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

[Tuds75]

[ 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

[Tuds75]

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

[Thremp]

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.

[Trencherman]

[ 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?

[NajdorfDefense]

[ 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.

[rush66]

Id take Thremp +800 at SIA.

[Parlay Slow]

[ 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.

[dankhank]

[ 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?

[Parlay Slow]

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

[dankhank]

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