Posted:
#1
Play of the year, 50 unit BOMB right here, Molina will school that overated slugger in Kirkland.
Molina +180 vs Kirkland
Posted:
#9
Quote Originally Posted by thesoulpurpose:
kirkland is a monster, and he will brutalize this poor kid, kirkland wins by ko
kirkland is a monster, and he will brutalize this poor kid, kirkland wins by ko
That last fight showed Kirkland is for real, he went in to Mexico, got knocked in the first 30 seconds, weathered the storm and cameback to win by KO. I watched that fight a couple of times it was so good. Kirkland with Ann Wolfe in his corner is going to be dangerous for anyone at 154 right now.
Posted:
#10
Quote Originally Posted by cd2010:
That last fight showed Kirkland is for real, he went in to Mexico, got knocked in the first 30 seconds, weathered the storm and cameback to win by KO. I watched that fight a couple of times it was so good. Kirkland with Ann Wolfe in his corner is going to be dangerous for anyone at 154 right now.
As long as he leaves the pistol at home, I agree with this statement
I bought him @ -245
Plan on waiting for a nice O/U line...
Posted:
#11
Quote Originally Posted by thesoulpurpose:
I guess you missed the rest of his career, this is boxing and sometimes guys get koed, put you money on molina and you will lose, kirkland will walk right through this guy. a loss a lot of times is a blessing in disguise. kirkland is better from it,
I guess you missed the rest of his career, this is boxing and sometimes guys get koed, put you money on molina and you will lose, kirkland will walk right through this guy. a loss a lot of times is a blessing in disguise. kirkland is better from it,
agreed. and it wasnt even a sustained beatdown that can sometimes ruin a fighter. it was more like a hearns/hagler ko.
i really dont see molina having much of a chance unless kirkland gasses late after molina weathers the intial onslaught.
and i dont see that happening with ann and gbp(gassing) in his corner.
this fight is as close to follow the money as you can get.
50 unit bomb
Posted:
#17
Molina backers blame Jersey. He is the covers equivalent to Eddie Mush -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ulWjFfLsL0. If he hadn't backed Molina I have no doubt Molina would have won..
This moron is so predicatable. When he wins one bet in 10 he screams from the rooftops. When the other 9 loses he disappears comes back awhile later and plays the underdog in EVERY fight..The guy is the biggest joke in the history of mankind. He offers nothing to mankind...Nothing..
This moron is so predicatable. When he wins one bet in 10 he screams from the rooftops. When the other 9 loses he disappears comes back awhile later and plays the underdog in EVERY fight..The guy is the biggest joke in the history of mankind. He offers nothing to mankind...Nothing..
Posted:
#18
Obvious from after 2 posts it was CLOWN time. The best was Holt BS story. He Google a clip of the ghetto neighborhood Holt use to reside, and it showed what he said, a clip of people drinking 40oz and fighting with their shirts off. Unfortunately, he was unaware I knew where HOLT was... my post gave explicit information, even descriptions as at that Gym my cuz worked out with him every day, and that so called drinking night, Holt was in bed before dark, so it was probably his long lost twin brother he never knew about because no way JerseyBoy lied.
Also, 1 for 10... way to high. He picks 80% dogs so he stands out of the crowd and it shows a good play. At the rate he picks and betting the ranch... even the richest man in the world couldn't survive those wagers!
I love his use of ethnic pride and use of ethnicity when it has no effect regarding the fight... is smells very racist.
I even posted nicely for a response from him, and yet to get an answer.
To say he is a MUSH is not accurate... he is just atrocious picking and never analyzing fights. He does analyze, when he said like touts "LOCK OF THE YEAR".
I know last time you told me to chill on the popcorn gallery, and I told you the same, but his borderline comments with race are way out of bounds, otherwise I'd stand back.
Also, I've yet to get an answer for his only analysis of a fight he did, 6 hours after I did mine for Dawson vs Hopkins.
1.last time he face someone as fast and athletic was taylor
(mine:Similar to B-hop vs Taylor except that Dawson is a much better fighter)
2.dawson is twice the fighter taylor was
(mine: Similar to B-hop vs Taylor except that Dawson is a much better fighter)
3.dawson has a high punch output
(mine:I think Dawson is to young and athletic (and fundamentally good) and will be to busy for B-Hop)
4.i see this an easy 8-4 for dawson
(mine: Dawson wins around 8 or 9 rounds to win a decision)
I asked him to respond if he was agreeing with my post and just using the info (which is fine as long as you acknowledge using another members post). He said he never saw my post. Odd as he says bet the house on every fight for his analysis, and this once he happened to have 4 key points of breakdown, and he posted them 6 hours after mine. I think he should have just copied and pasted mine identically because changing one word here and there doesn't fool anyone (sorry, he did himself).
I don't report people to the Forum for things of that nature, but if he continues the borderline racist statements, I will gladly bring it to the Forums attention. A lot of junk in these Forums, but he is on a touchy subject and should use careful discretion, as there is no room and ZERO tolerance for racial remarks.
Also, 1 for 10... way to high. He picks 80% dogs so he stands out of the crowd and it shows a good play. At the rate he picks and betting the ranch... even the richest man in the world couldn't survive those wagers!
I love his use of ethnic pride and use of ethnicity when it has no effect regarding the fight... is smells very racist.
I even posted nicely for a response from him, and yet to get an answer.
To say he is a MUSH is not accurate... he is just atrocious picking and never analyzing fights. He does analyze, when he said like touts "LOCK OF THE YEAR".
I know last time you told me to chill on the popcorn gallery, and I told you the same, but his borderline comments with race are way out of bounds, otherwise I'd stand back.
Also, I've yet to get an answer for his only analysis of a fight he did, 6 hours after I did mine for Dawson vs Hopkins.
1.last time he face someone as fast and athletic was taylor
(mine:Similar to B-hop vs Taylor except that Dawson is a much better fighter)
2.dawson is twice the fighter taylor was
(mine: Similar to B-hop vs Taylor except that Dawson is a much better fighter)
3.dawson has a high punch output
(mine:I think Dawson is to young and athletic (and fundamentally good) and will be to busy for B-Hop)
4.i see this an easy 8-4 for dawson
(mine: Dawson wins around 8 or 9 rounds to win a decision)
I asked him to respond if he was agreeing with my post and just using the info (which is fine as long as you acknowledge using another members post). He said he never saw my post. Odd as he says bet the house on every fight for his analysis, and this once he happened to have 4 key points of breakdown, and he posted them 6 hours after mine. I think he should have just copied and pasted mine identically because changing one word here and there doesn't fool anyone (sorry, he did himself).
I don't report people to the Forum for things of that nature, but if he continues the borderline racist statements, I will gladly bring it to the Forums attention. A lot of junk in these Forums, but he is on a touchy subject and should use careful discretion, as there is no room and ZERO tolerance for racial remarks.
Posted:
#19
I remember a common handicapping method, mainly used for bettors that bet around the same amount a game with spreads so juice was -110. When we found a total degenerate that bet many favorites, especially at home night games for NFL, we would often just play reverse of his accounts. I know that the theory sounds good, the problem is the juice, money lines, and how much he staggers his wagers.
I had a guy who was allowed to play the entire college & pro games, without any juice, but the 2 rules were: He had to play over 50% of the games and only bet the same amount per game. That was like the perfect scenario for him and us. Actually, it allowed him to stay in action without big swings very often. He was accurate on losing 57% games over several seasons. So at -110, 52.38% is break even point, we found -105 local juice, which I by memory is 51.22% at break even. Betting that many games, bookies love it even if you win, as their #1 factor (not considering they have a Gigantic bank roll) is cash flow. Betting that many games allows them action on games, and a player who will never make a huge score (but also never lose a lot over a week) so they had a nice plan that worked.
When we ran poker games, we allowed credit (otherwise you don't get games for very long), and you had to be cautious not to allow too much credit to a person for reason other than one would think. You don't won't a player to be out of commission after one bad night. Also, the risk of not getting paid many think is worst case problem... it's not. Losing a player that plays every game for 12 hours 5 days a week, contributes a seat that helps generate rake. Losing this player due to a bad night, he will avoid playing because if he lost say $5k, in a game where a big swing is $1500... every time he wins he knows he has to pay back on the loan (it is different on game owners). Stupid people who run games, want full payment if a guy wins $1,000, which is valid and fair, but the problem is he won't return again. If you ask him prior to the game what percent he is willing to work with you, 25 to 50% is a good amount. It allows him still a nice profit, you get money, and the loan is down so he feels comfortable playing. Otherwise if you want everything he wins (which you are entitled), you lost a customer. Also, when you have limited clients in smaller towns, often, people who owed you quite a sum, won't be seen. So you have to do what others think is stupid... you clear the Debt on a condition. If they come to the games for a few months and don't borrow for a few months, now you get a player who would have never paid you, and get a player that contributes $15 to $20 an hour for a seat.
Also, another trick is at first seems stupid, but it works and keeps cash flow. If you allow everyone limited credit (others who pay it off are exception; many Drs play and write checks after the game, so you have to bring extra money for them alone as you can't give a guy who won $350 a check for $2,500. If you have 75% or more players that owe a few hundred, to maybe a few thousand all playing in the same game, you now can afford to give out more credit (not in the manner you want a player to lose too much), because everyone at the table owes you, so no matter who wins, you get paid back loans, and with that extra credit you gave out, the game can go an extra 3 hours or even 24 hours ($5k rake).
Game runners often kept books (loan notes) for years and years. Maybe 1 in 10 of them pay back soon. Maybe 1 more pays a little here and there. But loaning a person (that plays consistently hurts you more losing a player that keeps a game going and also on average contributes 50 hours weekly play times, turns into $500 minimal to $1,000 on average ( $800 would be near exact).
All these concepts apply to bookies as well. If a bookies worked in a club that poker games were ran, if the bookie buried a guy that couldn't pay and didn't have a great desire to either, he won't show at the poker games. If the guy loses 10 times more than he can afford in poker, the bookie that may be poker partners also get's dodged. More often, you don't want people booking at your poker games, because even though they might win at poker, they won't show to pay the bookie 25k they owe.
A little inside info for those not as familiar with the bookie, poker clubs (gin, scala, etc...: small time vig). The stories I have include video from 2005 with characters that seem fictional. Actually, they have a guy on youtube after I mentioned someone to video him. The only problem is, naturally he is a top #10 world character, but when he knows he is being filmed, he freezes, not fearing the camera, but losing his natural thought system and tries to hard to seem crazy and loses his natural character. I will post one of the few characters still alive... most past on from cancer, old age, etc... maybe a handful of the greatest ever.
I had a guy who was allowed to play the entire college & pro games, without any juice, but the 2 rules were: He had to play over 50% of the games and only bet the same amount per game. That was like the perfect scenario for him and us. Actually, it allowed him to stay in action without big swings very often. He was accurate on losing 57% games over several seasons. So at -110, 52.38% is break even point, we found -105 local juice, which I by memory is 51.22% at break even. Betting that many games, bookies love it even if you win, as their #1 factor (not considering they have a Gigantic bank roll) is cash flow. Betting that many games allows them action on games, and a player who will never make a huge score (but also never lose a lot over a week) so they had a nice plan that worked.
When we ran poker games, we allowed credit (otherwise you don't get games for very long), and you had to be cautious not to allow too much credit to a person for reason other than one would think. You don't won't a player to be out of commission after one bad night. Also, the risk of not getting paid many think is worst case problem... it's not. Losing a player that plays every game for 12 hours 5 days a week, contributes a seat that helps generate rake. Losing this player due to a bad night, he will avoid playing because if he lost say $5k, in a game where a big swing is $1500... every time he wins he knows he has to pay back on the loan (it is different on game owners). Stupid people who run games, want full payment if a guy wins $1,000, which is valid and fair, but the problem is he won't return again. If you ask him prior to the game what percent he is willing to work with you, 25 to 50% is a good amount. It allows him still a nice profit, you get money, and the loan is down so he feels comfortable playing. Otherwise if you want everything he wins (which you are entitled), you lost a customer. Also, when you have limited clients in smaller towns, often, people who owed you quite a sum, won't be seen. So you have to do what others think is stupid... you clear the Debt on a condition. If they come to the games for a few months and don't borrow for a few months, now you get a player who would have never paid you, and get a player that contributes $15 to $20 an hour for a seat.
Also, another trick is at first seems stupid, but it works and keeps cash flow. If you allow everyone limited credit (others who pay it off are exception; many Drs play and write checks after the game, so you have to bring extra money for them alone as you can't give a guy who won $350 a check for $2,500. If you have 75% or more players that owe a few hundred, to maybe a few thousand all playing in the same game, you now can afford to give out more credit (not in the manner you want a player to lose too much), because everyone at the table owes you, so no matter who wins, you get paid back loans, and with that extra credit you gave out, the game can go an extra 3 hours or even 24 hours ($5k rake).
Game runners often kept books (loan notes) for years and years. Maybe 1 in 10 of them pay back soon. Maybe 1 more pays a little here and there. But loaning a person (that plays consistently hurts you more losing a player that keeps a game going and also on average contributes 50 hours weekly play times, turns into $500 minimal to $1,000 on average ( $800 would be near exact).
All these concepts apply to bookies as well. If a bookies worked in a club that poker games were ran, if the bookie buried a guy that couldn't pay and didn't have a great desire to either, he won't show at the poker games. If the guy loses 10 times more than he can afford in poker, the bookie that may be poker partners also get's dodged. More often, you don't want people booking at your poker games, because even though they might win at poker, they won't show to pay the bookie 25k they owe.
A little inside info for those not as familiar with the bookie, poker clubs (gin, scala, etc...: small time vig). The stories I have include video from 2005 with characters that seem fictional. Actually, they have a guy on youtube after I mentioned someone to video him. The only problem is, naturally he is a top #10 world character, but when he knows he is being filmed, he freezes, not fearing the camera, but losing his natural thought system and tries to hard to seem crazy and loses his natural character. I will post one of the few characters still alive... most past on from cancer, old age, etc... maybe a handful of the greatest ever.
Posted:
#21
Quote Originally Posted by Qncyk1:
(86-85 kirkland before the knockdown). thats whats up with gale van hoy.
also, danny garcia 118-109 and 117-110? like ledderman, i had the fight pretty close to even after the 10th round.
always follow the money.
Of course you had the fight close...your an idiot, and the majority of your bets are horrible. Your a fucking disgrace to this site.
Posted:
#22
True.. My last Money loss was Morales-Barrera II: I should have known the trilogy was in the mix. Although it was close, I thought it was clear Morales won most rounds just enough to be clear (unlike many bouts) on the winner.
Harold Lederman (his daughter is a great judge). I always check the scorecard fights that are going the distance (with first time match-ups and either fight is equal in money generating at this point), and if 1 or 2 judges that have seen fights the same as my point scoring doesn't make them better than others (even though they are), it shows you how they value aggressiveness, effective aggressiveness and effective defensive countering, etc... a very little spoken about rule in handicapping boxing is finding judges that view the fights (scorecards) as you do. Rarely do you see someone talk about this. You see more regarding the referee, which has great importance of how he can effect the rhythm, but scoring is the bottom line!!! I didn't get to watch any of it yet as I was traveling during...
Harold Lederman (his daughter is a great judge). I always check the scorecard fights that are going the distance (with first time match-ups and either fight is equal in money generating at this point), and if 1 or 2 judges that have seen fights the same as my point scoring doesn't make them better than others (even though they are), it shows you how they value aggressiveness, effective aggressiveness and effective defensive countering, etc... a very little spoken about rule in handicapping boxing is finding judges that view the fights (scorecards) as you do. Rarely do you see someone talk about this. You see more regarding the referee, which has great importance of how he can effect the rhythm, but scoring is the bottom line!!! I didn't get to watch any of it yet as I was traveling during...
Posted:
#23
Quote Originally Posted by camicom:
Of course you had the fight close...your an idiot, and the majority of your bets are horrible. Your a fucking disgrace to this site.
Of course you had the fight close...your an idiot, and the majority of your bets are horrible. Your a fucking disgrace to this site.
its "you're an idiot" not "your and idiot," idiot. and lederman had the fight close as well. by the way, i had garcia and posted such here on the boxing forum.
but the real question is what majority of my bets are horrible?
my last three published bets here are alexander-170, kirkland-225 and garcia -300.
had condit and werdum,
last published loss was lesnar over rheem but i won on the under.
you want to fight? i got no problem throwing down a can of whoop-ass on you.
everyone here on the mma/boxing forums know i pick more winners than losers.
Posted:
#24
Quote Originally Posted by camicom:
Of course you had the fight close...your an idiot, and the majority of your bets are horrible. Your a fucking disgrace to this site.
Of course you had the fight close...your an idiot, and the majority of your bets are horrible. Your a fucking disgrace to this site.
you started a thread titled "how many beers today thread" in the basketball forum.
15 coors lights starting at 10:00 in the morning?
real informative and productive thread, camicom.
Posted:
#25
Quote Originally Posted by ZOUK:
True.. My last Money loss was Morales-Barrera II: I should have known the trilogy was in the mix. Although it was close, I thought it was clear Morales won most rounds just enough to be clear (unlike many bouts) on the winner.
Harold Lederman (his daughter is a great judge). I always check the scorecard fights that are going the distance (with first time match-ups and either fight is equal in money generating at this point), and if 1 or 2 judges that have seen fights the same as my point scoring doesn't make them better than others (even though they are), it shows you how they value aggressiveness, effective aggressiveness and effective defensive countering, etc... a very little spoken about rule in handicapping boxing is finding judges that view the fights (scorecards) as you do. Rarely do you see someone talk about this. You see more regarding the referee, which has great importance of how he can effect the rhythm, but scoring is the bottom line!!! I didn't get to watch any of it yet as I was traveling during...
True.. My last Money loss was Morales-Barrera II: I should have known the trilogy was in the mix. Although it was close, I thought it was clear Morales won most rounds just enough to be clear (unlike many bouts) on the winner.
Harold Lederman (his daughter is a great judge). I always check the scorecard fights that are going the distance (with first time match-ups and either fight is equal in money generating at this point), and if 1 or 2 judges that have seen fights the same as my point scoring doesn't make them better than others (even though they are), it shows you how they value aggressiveness, effective aggressiveness and effective defensive countering, etc... a very little spoken about rule in handicapping boxing is finding judges that view the fights (scorecards) as you do. Rarely do you see someone talk about this. You see more regarding the referee, which has great importance of how he can effect the rhythm, but scoring is the bottom line!!! I didn't get to watch any of it yet as I was traveling during...
Yes YOUR an idiot....it can be used either way...you fucking dummy...look it up
Hot Forum Topics
