- Joined
- Jun 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,028
- Reaction score
- 0
I lost suga dec, jouban/niko over, but hit niko. Wouldve been even if I didn't hit Randa. Wasn't a bad bet tho, she was game.Yes. Exactly. You do ok? I lost Suga and hit Serg
I lost suga dec, jouban/niko over, but hit niko. Wouldve been even if I didn't hit Randa. Wasn't a bad bet tho, she was game.Yes. Exactly. You do ok? I lost Suga and hit Serg
The history of scoring fights under the new criteria is extremely short and I think it's wrong to assume we know the direction it's headed. Also are you sure the new scoring was to be used at this event and not the new rules? I heard Stann say something like that but he has been saying a lot of dumb crap recently (Stann Bless).Based on previous scorecards with the new judging criteria this should have been 10-8. My assumption was based on that.
I don't disagree. In fact I would have coached her to lay on Alexa as well. But you could tell from Randa's tired body that if she didn't get kicked off, Grasso would've scrambled out.
? what fight have you guys been watching?
I had it 49-46 pettis
are all you draw scorers on Moreno???
How is rd 1 a 10-8? There was very little damage and no close sub. 10-8 isn't a horrendous score, but its still a 10-9 to me.
Then pettis won every other round 10-9.
Hit pettis ML and the over.
Went 2-1 on bets and make 2.43u, im not complaining
rewatch it tomorrow u trippin
if anyone should have a 10-8 its pettis for fucking moreno up in the third(?), hanging onto someone back without doing anything is not a 10-8 even with the new ruling criteria
Idk what we are arguing about. You have to base your assumption on SOMETHING so why not on the data we actually have? What else should you base your assumption on? Stann said it multiple times so i'd assume so.The history of scoring fights under the new criteria is extremely short and I think it's wrong to assume we know the direction it's headed. Also are you sure the new scoring was to be used at this event and not the new rules? I heard Stann say something like that but he has been saying a lot of dumb crap recently (Stann Bless).
Yeah this pretty much sums my thoughts up…I mean the first round could have been a 10-8. Plus it's in Mexico. I did think that Pettis won but thought the judges might get it wrong.
There is no pattern in the data we have, and the data we have are very few. I wouldn't make any assumptions.Idk what we are arguing about. You have to base your assumption on SOMETHING so why not on the data we actually have? What else should you base your assumption on? Stann said it multiple times so i'd assume so.
That's crazy. We seen less dominant rounds be scored 10-8 under the new scoring criteria. I'm too tired to think of any specific example but i'm 100% sure of that.
When you get the draw at +3300 in the 5th round it is 100% worth to make that assumption and bet it. I'd do the same bet again without a doubt.There is no pattern in the data we have, and the data we have are very few. I wouldn't make any assumptions.
When you get the draw at +3300 in the 5th round it is 100% worth to make that assumption and bet it. I'd do the same bet again without a doubt.
Huh?2 judges scored r1 a 10-8