Bookmakers tip Khabib to lose to either Tony or Conor

[Guffman]

A Khabib vs. Tony/Conor parlay is -113 as I write this.

 

[johncola]

A Khabib vs. Tony/Conor parlay is -113 as I write this.

Which doesn't necessarily mean it's more likely to happen than not, depending on the juice. And there are other betting lines. This post demonstrates what I mean:

I already provided you with odds. SportsInt. I used one bookmaker for both fights, to keep it fair. -225 and +165 for Tony fight; -320 and +230 for Conor fight. I'll show implied probabilities both with and without the juice, for your benefit:

With juice -- 53% chance Khabib wins both, but 61% chance he loses one of the fights.

Without juice -- 46% chance Khabib wins both, but 54% chance he loses one of the fights.

It's equally unfavorable for Khabib with multiple other bookmakers globally. And less favorable if you use opening lines instead.

 

[mikesparrow]

At the current odds, betting sites have Khabib losing to either Tony or Conor.

Based on Tony's unpredictability, pace, cardio, power, wrestling ability, elbows, and sub game, it'd hard to deny he's at least very dangerous for Khabib.

Regarding Conor, even in the first fight, which Khabib won, he lost most rounds, and failed most takedown attempts, despite Conor's injury and motivation problems. And with Conor having the best fight IQ in the game, he'll no doubt be a much tougher fight in the rematch (that's if Khabib doesn't run from it).

Whichever way you look at it, Khabib's days appear numbered.

What ever is happening in your brainless head would be interesting to study..

 

[dc007]

Thanks for pointing that out. GSP is a HORRIBLE style matchup for Khabib IMO. Don't expect the fight to happen but praying it does just for those odds.

Exactly! Money in the bank!

 

[sdpdude9]

My arguments are quite specific. They're available to go read. At no point have I said "I'm smart thus I'm right". But I clearly think I'm smarter than most of these people. And their conduct in these arguments is evidence of that.

Your last paragraph suggests that the 1% has never been right. Is that so? And for the record, on the argument in question (who won Conor/Khabib round 1), it'd be more than 1%. Maybe 2% or 3%. And that number will go up as fans get more educated not just on the sport, but the ability to grow some cojones and go against the grain.

There have been numerous refutations of your assertions including proof (from your own sources) that Khabib is favored in both matches. You just can’t see it and continually default to “Everybody is wrong but me because they can’t see it how I do because they’re not smart enough.” These sort of narcissistic tendencies are riddled throughout your posts making discussion with you pointless, as you are not open to other points of view, quickly writing off refutations claiming they didn’t refute you and pushing forth your far fetched reasoning as fact.

As far as scoring goes, it is a subjective interpretation of criteria set forth by the official mma rules. There is no “correct” answer on how to score a fight as it’s so open for interpretation. However, when as you stated a minimum of 97% of people interpret it going one way, that means it scored in line with the interpretation of the large majority’s understanding of the criteria, thereby not controversial whatsoever and far from bad scoring.

When you’re in the minority, you have to ask yourself why? Is because of your bias (which clearly you have based on your posts)? Is it because you are not seeing what others see? Or is it because as you’ve laid it out you’re more educated about the sport and are the only one brave enough to say it like it is. These types of statements show delusion and narcissistic tendencies that you think you know better than others and are not open to real discussion or opposing viewpoints.

And with that, I’m done with you and will not respond further. Keep on with your delusional nut hugging.

 

[Sansnom]

Regarding Conor, even in the first fight, which Khabib won, he lost most rounds, and failed most takedown attempts, despite Conor's injury and motivation problems. And with Conor having the best fight IQ in the game, he'll no doubt be a much tougher fight in the rematch (that's if Khabib doesn't run from it).

Whichever way you look at it, Khabib's days appear numbered.

Did your mother drop you on your head a few times when you were a kid?

The only round Conor won is the 3rd. And even in that round he never posed a threat. Never did anything worth noting.

The rest of the fight was Khabib molesting Conor.

Lay off whatever you're smoking mate.

 

[johncola]

There have been numerous refutations of your assertions including proof (from your own sources) that Khabib is favored in both matches. You just can’t see it and continually default to “Everybody is wrong but me because they can’t see it how I do because they’re not smart enough.” These sort of narcissistic tendencies are riddled throughout your posts making discussion with you pointless, as you are not open to other points of view, quickly writing off refutations claiming they didn’t refute you and pushing forth your far fetched reasoning as fact.

As far as scoring goes, it is a subjective interpretation of criteria set forth by the official mma rules. There is no “correct” answer on how to score a fight as it’s so open for interpretation. However, when as you stated a minimum of 97% of people interpret it going one way, that means it scored in line with the interpretation of the large majority’s understanding of the criteria, thereby not controversial whatsoever and far from bad scoring.

When you’re in the minority, you have to ask yourself why? Is because of your bias (which clearly you have based on your posts)? Is it because you are not seeing what others see? Or is it because as you’ve laid it out you’re more educated about the sport and are the only one brave enough to say it like it is. These types of statements show delusion and narcissistic tendencies that you think you know better than others and are not open to real discussion or opposing viewpoints.

And with that, I’m done with you and will not respond further. Keep on with your delusional nut hugging.

The refutation you used has been posted ad nauseum. And it's 100% correct! So how are you claiming I'm not accepting it? And please point to the post where I provide my superior intelligence as the reason I'm right. In every post I've made I've backed up my opinion. The problem with this particular refutation is that it isn't a refutation to my post because it doesn't refute something I'm saying. I've never claimed Khabib is underdog in either fight. So I'll direct you to re-read my main post, as I have others, to try and understand it. It honestly isn't complicated. Don't mean to patronise you.

I agree, there are many correct ways to score, as the criteria doesn't go into strike-level detail. However the rules state that offense is weighed more heavily than control, and on that basis, Conor should win, were one to judge his offense as superior to Khabib's. The room for disagreement only comes when someone disputes that Conor had superior offense, which no one in this thread has done.

I'm in the minority firstly because I'm not afraid to be, secondly because I'm better than the majority, and thirdly because I don't hate Conor McGregor. Yes, I have bias, but again, you'd need to be able to refute something I've said before claiming that my bias must be swaying me. And btw, my bias is swaying me, but not to the extent that I don't see reality. I'm only delusional if what I say isn't true, which has yet to be demonstrated. Narcissim is more than just confidence, which is what you see in me. Look for a lack of empathy to detect narcissism, meaning look to where I haven't listened to others' points. If you read my posts you'll notice I respond to each and every point that people make, like I'm doing for you now. I'm absolutely open to real discussion and viewpoints; it's why I love arguments, and it's why I keep coming back here. I'm not the one who's about to run away at the end of their post, like you just did.

Final paragraph, you've done all the wrong things. I was gonna sum up how you claimed people refuted my post, when they didn't (on the odds); how you claimed I argued that my superior intelligence is the reason I'm right, when I didn't; how I've failed to correctly consider scoring philosophy, which I haven't; and how you claimed I'm delusional or a narcissist, when I've showed no signs of being either. Then you just added onto that list some name calling, before running away. Have you not been paying attention? I've been calling people out for doing that all day... how have you managed the same thing?

 

[johncola]

Did your mother drop you on your head a few times when you were a kid?

The only round Conor won is the 3rd. And even in that round he never posed a threat. Never did anything worth noting.

The rest of the fight was Khabib molesting Conor.

Lay off whatever you're smoking mate.

https://forums.sherdog.com/posts/158249989/

 

[old school 2]

At the current odds, betting sites have Khabib losing to either Tony or Conor.

Based on Tony's unpredictability, pace, cardio, power, wrestling ability, elbows, and sub game, it'd hard to deny he's at least very dangerous for Khabib.

Regarding Conor, even in the first fight, which Khabib won, he lost most rounds, and failed most takedown attempts, despite Conor's injury and motivation problems. And with Conor having the best fight IQ in the game, he'll no doubt be a much tougher fight in the rematch (that's if Khabib doesn't run from it).

Whichever way you look at it, Khabib's days appear numbered.

The only ounce of reality in this entire post was “Khabib won.”

 

[johncola]

The only ounce of reality in this entire post was “Khabib won.”

so you don't think tony has a good sub game?

 

[sdpdude9]

I'm in the minority firstly because I'm not afraid to be, secondly because I'm better than the majority, and thirdly because I don't hate Conor McGregor. Yes, I have bias, but again, you'd need to be able to refute something.

This right here is you admitting to believing you’re superior (narcissism) to nearly all other mma fans and admitting you are biased in your opinion.

https://blogs.psychcentral.com/psychology-self/2018/08/narcissist-arguing/

You fit all of this to a tee. As somebody who has worked with people suffering from mental disorders, I’ve encountered your type before.

 

[johncola]

This right here is you admitting to believing you’re superior (narcissism) to nearly all other mma fans and admitting you are biased in your opinion.

https://blogs.psychcentral.com/psychology-self/2018/08/narcissist-arguing/

You fit all of this to a tee. As somebody who has worked with people suffering from mental disorders, I’ve encountered your type before.

Is LeBron a narcissist, or does he not think he's the best? If it's the former, insert another top athlete. Repeat until you don't get a narcissist. Or does that never happen?

Biased in what way?

I don't think I fit any of those criteria. Are you gonna respond to my post above? Can you identify a post in which I've displayed this narcissism?



(btw, if you read my posts, you'll notice I'm constantly asking questions. Narcissists are unlikely to do this, since their way can be the only way, so they don't wanna hear opposing viewpoints. I love opposing viewpoints. I wanna test my opinion, not prove it. You just haven't tested me much.)

 

[Timurd123]

I live when people know someone is trolling them but have absolutely no life and play into it because they have nothing better to do

 

[old school 2]

so you don't think tony has a good sub game?

He does. He also has good elbows . I have a gold fish....none of those 3 statements be relevant when the final bell rings and Khabib is 29-0.

 

[johncola]

He does. He also has good elbows . I have a gold fish....none of those 3 statements be relevant when the final bell rings and Khabib is 29-0.

So there's more than one ounce?

 

[BoomCannon]

You misunderstood the OP. Re-read it if you're inclined to increase your understanding.

He's a -225 fav against Tony and -330 against Conor. How do you interpret this as they have him losing to one of them? Maybe you are the one that needs a better understanding on how odds work.

 

[sdpdude9]

Is LeBron a narcissist, or does he not think he's the best? If it's the former, insert another top athlete. Repeat until you don't get a narcissist. Or does that never happen?

Biased in what way?

I don't think I fit any of those criteria. Are you gonna respond to my post above? Can you identify a post in which I've displayed this narcissism?



(btw, if you read my posts, you'll notice I'm constantly asking questions. Narcissists are unlikely to do this, since their way can be the only way, so they don't wanna hear opposing viewpoints. I love opposing viewpoints. I wanna test my opinion, not prove it. You just haven't tested me much.)

You’ve claimed nobody has refuted your point (they have, just not in your mind). You routinely write off other posters as less intellectual than you. You claimed to be “better” than the majority. Repeatedly claim people “just are misunderstanding” when they refute your claim. Claiming nobody is “testing” your intellect. All of these are tell tale signs of a narcissist unwilling to accept any counterpoints.

You straight up said you were biased, lmao.

And you have to ask anybody a single follow up question based on their opinion that this thread is about. No follow up questions, not one. Definitely not “constantly asking questions.” Only questions you ask are how to refute your point, not about their point.

 

[fightfan84]

Yes, if you score round 1 for Conor. In it, Conor landed better offense. Khabib won on control, which doesn't trump offense. However his control tired Conor out, which helped Khabib win round 2. Offense is supposed to be above control in scoring, and for good reason, as we need to avoid LNP. Scoring that round for Khabib would just encourage LNP, as he'd just repeat round 1 ad nauseum.

Takedown stats are via the official stats, which can be wrong or misleading. Feel free to reply if you disagree with them.

What rounds are you saying Conor won here

 

[johncola]

He's a -225 fav against Tony and -330 against Conor. How do you interpret this as they have him losing to one of them? Maybe you are the one that needs a better understanding on how odds work.

I'll explain this again since my first explanation is quite a way back at this point. And I'll use your odds. I'll take +165 to complement the -225, as per SportsInt. And I'll take +250 to complement the -330, as per Sportsbook.

Khabib wins both fights
-225 and -330 parlay = -113 = implied probability of 53%
with juice removed that's implied probability of 47%

Khabib loses at least one of the fights
-225 and +250 parlay = +406 = implied probability of 20%
-330 and +165 parlay = +245 = implied probability of 29%
+165 and +250 parlay = +828 = implied probability of 11%
total implied probability of 60%
with juice removed that's implied probability of 53%, as you'd expect, given the 47% above

Some sportsbooks have it worse for Khabib. And it was worse yet upon line opening.

 

[johncola]

You’ve claimed nobody has refuted your point (they have, just not in your mind). You routinely write off other posters as less intellectual than you. You claimed to be “better” than the majority. Repeatedly claim people “just are misunderstanding” when they refute your claim. Claiming nobody is “testing” your intellect. All of these are tell tale signs of a narcissist unwilling to accept any counterpoints.

You straight up said you were biased, lmao.

And you have to ask anybody a single follow up question based on their opinion that this thread is about. No follow up questions, not one. Definitely not “constantly asking questions.” Only questions you ask are how to refute your point, not about their point.

Show me this refutation. I believe most people here are less intelligent than me, and that's the way in which I'm better. Show me the post where I claimed someone misunderstood, and tell me how they didn't. What I actually claimed was that YOU haven't tested my OPINION, in that you haven't offered me any new information. Me fulfulling criteria on the list you linked would be me showing signs of narcissism. Show me that I've done that. What do you mean by "accept" counterpoints?

I'm biased, but I wanna know what you're on about. So please, answer the question. Biased in what way?

I'm asking questions to try and get their opinion. I'm trying to elicit information. Take some examples from above. YOU made the statement about "accepting counterpoints". I directly asked you what you mean by this. YOU said I'm biased. I directly asked you how I'm biased (technically I've had to ask twice, since you didn't answer). This is behavior I've shown repeatedly, and isn't new as of right now.

You're the one who's lied and misquoted me. You're the one who's ignoring the questions I've asked. You're the one that's refused to admit he's wrong, given my clear explanation as to how it's the case (particularly in the paragraph where I said "100% correct!" -- I want you to respond to that, and failure to do so is your failure to admit you're wrong). I don't think you're a narcissist, but you fit the definition much more closely than I do. Confidence =/= narcissism. But like I said, you aren't a narcissist; you're just offended by confidence and truth, as it's a threat to your reality. The reality you're suggesting is that I'm a narcissist and you're the voice of reason. The reality I'm suggesting is that I'm honest and particularly adept in my reasoning ability, while you're threatened. I'm willing to believe in your reality, as evidenced by my continuous attempts to get you to convince me. You're unwilling to believe in mine, despite it smacking you in the face. It's why you're refusing to respond to what I've said, it's why you aren't asking ME questions, and it's why you're ready to run away.