Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«139 »
  • Post
  • Reply
Skip My Posts
Aug 15, 2005

by FactsAreUseless


i've had way more success making bets iwth my most degenerate friends and coworkers on big fights than i have online

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Kurohashi
Sep 8, 2005

*waddle waddle*

manyak posted:

I dunno, Mendes at +160 on short notice doesnt seem like amazing value, seems about right to me. And if anything now that weve seen how the fight went, getting Aldo at even odds doesnt seem like good value at all, if they rematch and you can get Conor at even money that seems like big value

Diaz at +350 or whatever was pretty great value though

A lot of the Aldo betters here got him at over +200. It was great. It'll likely be wider than that in a rematch.

Chad as a dog was great since it was the first true wrestler test and that's always a strong factor but Conor hype won there too.

manyak
Jan 26, 2006


Kurohashi posted:

A lot of the Aldo betters here got him at over +200. It was great. It'll likely be wider than that in a rematch.

Chad as a dog was great since it was the first true wrestler test and that's always a strong factor but Conor hype won there too.

A bet can seem like good value before the fight and then not good value in retrospect once you see how the fight plays out. the "first true wrestler test" doesnt mean anything, otherwise we could still describe taking Matyushenko against Jon Jones at +300 as a great bet because as people were saying back then, Jones is overhyped and its the first time Jones faced a high level international wrestler (it didnt matter at all and Jones wins 95 times out of 100). "Conor hype" didnt win out, the odds basically reflected reality and Conor knocked him out in 2 rounds

If Nate pulls out of the next fight and they put Chad in on 2 weeks notice again, youre saying it would be a slam dunk value bet to take Chad at +160 again? I dont know man

Kurohashi
Sep 8, 2005

*waddle waddle*

manyak posted:

A bet can seem like good value before the fight and then not good value in retrospect once you see how the fight plays out.

The point of the exercise is the pre-results betting value. What are you doing in this thread if you are going to say the result means bet was always bad.

manyak posted:

the "first true wrestler test" doesnt mean anything, otherwise we could still describe taking Matyushenko against Jon Jones at +300 as a great bet because as people were saying back then, Jones is overhyped and its the first time Jones faced a high level international wrestler (it didnt matter at all and Jones wins 95 times out of 100). "Conor hype" didnt win out, the odds basically reflected reality and Conor knocked him out in 2 rounds

What is this point supposed to be? Another reliance on the results to talk about pre-fight odds? First true wrestler is always a thing in this sport and it's ridiculous to deny. That analogy is so out of place too. Jones, a wrestler, who's fought 3 wrestlers in a row in the UFC going into Matyushenko and out wrestled them all is nowhere near the same situation as Conor going up against the #2 FW who was the best or 2nd best at the time (and still is) without a list of opposition or display of wrestling anywhere near it.

manyak posted:

If Nate pulls out of the next fight and they put Chad in on 2 weeks notice again, youre saying it would be a slam dunk value bet to take Chad at +160 again? I dont know man

This is a stupid analogy because for a guy relying on results to justify pre-result odds you are using an old pre-fight odds for a theoretic rematch after some other fights took place. This is a stupid exercise and proves nothing since he would not be +160 in that situation.

To answer the real question there since you don't seem to understand the value part though I would still bet on Chad in most situations, yea.

Kurohashi fucked around with this message at Mar 23, 2016 around 15:55

fatherdog
Feb 16, 2005

by Lowtax


Kurohashi posted:

This is a stupid exercise and proves nothing since he would not be +160 in that situation.

I agree with essentially everything you said except this; I think so many Irish people are going to be betting on Conor that it's very likely he will be +160 at some point.

Lloyd Boner
Oct 11, 2009

Yes officer, my name is Victoria Sonnen...berg

No way, Chad would open at like +200 and the line would only get wider.

Kurohashi
Sep 8, 2005

*waddle waddle*

fatherdog posted:

I agree with essentially everything you said except this; I think so many Irish people are going to be betting on Conor that it's very likely he will be +160 at some point.

I don't think with Chad coming off the Frankie KO and the analogy being a short notice replacement for UFC 200 that Chad would end up below +300~400. His situation is far dire than Nate's was with size discrepancy and the other factors. It wouldn't be FW either.

manyak
Jan 26, 2006


Kurohashi posted:

The point of the exercise is the pre-results betting value. What are you doing in this thread if you are going to say the result means bet was always bad.


What is this point supposed to be? Another reliance on the results to talk about pre-fight odds? First true wrestler is always a thing in this sport and it's ridiculous to deny. That analogy is so out of place too. Jones, a wrestler, who's fought 3 wrestlers in a row in the UFC going into Matyushenko and out wrestled them all is nowhere near the same situation as Conor going up against the #2 FW who was the best or 2nd best at the time (and still is) without a list of opposition or display of wrestling anywhere near it.


This is a stupid analogy because for a guy relying on results to justify pre-result odds you are using an old pre-fight odds for a theoretic rematch after some other fights took place. This is a stupid exercise and proves nothing since he would not be +160 in that situation.

To answer the real question there since you don't seem to understand the value part though I would still bet on Chad in most situations, yea.
There's a difference between being results oriented and using the way a match played out to reassess the factors that made you think the bet was good in the first place. You can use whatever info you want to justify a bet , it was the first wrestler conor faced but also a guy on 2 weeks notice fighting a guy with ko power and a huge reach advantage. Maybe some people betting on conor knew something you didn't (pre fight). The point is for you to insist that bet was "great" value, the chad who fought conor that night would need to win significantly more than 40% of the time, and nothing that happened in the fight makes me think that's obvious

manyak
Jan 26, 2006


The point of the Jones thing, lots of people here bet on Vlad because they thought Jones was overhyped and adnthadn't faced that good of a wrestler before. Would they still insist they got.good value, or by seeing the fight could they reassess whatever logic led them to making that bet, and lead them to make different betting decisions in the long run

Kurohashi
Sep 8, 2005

*waddle waddle*

manyak posted:

There's a difference between being results oriented and using the way a match played out to reassess the factors that made you think the bet was good in the first place. You can use whatever info you want to justify a bet , it was the first wrestler conor faced but also a guy on 2 weeks notice fighting a guy with ko power and a huge reach advantage. Maybe some people betting on conor knew something you didn't (pre fight). The point is for you to insist that bet was "great" value, the chad who fought conor that night would need to win significantly more than 40% of the time, and nothing that happened in the fight makes me think that's obvious

Yea and we will continue to differ there because what I saw was Chad showed he can wrestle and hold Conor down; not a dire gap in ability between two fighters. I've already been on record saying I think Chad takes him in a rematch anyway so I have nothing to hide here.

fatherdog
Feb 16, 2005

by Lowtax


Kurohashi posted:

Yea and we will continue to differ there because what I saw was Chad showed he can wrestle and hold Conor down; not a dire gap in ability between two fighters. I've already been on record saying I think Chad takes him in a rematch anyway so I have nothing to hide here.

tbh I think the fact that Mendes did almost nothing to Conor on the ground and got the poo poo beat out of him in every second on the feet means Conor would be extremely favored in a 5 round fight.

Seltzer
Oct 11, 2012

lego ass bitch

I honestly think Chad beats Conor even with the 2 week training camp a majority of the time. It just didn't happen that time. I still think those odds were good. He did significantly wrestle conor to the point conor looked out of his depth. Also I still maintain that was an early stoppage. But I'm a "conor hater" so what do I know.

Skip My Posts
Aug 15, 2005

by FactsAreUseless


mendes landed some big shots on conor but conor ate them no problem

Seltzer
Oct 11, 2012

lego ass bitch

Yea I'm pretty sure Mendes punched him a fair amount. I need to rewatch the fight tbh.

Kurohashi
Sep 8, 2005

*waddle waddle*

fatherdog posted:

tbh I think the fact that Mendes did almost nothing to Conor on the ground and got the poo poo beat out of him in every second on the feet means Conor would be extremely favored in a 5 round fight.

I really want them to fight again at some point to get into the analysis of it but for now it's all about that Frankie fight and Aldo rematch. I wouldn't even mind if Chad sat out for a little while to fully recover from the back to back stoppages.

Skip My Posts posted:

mendes landed some big shots on conor but conor ate them no problem

Yea and he moved away as they hit since he was covering so much distance so it seemed to give him zero trouble overall. I still am adamant about the body shot that Chad landed hurting Conor though which led to the 2nd, very easy takedown.

fatherdog
Feb 16, 2005

by Lowtax


Kurohashi posted:

I really want them to fight again at some point to get into the analysis of it but for now it's all about that Frankie fight and Aldo rematch.

100% fair, yes

Elemennop
Dec 28, 2004

only the martyrs have their identities remembered. please remember me, i beg you!


manyak posted:

There's a difference between being results oriented and using the way a match played out to reassess the factors that made you think the bet was good in the first place.

If you did not have that information before the fight, that is still, by definition, results oriented.

quote:

... nothing that happened in the fight makes me think that's obvious

Sure, but this is still hindsight.

For the record, I agree with fact that Mendes was not great value before the fight even with the information at hand at the time.

manyak
Jan 26, 2006


Elemennop posted:

If you did not have that information before the fight, that is still, by definition, results oriented.


Sure, but this is still hindsight.

For the record, I agree with fact that Mendes was not great value before the fight even with the information at hand at the time.

The information at hand for who though? The information on how they would match up all existed in the world before they fought and different people had different levels of access to or interpretation of it. Lets say (hypothetically, i dont think this is true) Mendes had a training partner who knew he wasnt taking Conor seriously, didnt feel strong in training, didnt have the gas to keep him down, etc etc. Would it still be smart for that guy to bet on Mendes because "guys facing a true wrestler for the first time usually lose" or whatever? Theres a difference between whether something was objectively in reality a good value bet (can never know this 100% obviously) vs if it was a good value bet given the info you personally had on hand. And whats the point of arguing the latter, because it would mean you could never criticize the bets of a guy who has never seen MMA because he didnt have the information to know the bet was bad

I know what youre saying but looking at the particulars of what happened in the fight is different from being purely results oriented. If your prediction before the Diaz fight was "i dont think Conor has the power to knock Nate out, he will likely gas out trying to, go for a takedown and get choked out", i think youd feel good about the logic that led you to bet on Diaz even if thats kind of being results oriented. It means your reasoning was at least pretty sound. If you cant look at what happens in the fight, then how are you supposed to assess what made you make certain types of bets in the past and whether they were good or not

manyak
Jan 26, 2006


If you still think Mendes at +160 on that night, with no camp for Conor, given all the particulars and so on was a good value bet, I dont think thats crazy or anything. Before the fight i thought it was probably like 60-40 in Conors favor, that still seems right to me, its not like Conor wins every time.. Mendes showed he has the tools to beat him for sure, but the guys who were saying that Conor was guaranteed to lose as soon as he faced a wrestler and Mendes was easy money should have at least been given some pause by what actually happened in the fight

handsome only face
Apr 22, 2010

Cockroach went out of the room in anger. And roach's go to empty room...

Cockroache's Anarchist




Mendes was a good bet then and he would not be a good bet now in that fight if it happened again. Between Aldo, McGregor & Edgar his chin has taken a lot of punishment.

Le Saboteur
Dec 5, 2007

pink wasn't even a thing why is t#RXT REVOLUTION~!
and i'm so fucking excited for #SCOOPS#SCOOPS#SCOOPS #SCOOPS#SCOOPS #SCOOPS#SCOOPS

he knows..


Best value bet I've ever won was probably Nate Diaz at +330 over McGregor. Don't think I'm ever gonna get those odds again on the rematch but if Diaz opens as an underdog again you better believe I'm throwing some money at that.

Kurohashi
Sep 8, 2005

*waddle waddle*

manyak posted:

And whats the point of arguing the latter, because it would mean you could never criticize the bets of a guy who has never seen MMA because he didnt have the information to know the bet was bad

That's ridiculous. Life isn't all black and white like that and all fight discussion, betting or not, is speculative with hardly any true certainties. "Objectively in reality" is a wonderful ideal but suspect to the exact same nuances you brought up yourself. Conor didn't knock Nate out, but there is no certainty about if he has the power to or not. Even if he doesn't knock him out in his lifetime that doesn't answer that question. You would need to have Nate stick his head out and say "Hit me" and Conor give his best punch in his life to him then and not knock him out to truly ever know the answer to that and it will never happen.

It doesn't make sense to say nuances are why we can't say placing a fixed bet with certain odds of return is relatively good or bad as if there's some other option that's truer with absolutes. There isn't. Look at the different opinions of how we all interpreted what Chad/Conor 1 told us about a potential rematch or how Diaz/Conor 1 went and a rematch would go. We can call each other's opinions more true or less true all day and that is what forums are for anyway. Why are you so hung up on one person's variables and calculations of them making a value bet being good or bad when it's not a card game where you can show the math to support a decision.

manyak
Jan 26, 2006


Kurohashi posted:

That's ridiculous. Life isn't all black and white like that and all fight discussion, betting or not, is speculative with hardly any true certainties. "Objectively in reality" is a wonderful ideal but suspect to the exact same nuances you brought up yourself. Conor didn't knock Nate out, but there is no certainty about if he has the power to or not. Even if he doesn't knock him out in his lifetime that doesn't answer that question. You would need to have Nate stick his head out and say "Hit me" and Conor give his best punch in his life to him then and not knock him out to truly ever know the answer to that and it will never happen.

It doesn't make sense to say nuances are why we can't say placing a fixed bet with certain odds of return is relatively good or bad as if there's some other option that's truer with absolutes. There isn't. Look at the different opinions of how we all interpreted what Chad/Conor 1 told us about a potential rematch or how Diaz/Conor 1 went and a rematch would go. We can call each other's opinions more true or less true all day and that is what forums are for anyway. Why are you so hung up on one person's variables and calculations of them making a value bet being good or bad when it's not a card game where you can show the math to support a decision.

Im not hung up on that at all, im only hung up on how you got so worked up about my saying that the way the fight played out has an effect on whether or not your bet turned out to be great value in retrospect. Youre now saying that forums are for arguing your opinion lol but before you were like "what are you doing in this thread you stupid idiot" for bringing up that maybe the fact Conor was able to easily beat Mendes in real life means your "great value bet" wasnt actually that great. Should we only talk about bets in the future and not say whether ones you made in the past were bad, is that not what forums are for?

Take away the betting odds part for a second, lots of people here thought Conor had 0 chance against Mendes, then he knocked him out. Is their opinion that Conor had no chance still reasonable now that we saw how the fight played out? Can we not use what actually happened as information to say they were misinformed/should rethink how they analyze fights? i dont get it

Kurohashi
Sep 8, 2005

*waddle waddle*

manyak posted:

Im not hung up on that at all, im only hung up on how you got so worked up about my saying that the way the fight played out has an effect on whether or not your bet turned out to be great value in retrospect. Youre now saying that forums are for arguing your opinion lol but before you were like "what are you doing in this thread you stupid idiot" for bringing up that maybe the fact Conor was able to easily beat Mendes in real life means your "great value bet" wasnt actually that great. Should we only talk about bets in the future and not say whether ones you made in the past were bad, is that not what forums are for?

Initially, you say losing the bet on Chad that was placed for value is a bad bet retroactively and by standing by that bet I made at that time means I would, somehow, pick Chad over Conor in a late replacement rematch for Nate/Conor 2 which is in a few months or so. The odds for my bet here (placed by you) is somehow still +160 AFTER Conor KO'd Aldo, AFTER Edgar KO'd Chad, and also not at FW. My first response is all about this crazy stuff you said. Liking my bet on Chad/Conor 1 doesn't have anything to do with Chad/Conor 2. Just for the record I said I am likely to pick Chad in a rematch, just not your bizarre and impossible scenario. The backbone of your "Chad value was about right" view is "Conor knocked him out in 2 rounds" and "First true wrestler test doesn't mean anything" and I pointed out that in a gambling thread where we're looking at subjective value based on countless variables, it's a weird thing to be solely results oriented about. Nothing is concrete as you say because look at what we all interpreted from the fight and a potential rematch. It's subjective and varies.

The other, more recent post from you (to someone else calling out your results oriented retroactive odds opinion) is asking what is the point of arguing if it was a good value bet given the info you personally had on hand instead of objectively in reality a good value bet (whatever that is). I said "Objectively in reality good value bet" doesn't even exist in this context so talking about value bets at the time makes total sense. I gave an example of how we interpreted Chad/Conor 1 differently and argue(d) about it on these forums.

Somehow you connected two different posts, two different points, and a fake quote I didn't say to make some 'gotcha' post and achieved nothing.

manyak posted:

Take away the betting odds part for a second, lots of people here thought Conor had 0 chance against Mendes, then he knocked him out. Is their opinion that Conor had no chance still reasonable now that we saw how the fight played out? Can we not use what actually happened as information to say they were misinformed/should rethink how they analyze fights?

Take away the betting odds topic, which is the very topic we are talking about, divert to a new topic you created about fight analyzing and then pre-populate my answer for me from betting odds talk. What can this result in...

manyak posted:

i dont get it

...Oh yea, that

manyak
Jan 26, 2006


Youre so literal, obviously i didnt think Chad Mendes would replace Diaz on short notice at 170 and the odds would be exactly the same, i was just getting at whether or not you would bet on Chad again at the same odds in a rematch if one of the variables (Chad not having a full camp for conor) was still in place.

I just dont understand your insistence that you cant look at the results of a fight and retroactively say if a bet you made was bad or not. It doesnt apply in every case, and sometimes its information you didnt have access to, but sometimes the way a fight plays out can make you rethink whether a bet was good or not. Are you arguing this basic point?

Scenario A: you bet on a guy who is good value, he fights below expectations, it turns out he was sick the night before the fight and didnt tell anyone. Your bet doesnt retroactively become bad because of the result, you had no way of knowing, it was still good value.

Scenario B: I value bet on Chris leben against Anderson silva because the competition in Japan is worse and i think Leben is cool. the fight happens - can I not use what actually happened in the fight to look back and say "yeah, maybe there were some factors at play that made my bet bad"?

Kurohashi
Sep 8, 2005

*waddle waddle*

manyak posted:

I just dont understand your insistence that you cant look at the results of a fight and retroactively say if a bet you made was bad or not. It doesnt apply in every case, and sometimes its information you didnt have access to, but sometimes the way a fight plays out can make you rethink whether a bet was good or not. Are you arguing this basic point?

Because where does it end, man? What if Leben didn't train at all for the fight, had a withdrawal issues the day of the fight, had relationship problems and/or Silva was juiced up and had a perfect training camp to boot? Now your super certain, objectively bad, regretful bet on Leben the underdog is retroactively back to being possibly good value bet? Its pointless.

I saw Chad wrestle Conor, Chad able to get in the pocket for both strikes and takedown, and Conor fairly helpless off his back eating elbows. I feel I saw Chad hurt Conor with a body shot and I also felt I saw Chad panic when he couldn't take Conor down with the first try and wouldn't have that shock in a rematch. I also saw Conor just gas in a fight he cut no weight for and know he'd have to cut back down to FW for their rematch to happen in a planned manner. These are my observations and do not retroactively make me think Chad's was a bad value bet. You saw Conor end Chad in 2 rounds and retroactively think Chad was a bad value bet. Fatherdog saw Chad do nothing to Conor on the ground and get his rear end kicked standing, Seltzer saw Chad style on helpless Conor and hold his own on the feet. We clearly all have our own opinion of the same 'result'. That's why this doesn't work with your convenient Silva vs Leben scenario: A one-sided beatdown with no interpretation difference between you and me on what happened with equally no other inside information. It's no analogy for you telling me Chad/Conor 1 showed Chad was a bad bet and me saying I think Chad was a good bet. To bring it back home, just saying Conor won in 2 rounds doesn't mean the odds and the bet was bad because we made the decision before the fight happened so that point is not part of the argument just like someone being sick wouldn't be.

If you regret a bet you lost then that's your own issue for any number of reasons to get over. It doesn't mean anything about value betting with fight odds being right or wrong as a whole before the fight took place.

willie_dee
Jun 21, 2010
I obtain sexual gratification from observing people being inflicted with violent head injuries

Le Saboteur posted:

Best value bet I've ever won was probably Nate Diaz at +330 over McGregor. Don't think I'm ever gonna get those odds again on the rematch but if Diaz opens as an underdog again you better believe I'm throwing some money at that.

I think I got better on Nick Diaz against BJ Penn but I don't remember

Captain Log
Oct 2, 2006

Captain Log posted:

"I AINT DYING! Choo choo motherfucker!"


Fun Shoe

These are a hell of a lot of words to rationalize loving gambling logic.

manyak
Jan 26, 2006


Kurohashi posted:

Because where does it end, man? What if Leben didn't train at all for the fight, had a withdrawal issues the day of the fight, had relationship problems and/or Silva was juiced up and had a perfect training camp to boot? Now your super certain, objectively bad, regretful bet on Leben the underdog is retroactively back to being possibly good value bet? Its pointless.

I saw Chad wrestle Conor, Chad able to get in the pocket for both strikes and takedown, and Conor fairly helpless off his back eating elbows. I feel I saw Chad hurt Conor with a body shot and I also felt I saw Chad panic when he couldn't take Conor down with the first try and wouldn't have that shock in a rematch. I also saw Conor just gas in a fight he cut no weight for and know he'd have to cut back down to FW for their rematch to happen in a planned manner. These are my observations and do not retroactively make me think Chad's was a bad value bet. You saw Conor end Chad in 2 rounds and retroactively think Chad was a bad value bet. Fatherdog saw Chad do nothing to Conor on the ground and get his rear end kicked standing, Seltzer saw Chad style on helpless Conor and hold his own on the feet. We clearly all have our own opinion of the same 'result'. That's why this doesn't work with your convenient Silva vs Leben scenario: A one-sided beatdown with no interpretation difference between you and me on what happened with equally no other inside information. It's no analogy for you telling me Chad/Conor 1 showed Chad was a bad bet and me saying I think Chad was a good bet. To bring it back home, just saying Conor won in 2 rounds doesn't mean the odds and the bet was bad because we made the decision before the fight happened so that point is not part of the argument just like someone being sick wouldn't be.

If you regret a bet you lost then that's your own issue for any number of reasons to get over. It doesn't mean anything about value betting with fight odds being right or wrong as a whole before the fight took place.

Okay, now I get it, you were just confused about what you were watching. Personally I think Leben was about to catch Silva, if he had a better camp to prepare I think he takes the rematch

heeebrew
Sep 6, 2007

Weed smokin', joint tokin', fake Jew of the Weed thread


jase1 late congrats on the diaz play
.

heeebrew fucked around with this message at Mar 24, 2016 around 04:53

maffew buildings
Apr 29, 2009

I'm too dumb to get probated


this running argument dissertation of posts is extremely negative EV for my eyeballs if I read everything

maffew buildings
Apr 29, 2009

I'm too dumb to get probated


if you didn't learn everything you need to know about gambling from Bill Fillmaff I dunno what to tell you

Ty1990
Apr 22, 2011



I bet on josh koscheck to beat Robbie lawler once

Fozzy The Bear
Sep 27, 2009


Ty1990 posted:

I bet on josh koscheck to beat Robbie lawler once

Mods?!?

Ty1990
Apr 22, 2011



Anybody here cash out of Bovada lately? It's been a while for me and I used to get a courier check which was free, but now they're charging 50 bucks per payout if you go through that method. They offer "Fast Funds" for free...anybody know how that works? They just put the money right into your checking account?

Personally, I don't feel like talking on the phone for 20 minutes with my bank lying to them about how the money got there.

I.N.R.I
May 26, 2011
Probation
Can't post for 8 hours!


Ty1990 posted:

Anybody here cash out of Bovada lately? It's been a while for me and I used to get a courier check which was free, but now they're charging 50 bucks per payout if you go through that method. They offer "Fast Funds" for free...anybody know how that works? They just put the money right into your checking account?

Personally, I don't feel like talking on the phone for 20 minutes with my bank lying to them about how the money got there.

They attach the money to a cheetah and you have to catch the cheetah and kill it in order to get your money

Captain Log
Oct 2, 2006

Captain Log posted:

"I AINT DYING! Choo choo motherfucker!"


Fun Shoe

Ty1990 posted:

Anybody here cash out of Bovada lately? It's been a while for me and I used to get a courier check which was free, but now they're charging 50 bucks per payout if you go through that method. They offer "Fast Funds" for free...anybody know how that works? They just put the money right into your checking account?

Personally, I don't feel like talking on the phone for 20 minutes with my bank lying to them about how the money got there.

It always worked fine for me. Just give it about a week and your funds pop in your account.

Vomik
Jul 29, 2003

Melting.


Ty1990 posted:

Anybody here cash out of Bovada lately? It's been a while for me and I used to get a courier check which was free, but now they're charging 50 bucks per payout if you go through that method. They offer "Fast Funds" for free...anybody know how that works? They just put the money right into your checking account?

Personally, I don't feel like talking on the phone for 20 minutes with my bank lying to them about how the money got there.

If you're moving significant amounts of money like it sounds you should be wiring anyway not doing a cashier check

Kurohashi
Sep 8, 2005

*waddle waddle*

Bovada has Conor -140, Nate +110

Looks like there's a cap on the bets for it right now though (seems like bets have to be under $1k).

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

SquirrelGrip
Jul 4, 2012


manyak posted:

Okay, now I get it, you were just confused about what you were watching. Personally I think Leben was about to catch Silva, if he had a better camp to prepare I think he takes the rematch

daaammmnnn

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«139 »