« Rob Maysey: Ali Act should apply to MMA | Home | Rampage’s dad speaks… »
Degenerate gambling odds for UFC 86
By Zach Arnold | July 2, 2008
So I have a new article talking about the odds being set for this weekend’s UFC 86 fights. Here, with additional commentary, is Ryan Harkness of Fightlinker.com fame with his candid thoughts on some of the underdogs.
“Ya gotta love it when bookies have no idea what they’re setting a line on. Usually this doesn’t happen all that much with UFC events, but we’re in luck this time: there’s a few bets on here that could make you some good money off their stupidity. First and foremost is Marcus Aurelio at +250. If you’ve watched your Japanese MMA, you’ll know he’s the real deal despite a slow start in the UFC. And while Tyson Griffin might look good with his 3-1 record, these were all decision wins – and many of them much closer than they should have been.
Chris Lytle is also a good underdog bet at +220. This guy does his best when he’s on the edge of being booted out of the UFC, so expect him to come out with guns blazing. While Josh Koscheck should be able to beat him, there’s still a good edge on this fight that could result in money in your pocket.
Last but not least (and I can’t beleive I’m going to say this), it’s probably worth playing a unit on Justin McCully at +400. Yeah, he sucks. But keep in mind that his opponent Gabriel Gonzaga has completely choked in his last two outings. If you’re playing the odds over the long run, it would be foolish to overlook this fight.”
Topics: Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 17 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |
Lytle is not a good bet at +220.
At +450 I could be persuaded but Koscheck is one of the worst possible style matches for him and his history against dominant wrestlers isn’t very good.
You’re talking yourself into betting on fighters that are very likely going to lose because they might be a little long on the underdog side. Not smart.
This is a huge month for the dogs. Here they are, Rollo the Cat’s Four Paw Picks:
Rizzo, Lytle, Sylvia, Rothwell (that fight seems to be off the board now).
Also, Alvarz being an do to kawajiri is crazy. Screw reputation and all that, just watch the fights. Eddie is +115 and he should be -150. Not all that much money to be made, but a crazy line still.
Ryan Harkness is teaching a class above on how not to bet, and is showing a prime example of why the Vegas casinos are huge, beautiful buildings.
He doesn’t mention the two best underdogs on the card. Strange.
If you do want to bet on Auerelio please hurry up and do it before I hit the book on Friday night.
Pray tell your two underdog ‘locks’ Mr. Roadblock.
It doesn’t matter what the odds are…the important thing is picking winners. If you play the underdog bets consistently and often, you will lose your ass in the long run.
Lytle is NOT a good bet, because he’s NOT going to win. It doesn’t matter if he is +1200 odds.
Furthermore, lines aren’t set based always on who has the most chance of winning. Lines are set to entice people to bet.
Zach…a while back you asked people who you’d like to hear interviewed on FO radio. I always said Joey Odessa. Whaledog and yourself seem to do pretty decent interviews, and Odessa was always one of the best interviewees back on Ryan Bennett’s show. Dude is as knowledgeable as they come when it comes to that shit.
What’s the most you or Fightlinker have ever won or lost on an MMA bet?
“It doesn’t matter what the odds are…the important thing is picking winners. If you play the underdog bets consistently and often, you will lose your ass in the long run.”
Total nonsense. Complete and total nonsense.
You find the overlay. You find the dog that shouldn’t be a dog or shouldn’t be as big an underdog as he is. If you do that properly, you only have to win a small percentage of the time to at least break even. If you just pick winners you can go broke even with a winning record.
It is your money. Do what you want with it.
i only bet on underdogs, to date i have got 8 out of 13 picks. and i choose fights like; cote over grove and herring over kongo, both of which i won. but betting on the underdogs, especially in MMA, is not only really exciting….but its really exciting. oh yeah, i think im the only person that picked jardine over liddell, beat that.
Yep, what Rollo said. The way to profit is finding guys you think are more likely to win than the bookmakers’ odds would imply. The best example is when the guy you think should be the favorite is the underdog. That’s what happened when I got Rampage at +220 over Chuck, and Sylvia over Vera at +160. Both of those fighters should have been the favorites in my opinion.
I don’t see any ridiculous lines in UFC 86, so I’m most likely not going to be making any bets. The one I like the most is Almeida over Cote, and I’m not thrilled about that one.
george, I had Forrest over Shogun, does that count? I only bet it because he looked freaking huge next to Shogun at the weigh-ins, and I liked the odds.
You’re right though, underdog betting in MMA is about as exciting as it gets, and it’s pretty profitable with the constant upsets.
Zach:
I don’t have 2 underdog locks. I have one, Forrest. The other strong dog on this card is Gleison Tibau. Rollo is right about finding where you feel there is a discrepancy in the line. Stevenson/Tibau is close to a pick ’em fight in my book. Both are coming off loses, both have something to prove, Tibau is big for 155 and will be hard for Joe Daddy to simply bully around, Joe Daddy is tough to submit so it will be hard for Tibau. But Tibau at +165 is a good bet.
I don’t see any conceivable way that Aurelio can beat Tyson. Tyson will not be submitted and that is Aurelio’s only hope. I agree that +250 is a huge line for a guy like Aurelio. But you have to remember what the odds makers job is. The odds makers job is to put the line where it will entice betting on both sides so that the casino doesn’t lose money. Casinos make their money on betting on something called the vig, simply put for every $100 bet the casino keeps 5 and doesn’t make it available to the winners by the way the lines are set. The casino wants betting to be near 50/50 on both halves in a money line bet. The book makers know that an overwhelming majority of fans coming this weekend are UFC only fans and don’t know anything about Aurelio and they know Tyson won 3 fight of the night awards last year. Thus they make you bet HUGE on Tyson and offer a big payoff trying to get people like Mr. Harkness to lay money on Aurelio and help them pay off for all the people that bet on Tyson.
One of the best ways to make money on MMA betting is with parlay bets. Generally such as in Football and Baseball parlay bets are sucker bets. But I think they are a solid play in MMA. Football is tough to bet because of the spread (and as we’ll find out one day crooked officiating) and baseball is tough because of bullpens and managers sitting guys at the last minute, etc. But in MMA you find a lot of guys on each card who are pretty close to a lock and have high odds on them i.e. -180 and you put 2 or 3 of those guys together with a slight dog and you can make good loot. For example I took Reljic, Thiago Silva, Wanderlei Silva and BJ on the last card and it paid off 9/1.
I will probably try both Griffins, Almeida and Joe Daddy this weekend.
If you bet dogs consistently on UFC cards, you will lose in the long run. I’m not talking about a smart bet here or a smart bet there. I’ve KILLED it sometimes (Rampage over Chuck, Diaz over Gomi, Trigg over Misaki)…the last 2 being +300 underdogs. But those are bets where I knew the dog would win and that’s completely different from some dude saying fighter A is going to lose, but he’s a good bet. That makes no sense LOL.
It’s just annoying always hearing people say “at those odds he’s a good bet.” That’s why the Sportsbooks are profitable. You have to pick winners first and foremost.
Most people who talk about betting online are lying…straight up. Easy to spot when people say shit like “I put three grand on this guy” when most online sportsbooks still have limits much smaller than that for betting.
Rollo…you completely missed my point.
Feel free to pick only favorites and an occasional dog you “know” will win. Just as long as no one new to betting and with zero understanding of probability heeds your advice.
If you bet on any fighter, team, horse, or ant for that matter that has a better actual chance of winning then the line given, you are likely to win money in the long run. It’s possible to win only betting on favorites who should be bigger favorites, but that cuts in half your opportunities to place bets with positive expected value.
Betting dogs in MMA is one of the most profitable things to do…especially if the favorite has a vulnerability.
“Finding an underdog you know will win” is easier said than done.
If the line seems off, IT IS PROFITABLE TO PUT A SMALL BET ON IT…in the long run.
Simple concept for all sports..and sports betting.
MickDawg knows where it’s at. Finding edges and playing them with a unit is how most experienced gamblers gamble and make money over the long run. Since I started setting my own lines and betting ‘against’ the sportsbooks rather than on a fighter, I’ve started turning some pretty good profit.
I’m not that much of a internet reader to be honest but your
sites really nice, keep it up! I’ll go ahead and bookmark your website to come back in the future. Many thanks