This post is just ridiculous on all levels. Again, you throw out a strawman due to your lack of reading comprehension. Where did I say that you said "there was no value on betting Elkins". Honestly, how do you even get that from the post you quoted? And you say I'm making shit up? Lol. The point of the post is that there is validity to talking about Bektic vs. Skelly as Skelly is the most similar opponent to Elkins and Bektic's toughest test. Elkins vs. Skelly is relevant because it shows one of the countless examples of Elkins playing spoiler as the underdog and excelling against the same level of competition that Bektic has faced. Not that hard to comprehend. As for your second paragraph, here is the translation: MMA math only works when I use it. I also like how you conveniently disregard their 4th common opponent.