SpiderGuard

In. TYEdit: Do we owe you money for knockouts?

SpiderGuard9 (Riverside)

Not only does Fedor not die, but he ends up submitting Rampage about 30 seconds later. Absolutely amazing.Rampage is great on commentary - I forget which fight it was (one of Fedor's...or maybe Cro Cop) but Mauro Ranallo accidentally calls him Kevin Randleman, and Rampage goes on about how it's ok because all black people look alike and how he has to sign a bunch of autographs for Japanese fans as Gilbert Yvel.

FYP - hoping someone would pick up on the movie line.

Muhammed's not a common name...

WRONG. Milan pwns. Lock the thread please.

SHOCKING that in a public workout St. Pierre looked strong +1...this one seems fairly close to a no-brainer to me, not sure why everyone else feels the same way but in the opposite direction.Why is Melvin Guillard back in the UFC anyway? Maybe the answer to that helps with the answer to the other question.Edit: I stumbled on a piece of information I didn't know, which explains his absence - he was suspended by the NSAC for cocaine use back in April.........................................http://www.sherdog.com/news/news.asp?n_id=7506He's training with Team Punishment, which means his wrestlin

I'm fairly sure it's Hermione (whatever he real name is).Was a callback to the OP in the thread:

Champions League (I'm assuming).

This is the point I get confused on though - In no way is St. Pierre a better wrestler than Koscheck, but he completely dominated him in the clinch and on the ground. How did that happen? Same way that Serra outstruck St. Pierre in their fight - he's not a better striker than St. Pierre, it just happened to be his day. I guess I can't convince myself that St. Pierre can stop Matt Hughes from taking him down. I may be way off on that one, but I have to think Hughes is going to take St. Pierre down and GnP him to death. The more I think about it though, the more I think that Steve's probably

It's really starting to make me feel like there's something I'm just missing here. Why is the money going in the exact opposite direction of where we think it should?I don't think Hughes is that much of a dog in this fight...maybe if Steve can convince me to change my bet I'll give him a poker lesson or two

Don't want a stake, but I feel like this should be posted here:

Probably the smart way to go - I don't know that I'm really confident in either of the mains.I'm shocked the money line went in that direction - I really thought you were getting a good value at 160. You can thank ol'number7 for bringing that to your attention

I think you have to bet Hughes and Clementi at those lines. I can't believe that Matt Hughes is a 2:1 dog to St. Pierre when they split the two previous fights. I'll sound like a broken record, but unless I'm completely missing something, I would think Clementi's a favorite in this fight. Right now I think I'm going to bet $25 each on Clementi, Sokoudjou, and Hughes. Silva/Liddell is too close to call for me...if I was going live I think I'd bet on Liddell just because he'll be the crowd favorite and it's more fun to be cheering for the guy everyone else is cheering for - especially with the

But would a player with a winrate of 3BB/100 necessarily have a lower variance than a player with 1BB/100? My understanding is that he wouldn't, but I could be completely off.Intuitively - a player who literally folds every hand at a ten handed table (because it makes math easy) would have a winrate of -15BB/100 hands. But his variance would be zero. On the other hand, the guy who pushes only with AA and gets 3 callers every time would have a much higher winrate and variance. And the guy who pushes with 66-JJ and gets 1 caller with two overcards every time would likely have a near zero winrate

+1. None of us should sit down at your table and take advantage, but I want to rail.

My understand of it is that variance is independent of winrate. I'm going to butcher the math here, but let's assume two NLHE players go AIPF with AA vs. KK. AA has 80% equity in the pot, KK has 20% equity (just go with my numbers - they're close enough). But one of them receives 100% of the pot because that's how poker works. The difference between your equity in the pot and how much of it you receive is the variance. Losing is different from a downswing the way I've heard it used. "Downswing" is being on the negative side of variance, losing players could be on the positive side of variance

I think I'm going to ship myself a dollar for stumbling on that picture the other day

Not sure which one is hotter, so I'll post both:

The problem is that 4:1 odds don't account for you still having to make a hand. We'll assume two pair is good and will win the hand. We'll also assume that when we get a flush/straight we caught the best hand.Straight and flush draws are a little better than 2:1, OESFD is a little better than even money against top pair (?). We're 4:1 to catch a playable hand, and then around 3:2 to catch that hand when we get there.I don't have the attention span to do the math here, but that's where it goes.Edit: And thanks to JC for an incredible thread.

Correct me if I'm wrong - but I think winrate has nothing to do with variance. My understanding is that our expected profit per session/100 hands/whatever is distributed roughly normally with a mean (m) and a standard deviation (x), where m = winrate, and x is roughly = to what poker players call "variance." If you change m, you're not necessarily changing x, you're just shifting the mean left or right. The perceived effect of variance would be decreased (i.e. we wouldn't lose money as frequently...we would just profit less), but the actual variance would be the same.That being said - variance

Enjoying the read so far - one quick comment/correction: He's training with Randy, but at Xtreme Couture (the future training center of UFC up-and-comer JC Alvarado).-------------------Edit: Because I REALLY don't feel like writing anything on my dissertation today: Holy shit at those odds...bet Clementi HARD.

My random thoughts spurred by BL's random thoughts which were spurred by ...ah **** it Agreed on all of this. I'm not sure I'd want to be a counter-puncher against Sokoudjou though...he's just a scary scary man. Agreed as well - although Dana hasn't completely buried Randy dead yet. He wouldn't let the UFC Preview show Silva at Xtreme Couture (by the way - Silva's training with Xtreme Couture for this fight...not sure anyone's more qualified to talk about beating Chuck Liddell than Randy Couture), but he showed Randy's domination of Tim Sylvia the other night on Unleashed. It's a weird worl

Forgive me - I'm going to post a bunch of random thoughts in this post...good luck trying to read it.Quick note: Machida's win over Franklin was in PRIDE back on the 2003 New Year's Eve show. It was Franklin's first loss, but it was also a long time ago, in a ring.The UFC had a really weird year last year. Cro Cop losing twice, Couture beating Sylvia, Serra beating GSP, Herring losing to some guy so tough that I can't even remember his name...a bunch of it was variance catching up with the UFC for the lack of upsets in the previous years, but a really really weird year. Makes for a potentially

How did I miss all of this? From the Wrestling Observer site: http://www.wrestlingobserver.com/wo/news/h...t.asp?aID=21630I didn't know they'd officially scheduled Silva vs. Henderson...I'm maybe more interested in that main event than I am Wanderlei/Liddell.