He who makes bet, backs out of the bet, but decides to do the bet in the end because of online peer pressure and maintaining online image. lmao


The market is always 100% efficient according to thremp. End thread

WTF cares about market probability. How about you come up with your own opinions and reasons for believing something instead of just going along with what everybody else thinks.

I still haven't seen you give 1 reason why Mayweather's previous opponents had just as good of a chance as Mosley did. The only thing you've come up with is Mosley had a 25% chance of winning, but you have yet to say why that's the case or state why Mayweather's previous opponents also had about a 25% chance of beating him.

I still don't expect you to actually state your own opinion, but whatever you seem like a real lame dude.

If anything it would be even heavier in favor of Mayweather if they fought again. So if you're going to make a results oriented argument, lol.

And child, pls. I tried to help you out and asked you to escrow, lol at me looking up your pathetic betting record of a few hundred dimes on some internet forum. Thanks for the money though. Anytime you wanna give out some more, I'll be glad to take it from you or any of the other life rejects in HSNL.

I cited actual experts. You know... people with money who bet on these things. As opposed to writers and general idiots.

It appears you don't have any concept of Bayes Theorem. But that coo.

Once again you prove my point about yourself for me. You just show you are unable to come up with your own opinions, and just go along with what others say. I guess thats a good way to go through life just think what everybody else thinks, at least you'll fit in everywhere because you'll just do exactly what they think you should since you know if the market says something is right it must be.

That idea is completely ******ed. Forming your own opinion divergent from an expert opinion should only be done after careful consideration and approaching a reasonable level of expertise yourself. Instead of actually doing this, you seem to provide a baseless attack.

Awesome. Great "discussion". Maybe you and the slow pay, accusing random people all over the interwebs of scamming gai can discuss this with nice narrative fallacies.

I dunno, I'm with Thremp here. "Experts" can spout off their picks all they want in magazine articles, on ESPN, etc. but it just seems better to follow those who have actually put their money where their mouth is. I make all types of ridiculous predictions on hockey games when I don't have to actually put money on it. Maybe I'm just stupid, I dunno...

Intrade is a good example of that outside of the sports world.

Floyd is playing this like a master politician. It's weird how so many people just brush aside the fact that a fighter is dictating the terms of testing against a specific opponent who has never tested positive. Instead, we get people quibbling over what date is reasonable while ignoring the fact that the demand itself is what's unreasonable. It reminds me of that old LBJ anecdote:

I think Thremp is essentially saying that there are certain things that you just can't "form your own opinion" on. This is easily understood in harder sciences like "AIDS is cured by having sex with virgins, in my opinion", but difficult in "The Giants were less of a dog than the line gave them against the Pats in the Super Bowl". The latter can be reached to the best level by merely looking at where the smart money is going.

BTW, Floyd highlights are truly remarkable. Dude is like a ghost in the ring.

If Thremp is saying that's the case for this, then you have to admit that is completely absurd. Sports is not a science, there is no imperical evidence which can make a prediction 100% correct. Not be able to formulate your own opinion for sports and just basing your opinion solely on what others say is sad. What's the point of watching if all you're going to do is to agree with what somebody else says.

Whoever posted the weigh-in pics is missing the point I was getting at. Manny was considered dominant at 130 and who knew about anything else. Oscar was considered his best at 154 and who knew about going lower.

With two fighters who are considered to be at their best 4 weight classes apart, of course it's a big challenge and it's entirely legit that Pac asked him to come down a few pounds.

Some people really struggle with logic in this thread, so I'll try to make this point extra clear:

Going into that fight, everyone thought the weight was fair, and Oscar was still a favorite. Manny was obviously getting a lot of money, but people thought he would lose. He deserves credit for taking a fight where he was the underdog. The credit is deserved because of his decision BEFORE THE FIGHT. BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE.

Now, people are being moronic and talking about how ODLH was weight-cut-drained. Of course he was. I'm not denying that, and nobody is. ODLH looked like ****, and a big factor was the weight cut.

But the point is that Manny jumped to fight a guy much bigger than he was in a fight where he would be the underdog. Manny had no idea how badly Oscar would look after the cut, and his agreed upon weight (145) wasn't unreasonable. Oscar certainly didn't think so, because he had 100% of the bargaining power as the huge money-man, and he still agreed to it. Yes, Manny got a big payday, but it would have been easy to take some more random 135 fights for safe wins and guaranteed cash (he had just beat Diaz at 135), instead of taking a risk. He took a huge risk in that fight, and the fact that Oscar showed up drained makes absolutely no difference to the fact that he did take that risk.

Kapeesh?

"The market is mostly correct in the large majority of cases" is not completely absurd, and you're being absurd if you don't think it's true.

That's not want I'm saying, I'm saying what's absurd is the notion that it's not possible to form your own opinion about the Mayweather/Mosley fight. Now Thremp never said that, so I'm not accusing him of it, but that's Thug Bubbles interpetation. If you want to go along with the public that's fine, but you should have a reason other than just because the public said so. I stated every reason why I felt Mosley had a much greater chance of beating Floyd than anybody has had in a long time, but all I'm getting as a rebuttal is according to sportsbettors Mosley only had a 25% chance of winning, as opposed to actual analysis of the 2 fighters.

Just so it's clear to those of us watching, what odds would you have given Mosely prior to the bell and what odds would you give him knowing what you know now?

I thought Mayweather would win a decision from the start, I'm not saying I thought Mosley had a great chance, I thought something like 30% but IMO that's far greater than anybody has had in a long time against Mayweather. Knowing what I know now, that apparently the Margarito fight was Mosley's last time having good cardio I'd give him a 15% chance or so if the two were to rematch later this year. Mosley still has the speed and power when he's fresh he just doesn't seem to have the gas tank anymore. I think the Mosley that fought Margarito would give Mayweather a real tough fight for 6-8 rounds but Mayweather's superior skills and ability to adapt to his opponents style mid fight would dominate the last 4-6 rounds. I think it would look a lot like the Judah fight except Mosley would be more of a threat to KO Mayweather.

If somebody disagrees with me, I don't care but give your own opinion, don't just tell me what the big money sports bettors thought because my posts aren't directed towards them.

I'm also a bit tired of talking about this topic, getting old now.

I think it's been proven somewhat by myself and labamba that what Pacquiao has done is being sensationalized a bit and what Mayweather has done is being discredited. While I understand the point that danny is making I don't really agree with it. I don't understand why people would think cutting that much weight for an old fighter who hasn't had to cut that much weight in a extremely long time would have no impact on him. It's like I said if Mayweather fought Pavlik at a 157lb catchweight people would assume Pavlik would be drained and wouldn't look good and Mayweather would have a big edge. Pavlik isn't old like Oscar was for the Manny fight but it's similar in that Pavlik struggled to make weight at 160 and was sluggish and admittedly drained for that weight just like Oscar was sluggish in making the cut to 150 for his fight before the Pacquiao fight.

The back and forth would go something like this:

Me: Give odds before/after
You: 30% before 15% after
Me: So what makes up the difference?
You: I learned that Sugar was just too old and was done
Me: That's something "the betting market" already knew.

and on and on. That's the point of the whole "market" debate. You're welcome to have a different opinion about the fight, but there are a ton of other people that know a great deal about boxing, and if they all come to a similar conclusion based on the same set of data, the odds heavily favor that opinion over any dissent.

As for all the "Which fighter is a bigger draw" stuff, it's something we (people ITT) aren't going to agree on because it's impossible to prove. You can't line fights against similar opponents up side-by-side because they are always fought at different times (which makes a huge difference in boxing).

I get this but my point is there was no evidence to say Mosley was old and done based on his last fight. Anybody saying that was working on the assumption that at this age and the layoff would have a major impact him. It turned out those people ended up being right but I'm willing to bet all those people saying he was old and washed up for the Mayweather fight said the exact same thing before he fought Margarito and all of those people were wrong that time. The "market" failed miserably in predicting how that fight would go so why is it I should just assume the market would be right in Mosley's next fight? Isn't it better that I forumlate my own opinion based on the information I have at my disposal which is the same information especially if I thought Mosley would beat Margarito? So basically the betting market KNEW Mosley was washed up when he fought Margarito and were wrong but it's a foregone conclusion that they KNOW this time around. That doesn't make sense to me.

No it isn't my interpretation. I only meant that with the qualifier of "unless you do your own research and back it up with evidence". I just mean to highlight the difficulty in backing up such things as sports lines with evidence, since there isn't any in the conventional sense (like there would be in hard science). As such, the best evidence is the aggregate opinion of the market. I don't know what the exact line was, but I'm sure the Giants were a dog against the Pats in the Superbowl; so while I could "form my own opinion" and say the Giants were actually a favorite, I shouldn't be surprised when somebody like Thremp says that is dumb, and I certainly shouldn't toss out market opinion simply because it isn't always right.

I know you're weren't arguing Mosely was a favorite, but I'm exaggerating an analogy to make a point: Yes, we can simply say "the line was this, thousands of people disagreed with you and put their money where their mouth was to get the line to where it is." Unless you're just interested in having a fun debate (which is fine), that is a perfectly valid rebuttle to your argument, albeit an annoying one.

For what it's worth, I agree with this.

Shockingly real experts know more than Monday morning quarterbacks or writers. So strange.

No one has downplayed what Mayweather has done. The dude has mercilessly ran through everyone he fought, though he's currently ducking a fighter with ~2x the chance of anyone in recent history to beat him for an obscure chicken**** reason. If it was "about the money" I'd understand that, but it isn't. Furthermore, even a 50% cut of a PacMan fight is more than he can make at a larger cut vs. other opposition. People buy into the stupid **** Mayweather says because they're sheeple. "I don't KO people because I don't want to get hit"... wtf? Since when did anyone who got KTFO hit anyone? Absurd. You could argue its better game planning, a lack of warrior spirit, humility or whatever. But to think for a moment that someone standing throwing punches hits you less than a guy flat on his ass is just plain ******ed.

Wow, you just showed a total lack of understanding of boxing, congrats.

Yeah.. Def. I'm sure making Mosley quit would've resulted in a ton more punches.

Brilliant. Stick to your commentary with your "experts".

Lol. Here is why what you said about the KOs is absolutely ******ed. Mayweather doesn't have the punching power where he can just fight his normal style and his punches will often result in KOs. In order for Mayweather to KO people he would have to take more risks and throw harder slightly more telegraphed punches that would leave himself open to get hit a lot more than he does. There some fighters out there who just have amazing power, like Mosley when he was at lightweight or a prime Mike Tyson where they don't have to do anything that's outside of their comfort to deliver KOs. Mayweather is smart enough to realize he is not one of those guys and fighting a technical defensive counter punching style will make him near impossible to beat. If he goes out there and starts throwing haymakers which causes him to be off balance he opens himself up to take punches.

Don't try to talk about things that the "market" doesn't have an opinion for, because when you do try to come up with your own thoughts you fail miserably.

Christ. What a ******ed counter.

Just checked with my sources. Floyd is still a bitch. Confirmed.

FYP

Good FYP. Floyd GOAT amirite??