- Joined
- Mar 27, 2011
- Messages
- 4,935
- Reaction score
- 2,020
Long rant that could have been 3 minutes as usual from the guru but lol ganni must be in bed with the betting lines to make you lose money. How else is he not fired?
OK, hear me out but I'm not convinced what Gianni's saying is actually the gambler's fallacy.That's such a brutal gambler's fallacy that I can't believe anyone in the industry actually believes. That's a drunk bro at a casino logic. The previous fight has no impact on the next fight.
If there's a 5% discrepancy on dogs hitting this season compared to last, the more likely culprit is that the UFC is setting up even more mismatches to make sure their favored prospects win when the lights are on, so shifting gambling to favor the favorite in light of the new fav/dog split would be the more rational direction to turn on that stat of 32% vs 37%.
Gambler's fallacy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the incorrect belief that, if a particular event occurs more frequently than normal during the past, it is less likely to happen in the future (or vice versa), when it has otherwise been established that the probability of such events does not depend on what has happened in the past. Such events, having the quality of historical independence, are referred to as statistically independent. The fallacy is commonly associated with gambling, where it may be believed, for example, that the next dice roll is more than usually likely to be six because there have recently been fewer than the usual number of sixes.
The term "Monte Carlo fallacy" originates from the best known example of the phenomenon, which occurred in the Monte Carlo Casino in 1913.[1]
OK, hear me out but I'm not convinced what Gianni's saying is actually the gambler's fallacy.
In betting there are only 3 factors that matter:
1) the true underlying probability of the event. This is unknowable but all the analysis of the matchups, past records, etc is an attempt to figure it out.
2) the implied probability of the betting odds.
3) the individual gambler's tolerance for risk and money available to bet.
So betting is all about finding "value" or a mismatch between the betting odds and the true probability (e.g., betting $0.50 on a bet with an expected value of $1.00).
Then basically the argument would go like this:
1) a large enough sample size of past data is our best estimate of the true underlying probability of future events of a similar type
2) over a large past sample, underdogs won X% of the time
3) over a smaller more recent sample, underdogs won Y% of the time
4) the true probability of future events happening a certain way is more likely to resemble X% than Y%, so a regression to the mean is likely
5) because of recency bias, bettors will think the true underlying probability is closer to Y% skewing the betting odds in that direction
6) exploiting the difference between X and Y creates value
I'm not saying there aren't flaws in this reasoning or questionable assumptions here but I don't really think it's the gambler's fallacy.
No, I started with Week 8 and then worked backwards, week 8 is in the OPDid you skip week 8?
Sure, but it's not the gambler's fallacy IMOThat reasoning makes no sense. All you have to do to gamble on MMA is watch fights, figure out who's good and bad at what and look for matchups where it's likely to make a huge difference. Eg Austen Lane Vs Richard Jacobi last night was a big, fast, powerful athlete against a really slow kickboxer. Didn't need records to tell me that.
Wait until his brother Gianni “The Teeth” comes into the picture
It’s just Gianni with a fake moustache and glasses.Same guy.
Okay, I'll bite. What are the scores of the other MMA pickers?
Or is he the only one? (I don't bet or follow betting.)
How can he be this bad??? Randomly guessing should get you 50%