Dwyer Likes Bradley Over Pac. Says Pac Is Like Devon

[915angel]

not gonna bump my old thread (on the 3rd page) BUT


who HAS bradley beat? a green peterson a "stoner" in guzman (or that last dude he fought) he beat a runner in witter,,, his only good win IMO was against kendall holt and thats still a B- win,,,

[Victorious713]

Originally Posted by BreWall

This is a thousand times better than a Cotto rematch.

-brett

I agree. As ugly as it may be, better than watching a rerun.

[Harry Balls]

I think you're an exceptional poster New England so I'm not trying to take a stab at you. Just have some thoughts.

Originally Posted by New England

dwyer forgot more about boxing in the last year than most of the guys in this forum

This may very well be true.

he's a gambler
he has to take a take and run with it

he's not an analyist

This is incorrect.

A gambler needs to analyze and construct a probability scheme in order to value which line offers the best play. It's not about guts or glory.
All he should be worried about is if hes getting it in good in regards to the probability of being correct combined with the odds given.

you're not going to be objective,
or constantly right, when you are giving a take like the one dwyer is giving

Being objective is key. How else is he going to know which side to bet? If hes just biased hes setting his money on fire and basically just paying the rake every bookie has as a fee.

Constantly right? Absolutely not. I agree on that. A successful bettor would only have to get a return of investment that is >.5.

most folks provide an analysis
that's really not what dwyer does. he makes a case for a certain take on a fight

I don't see a reason for why he shouldn't.

and he's right
bradley will be able to back pacquiao up

i dont think he will win, but i think he will back him up and work the body
he's young, hungry, fast enough, has a solid enough chin

i think the judges would find another way to give it to pacquiao

there's too much at stake (the floyd fight) for tim bradley to get a fair shake

hell, marquez couldnt get a fair shake, and he's a first ballot HOFER and a bonafide ATG

Possibly.

I'm not saying Bradley is a bad bet (it would be a huge mistake at even odds obviously), just saying Dwyer offers very little to me as a hardcore boxing fan. I tune in for analysis built on logic, and that's seldom the case with Dwyer.

As i said, i think hes often taking a stance just to get attention. I vaguely remember his rants of Tarver/B-hop going up to hw to fight Wlad.

With this said i would never do these kinds of videos, so I'm not trying to say I'm smarter or more knowledgeable. Just saying as a guy venting his opinions on boxing, i don't rate him highly.

[hougigo]

Even though I like Bradley and I think he [B]can[/B (not will)] win against Pac... I wouldn't bet on it.

[Bushbaby]

Bradley has amazing adaptibility. His trainers know how to prepare him. He can beat Pacman. What most of you dudes fail to realize is Bradley is almost even on 2 fronts concerning Pacman.

He's almost as fast Pacman & I would say he has better stamina. Bradley can box & move very well. Pacman clearly has trouble there.

Pacman clearly has more power. However movement & solid fundamentals thwarth the Pacman offense. If Marquez who is smaller & weaker than Pacman can take his offense away with solid movement Bradley can to & better.

[SoggyLungs]

dwyer? the same dwyer that predicted shane mosley would ko pac?

[Ray*]

Who is this guy?

[New England]

Originally Posted by Harry Balls

I think you're an exceptional poster New England so I'm not trying to take a stab at you. Just have some thoughts.


This may very well be true.


This is incorrect.

A gambler needs to analyze and construct a probability scheme in order to value which line offers the best play. It's not about guts or glory.
All he should be worried about is if hes getting it in good in regards to the probability of being correct combined with the odds given.


Being objective is key. How else is he going to know which side to bet? If hes just biased hes setting his money on fire and basically just paying the rake every bookie has as a fee.

Constantly right? Absolutely not. I agree on that. A successful bettor would only have to get a return of investment that is >.5.


I don't see a reason for why he shouldn't.


Possibly.

I'm not saying Bradley is a bad bet (it would be a huge mistake at even odds obviously), just saying Dwyer offers very little to me as a hardcore boxing fan. I tune in for analysis built on logic, and that's seldom the case with Dwyer.

As i said, i think hes often taking a stance just to get attention. I vaguely remember his rants of Tarver/B-hop going up to hw to fight Wlad.

With this said i would never do these kinds of videos, so I'm not trying to say I'm smarter or more knowledgeable. Just saying as a guy venting his opinions on boxing, i don't rate him highly.

agreed. his videos are opinion based and not an objective analysis.

i think we are making the same points about dwyer, with me likeing him a bit more than you do lol!
i admire the depth of what he brings to the table, i dont listen to everything he says as fact.

i obviously dont always agree with him, or even think his logic/rhetoric adds up, as you've stated


dwyer is biased and cant provide true analysis because he's a gambler
he does bet the fights i believe.

he breaks down the fights, but it's always subjective, with the real "analysis" being his take on the fight




sometimes i'll watch a dwyer video without having totally formed an opinion on who would win, and i'll end up actually picking opposite of him because i dont think what he says lines up


i do appreciate very much his clearly well informed takes, even if they are, as you say, not exactly an analysis and hardly objective.
we get to see somebody in the know giving his take on the fight, and it does function well as a tool for building our own analysis.

[Harry Balls]

i watched the video now. I've stayed away from them for months as i feel it's a waste of time.

He makes some good points on this matchup, and i feel it's probably more competitive than most people think it will be. Bradley definitely have some tools in his arsenal to trouble Pac and possibly even pull off the upset.

It just feels that Dwyer as always has picked a side and THEN try to find justifications for it, rather than looking and analyzing the entire fight and THEN come to a conclusion.

He mentions several times how this fight Is Bradleys to win straight up, disregarding the odds. That means he think Bradley is mispriced by a factor of 5-7 which is remarkable. I'm not a fan of the efficient market hypothesis but this is a little beyond it for me.

Overall a good video for being Dwyer. He makes solid points regarding the stylistic considerations that needs to be accounted for. I just think his conclusions are grossly misapplied.

[wizard king]

Originally Posted by Harry Balls

I think you're an exceptional poster New England so I'm not trying to take a stab at you. Just have some thoughts.


This may very well be true.


This is incorrect.

A gambler needs to analyze and construct a probability scheme in order to value which line offers the best play. It's not about guts or glory.
All he should be worried about is if hes getting it in good in regards to the probability of being correct combined with the odds given.


Being objective is key. How else is he going to know which side to bet? If hes just biased hes setting his money on fire and basically just paying the rake every bookie has as a fee.

Constantly right? Absolutely not. I agree on that. A successful bettor would only have to get a return of investment that is >.5.


I don't see a reason for why he shouldn't.


Possibly.

I'm not saying Bradley is a bad bet (it would be a huge mistake at even odds obviously), just saying Dwyer offers very little to me as a hardcore boxing fan. I tune in for analysis built on logic, and that's seldom the case with Dwyer.

As i said, i think hes often taking a stance just to get attention. I vaguely remember his rants of Tarver/B-hop going up to hw to fight Wlad.

With this said i would never do these kinds of videos, so I'm not trying to say I'm smarter or more knowledgeable. Just saying as a guy venting his opinions on boxing, i don't rate him highly.

you know nothing about gambling.dwyer makes money or breakes even,reguradless which fighter he picks to wins or lose.its called a straddle.you mat not agree with his points but atleast he makes a solid case for which fighter he thinks would win not like the many clowns on this site.