I could see Lesnar getting the fight to the ground and pounding Hunt out like he did to Mir.
A lot of people think Lesnar can't take a punch but the Carwin fight showed different.
I don't think he would take the fight unless he was 100% sure he was ready and over what derailed his MMA career in the past.
Also for all Hunt is billed to be, he's 42. Mir is complete garbage now. He came in the Octogon incredibly out of shape for that fight and it showed. Bigfoot Silva is also complete garbage now, not sure his chin could withstand a shot from my 5 year old at this point.
So besides a KO to Roy Nelson, Hunt hasn't done anything since that run he had from 2011-2013.
Don't get me wrong, Hunt's punching power is extremely legit and he could catch Lesnar, but Lesnar's skills were and presumably still are legit as well. I think this fight should be close to a pick'em, there's value with the dog imo. I got Lesnar at +155 the day it went up, it's already down to +140.
This fight went down literally exactly how I predicted it would, but impressive on Hunt's part for not getting finished. UFC 200 was a lucrative card for me.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Jason497:
I could see Lesnar getting the fight to the ground and pounding Hunt out like he did to Mir.
A lot of people think Lesnar can't take a punch but the Carwin fight showed different.
I don't think he would take the fight unless he was 100% sure he was ready and over what derailed his MMA career in the past.
Also for all Hunt is billed to be, he's 42. Mir is complete garbage now. He came in the Octogon incredibly out of shape for that fight and it showed. Bigfoot Silva is also complete garbage now, not sure his chin could withstand a shot from my 5 year old at this point.
So besides a KO to Roy Nelson, Hunt hasn't done anything since that run he had from 2011-2013.
Don't get me wrong, Hunt's punching power is extremely legit and he could catch Lesnar, but Lesnar's skills were and presumably still are legit as well. I think this fight should be close to a pick'em, there's value with the dog imo. I got Lesnar at +155 the day it went up, it's already down to +140.
This fight went down literally exactly how I predicted it would, but impressive on Hunt's part for not getting finished. UFC 200 was a lucrative card for me.
I often look for your posts on lines you feel are off in an attempt to make a little money on sports I'm not as familiar with. I loved your thread on the hot dog eating contest and made some good money as a result. Even though this one didn't hit, it seemed to me like the thought process was correct. Is it possible the money from wrestling fans was evened out by actual mma bettors on Hunt? Just trying to sort out what might have happened so we can be prepared if a similar situation arises in the future.
I guess my question is really - looking back, do you think Hunt was a smart bet and we just go unlucky (Brock being in great shape, Hunt not being as prepared as expected etc.)? Or do you think there was something missed in the line analysis assuming that wwe bettors would essentially be betting Brock blindly?
Livian,
I think it's a perfect example of the books being wildly off in line setting yet again just like Chestnut. I mean, my jaw dropped when I saw Lesnar at +150, SOLELY for the exposure and fan base he has in the mainstream through wrestling allowing for squares to pound him just based on name recognition. Not sure how wrestling fans bet it but I just can't see the betting fan supporting Hunt.
Then you bring in the fighting prowess which is obviously there.
Then you have his previous fights with diverticulitis which affected those outcomes.
Then Hunt just looked unprepared and out of shape. Not sure why he's a 'legend' per se. And Brock is definitely on the juice, not that he couldn't have won without it. Therefore, not unlucky to lose it with Hunt. Hunt just came to lose. In way over his head.
I solicited the opinions. I just wish I took others. BWS and Jason had skeptic's eye and saw the + ML as having value and it came through Big time. Good stuff from them. Brock was nearly bet of the year caliber and that was on just 5 weeks of training.
I will say this, there is a bet that will not lose now and that is Brock at Summerslam. The WWE would be as smart as a bag of rocks if they book him to lose. Unfortunately, those odds will be as high as -1000.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Livan33:
Hey Scal, thanks for posting this thread.
I often look for your posts on lines you feel are off in an attempt to make a little money on sports I'm not as familiar with. I loved your thread on the hot dog eating contest and made some good money as a result. Even though this one didn't hit, it seemed to me like the thought process was correct. Is it possible the money from wrestling fans was evened out by actual mma bettors on Hunt? Just trying to sort out what might have happened so we can be prepared if a similar situation arises in the future.
I guess my question is really - looking back, do you think Hunt was a smart bet and we just go unlucky (Brock being in great shape, Hunt not being as prepared as expected etc.)? Or do you think there was something missed in the line analysis assuming that wwe bettors would essentially be betting Brock blindly?
Livian,
I think it's a perfect example of the books being wildly off in line setting yet again just like Chestnut. I mean, my jaw dropped when I saw Lesnar at +150, SOLELY for the exposure and fan base he has in the mainstream through wrestling allowing for squares to pound him just based on name recognition. Not sure how wrestling fans bet it but I just can't see the betting fan supporting Hunt.
Then you bring in the fighting prowess which is obviously there.
Then you have his previous fights with diverticulitis which affected those outcomes.
Then Hunt just looked unprepared and out of shape. Not sure why he's a 'legend' per se. And Brock is definitely on the juice, not that he couldn't have won without it. Therefore, not unlucky to lose it with Hunt. Hunt just came to lose. In way over his head.
I solicited the opinions. I just wish I took others. BWS and Jason had skeptic's eye and saw the + ML as having value and it came through Big time. Good stuff from them. Brock was nearly bet of the year caliber and that was on just 5 weeks of training.
I will say this, there is a bet that will not lose now and that is Brock at Summerslam. The WWE would be as smart as a bag of rocks if they book him to lose. Unfortunately, those odds will be as high as -1000.
And to add Livian, this line was even weirder because the 'skeptic' supported a 'mainstream name' and a 'dog' on the line, the total opposite of what skeptic's usually take a side on.
But in the case of a name like Lesnar, it actually applied!
But as usual, we the bettor, sometimes let lines dictate our opinion. Without seeing the line and just cold-capping Lesnar V. Hunt, many times we'll come out siding with Brock. But then our 'something's fishy' line analysis convinces us otherwise and skews it to a Hint side, the alleged 'right' side.
This is the perpetual internal capping struggle after we see a number or a line that disagrees with how we think it should have opened.
0
And to add Livian, this line was even weirder because the 'skeptic' supported a 'mainstream name' and a 'dog' on the line, the total opposite of what skeptic's usually take a side on.
But in the case of a name like Lesnar, it actually applied!
But as usual, we the bettor, sometimes let lines dictate our opinion. Without seeing the line and just cold-capping Lesnar V. Hunt, many times we'll come out siding with Brock. But then our 'something's fishy' line analysis convinces us otherwise and skews it to a Hint side, the alleged 'right' side.
This is the perpetual internal capping struggle after we see a number or a line that disagrees with how we think it should have opened.
Well in reference to Mark Hunt being out of shape, he's been that size his entire career. He's a heavy set samoan.
He's just a 1 dimensional striker and got exposed on the ground by a much larger man.
As for Mark Hunt being a legend you'd have to be talking mostly about his Pride and K-1 days. He does have an epic highlight reel of knockouts to his credit. I see your point though, his MMA record isn't much to write home about and I'm not sure why he's still being ranked in the top 10 in the division in this day and age.
0
Well in reference to Mark Hunt being out of shape, he's been that size his entire career. He's a heavy set samoan.
He's just a 1 dimensional striker and got exposed on the ground by a much larger man.
As for Mark Hunt being a legend you'd have to be talking mostly about his Pride and K-1 days. He does have an epic highlight reel of knockouts to his credit. I see your point though, his MMA record isn't much to write home about and I'm not sure why he's still being ranked in the top 10 in the division in this day and age.
Then I can only surmise that the MMA, Pride , K-1 watchers actually do most of the betting and bet Hunt out of respect for being a 'real' fighter. And Vegas opened up Hunt as a favorite based on that perception.
Ironically I believe Brock at UFC 100 has the biggest buy rate ever so MMA fans don't respect him but they bye into the hype to watch him.
Otherwise this line made no sense even when it opened.
0
Then I can only surmise that the MMA, Pride , K-1 watchers actually do most of the betting and bet Hunt out of respect for being a 'real' fighter. And Vegas opened up Hunt as a favorite based on that perception.
Ironically I believe Brock at UFC 100 has the biggest buy rate ever so MMA fans don't respect him but they bye into the hype to watch him.
Otherwise this line made no sense even when it opened.
I think it's a perfect example of the books being wildly off in line setting yet again just like Chestnut.
Scal, thanks for the great replay. Appreciate the time you took to put it together. Was hoping you could expand a bit on this quote. I know originally you thought the line on Brock should have been higher, you mentioned +200/+220. And that the books had it as +150 because they knew they'd still get a ton of action on Brock even at this price. When you say they were wildly off now, is this still what you are saying? Or are you saying Brock should have been the fave?
0
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:
I think it's a perfect example of the books being wildly off in line setting yet again just like Chestnut.
Scal, thanks for the great replay. Appreciate the time you took to put it together. Was hoping you could expand a bit on this quote. I know originally you thought the line on Brock should have been higher, you mentioned +200/+220. And that the books had it as +150 because they knew they'd still get a ton of action on Brock even at this price. When you say they were wildly off now, is this still what you are saying? Or are you saying Brock should have been the fave?
Scal, thanks for the great replay. Appreciate the time you took to put it together. Was hoping you could expand a bit on this quote. I know originally you thought the line on Brock should have been higher, you mentioned +200/+220. And that the books had it as +150 because they knew they'd still get a ton of action on Brock even at this price. When you say they were wildly off now, is this still what you are saying? Or are you saying Brock should have been the fave?
Honestly, I didn't know how this line opened at anything worse than even.
But now that you are saying +200/+220, perhaps the +150 was the books taking tons of value off Brock just because squares would pound him. It certainly puts the +150 in a different light.
It's hard to analyze because now we've seen the result of the fight and hindsight is 20/20.
Still I'm going to love to see what Brock opens up at, at Summer Slam. Again, it would be one of wrestling's greatest sins to make Brock take a dive, even by DQ. Anything less than -750 is free money and playable. I think they'll book him to the moon from here on out so at least there's that (but that will NEVER replace +150 in the real world).
0
Quote Originally Posted by Livan33:
Scal, thanks for the great replay. Appreciate the time you took to put it together. Was hoping you could expand a bit on this quote. I know originally you thought the line on Brock should have been higher, you mentioned +200/+220. And that the books had it as +150 because they knew they'd still get a ton of action on Brock even at this price. When you say they were wildly off now, is this still what you are saying? Or are you saying Brock should have been the fave?
Honestly, I didn't know how this line opened at anything worse than even.
But now that you are saying +200/+220, perhaps the +150 was the books taking tons of value off Brock just because squares would pound him. It certainly puts the +150 in a different light.
It's hard to analyze because now we've seen the result of the fight and hindsight is 20/20.
Still I'm going to love to see what Brock opens up at, at Summer Slam. Again, it would be one of wrestling's greatest sins to make Brock take a dive, even by DQ. Anything less than -750 is free money and playable. I think they'll book him to the moon from here on out so at least there's that (but that will NEVER replace +150 in the real world).
I could see him definitely pushing to be on that Madison Square Garden card in November, might be value with +140. The only thing that worries me is if he has to pull out of the fight for an injury or something then you lose the prop.
0
Quote Originally Posted by JTmonayyy:
What do you think of this prop?
Will Brock Lesnar Fight in UFC again in 2016?
[via bovada.lv]
Yes: +140
No: -200
I could see him definitely pushing to be on that Madison Square Garden card in November, might be value with +140. The only thing that worries me is if he has to pull out of the fight for an injury or something then you lose the prop.
“The UFC organization was notified today that the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has informed Brock Lesnar of a potential Anti-Doping Policy violation stemming from an out-of-competition sample collection on June 28, 2016. USADA received the testing results from the June 28, 2016 sample collection from the WADA-accredited UCLA Olympic Analytical Laboratory on the evening of July 14, 2016.
“USADA, the independent administrator of the UFC Anti-Doping Policy, will handle the results management and appropriate adjudication of this case. It is important to note that, under the UFC Anti-Doping Policy, there is a full fair legal review process that is afforded to all athletes before any sanctions are imposed. The Nevada State Athletic Commission also retains jurisdiction over this matter as the sample collection was performed in close proximity to Lesnar’s bout at UFC 200 in Las Vegas.
“Consistent with all previous potential anti-doping violations, additional information will be provided at the appropriate time as the process moves forward.”
“The UFC organization was notified today that the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has informed Brock Lesnar of a potential Anti-Doping Policy violation stemming from an out-of-competition sample collection on June 28, 2016. USADA received the testing results from the June 28, 2016 sample collection from the WADA-accredited UCLA Olympic Analytical Laboratory on the evening of July 14, 2016.
“USADA, the independent administrator of the UFC Anti-Doping Policy, will handle the results management and appropriate adjudication of this case. It is important to note that, under the UFC Anti-Doping Policy, there is a full fair legal review process that is afforded to all athletes before any sanctions are imposed. The Nevada State Athletic Commission also retains jurisdiction over this matter as the sample collection was performed in close proximity to Lesnar’s bout at UFC 200 in Las Vegas.
“Consistent with all previous potential anti-doping violations, additional information will be provided at the appropriate time as the process moves forward.”
Yep I'd say Hammer -200 now. Where there is smoke, there is usually fire. Good thing I didn't bet the +140. The prop is still up yet on Bovada, but won't be for long I'm sure.
0
Yep I'd say Hammer -200 now. Where there is smoke, there is usually fire. Good thing I didn't bet the +140. The prop is still up yet on Bovada, but won't be for long I'm sure.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
