreria v. Pacquiao
 

Tuds,

Both those posts are humiliatingly bad. Parlay Slow is correct. You and dankhank are abysmally wrong. I'd suggest looking into this very soon.

Re: Boxing Weekend of 10/5 - 10/7: Barreria v. Pacquiao
 

[ QUOTE ]
If anyone saw the Peter/McCline fight there is a good example of why you stay away from -750 and similar type heavy favorites, but it all worked out in the end.

[/ QUOTE ]
If there was going to be an immediate rematch of this fight, what odds would you take on McCline?

Re: Boxing Weekend of 10/5 - 10/7: Barreria v. Pacquiao
 

[ QUOTE ]
Tuds,

Both those posts are humiliatingly bad. Parlay Slow is correct. You and dankhank are abysmally wrong. I'd suggest looking into this very soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Saying he didn't think he was 88% to win I think is fine, regardless if he says it differently than you. If he got knocked down 3x, sounds like he was right.

I think Tuds would lay Tyson -750 v Thremp, if that's what you mean.

Re: Boxing Weekend of 10/5 - 10/7: Barreria v. Pacquiao
 

Id take Thremp +800 at SIA.

Re: Boxing Weekend of 10/5 - 10/7: Barreria v. Pacquiao
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tuds,

Both those posts are humiliatingly bad. Parlay Slow is correct. You and dankhank are abysmally wrong. I'd suggest looking into this very soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Saying he didn't think he was 88% to win I think is fine, regardless if he says it differently than you. If he got knocked down 3x, sounds like he was right.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you re-read his posts in the thread carefully, you'll find that he wasn't saying anything like that.

Re: Boxing Weekend of 10/5 - 10/7: Barreria v. Pacquiao
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't find a whole lot of value in betting either fighter straight up. So why would I bet either?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

I think you re-read his posts in the thread carefully, you'll find that he wasn't saying anything like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

who would've ever guessed that two 20-year-old math whizzes would struggle at reading comprehension, or that they'd be too closed-minded to accept any explanation that isn't done in the precise numerical terms they prefer?

Re: Boxing Weekend of 10/5 - 10/7: Barreria v. Pacquiao
 

What's up with your ridiculously bad attitude and constant ad hominem attacks?

Re: Boxing Weekend of 10/5 - 10/7: Barreria v. Pacquiao
 

i actually think this is a fairly interesting disagreement, and it's indicative of how people on this forum think and approach betting differently, and maybe explains where some of the conflicts come from.

thus i also think my last reply was on point and not meant to be an attack