Gianni the Greek DWCS Bet Tracker Fail Thread

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?

 
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.
 
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.

That 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.
 
Did you skip week 8?
 
That 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.
Sure, but it's not the gambler's fallacy IMO

I agree that the best way to determine what to bet is to actually study the matchups that are in front of you
 
Did he get any of his picks right last night? I think he bet Nickal by sub at +100.
 
Welp, somehow iam not surprised that the "betting" expert skilled by the ufc is dogshit.
Paying fighters shit wages ain't enough, gotta take all the fans with gambling addictions money too
 
Said it before. His problem is he doesn’t know fighting or the fighters he’s betting on. He has a gambler mentality, so he’s looking for meaningless trends and falling for the gambler’s fallacy, which is essentially thinking you’re “due” for something to go the other way. For example, “the last 5 Middleweight fights were finish, we’re due for a decision.”
 
Last edited:
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.)
 
Week 10: once again the new, more circumspect Gianni avoids making a parlay and avoids betting on every fight.

Unless I missed it, Gianni did not place a bet on the first fight, Mateus Mendonça vs. Ashiek Ajim

1st Bet: +145 on Jose Elias to win
Did It Hit? No, Rafael Ramos Estevam stayed safe on the ground from Elias's submissions in the first round and got the TKO finish in the second after Elias gassed out.
Gianni loses $100.

2nd Bet: +135 on Linares vs. Jenkins to go over 2.5 rounds
Did It Hit? Yes, Jack Jenkins finished Francisco Emiliano Linares off with ground and pound at 4:30 of the third round.
Gianni wins $135.

3rd Bet: -210 on Sam Patterson to win
Did It Hit? Yes, Patterson RNC'd Vinicius Cenci in the second.
Gianni wins $100.

4th Bet: +100 on Bo Nickal to win by submission
Did It Hit? Yes, Nickal triangle choked Donovan Beard within the first minute.
Gianni wins $100.

3/4 bets hit
Staked: $510
Return: $745
Gianni wins $235
 
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.)

Just checked, I got in late to the contenders series for picking but I went 17-7 on Tapology with the fights I picked. These cards were fairly often easy to predict, many nights where every favorite won.
 
Gambling plays way too big of a role in sports today. It’s going to cause serious issues in the future. It’s one of the most destructive addictions on the planet. And innocent people get ruined by it.

I can’t afford to gamble, and only having about a 70% win rate tells me why that’s a good thing. You can’t be wrong 30% of the time and not lose money sooner or later.

This guy seems really poor at it btw. 11/30 is just over 33%. He literally loses more than he wins. And that’s where the problems really start. You keep doubling down because you know you have to win sooner or later. But you just end up deeper in the hole.

Please explain “value” to me. Where is the fucking value in a losing bet?

d938ed86-9ac4-4f05-8653-22bb10fba72e_text.gif
 
Back
Top