UFC 121 betting odds

http://www.mmamania.com/2010/10/20/1763458/latest-ufc-121-odds-and-betting-lines-for-lesnar-vs-velasquez-on-oct
Brock Lesnar -135
Cain Velasquez +105

Jake Shields -220
Martin Kampmann +175

Matt Hamill -155
Tito Ortiz +125

Paulo Thiago -130
Diego Sanchez +100

Gabriel Gonzaga -165
Brendan Schaub +135

Tito! Tito! Tito!

Wow, all close lines.

Cain Velasquez +105 FTW

GDPofDRC wrote:

Wow, all close lines.

Yep, that's what I was thinking.

Not surprising. Hopefully the fights end up good because this without a doubt the most up in the air main card we've seen in a long time. Possibly ever?

The smart Money says Cain with those odds.

Surprised, Sherdog picked him with the KO in the third on their preview.

Yeah after acting like he had little chance to win in the breakdown lol. That didn't make much sense

GDPofDRC wrote:

The smart Money says Cain with those odds.

Surprised, Sherdog picked him with the KO in the third on their preview.

I disagree. "Smart money" would stay way the hell away from an underdog who, if victorious, would essentially pay out 1:1.

Not feelin any of those

Shaub is lining up for an easy KO over the HW Jardine in Gonzaga.

thessy11 wrote:

I disagree. "Smart money" would stay way the hell away from an underdog who, if victorious, would essentially pay out 1:1.

???

How does that make any sense? Take the favorite and risk more to win more?

I agree with Wolf that Schaub KO's Gonzaga pretty easily. Best line of the lot.

I actually like Kampmann at +175.

thessy11 wrote:

GDPofDRC wrote:

The smart Money says Cain with those odds.

Surprised, Sherdog picked him with the KO in the third on their preview.

I disagree. "Smart money" would stay way the hell away from an underdog who, if victorious, would essentially pay out 1:1.

http://www.bestfightodds.com/

+105 is the closest. If I take it I will go with Bodog at +130. That's smart enough money for me since I predict Cain will win. Easy 30% on top. Too bad, I had seen +165 about a week ago.

gomez1012 wrote:

thessy11 wrote:

I disagree. "Smart money" would stay way the hell away from an underdog who, if victorious, would essentially pay out 1:1.

???

How does that make any sense? Take the favorite and risk more to win more?

What he means is an underdog who more or less pays out even money is not smart money at all. The entire purpose of underdogs is to grant an advantage in profit to whomever is betting them. Why take an underdog who barely has underdog payout when you can put no action on that particular fight and spend your money on better underdog investments such as Schaub or Kampmann? Essentially what Thessy is saying, what the line is saying, is that this fight is extremely close and that makes it more or less a pick'em. Smart money is never about betting what is essentially a 50% play.

Your right. I always look at best fight odds. Didn't really pay attention to the op, was thinking of last week.

Just for lulz, a draw in the main event is at +4000 right now.

LudoCain wrote:

What he means is an underdog who more or less pays out even money is not smart money at all. The entire purpose of underdogs is to grant an advantage in profit to whomever is betting them. Why take an underdog who barely has underdog payout when you can put no action on that particular fight and spend your money on better underdog investments such as Schaub or Kampmann? Essentially what Thessy is saying, what the line is saying, is that this fight is extremely close and that makes it more or less a pick'em. Smart money is never about betting what is essentially a 50% play.

?

Come on! A toss up fight with 50/50 chance of winning is a dumb bet? lol

+105 is a steal if you feel Velazquez will win

Your advice makes no sense, take a longer shot whose odds are only slightly greater at +135/175???

My advice makes perfect sense. Why waste your time with 50/50 matchups when you have fights like Shields/Kampmann, Sanchez/Thiago, Schaub/Gonzaga, Madsen/Yvel all on the card? There are plenty of more worthwhile fights here for bettors where there is a very clear path for victory for one side or another and a much greater than 50% shot for varying sides.

How is +135/175 only "slightly" greater? thats 35-75 cents more for every dollar you put down. We are talking an increase of almost 80% as slight? I never said it's a dumb bet to take an underdog with barely above even odds and a roughly 50/50 shot at winning if you go strictly by what the line is giving but it certainly isn't "smart money".

Here's the way your laying it out to to me
Kampmann +175 & Schaub +135 are more likely to win than Velazquez at +105

I dont see it that way

Nobody said they were more likely to win. But they are in the same ballpark. The payout on them is better is the point and because the odds are similar the projected winning percentage or "edge" is similar, yet the payouts are not the same. Determining edge is a useful tool in betting and it's fairly easy to figure out. Judging by the odds you can figure out what the percentage is that the line is giving each fighter, plus the Vig. The purpose is to determine what the odds give each fighter as a winning percentage, if that is about right or better than what you personally would give a fighter then that would constitute a good bet.

For instance. Brock Lesnar -135 vs Cain Velasquez +105.

Edge on Favorites: ammount to make $1 divided by that same number plus $1. x/(x + 1)
Edge on Underdogs: $1 divided by amount made on $1 wager plus $1. 1/(x + 1)

1.35/2.35 = .57 = 57% chance for victory judging strictly by the line on Lesnar
1.05/2.05 = .51 = 51% chance for victory judging strictly by the line on Velasquez

Since the totals come to 108% clearly 8% is the Vig, or sportsbook commission.

8/2 = 4 so take 4% from each fighter's percentage to give Lesnar 53% and Velasquez 47%.

More or less a 50/50.


Do you really mean to tell Me that you consider it "smart" money to bet something that is less than even 50%? How is that smart money?


Jake Shields -220- 69%
Martin Kampmann +175- 36%

105% -2.5% from each fighter giving Shields 66.5% and Kampmann 34.5% of victory

Matt Hamill -155- 61%
Tito Ortiz +125- 44%

105% = -2.5% taken from each fighter giving Hammill 58.5% and Ortiz 41.5% of victory

Paulo Thiago -130- 57%
Diego Sanchez +100- 50%

107% = -3.5% taken from each fighter giving Thiago 53.5% and Sanchez 46.5% of victory

Gabriel Gonzaga -165- 62%
Brendan Schaub +135- 43%

105% = 2.5% taken from each fighter giving Gonzaga 59.5% and Schaub 40.5% of victory



Again, smart money is staying away from underdogs who have small payouts unless your essentially doing a pickem with money. If you were to do that how is it not smarter to take a dog like Schaub who is only projected 4% lower than Cain Velasquez with an almost 30% better profit margin?