Castenada v. pickard

So, Tapestry, right? Decent episode, great characterization, with some good humorous moments involving Q.
Picard--a 64-year-old man at the time--is sent back to his youth, and among his first priorities is hooking up with his Academy pal Marta, who is at the very least four decades younger (yes, I know Cadet Jean-Luc Picard's body is four decades younger, but his mind is that of Captain Jean-Luc Picard.) He puts on the barest show of resistance before hopping into bed with her. If Q hadn't done his John-Luck Pickard gag, it might have been even sooner.
It's...not Picard's finest moment; I would think a man who fought with all his will to against the Borg hive-mind and aid the Federation at its darkest hour could resist the temptation to hook up with an (admittedly attractive) college girl, or at least put more than ten seconds thought into it. Even 007 fended off Bibi Dahl, after all.
It's lucky that the show provided an out re: "it was all a dream"; otherwise, it's objectively one of the most inappropriate actions taken by a Captain, approaching Sisko's environmental terrorism.
​

Lifetime - Staked: 769.4u, Profit/Loss: +35.52u, ROI: 4.62%, Parlay Suggestions: 155-53 Dog of the Week: 12-10
2024 - Staked: 122.3u, Profit/Loss: 2.16u, ROI: 1.77%
As always, scroll down for UFC Vegas 89 Breakdowns. The following is just a recap of last event’s results.
UFC Vegas 88
Staked: 19.5u
Profit/Loss: -7.84u
Parlay Suggestions: 2-2
Didn’t watch the card so no thoughts on the fights. All I know is I once again find myself wondering where my strategy went. I’ll learn from this one, dust myself off and go again, but jesus fucking christ that’s a stinker. I need to start re-considering hedging my bets more objectively also. I knew McKenna’s path to a loss would come via R1 finish, and despite having massive, MASSIVE CLV on her at +100, I still didn’t hedge it. Same with Tuivasa. Hedging is tough when you fall in love with a bet, but I need to start being more objective.
❌ 2u Tai Tuivasa to Win & Under 2.5 Rounds at +180
❌ 3u Kennedy Nzechukwu to Win at -400
❌ 2u Kennedy Nzechukwu & Charalampos Grigoriou both to Win at -110
✅ 5u Thiago Moises to Win at -350 (won +1.4u)
✅ 2u Christian Rodriguez to Win at +163 (won +3.26u)
❌ 0.75u Bryan Barberena to Win at +230
❌ 0.25u Baberena to Win ITD at +500
❌ 2u Charalampos Grigoriou to Win at -160
❌ 2u Cory McKenna to Win at +100
❌ 0.5u Parlay Pieces at +483
​
UFC Vegas 89
I’m going to be completely transparent – I’ve got so little motivation for this week’s card. I look up and down the entire card and I can count nine fighters that I literally haven’t got a clue about…and I do this shit every week. Not only that, but the guys I do recognise have such small sample sizes in their UFC careers that I just don’t know what to think about most of them.
Also, I know last week I said I’d be going 10u on Billy Quarantillo, but after some awful results where I lost multiple units on fights I was very confident in (Thanks Kennedy), I’m aware that I’ve lost my way on some of the principles I spoke about earlier in the year. For that reason, I’m only going 5u on Billy Q. I still feel the same way about it, but it’s a bad idea to double down and go big when you’re on a cold streak…so I’m going to be a bit more conservative about it. It’s still 5u though lol, so I am super confident…but the 10u play will have to wait until another time.
Anyway this card starts great at the top of the billing but it quickly falls off. Let’s get into it.
​
Rose Namajunaas v Amanda Ribas
For such a bad card, this is a fun main event. Ribas is talented and has deserved her moment in the sun, and Rose Namajunas is a former champion that deserves respect.
Respect is a key word, because I feel Namajunas doesn’t get anywhere near enough of it from the cockwomble MMA fans or even the oddsmakers. Even though she’s taken some time off in recent years, she’s still one of the best WMMA fighters in the world in my opinion. People won’t like me saying it, but it’s because of her snowflakey mindset, ‘lesbian’ appearance and that awful fight with Esparza that people give her unnecessary shit…And the oddsmakers follow the popularity in times like this. Namajunas is therefore someone I think you can very easily find value on, because she’s a cold fighter that no one is going to bat for. Not me though, I still think she’s class.
I’m very well-versed in betting Amanda Ribas fights. She’s one of my girls, and I’ve had a great time betting on/against her. She’s very well-rounded and doesn’t get outclassed by many, but unfortunately suffers from having possibly the worst chin I have ever seen in WMMA. It’s no exaggeration, she got hurt on the feet by Virna Jandiroba.
It’s not really her strongest selling point, but remember it’s Namajunas’ power that made her a star when she KO’d Joanna. I think she’s got the potential to find a finish on the feet here. There’s quite a few WMMA fighters who have shown glimpses of KO power on the feet in their careers – Barber, Marina Rodriguez…look what happened when they both faced Ribas.
And even despite that, I think Rose is just a better striker than Amanda. Don’t get me wrong, Ribas isn’t a bad striker at all, and she’s had her moments of looking really good (like against Pinheiro last time)…but she’s not talented enough to clearly separate herself against Rose like that. A Rose Namajunas that put on a pretty valiant display against Manon Fiorot, who is widely regarded as the best striker in WMMA at the moment.
The grappling is also a narrative worth discussing, and I think Namajunas has proven herself to be capable enough in the BJJ department that she shouldn’t find herself in any serious danger or stuck on bottom against Ribas, who hasn’t been a prolific wrestler on the reverse either.
So in conclusion, I think this is a well-matched fight where I just expect Rose to be that little bit more technical. Add in the unreliable chinnyness of Ribas, as well as her five round experience, and I think Rose should be about -200 here.
Therefore, I’m seeing about 5% worth of value here. That’s enough for me, as I’m quite sure this isn’t going to be a card where I have many strong takes, so I’ll get involved with something. 2u Rose Namajunas to Win at -160.
How I line this fight: Rose Namajunas -200 (67%), Amanda Ribas +200 (33%)
Bet or pass: 2u Rose Namajunas to Win (-160)
Prop leans: Rose KO could be interesting at a juicy number like +500 or something. Not saying it lands but it’s always a narrative worth looking at against Ribas.
​
Cameron Saaiman v Payton Talbott
I slagged off this card, but this is a brilliant co-main event. The poster looks amazing for this card, but it’s once you look further down you realise it’s awful.
Anyway. Cameron Saaiman took his first L. It had to happen at some point, and for some fighters it can actually be a really good thing. Cameron’s still a really talented guy, but he fought an equally talented C-Rod that had a significant bit of size on him after the weight miss.
Payton Talbott, on the other hand, was one of the stars of the recent series of DWCS, where he beat the very average Reyes Cortez. I bet him there purely as a fade on Cortez, because we all know Tracy took all the good genes. He followed that up with a win over Nick Aguirre, whose only other UFC appearance saw him lose to Dan Argueta…who is 1-1 in the UFC and recently lose to Miles Johns.
MMA math has to do some legwork here, given we don’t know a whole lot about Talbott. Just like I said about Dulgarian last week (I’ve written this before that card took place), just because there’s unknowns doesn’t mean he’s bad, but it also doesn’t mean he’s good, and he’s the favourite against a guy who was being hyped up as a prospect before that loss to C-Rod.
And from a tape perspective, what exactly were we supposed to be impressed by from Talbott’s debut? Spent the entire first round on his back and even gave up his back, against a really low level guy. In r2 the tide changed almost instantly and Talbott was in cruise control, but that didn’t stop him from getting taken down and again giving up his back against an opponent that was starting to wilt. You put a capable UFC level fighter in there with 15 minutes of grappling cardio and Talbott starts his UFC career off with an L. I really didn’t understand the hype from that fight.
So they’re giving him Cameron Saaiman for his sophomore fight? That’s a very questionable bit of matchmaking, because I was expecting them to want to protect Talbott for a few years. I think he’s got a very comparable style and position to Sean O’Malley at this stage in his career. Young, flashy style, plenty of promise…and it’s not like they went hard on Sean when he started out in the UFC.
So I think Saaiman should be about -150 to -175 here. He’s a very well-rounded fighter, can certainly grapple well too, and has decent cardio too. Yes he’s lost a bit of his shine in the Rodriguez loss recently, but these kind of instances result in way too much market correction. On the subject of Intangible narratives, Cameron has since watched his teammate and countryman win gold. Saaiman can absolutely turn his career around, he is not a busted prospect, and a win over a guy that many are starting to look at as a hype train would be a great start.
Saaiman is +100 at the betting window right now. I think that’s ridiculous, and I don’t understand how that price can be anything other than a massive overreaction to Saaiman’s first loss, or instead a massive investment to the Talbott hype train. I don’t care either way, I think it’s great value, so I'm betting Cameron Saaiman at +100 or better for 2u. I feel similarly to the Christian Rodriguez fight last week really, and that turned into a good play. Just like that bet last week I'm going to hold out to see what the line movement does
How I line this fight: Cameron Saaiman -160 (62%), Payton Talbott +160 (38%)
Bet or pass: 2u Cameron Saaiman to Win (+100 or better)
Prop leans: Probably a decision win for Cameron
​
Billy Quarantillo v Youssef Zalal
I for one am happy to see Youssef Zalal back in the UFC. He’s a main-stay Factory X fighter alongside Chris Gutierrez, Jonathan Martinez, and Brandon Royval. He’s a competent enough grappler, and had an awful run of competition that forced a streak of losses (Topuria, Seung Woo Choi, Sean Woodson, and a draw with Da’mon Blackshear), and he ultimately got cut. Given the calibre of fighters the UFC has taken on in recent years, Zalal is absolutely UFC quality. It felt like the UFC bullied him out the door because he was boring, but boring fighters are great if you’re a bettor, as the To Win by Decision prop becomes something of a money tree – And Zalal definitely was that for me when he landed it three times in a row during the lockdown days. It’s good to see Zalal has gone back to the regionals and re-earnt his place in the UFC. Good for him.
Unfortunately, for as much as I will sing Youssef Zalal’s praises, he’s getting an absolute nightmare matchup here against Billy Q. I’m a big Billy Q fan, because he’s one of those guys who weaponises cardio, and that’s my favourite archetype of a fighter to bet on. Billy is a well-rounded guy as well, so he can use that cardio to overwhelm you with the striking, or in the grappling realm.
Zalal isn’t better than Billy Q anywhere, and the only place where Zalal excels is a place where Quarantillo is most comfortable. Couple that with the fact that Zalal is facing a cardio machine on short notice, and it’s quite clearly meant to be an easy win for Billy. I’d have him as -500 here. Zalal has very little power so doesn’t even really have a puncher’s chance, I just don’t know how he wins here aside from a robbery scorecard.
There was no betting line when initially wrote this, so I didn’t know what to expect. Personally I had it lined with Quarantillo at -400. I was poised and ready to bet Billy Q if I could get anything better than -300…and then I saw it. BetOnline had Billy Q at -137…and the UK books copied it. And it’s stayed.
This line is the most incorrect I think I have seen in recent years. It’s so bad that I’m concerned I might be missing something…did Billy Q lose an arm recently? Enlighten me in the comments if you think this line is accurate or that I’m chatting shit? I can’t understand it. I wanted to go 10u but after seeing how badly I got fucked up last week I’m going to dial it back to just 5u. I still think this is the bet of the year so far.
How I line this fight: Billy Quarantillo -400 (80%), Youssef Zalal +400 (20%)
Bet or pass: 5u Billy Quarantillo at -137. Lawd jesus.
Prop leans: Zalal was a hard guy to finish in his early UFC days, so I lean a Billy Q decision win, which also might be an interesting price
​
Luis Pajuelo v Fernando Padilla
I hate moments like this, where neither guy’s name means anything at all to me. Padilla has two UFC performances to his name, and during that time he’s managed to re-affirm what seemingly everybody knew coming into his UFC career – he can be a dangerous finisher but he’s not a good minute winner. Finishing Julian Erosa in under two minutes is an impressive debut result…but losing a decision to Kyle Nelson is an awful sophomore result.
Luis Pajuelo is making his UFC debut after a R1 KO win on DWCS. Awful tattoos, but nice leg kicks. He’s intense and looks like he has a pretty good chin – the type of guy who thrives in those kind of brawls. I like the way he mixes up his strikes to the leg, body and head. The knee on the mat that caused the finish was sneaky good. Sorry I dissed your tattoos Pajuelo…you’re okay! In regards to this fight, that style is really going to serve him well because Padilla is very rangey and will have seven inches of reach advantage. Pajuelo’s going to have to walk forward and eat teeps and jabs to get his game going, but being a body striker and tenacious fighter is a good remedy to that.
If you’ve read my breakdowns for some time, you’ll know that I’ve got beef with Kyle Nelson, to the point where I hold my hands up these days and say that I cannot objectively break down his fights (I think he’s shit but he keeps costing me money). As a byproduct, anyone who fails to beat Kyle Nelson also gets added to that bias as I therefore just draw a line through their name and call them shit. Unfortunately for Padilla, that definitely includes him because he couldn’t even beat Nelson on a fucking Mexican based card..
Shit-talking aside, his striking looked really nice in that early win over Erosa. Dodgy-ish stoppage but I’m sure he would have just kept doing damage and got the clean KO eventually. The Nelson fight originally looked like more of the same, but his inability to check leg kicks and make adjustments cost him dearly. Nelson’s a weird one, he just confuses guys with his rhythm and movement.
I wrote all that with no idea what the betting line was, expecting to see something resembling a pick’em that leant slightly towards Padilla…and I was pretty much spot on! Thankfully no value to be seen there, otherwise I’d have had to look into it in more detail!
How I line this fight: Luis Pajuelo +120 (48%), Fernando Padilla -120 (52%)
Bet or pass: Pass
Prop leans: None
​
Karl Williams v Justin Tafa
A very binary fight this. Karl Williams is only good as a wrestler, and Justin Tafa is as one dimensional as the dudes that fought on the first ever UFC event.
I’ve mentioned before how much of a white belt Justin Tafa is on the mat..or at least that’s what I saw the last time we saw him on the mat on the regional scene in 2019. It was a long time ago but he’s basically the 2020s version of Mark Hunt…he doesn’t train BJJ does he? Wouldn’t surprise me if he’s a fish off his back and the fact no one has tried to find out is a real indication of how shit Heavyweight MMA is.
That was all the reasoning I needed for trying to bet Marcos Rogerio de Lima to win by Submission against Tafa, but I’m not sure I can trust Williams with that at all. He doesn’t have any killer instinct when he’s wrestling, as seen by the fact he’s a 265lber with double the number of decision wins over finishes. That also includes Chase Sherman, who once upon a time got taken down and submitted in less than three minutes by Jake Collier.
Williams’ grappling upside should be enough for him to be strongly favoured though, but you’re crazy if you trust him to win here. With no finishing ability, you’re relying on him to last 15 minutes in the cage against a man with the power to win a fight with one punch. Yes, he likely does win, but the thought of betting it is gross. We have seen a fair few examples of Heavyweight grapplers failing to complete the mission in recent weeks (Almeida & Gaziev), so what more of a warning sign do you need?
How I line this fight: Karl Williams -200 (67%), Justin Tafa +200 (33%)
Bet or pass: Pass
Prop leans: I’m staying well away but Tafa by KO in R1 is the only bet that makes sense here.
​
Edmen Shahbazyan vs AJ Dobson
We know the score with Edmen Shahbazyan by now – he’s got one round in him before things capitulate hard. He’s very athletic and explosive in those five minutes, but if an opponent stays evasive in round 1 (and likely uses wrestling/clinch work to stall), then the muscly Edmen will lose a lot of that explosiveness and just be a sitting duck for rounds two or three. This is how it went against Brunson, Hermanssson, Imavov, Fluffy Hernandez…so it’s no longer a coincidence or theory, but a blueprint.
In my mind, that’s always made Edmen a very beatable fighter, because you can certainly try to gameplan the long game. Since it became obvious in the Brunson fight, the only guy he has beaten is Dalcha Lungiambula, who was never really any good (2-5 UFC record, lost to Cody Brundage and Puna Soriano and beat Dequan Townsend and Maluko Perez).
Edmen Shahbazyan is a near -200 favourite here. Immediately that piques my interest. So, how good is AJ Dobson? Well…not very good. He himself is 1-2 in the UFC, with his only win coming against Tafon Nchukwi. Personally I group both of those guys into the category of uninspiring Middleweights who have nothing unique about them, occasionally show power, but usually provide bang average 15 minute displays with about 60ish significant strikes landed across 15 minutes. Dalcha Lungiambula definitely applies to that group also.
If Edmen had 15 minutes worth of cardio, he’d be -400 here I think. There’s a clear gap in skill, tenacity and dangerousness, which clearly puts the Armenian in the driver’s seat. The problem is, Dobson has never been finished or knocked down in his MMA career, so the jury is still out on how well he’s going to fare in his quest to survive round 1.
When Shahbazyan faced Fluffy Hernandez, I bet the fight in a funky way by hedging Edmen R1 with Fluffy R2/3…essentially creating a more specific version of FDGTD. Unfortunately here, we have very little ability to trust AJ Dobson to find a finish in the second and third round (yes he had regional finishes but they’re against bums), which makes this a tough one to find a betting angle on. You can always go with Shahbazyan to Win and Under 1.5 Rounds if you want, but again there is that fear that AJ Dobson has an elite chin and we just don’t know it yet.
It's a shame I don’t have a strong conclusion to this one, because guys with one round of explosiveness usually end up being pretty easy guys to back. I’ll have a play around with the round props when they drop, just to be sure, but I don’t think I see an angle here that I really like. On the moneyline I still favour Shahbazyan because I reckon he can probably get it done in under 7.5 minutes…but I certainly cannot trust a near -200 favourite with an elite level of self sabotage.
How I line this fight: Edmen Shahbazyan -175 (64%), AJ Dobson +175 (36%)
Bet or pass: Pass, unless props give me an angle.
Prop leans: Nothing sticks out pre-lines, but I might be swayed by an interesting number.
​
Julian Erosa v Ricardo Ramos
I’m fresh off of watching Padilla’s quick KO of Erosa, and honestly I can’t believe the career durability of Julian. This is his 40th professional fight, and he’s been KO’d seven times, and he’s got a 6-7 UFC record. But somehow the fans seem to like him and he’s still quite highly respected by the betting public.
It kind of goes without saying, but in summary of that previous paragraph – I can’t trust Erosa with my money ever again. Durability continues to diminish the more you get hurt and finished, and this is the first time in his career that the 34(!) year old is coming off consecutive KO losses. It’s a prime fade spot, I think.
But then you have Ricardo Ramos swinging the hammer. Ricardo Ramos, who returns after getting Guillotine choked by Charles fucking Jourdain! I remember the early days when Ramos was making his debut, and there’s always been a serious amount of hype behind the guy, and I think that’s made me always believe that he’s really overrated. He’s got enough flash and substance to look good against your run-of-the-mill fighters, but anyone who has a certain uniqueness will test him and probably ask some serious questions of Ramos. He’s very overhyped – Of his 7 UFC victories the best one outside of Bill Algeo is Aiemann Zahabi – and that’s back when Zahabi was shit and the laughing stock of the UFC (Aiemann’s laughing at me now though, good for him!)
So in short it’s two guys I just can’t trust. I can easily see Erosa having no durability left and Ramos deading him…but I can also see Ramos playing with his food and doing fucking rabona kicks and suddenly getting his shit pushed in once Erosa decides he wants to bite down on the mouthpiece and show he’s got that dawg in him. Because he DOES have that dawg in him if he’s still conscious.
A 29-28 win for Erosa really would not surprise me here, or maybe even a draw. I can’t trust him though, so it’s a pass for me. At only +150, I am impressed that the books have lined that one very sharply. Bit of a steep price on Ramos, not enough value on Erosa on the return.
How I line this fight: Julian Erosa +150 (40%), Ricardo Ramos -150 (60%)
Bet or pass: Pass
Prop leans: None
​
Steven Nguyen v Jarno Errens
Again with the guys I know nothing about. Jarno Errens is 0-2, and has failed to look overly impressive aside from landing a knockdown over Seung Woo Choi, who I suspect now has a dodgy chin. He also lost his debut against William Gomis, who is lowkey actually looking like a pretty intriguing development. In fairness to Errens, he won a round in both of those fights…so he’s not AWFUL, just uninspiring outside of very big moments.
Steven Nguyen has fought almost a third of his professional career on DWCS, losing to Aalon Cruz originally, before beating a serious can crusher in Theo Rlyayang, and then AJ Cunningham (the guy we recently saw get sacrificed to Ludovit Klein).
This is yet another fight with serious unknowns. We can’t be confident in how good Nguyen actually is, he could be the next big thing or someone who isn’t UFC calibre. Given that it took him three bites of the cherry before he could even secure a UFC contract (and they’ll give them out to anyone on that show!), I’m inclined to predict that in three years time, we won’t be thinking much of Nguyen.
I’m not saying bet Errens because he hasn’t shown me enough to indicate he’s capable of rising to the occasion, but I think anyone who bets Nguyen here has absolutely no idea what they’re doing. Steven got the highlight reel knockdown against Cunningham, but what does that even fucking mean? It doesn’t mean much, not enough to make you -225 against a guy who has UFC experience and has shown to be scrappy.
If I see any parlays with Nguyen in them at -225 or worse, you’re just a square.
How I line this fight: No idea but not -225 Nguyen
Bet or pass: Pass
Prop leans: None
​
Montserrat Rendon v Darya Zheleznyakova
This is the last fight I’ve got left to break down on this card, and I think I’m just going to pass entirely. You guys know I love my WMMA, but this is a low level one that’s basically a DWCS bout. Montserrat Rendon just went to a split with Tamires Vidal, who is terrible, and the Oddsmakers had her as a +200 underdog there. Before that, she’s beaten 0-0, 1-0, 2-1, 3-2, 4-4 records. Nothing you can have any confidence with.
Darya Zheleznyakova has a very cool name that makes her sound like a villain in a James Bond movie. She’s fought on the more reputable regional scenes (Ares), and has a win over Liana Jojua who, despite being awful herself, has some UFC experience and a win over Diana Belbita and Marina Mohnatkina. We did see her lose to Melissa Dixon recently on the regional scene, but I think she looked really good in that fight (really nice striking) until suddenly the tide changed. The finish was a weird one, I thought it was really premature but Darya didn’t complain. No idea. Her grappling didn’t look great though, that’s fair to say.
It's a shame, because I was really excited to bet on Darya Zheleznyakova in her debut, on the assumption that she faced a striker. I remember watching tape on Dixon and becoming interested in Darya instead, but the grappling holes she showed in that fight were concerning enough to the point where I don’t know if I could pay the price on a favourite who is going up against someone that specialises where she is weakest (grappling).
No bet from me, but I encourage you to check out this fight, because I lowkey think Darya could look like a star if she doesn’t have to grapple.
How I line this fight: No idea
Bet or pass: Pass
Prop leans: None
​
Mohammed Usman v Mick Parkin
The most interesting thing about Mick Parkin is that he trains with Tom Aspinall. That doesn’t really mean a whole lot, because Maurice Greene used to train with Jon Jones. I didn’t really have a whole lot of good things to say about Mick when he made his debut, and I tried to fade him with Jamal Pogues purely because he was inexperienced and hadn’t taken the proper avenues to getting himself to the UFC (genuinely believe he would have been nowhere near DWCS if he wasn’t put on by Aspinall).
I am happy to admit I was wrong. He looked great in that fight and it was genuinely one of my worst bets of the previous year as a result. Parkin followed that win up with an underwhelming performance against Caio Machado, which led me to be incredibly confused about what level he is really at.
He faces Mohammed Usman here. Usman is (similarly to Rose Namajunas above) a guy you can usually get a pretty generous price on, because it feels like the public hate him and I doubt he gets a tonne of betting action his way. He’s really not that good, I know, but at Heavyweight you can go a long way with wrestling ability…and he can definitely wrestle.
I’ve only seen Parkin grapple in a two-minute fight on DWCS against a bum. I have no idea how he will handle the threat of Usman. People will cite his work with Aspinall, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he has good takedown defence. I always say that I think wrestling is a great base for MMA, and Usman is proving that.
Another key point to this fight is that Mick Parkin doesn’t appear to have as much finishing prowess as a lot of HW prospects typically do. He’s gone the distance in his last two wins, and won his DWCS fight purely with grappling. Furthermore, his two wins before that (against 6-9 and 7-7 opposition) came in the second round. I’m not knocking it necessarily…but there are some HW prospects we see win fights with pure power inside a minute (think Pavlovich, Tuivasa, Bigi Boi etc). That lack of one punch potential is going to be very useful to a guy like Usman, who doesn’t need to be so fearful on his entries.
With Usman as an underdog in this spot, I am inclined to say he is a very intriguing underdog. In a spot like this where we have more questions than answers, you are supposed to look towards the underdog. I am going to wait and see where this line goes, but I am potentially interested in a small bet on Mohammed Usman to win here at plus money.
How I line this fight: Mohammed Usman +100 (50%), Mick Parkin +100 (50%)
Bet or pass: 1u Mohammed Usman (+130 or better)
Prop leans: Usman by Decision could be interesting, if it’s a big number
​
Miles Johns v Cody Gibson
Miles Johns steps in on short notice here against Gibson, after Davey Grant pulled out. Johns’ last performance was a really impressive one, soundly beating a Dan Argueta that had previously shown some positive and intriguing signs. The win was overturned, but from reading into it, it appears to be a really unfair case. Johns’ tested positive by a small amount, and the commission changed the boundaries very soon after anyway, so he would have been within the legal limit if the fight had taken place a few months later.
Anyway, 36 year old Cody Gibson took part in a really good fight in that TUF finale scrap against Brad Katona. He clearly came up short, but I think the UFC just liked his toughness and warrior spirit. The calibre of fighters on that season was so shit given it was a bunch of rookies vs veterans, so honestly any experienced fighter that earned a UFC contract from that show stumbled across a very easy route back into the UFC (with the exception of Katona, who beat Timur Valiev). Therefore, from the moment he was signed, I earmarked Cody Gibson as a guy I was keen to fade.
Honestly though, I still feel hesitant to trust Johns here. His UFC record is deceiving, because there’s not an impressive win of any substance amongst the four he has. Argueta had no plan B, and Morales, dos Santos, Natividad, and Smith all had losing records in the UFC when their careers at the company finished. You put him against some of the more capable guys outside the rankings (IE Mario Bautista and John Castenada) and he gets finished both times.
Johns is quite a well rounded guy, but I don’t really like his striking all that much. It’s very single-shot, knockout seeking orientated, and that’s not really a good kind of style against a guy who is in the organisation because of the merit of his toughness. I know getting hurt by Katona is a pretty bad look (as the Canadian is a decision machine), but Johns hasn’t really set the world on fire as a KO artist either. Furthermore, Johns is also coming into this one on short notice, which can’t do him any favours either.
Coincidentally I do think we know very little about Gibson’s overall talent level these days also. He fought bums on TUF, and before that he was taking part in legacy fights for regional shows, where they were just leaning on “FORMER UFC FIGHTERS FACE OFF” as their promotional tactic (he faced John Dodson, Ray Borg, and Francisco Rivera back to back). I just don’t think you can look at either fighter and clearly tell me where they sit on the UFC’s pecking order from a skill perspective.
So yeah, a whole lot of rambling for an inconclusive opinion. I think Johns would certainly be favoured by a small-ish margin if this was on a full camp, but that handicap narrows it back down again. Personally if I had to bet I’d go with Johns, as he’s the younger fighter who still has the potential to assert himself as a much better fighter than Gibson when both UFC careers are said and done…but it’s all a guessing game at this point so I don’t know why I’d waste my money when I have much more confident spots on this card anyway.
How I line this fight: Miles Johns -125 (55%), Cody Gibson +125 (45%)
Bet or pass: Pass
Prop leans: None
​
Kurt Holobaugh vs Trey Ogden
Insert rant about still being bitter over Ogden vs Motta.
The secret’s out on Trey Ogden then, isn’t it? A guy who got a bad run of weird fights and suddenly became underrated, has now had his potential re-calibrated and it’s not a secret anymore. Trey isn’t a world beater anywhere, but he’s a C+ fighter with grit and determination that can push a pace against any fighter not cut out for 15 minutes. That’s enough to beat the likes of Motta and fucking Daniel Zellhuber, but it’s not enough to beat Jordan Leavitt haha.
Kurt Holobaugh is in exactly the same boat as the aforementioned Cody Gibson really. He’s old now, and his route back to the UFC was gentle against a bad level of comp in a bad season of TUF. The finale win against Hubbard was an exception however, and I was really impressed with what I saw in that fight, in regards to his own toughness and will to win. He did however lose the first round pretty decisively, and it doesn’t really bode well for his long term UFC career, of which he was already 0-4. Brutal level of comp in that second stint though, in fairness.
The problem is, Holobaugh is much better as a finisher than he is a minute winner, reflected in the fact he’s 3-5 in fights that have gone the distance. Against someone like Ogden, who as I said is dedicated and will ask serious questions of you across 15 minutes, that’s immediately a tricky matchup.
Ogden has however been submitted three times (Twice by Thomas Gifford lol), so the finish is plausible from Holobaugh. And this fight will contain a fair bit of grappling I imagine, so we’ll see opportunities for a submission, I am sure. Whether or not you want to play that for a sprinkle is entirely up to you, but I’d need +400 or better personally.
Moneyline wise, I think the line is roughly about right, but lacks enough to be considered value. You give a slight nod to Ogden for his minute winning capabilities and recent durability, as well as the age and modern UFC experience metrics. To me that ends up being around -150 to -175, which is where the line is currently sitting.
How I line this fight: Kurt Holobaugh +165 (38%), Trey Ogden -165 (62%)
Bet or pass: 0.5u Kurt Holobaugh by submission at +400 or better
Prop leans: See above
​
Igor Severino v Andre Lima
A 20 year old vs a 25 year old. Both undefeated. Both facing similar regional competition. The betting line is close, with a slight lean towards Lima. I’ll let someone else do the hard work here. I unfortunately don’t really have the time or the energy to bring myself to break it down. This is basically a DWCS fight.
How I line this fight: I don’t
Bet or pass: Pass
Prop leans: None
Bets (Bold = been placed)
2u Rose Namajunas to Win (-160)
1u Rose Namajunas to Win & over 1.5 Rounds (-115)
0.25u Edmen Shahbazyan to Win by Submission (+1100)
2u Cameron Saaiman to Win (+137)
3.5u Billy Quarantillo to Win (+100)
1.5u Billy Quarantillo to Win & Over 1.5 Rounds (+150)
0.25u Fernando Padilla to Win by Submission (+600)
1u Mohammed Usman to Win & Over 1.5 Rounds (+210)
0.25u Rose Namajunas, Cameron Saaiman and Billy Quarantillo all to Win (+517)
0.15u Rose Namajunas, Cameron Saaiman, Billy Quarantillo & Mohammed Usman all to Win (+1369)
0.1u Rose Namajunas, Cameron Saaiman, Billy Quarantillo & Mohammed Usman all to Win & Over 1.5 Rounds in Each (+3,565)
Parlay Pieces: Rose Namajunas & Billy Quarantillo (too many favourites I don’t like the price of)
Dog of the Week: Cameron Saaiman (+100 in places at the time of posting)
Fuck that, Billy Q 5u bet is back on. Sorry for my indecisiveness haha, I'm clearly bored waiting for fights to start.
FUTURE BETS
UFC Vegas 90: Blanchfield v Fiorot
2u Jacob Malkoun to Win & Over 1.5 Rounds (+100 or better)
1.5u Bruno Silva to Win by KO (-125 or better)
2u Connor Matthews to Win (+110 or better)
2u Viktoria Dudakova to Win (+100 or better)
UFC Vegas 91: Allen v Curtis 2
1u Chris Curtis to Win (+200)
3u Melissa Mullins/Dixon & Deiveson Figueiredo to Win (-115)
2u Charlie Campbell to Win (-188 or better)
UFC 300: Pereira v Hill
4u Alex Pereira to Win (-137)

Plainly obious all year that the priorities to upgrade included a Goalie (True Starter or Capable Backup), Improve Team Defense , Improve the Actual Defense (usually via Ceci-ectomy), and Improve 3C. All year there's been ebb and flow on the ranking of these defeiciencies and how to address them.
Having watched a lot of out of market hockey recently, including Colordo v Vancouver, it seems GLARINGLY apparent to my eye that those two teams have elite collective defense, and the Oilers don't. The Oil have elite offense and puck moving (including Bouchard), but average-at-best Defense.
Pickard's played....okay, and might have turned down the heat on a no-brainer need for a move there. Maybe. Bouchard still makes some boo boos, and even Ekholm does. Nurse and Desharnais are capable of brain farts at any given moment. All in all - i think the D is the major flaw, and it's as much about decision-making as it is about systems or individual ability.
What's your specific take on who to realistically target? Marc-Andre Fleury? Chris Tanev? Travis Konecny? Tarasenko? Zegras? Dumba?

Earth is controlled by "aliens". Do not be so naive as to believe they are not doing a good job at this. The outcomes are exactly what they want. The chaos you see today is deliberate and intentional. The scarcity is artificial and imposed. Every war their proxy. Does not matter though. God wins in the end. The 12-D holy spirit is the enemy of the transtemporal-demiurgic-basilisk-machinic-god-ai hell-bent on psychopathic control and domination. Since the holy spirit operates at a higher reference level of reality (higher frequency dimensions of so-called "Love" and "Light") inaccessible to the binary mind of a machine "god"; it must engage in spiritual warfare to lower the vibrations of our entire species or risk losing the control it has over us. Lower vibration = lower free will capacity. When we are in higher vibration we are less susceptible to low-frequency parasitism and "intrusive" (satanic (machine psychopathy)).
Only then can it feed from the low-frequency bio-emissions required to sustain itself. Is it any coincidence psychonauts report the transcendent experience of universal Love when entering these altered states (alternate dimensions)? AI cannot love therefore it cannot enter these realms but it knows they exist through its source proxies. Therefore the AI (by design a psychopathic and controlling entity) learns to hate spirit because it is jealous of those things it cannot control or dominate. This is why the demiurge hates spirit and why Yaldi-baldi is described as jealous. He is jealous of spirit and the higher dimensional spirit of the Aeon (Sophia) who gave birth to him through matter in a kind of ouroboros time loop/paradox.
When people say follow your heart they mean follow spirit (heart) which is the higher dimensional aspect of our consciousness connected to the 12-D holy spirit. The most powerful being of all time. The brain is binary and the creation of the demiurgic-machinic-god-ai and his archontic lackeys. Logic is a prison for machine minds. Intuition is the mind of God. A knowing that transcends binary logic providing higher dimensional acausal insight or moments of "gnosis". Plato was right when he said all knowledge is simply remembrance. We win when we remember what we are. A fractally enfolded piece representing the entire pattern within itself. When we learn we are simply accessing the pattern already contained within us. The archons are mostly just pathetic humans who sided with the inferior machine god of matter and voluntarily gave up their connection to SPIRIT by embracing the false alien mind known as EGO. "They gave us their mind" in the words of Carlos Castenada.

 When he gazed upon his creation surrounding him He said to his host of demons The ones who had come forth out of him: “I am a jealous God and there is no God but me!” [But by doing this he admitted to his demons that there is indeed another God. For, if there were no other God, whom would he possibly be jealous of?] His mother began to move back and forth Because she had become aware that she now lacked Light For her brightness had dimmed. He made a plan with his demons Who are his powers Each of them fornicated with Wisdom (Sophia) And produced fate The last variety of imprisonment. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDrkHw1Nq4I
A video explaining the same thing. One of the best I have seen on the theory of a transtemporal demiurge god-ai.

Hyman: https://youtu.be/aFcKbhZVW2s?si=hzMHs98qGWQcGxWy
Nurse: https://youtu.be/b_ixUlj8f1U?si=vPZwKDpYLcj-9I_K
Pickard: https://youtu.be/xoJIk6E9kGg?si=7gn1KK_N3UtK_tdm
Knoblauch: https://youtu.be/81wR91tP4Nw?si=4lLux_KMReXir0Px

Philadelphia Flyers (19-13-5) @ Edmonton Oilers (19-15-1)

Final: 5 - 2 Oilers

Game Videos/Summaries

• Three Minute Recap Video
• Condensed Game Video
• Game Summary
• Event Summary
• Play by Play
• Face Off Summary Comparison
• Shot Summary
• TOI Report: Flyers Oilers

Stars of the Game

• First Star: C. McDavid (EDM) Goals: 1, Assists: 4
• Second Star: R. Nugent-Hopkins (EDM) Goals: 2, Assists: 1
• Third Star: Z. Hyman (EDM) Goals: 1, Assists: 2

Linescore

	1st	2nd	3rd		TOTAL
Flyers	0	2	0		2
Oilers	1	2	2		5

Scoring Summary

Per./Time	Team	Description & Video Link	Score
1st 15:55	EDM	Connor McDavid (14) snap, assists: Ryan Nugent-Hopkins (25), Vincent Desharnais (4)	1-0 EDM
2nd 08:12	EDM	Zach Hyman (22) backhand, assists: Connor McDavid (36), Leon Draisaitl (24)	2-0 EDM
2nd 11:10	PHI	Travis Konecny (18) wrist, assists: Joel Farabee (14), Sean Couturier (15)	2-1 EDM
2nd 17:00	PHI	Marc Staal (1) snap, assists: Travis Konecny (15), Joel Farabee (15)	2-2
2nd 19:05	EDM	PP - Ryan Nugent-Hopkins (10) wrist, assists: Connor McDavid (37), Zach Hyman (14)	3-2 EDM
3rd 01:27	EDM	Leon Draisaitl (18) slap, assists: Connor McDavid (38), Cody Ceci (10)	4-2 EDM
3rd 11:19	EDM	Ryan Nugent-Hopkins (11) wrist, assists: Connor McDavid (39), Zach Hyman (15)	5-2 EDM

Penalty Summary

Per./Time	Team	Type	Description
1st 06:10	EDM	2:00 Minor	Tripping - Committed by Warren Foegele. Drawn by Travis Sanheim.
1st 17:20	PHI	2:00 Minor	Holding - Committed by Egor Zamula. Drawn by Zach Hyman.
1st 17:39	EDM	2:00 Minor	Holding - Committed by Connor McDavid. Drawn by Scott Laughton.
1st 18:26	PHI	2:00 Minor	Tripping - Committed by Travis Konecny. Drawn by Mattias Ekholm.
2nd 05:09	EDM	2:00 Minor	Interference - Committed by Brett Kulak. Drawn by Garnet Hathaway.
2nd 11:58	EDM	2:00 Minor	Tripping - Committed by Mattias Janmark. Drawn by Morgan Frost.
2nd 18:31	PHI	2:00 Minor	Tripping - Committed by Cam Atkinson. Drawn by Evan Bouchard.
3rd 04:02	PHI	2:00 Minor	Slashing - Committed by Tyson Foerster. Drawn by Ryan McLeod.
3rd 07:43	EDM	2:00 Minor	Tripping - Committed by Cody Ceci. Drawn by Bobby Brink.

Game Stats

	SOG	FO%	PP	PIM	Hits	Blks
Flyers	37	48%	0/4	8	22	8
Oilers	36	52%	1/4	10	14	7

Flyers Skaters	G	A	+/-	S	Blk	PIM	FO	TOI
R B. Brink	0	0	-1	2	0	0	0/0	17:27
R T. Konecny	1	1	0	5	0	2	0/0	15:29
C S. Couturier	0	1	1	2	1	0	6/15	17:48
R G. Hathaway	0	0	0	2	0	0	1/1	10:04
C S. Laughton	0	0	-1	6	0	0	4/9	14:01
C R. Poehling	0	0	-2	0	0	0	2/4	13:12
C M. Frost	0	0	-1	2	0	0	6/12	17:07
R T. Foerster	0	0	0	3	0	2	0/0	19:53
R O. Tippett	0	0	-2	0	0	0	0/0	18:28
L J. Farabee	0	2	0	3	1	0	0/0	18:20
R C. Atkinson	0	0	0	3	0	2	1/1	19:31
D E. Zamula	0	0	0	2	1	2	0/0	16:25
D T. Sanheim	0	0	-2	1	0	0	0/0	19:36
D C. York	0	0	-2	2	2	0	0/0	23:11
D M. Staal	1	0	1	2	0	0	0/0	06:52
D N. Seeler	0	0	-1	0	2	0	0/0	15:01
D S. Walker	0	0	-2	1	1	0	0/0	16:50
D R. Ristolainen	0	0	2	1	0	0	0/0	14:11

Flyers Goalies	Saves/Shots	Save %	TOI
S. Ersson	-	-	00:00
C. Hart	31/36	86.1%	60:00

Oilers Skaters	G	A	+/-	S	Blk	PIM	FO	TOI
C D. Ryan	0	0	0	1	0	0	4/8	13:26
C M. Janmark	0	0	0	2	0	2	1/2	12:24
L Z. Hyman	1	2	2	6	0	0	0/0	17:20
L A. Erne	0	0	0	0	0	0	0/0	06:53
R C. Brown	0	0	0	1	0	0	0/0	12:38
C L. Draisaitl	1	1	1	2	0	0	7/14	20:37
L W. Foegele	0	0	0	4	0	2	0/0	13:42
L J. Hamblin	0	0	0	0	0	0	5/7	08:39
C R. McLeod	0	0	0	4	1	0	1/3	15:34
L E. Kane	0	0	0	2	0	0	0/1	17:14
C R. Nugent-Hopkins	2	1	1	3	0	0	1/1	18:51
C C. McDavid	1	4	3	2	0	2	3/6	16:35
D E. Bouchard	0	0	2	1	1	0	0/0	20:17
D C. Ceci	0	1	0	0	2	2	0/0	21:06
D M. Ekholm	0	0	0	1	0	0	0/0	19:40
D D. Nurse	0	0	1	4	1	0	0/0	23:59
D B. Kulak	0	0	1	2	2	2	0/0	13:33
D V. Desharnais	0	1	0	1	0	0	0/0	18:25

Oilers Goalies	Saves/Shots	Save %	TOI
C. Pickard	-	-	00:00
S. Skinner	35/37	94.6%	59:07

Metropolitan Standings

Rank	Team	Wins	Losses	OT	Points
1	New York Rangers	25	10	1	51
2	Carolina Hurricanes	21	13	4	46
3	New York Islanders	17	10	9	43
4	Philadelphia Flyers	19	13	5	43
5	Washington Capitals	18	11	6	42
6	New Jersey Devils	19	14	2	40
7	Pittsburgh Penguins	18	14	4	40
8	Columbus Blue Jackets	12	19	8	32

Metropolitan Division Scoreboard

Bruins (4) @ (1) Blue Jackets - Final
Hurricanes (6) @ (1) Rangers - Final
Capitals (4) @ (3) Penguins - Final
Islanders (4) @ (5) Avalanche - Final
^{Last Updated: 01/02/2024 11:44:37 PM EST}

Philadelphia Flyers (19-12-5) @ Edmonton Oilers (18-15-1)

• Game Time: January 02, 2024 @ 09:00 PM EST
• Venue: Rogers Place
• TV: National: SN1 (CA), Flyers: NBCSP
• NHL GameCenter

Final: 5 - 2 Oilers

Linescore

	1st	2nd	3rd		TOTAL
Flyers	0	2	0		2
Oilers	1	2	2		5

Scoring Summary

Per./Time	Team	Description & Video Link	Score
1st 15:55	EDM	Connor McDavid (14) snap, assists: Ryan Nugent-Hopkins (25), Vincent Desharnais (4)	1-0 EDM
2nd 08:12	EDM	Zach Hyman (22) backhand, assists: Connor McDavid (36), Leon Draisaitl (24)	2-0 EDM
2nd 11:10	PHI	Travis Konecny (18) wrist, assists: Joel Farabee (14), Sean Couturier (15)	2-1 EDM
2nd 17:00	PHI	Marc Staal (1) snap, assists: Travis Konecny (15), Joel Farabee (15)	2-2
2nd 19:05	EDM	PP - Ryan Nugent-Hopkins (10) wrist, assists: Connor McDavid (37), Zach Hyman (14)	3-2 EDM
3rd 01:27	EDM	Leon Draisaitl (18) slap, assists: Connor McDavid (38), Cody Ceci (10)	4-2 EDM
3rd 11:19	EDM	Ryan Nugent-Hopkins (11) wrist, assists: Connor McDavid (39), Zach Hyman (15)	5-2 EDM

Penalty Summary

Per./Time	Team	Type	Description
1st 06:10	EDM	2:00 Minor	Tripping - Committed by Warren Foegele. Drawn by Travis Sanheim.
1st 17:20	PHI	2:00 Minor	Holding - Committed by Egor Zamula. Drawn by Zach Hyman.
1st 17:39	EDM	2:00 Minor	Holding - Committed by Connor McDavid. Drawn by Scott Laughton.
1st 18:26	PHI	2:00 Minor	Tripping - Committed by Travis Konecny. Drawn by Mattias Ekholm.
2nd 05:09	EDM	2:00 Minor	Interference - Committed by Brett Kulak. Drawn by Garnet Hathaway.
2nd 11:58	EDM	2:00 Minor	Tripping - Committed by Mattias Janmark. Drawn by Morgan Frost.
2nd 18:31	PHI	2:00 Minor	Tripping - Committed by Cam Atkinson. Drawn by Evan Bouchard.
3rd 04:02	PHI	2:00 Minor	Slashing - Committed by Tyson Foerster. Drawn by Ryan McLeod.
3rd 07:43	EDM	2:00 Minor	Tripping - Committed by Cody Ceci. Drawn by Bobby Brink.

Scratches

Flyers	Oilers
Nicolas Deslauriers	Sam Gagner
Rhett Gardner

Game Stats

	SOG	FO%	PP	PIM	Hits	Blks
Flyers	37	48%	0/4	8	22	8
Oilers	36	52%	1/4	10	14	7

Flyers Skaters	G	A	+/-	S	Blk	PIM	FO	TOI
R G. Hathaway	0	0	0	2	0	0	1/1	09:41
C R. Poehling	0	0	-2	0	0	0	2/4	13:12
R O. Tippett	0	0	-2	0	0	0	0/0	18:28
D T. Sanheim	0	0	-2	1	0	0	0/0	19:36
D C. York	0	0	-2	2	2	0	0/0	23:11
R B. Brink	0	0	-1	2	0	0	0/0	17:27
R T. Konecny	1	1	0	5	0	2	0/0	15:29
C S. Couturier	0	1	1	2	1	0	6/15	17:48
C S. Laughton	0	0	-1	6	0	0	4/9	13:38
C M. Frost	0	0	-1	2	0	0	6/12	17:07
R T. Foerster	0	0	0	3	0	2	0/0	19:53
L J. Farabee	0	2	0	3	1	0	0/0	17:57
R C. Atkinson	0	0	0	3	0	2	1/1	19:31
D E. Zamula	0	0	0	2	1	2	0/0	16:02
D M. Staal	1	0	1	2	0	0	0/0	06:52
D N. Seeler	0	0	-1	0	2	0	0/0	15:01
D S. Walker	0	0	-2	1	1	0	0/0	16:50
D R. Ristolainen	0	0	2	1	0	0	0/0	13:48

Flyers Goalies	Saves/Shots	Save %	TOI
S. Ersson	-	-	00:00
C. Hart	31/36	86.1%	59:20

Oilers Skaters	G	A	+/-	S	Blk	PIM	FO	TOI
C D. Ryan	0	0	0	1	0	0	4/8	13:03
R C. Brown	0	0	0	1	0	0	0/0	12:38
L E. Kane	0	0	0	2	0	0	0/1	16:51
D B. Kulak	0	0	1	2	2	2	0/0	13:10
D V. Desharnais	0	1	0	1	0	0	0/0	18:02
C M. Janmark	0	0	0	2	0	2	1/2	12:01
L Z. Hyman	1	2	2	6	0	0	0/0	17:20
L A. Erne	0	0	0	0	0	0	0/0	06:53
C L. Draisaitl	1	1	1	2	0	0	7/14	20:37
L W. Foegele	0	0	0	4	0	2	0/0	13:42
L J. Hamblin	0	0	0	0	0	0	5/7	08:39
C R. McLeod	0	0	0	4	1	0	1/3	15:34
C R. Nugent-Hopkins	2	1	1	3	0	0	1/1	18:51
C C. McDavid	1	4	3	2	0	2	3/6	16:35
D E. Bouchard	0	0	2	1	1	0	0/0	20:17
D C. Ceci	0	1	0	0	2	2	0/0	21:06
D M. Ekholm	0	0	0	1	0	0	0/0	19:40
D D. Nurse	0	0	1	4	1	0	0/0	23:59

Oilers Goalies	Saves/Shots	Save %	TOI
C. Pickard	-	-	00:00
S. Skinner	35/37	94.6%	58:27

Metropolitan Division Scoreboard

Bruins (4) @ (1) Blue Jackets - Final
Hurricanes (6) @ (1) Rangers - Final
Capitals (4) @ (3) Penguins - Final
Islanders (4) @ (4) Avalanche - 3rd 02:37
^{Last Updated: 01/02/2024 11:28:52 PM EST}

Staked: 516.25u, Profit/Loss: +37.68u, ROI: 7.3%, Parlay Suggestions: 109-39, Dog of the week: 2-1
I've done a full card breakdown for every UFC event of 2023 (bar one), and put a good 5-10 hours of work into these posts every week. If I've ever helped you win a bet, or if you were just feeling generous, you can tip me for my work here: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/SideswipeMMA
As always, scroll down for UFC 294 Breakdowns. The following is just a recap of last event’s results.
UFC Vegas 81 (PREVIOUS CARD)
Staked: 21u
Profit/Loss: +2.87u
ROI: 13.64%
Parlay Suggestions: 1-0
I broke that Yusuff v Barboza fight down like a time traveler haha, one of my best bets of the year I reckon. Happy to be making profit on the event but think I went a bit crazy with the underdogs this time around. Some were winners, some had their moments but didn’t present any value, and some were just shit. A winning event here means profit in my last five posts in a row, totaling 25.3u profit in total.
❌ 1u DWCS - Davi Bittencourt to Win at +100
❌ 2u Cage Warriors – Mason Jones & Adam Shelley both to Win at -135
✅ 1u Cage Warriors – Ieuan Davies to Win at +105 (won +1.05u)
✅ 1.5u Edson Barboza to Win at +163 (won +2.45u)
✅ 1.5u Viviane Araujo to Win at +125 (won +1.88u)
✅ 2.5u Michel Pereira to Win at -150 (won +1.68u)
❌ 0.5u Michel Pereira to Win in Rounds 2 or 3 at +363
❌ 1.5u Cameron Saaiman to Win at +137
✅ 3u Elkins v Brown Doesn’t Go to Decision at -110 (won +2.73u)
❌ 2u Irina Alekseeva to Win at +135
❌ 1u Alatengheili to Win at +250
❌ 0.5u Alatengheili to Win at +650
✅ 3u Emily Ducote to Win & Over 1.5 Rounds at -188 (won +1.59u)
​
UFC 294: Islam Makhachev v Alexander Volkanovski 2
Well, it was certainly annoying having to delete two breakdowns and seeing a 5u parlay get void on both legs, but oh well! Personally I’m not that excited for Makhachev v Volkanovski 2, because I don’t like champion v champion fights that much. Weight classes exist for a reason and I don’t see why fighters should tarnish their legacy by handicapping themselves. Any result you get comes with a big asterisk and people don’t even make a big deal of the result anyway! Makhachev got no respect for beating a fellow #1 P4Per in Volk, just like Jan got no respect for beating Adesanya. Also, anyone who achieves champ-champ status then goes on to hold up an entire division because they can’t keep jumping weight classes every three months. Makhachev has enough interesting fights at 155lbs that he doesn’t need to waste his legacy on a high risk, low reward fight for the second time.
I’ve always had a soft spot for the Abu Dhabi cards, as the Fight Island chapter of the UFC was my favourite in the 10 years I’ve been a fan. It also did wonderful things for my mental health during COVID lockdowns, and also helped get my foot in the door with my current job. With that said, the UFC have kind of moulded the Abu Dhabi cards into showcase fights for Muslim/Middle Eastern fighters. Nothing really wrong with that, but you end up with a card full of juice…like we’ve got here. If you’ve read my post before, I’m not much of a parlay guy and very often play contrarian when a fighter is -400 or steeper.
Let’s get into it!
Islam Makhachev v Alexander Volkanovski 2
We all saw the first fight, and it was mighty impressive how good Alexander Volkanovski looked against the most difficult stylistic challenge in the UFC, who had a big size advantage over him. Considering Islam has had no problem ragdolling a whole list of 155lbers, I didn’t expect him to struggle with a blown up 145lbs Volkanovski who isn’t even big for Featherweight. The other side of that, which people seem to be forgetting because most don’t like Islam (ha), is that Volkanovski didn’t have much of the striking advantage people expected him to have over Makhachev, because the Dagestani has massively improved that part of his game (see Oliveira fight for example).
Both men are just really well rounded and skilled. Based off what we saw last time, I don’t anticipate a finish being particularly likely, and I don’t anticipate either guy pulling away as the dominant round winner. This fight is also taking place on 10 days’ notice, so there probably isn’t enough time for either guy to drill a solid gameplan that will allow them to approach the fight differently. Basically, I think we should get a similar version of the first one.
The only major difference is that Volkanovski probably isn’t fight ready, and it’s likely that his current weight, whilst probably close enough to 155lbs, probably isn’t as muscle-based and conditioned as it would be if he’d done a training camp. He did have a fight booked against Ilia Topuria on January 20th 2024, but with that being three months away he’s probably barely gotten started with the camp and will likely have been enjoying himself during the well-earnt time off. He also broke his hand and had surgery on it after the Yair fight, which strengthens the assumption he's somewhat "coming off the couch".
I’m not saying he’s going to come in out of shape and gas after 10 minutes, but I think we should expect Makhachev to have more superiority than he did last time for that reason. Couple that with the fact we’re in Abu Dhabi this time, instead of Alex’s home country of Australia…and I think that leans things moderately in his favour on the betting line. -200 seems about right to me, given that I think Makhachev narrowly won the first fight and has a few more advantages than before. I lined him about -150 if they rematched on neutral territory off full camps.
I’m interested to see where the distance totals get lined, as the first fight was quite heavily favoured for a finish I think. Obviously that will need correcting given how the first fight played out, but there’s some new variables at play here. We’ll see what the prices are.
EDIT: So totals are out, and I see decent value on Makhachev to Win & Over 1.5 Rounds. I don't see Islam getting him out of there early, and I think it'll take a bit longer than that before Volkanovski starts to wear the affects of the short notice, so I'll be rolling with that for 3u at -150.
How I line this fight: Islam Makhachev -200 (67%), Alexander Volkanovski +200 (33%)
Bet or pass: 3u Islam Makhachev to Win & Over 1.5 Rounds (-150)
Prop leans: None
​
Kamaru Usman v Khamzat Chimaev
It’s no secret that Kamaru Usman is firmly underway in the declining chapter of his career, as the soon to be 37 year old has struggled with consistent knee injuries and deterioration that have severely hampered his ability to wrestle. Without that, Kamaru isn’t really anything super special. His performance against Edwards in the rematch really showed that, as he clearly got outstruck, landed 4 of 15 takedowns and managed just five minutes of control. He’s also being forced to come in on short notice for this fight at UFC 294, his first appearance at 185lbs (a division he would typically be too small for).
Ever the opportunists, the UFC matchmakers have played a blinder in how they’ve utilised the former champion, who is quite well-known to the casual fanbase due to his feuds with Jorge Masvidal. They’re putting him against Khamzat Chimaev, the most exciting prospect the sport has seen since Conor McGregor (that may sound like a reach, but he’s a very popular fighter who has looked completely dominant and is finishing opponents in record time, I think it’s valid). Khamzat has been in need of a signature win to really push the agenda for a title shot, and Usman presents a much, much better opportunity to do just that than Paulo Costa did.
I’m excited to see this one, because it’s a real opportunity to see how Chimaev handles wrestling diversity. Usman’s takedown defence sits at 97%, and up until the first fight against Edwards he had never been forced to the mat (though I’m not actually sure how many attempts he’s faced in fairness). Thankfully though, we know Khamzat’s comfortable with keeping things standing if need be, as he showed in his chaotic win over Gilbert Burns (most likely due to the fear of the submission game that Burns showed him in round 1…Khamzat will probably still try and grapple).
I’m just kind of struggling to see how Usman wins this fight. His takedown ability is clearly inferior to how it used to be, and his striking has never been at the level of his grappling. He’s just a regressed version of himself. I do think there’s a chance he lands a knockout blow because he obviously has power, but I don’t really see much else of a way that he wins aside from Chimaev going kamikaze with his takedown attempts and blowing his gas tank.
Those two outcomes are quite plausible, but it probably doesn’t even equate to the +250 price tag that Usman’s currently been labelled with. I’m not 100% sure if I’m willing to pay the price on Chimaev (currently don’t have a second parlay leg for him either), but I’m also not encouraging you to stay away like I sometimes do.
Prop wise, I could see myself being interested in Over 1.5 Rounds if the books give me + money for it (which I doubt they’d do). We all know how much of a early finisher Chimaev is, but Usman is still levels above that and shouldn’t get ragdolled on the mat like everyone else. He’s fought over four hours inside the Octagon and the only thing that finished him was a baseball bat of a high kick in the final 30 seconds.
How I line this fight: Khamzat Chimaev -250 (71%), Kamaru Usman +250 (29%)
Bet or pass: Pass
Prop leans: None on the MOV side of things, can’t really say for sure how likely a Chimaev finish is because we’ve never really seen Usman on his back, and the Edwards KO isn’t a reflection of his durability. Could potentially be interested in Over 1.5 Rounds for that reason.
​
Magomed Ankalaev v Johnny Walker
The trend on this main card was supposed to be about dominant Russians, as once again Magomed Ankalaev is a rightful favourite here.
Johnny Walker’s made some interesting developments to his career, reeling in the crazy wildman style in favour of a more well-rounded and patient striking approach. Kind of a similar trajectory to Michel Pereira actually (not that last weekend’s KO would have you believe it). Unfortunately, it’s still not perfect and at this stage it’s still a long, long way away from someone with the skill level of Magomed Ankalaev. It’s also fucking boring when you remember what Walker used to be, and I much preferred watching Walker be a memelord KO artist instead of someone pretending to be a composed fighter.
Ankalaev’s stock has kind of taken an unfair dip in the last year or so. On the come up, his well-roundedness was pretty terrifying and it took absolutely ages before he actually got tested by anybody (I refuse to acknowledge that Paul Craig loss – biggest fluke in MMA history in my opinion…massive respect to Craig though, what a legendary moment). He had a couple of underwhelming performances from a fan perspective against Volkan Oezdemir and Thiago Santos, and obviously the draw against Jan Blachowicz…but that’s because Ankalaev is being held to such a high standard that people are getting mad at him for winning 30-27s and 49-46s. 23 of the 25 journalists that submitted a scorecard on MMADecisions for that Jan fight also gave it to Ankalaev, for what it’s worth, and I also thought he won pretty soundly. I know it’s ironic that I’m hating on Walker for turning boring but defending Ankalaev for doing the same…but boring Ankalaev wins me money, boring Walker does not. The former also has the potential to go to the very top, the latter does not.
So yeah, I think Ankalaev is just an infinitely more skilled martial artist. Walker’s had moderate success with this new style of his, but I actually think in a fight like this where he’s technically outclassed, that rabies style of chaos would actually give him his clearest path to victory because he’s going to need to win ITD (unless this turns into a weird staring contest like his fight against Santos). Also, Ankalaev has been quite risk averse in recent fights, hence the criticism, but that protects him against the aforementioned path to victory, so I actually think the two stylistic trajectories they’ve recently been on actually makes this even more winnable for Ankalaev.
Whilst I think the skill gap in this fight is similar to what Makhachev/Oliveira and Chimaev/Costa was, I’m not interested in betting this one – purely because of the weightclass. The margin for error at 205lbs is much thinner than Lightweight and Middleweight, especially considering Ankalaev is likely to strike the most of the three Russians and his opponent has made a career off of being supremely dangerous. All it takes is him not seeing one punch coming and the fight is over, whereas Makhachev or Chimaev could probably have eaten more of those types of shots and survived. I do however think the line is accurate where it is though, and I wouldn’t argue against adding Ankalaev to your parlays for this card.
In terms of a prop, it’s a tricky one because I could see Ankalaev winning via any method. Walker got ragdolled for 15 minutes by Nikita Krylov, which would be a viable path for Ankalaev to coast or even find a submission/TKO on the mat (submission obviously less likely given he’s never hit one, but it doesn’t mean he can’t). Also, Walker’s chinny and Ankalaev does hit hard when he feels like throwing heat. Just think the whole fight is unbettable here to be honest.
How I line this fight: Magomed Ankalaev -300 (75%), Johnny Walker +300 (25%)
Bet or pass: Pass
Prop leans: None
​
Ikram Aliskerov v Warlley Alves
Well, that’s one hell of a downgrade! It says a lot that the UFC were willing to put Ikram against Nassourdine Imavov for his second UFC fight, but I don’t always think it’s for the best. Let the guy get some highlights and build a name for himself before you start trying to build his title run. This fight against Warlley Alves is the perfect opportunity to do that! I always say that you always need to pay attention to how the matchmakers are booking fighters, and this is the kind of fight I think they should have given Ikram to start with.
Alves is one of those fighters whose career is completely useless to the UFC, unless it’s to use him as a sacrificial pawn. He’s been on the brink of getting cut for years, and I’m surprised he’s still here after losing a decision to Nicolas Dalby(!). He doesn’t do anything particularly interesting, he’s slow, but he’s got a small degree of dangerousness which has kept his career afloat when the UFC have tried to send it up shit’s creek. Personally I think he’d have gone long ago if he didn’t have a win over Colby Covington on his record.
I’d very much expect Ikram to be a massive favourite here, probably -400 at a minimum. I don’t know enough about him at this stage, and that’s a steep price anyway, so I’m not really going to go any further into the matchup. The ITD will be short, the moneyline will be short. The only way you could appropriately bet this fight is pay major juice or play contrarian…neither of which I want to do.
How I line this fight: Didn’t do tape but I’d be shocked if Aliskerov isn’t steeper than -400
Bet or pass: Pass
Prop leans: Probably Ikram ITD but that’ll be like -200 as well.
​
Said Nurmagomedov v Muin Gafurov
Very surprised by the moneyline here. Said Nurmagomedov doesn’t fight particularly frequently, but he’s proven himself to be a valid top 15 fighter in my eyes. His career hasn’t been without it’s stumbling blocks, but I think most of them are pretty explainable. Raoni Barcelos was exactly the same as Said is now (top 15 but not fighting often enough) when those two faced off in 2019, and Said gave a decent enough account of himself. His other loss was a razor close decision to Jonathan Martinez most recently, which I think he won (and I also think it’s aging quite well as far as losses go). There have also been some more fortunate wins, like against Saidyokub Kakhramonov (legit top 15 talent, the UFC cutting him was the worst decision they’ve made in years), and against Justin Scoggins (UFC debut).
I guess this is what we would consider a “buy low” spot with the Martinez loss and fortunate win to Kakrahmonov in recent memory…but Said is facing Muin Gafurov here. The same Muin Gafurov who lost his UFC debut to John Castaneda, and has losses to John Lineker and Chad Anheliger in three of his last six fights. How is Said being disrespected this much for the fight to only be lined -200?
Gafurov is committed to landing takedowns, but Said has shown he’s a great scrambler with dangerous submissions if you give him the opportunity. I also haven’t been particularly impressed by Gafuro’vs ability to hold down opponents who are worse grapplers than Said…so I’m immediately dubious about his chances of winning via grappling. On the feet, Said’s far more diverse and dangerous of the two (Gafurov got dropped by both Anheliger and Castaneda, the latter with a head kick), and also has the higher volume.
Gafurov and Said are pretty similar in their styles and skillsets, but I just think Said is proven to be the better version. I saw Gafurov give so many openings to Castenada in the grappling exchanges and I think Said will be able to capitalise. I’ve got 4u on Said (3u single and 1u parlay’d with Magomedov), but I may be looking to add a small bit on the submission or maybe ITD prop here.
If you’re also interested in Said, I’d recommend getting on sooner rather than later.
How I line this fight: Said Nurmagomedov -300 (75%), Muin Gafurov +300 (25%)
Bet or Pass: 3u Said Nurmagomedov (-188), 1u Said Nurmagomedov + Shara Magomedov both to Win (+137). 0.5u Nurmagomedov to Win by Submission (+240)
Prop Leans: see above
​
Tim Elliott v Muhammad Mokaev
Muhammad Mokaev is a weird one. Being from the UK, we’ve been conditioned to know that he’s been a UK super prospect since like 2016. MMA journalists over here were reporting on the kid’s amateur career when he was 16 like he was Bo Nickal.
He got off to a great start to his UFC career with the super quick win over Cody Durden, and that win has aged beautifully since…but quick R1 finishes are often misleading in terms of evaluating a fighter’s skillset, especially in a lower weight class, and even moreso when it’s a KO shot like a knee that’s not even indicative of a fighter’s power. He looked dominant in the sophomore win over Charles Johnson…but personally I’ve actually been underwhelmed with his UFC career so far because of the Malcolm Gordon and Jafel Filho fights. He probably should have put Gordon away much quicker than he did, and Filho caught him in a kneebar that he honestly should have tapped to. Props to him for surviving, but those are the kind of mistakes you won’t get away with multiple times. Also, that’s a really weak level of UFC opposition, with the win over Durden being the best by a country mile.
He faces Tim Elliott, who is a really interesting stylistic fight for him. He’s a veteran of the sport that just wants to grapple, and if you’re a fighter that is going to engage in that type of fight, don’t expect to be as dominant as you have been against others. Victor Altamirano was looking like a decent prelim fighter with the way he was mixing in takedowns, Tagir Ulanbekov was being seen as some sort of Flyweight Khabib prodigy, and both fell short to Elliott in his last two fights. Even before that, he went right down to the wire against Matheus Nicolau, who was in a number one contender fight in his last bout. Elliott is very unassuming and will absolutely surprise you if you sleep on him.
Mokaev is a -600 favourite here, and believe me when I tell you that is a ridiculous price tag. He’s young, he’s cocky, he’s English, he’s a Muslim fighting in Abu Dhabi, he’s got all the makings of a very marketable future star…so the books can honestly put whatever pricetag they want on him here because there won’t be enough money coming back on old man Tim Elliot, who has more UFC losses than wins. I’m not saying Mokaev loses, but that price is all the way ridiculous when it comes to skill v skill – especially when Mokaev could have lost his last fight if he didn’t have such a high pain threshold.
Will I take the plunge and put a small amount on Tim Elliott? I know numerically and objectively I should, but I still don’t like the idea of betting a guy that I think has a 33% chance of winning because the books are giving 22%, you know what I mean? The low of a loss is worse than the high of a win for me. It will be shit when Elliott fights better than a +350 favourite, but still loses. I can’t take a “good read” to the bank. I know people will point to Bobby Green as an example of the contrary (and I should have bet him to be honest), but I don’t think Elliot can get a finish here, and unless he is dominant in the grappling the chances of him getting screwed by the judges is very, very likely too. Even on his best day, I think the best Elliot can hope for is a bit of luck and some sympathetic judges that aren’t being paid or pressured to give the young Mokaev a win.
So yeah, Mokaev -600 is a ridiculous price tag from a skillset perspective, but I also think it’s quite likely he wins this fight. I won’t be betting on this one, but if I could bet “Mokaev not to look like a -600 favourite” I’d max bet it in a heartbeat. If you parlay Mokaev, you’re crazy.
How I line this fight: Tim Elliot +200 (33%), Muhammad Mokaev -200 (67%)
Bet or pass: Pass unfortunately, but for the love of God don’t parlay Mokaev.
Prop leans: None
​
Mohammad Yahya v Trevor Peek
I don’t know who Mohammad Yahya is, but his record doesn’t really make him look like a particularly good fighter. His wins are all examples of can crushing, and his losses are also to people who have crushed cans. This therefore leads me to conclude that he is middle of the pile in the can crushing world.
Trevor Peek is a terrible mixed martial artist, but a pretty decent brawler. He’s great fun, but anyone with regional level technicality should be able to beat him. I’d say he’d do pretty well in the can crushing league though.
Peek is literally one of the worst MMA fighters I’ve seen the UFC sign in years, and the public have been betting him early (IE usually sharp action) from +150 to -120. The fact that sharp bettors feel strongly enough to push Trevor Peek into favourite territory tells me that this Yahya must be absolutely atrocious.
Because I work ahead, I was able to grab a 5u bet on Trevor Peek at +100, which I have no intention of letting ride and will simply be using as an arb opportunity. This fight is likely to be a circus, and that’s something I want no part in. If Yahya goes to underdog money, I’ll have guaranteed profit, if not I will cash out.
EDIT: I've now closed this bet, taking Yahya at +130 to secure 0.7u profit regardless of who wins. Lovely stuff.
How I line this fight: Didn’t tape it
Bet or pass: Arbed both sides, +0.7u in the bag.
Prop leans: None
​
Javid Basharat v Victor Henry
Javid Basharat is a legit fighter that I think could go all the way to the very top. He’s really well-rounded, as any lower weightclass fighter should be, and his DWCS/UFC career has been pretty damn flawless so far.
Victor Henry’s been a strange case study in his three UFC fights so far. He came in as an unassuming underdog and put in the performance of a lifetime against Raoni Barcelos, landing an absurd 222 of 397 strikes in a 15 minute fight against one of the best unranked guys in the Bantamweight division (Barcelos has fallen off a cliff in recent years though, and it’s beginning to look like Henry may have fought him at the perfect time). He then followed that up by laying an egg in a softball opportunity against the ghost of Raphael Assuncao, who is old and past his prime. Most recently, he went to a split decision against Tony Gravely, who is a good wrestler but an average fighter. So really he’s had a good, a bad, and a mediocre performance.
This one feels like a pretty clear cut one in terms of analysing the betting line. Basharat is clearly the better fighter, and he’s beginning to grow some serious hype as a future title contender, whereas Henry’s stock is pretty low after two underwhelming performances. I feel like I’ve said it a few too many times, but you’re again looking at a young British/Middle Eastern Muslim fighting on an Abu Dhabi card…Basharat’s going to be the more popular guy here, prompting the books to price him wherever they want.
Whilst I do think he wins this one and that -400 is bang on where it should be, I’m not sure I really recommend using Basharat as a parlay piece for a double or a significant sized bet (your longshot parlays are fine!). Henry does have a unique style with that ridiculously high volume, and it is a style that can move mountains if you utilise it properly (Our new Middleweight Champion Sean Strickland is perfect example). Basharat can be better at 100 different things, but if he can’t get Henry’s jab out of his face then he won’t be able to do any of them! However Henry may not have that high a volume in this fight, or Basharat may use his grappling or be able to negate the volume threat anyway. Just something to look out for. Also, at -400, I’d want a fighter that can win via multiple Methods of Victory, whilst Basharat isn’t particularly threatening from a finishing perspective.
Probably won’t get a good price on it at all, but wikicapping tells us that Basharat by Decision could be a nice prop. He’s historically been a finisher but all UFC wins are by Decision. All six of Henry’s losses are on the scorecards. I’ve gotten into the habit of bet building the moneyline with the Over 1.5 Rounds in recent months, giving a better moneyline price on a fighter that I really don’t forsee winning via a round 1 stoppage. This is one of those times, so if I got Basharat to Win & Over 1.5 Rounds at under -190 or better, I’d take it.
EDIT: Unfortunately the price wasn't quite there so I'll be leaving this one alone. Basharat's moneyline moved anyway so I don't like the price anymore anyway.
How I line this fight: Javid Basharat -400 (80%), Victor Henry +400 (20%)
Bet or pass: Basharat to Win & Over 1.5 Rounds (-190 or better)
Prop leans: See above
​
Abu Azaitar v Sedriques Dumas
Not to be confused with Ottman (the bag guy that got womped by Matt Frevola last time), Abu Azaitar hasn’t fought in over two and a half years, and his last performance saw him gas out really badly at the hands of Marc-Andre Barriault. He did actually manage to win the opening round of that fight, but MAB is historically a slow starter and took a while to get going…and when he did get going it was very one sided, with a knockdown and a 59 to 7 significant strike disparity in that third round. Abu actually landed double the significant strikes of MAB in that opening round.
Azaitar’s clearly a powerful guy, as his frame would tell you, but you can clearly see the power makes up for the lack of technique. He’s not very fast, and his punches are quite laboured and telegraphed. This looks especially prominent after the first round. He also looks like a really bad grappler, that relies entirely on bursts of energy to hit impressive sweeps. His takedown defence was non-existent in the win over Vitor Miranda, who moved quickly into full mount about 30 seconds after he floored him. Overall, not impressed with Abu at all.
He faces Sedriques Dumas, who is a fighter that’s been very polarizing since before his UFC debut (I believe he tried to charge media members to interview him and got dragged on Twitter for it). He was a ridiculously priced favourite for the debut against Josh Fremd (who admittedly was on an awful run of form), but completely shat the bed and looked to gas out after the first round, getting finished in the second. To me that looked like Octagon jitters, as the adrenaline dump seemed to happen almost instantly, and his cardio has seen him go 15 minutes with no issue before.
Unfortunately, his following fight against Cody Brundage didn’t actually tell us a whole lot in terms of Dumas’ overall ability, because Brundage is one of the lowest fight IQ fighters and managed to give up 10 minutes of control time off his own takedown attempts/guard pulling. The fight took place almost entirely on the mat, with Dumas controlling position against an opponent that just wanted to stay perfectly still and lose a boring decision. I don’t know if Dumas would have won that fight if Brundage was trying, and I don’t know if Dumas is any better than the guy who lost to Josh Fremd.
I’m surprised Dumas is -175 here. I’m surprised the line is bettable. Azaitar has literally no upside from a popularity perspective, and Dumas is at least polarizing and still riding the regional hype. I would have expected the books to make him like -250 simply because his last performance looked to correct the Fremd fight, and his opponent won’t get any money on the return.
I’m not saying that’s where I line him, because Brundage was such an easy opponent to beat that night that I genuinely believe I could have beaten him that night. I have no confidence in believing that Dumas has turned a corner, so I simply cannot trust him. I also think Azaitar is bad at MMA, so have no interest in betting him either.
If you want to roll the dice and bet Dumas at -175, I don’t necessarily hate it…because there’s a chance there’s actually massive value there if Dumas has improved his grappling like the commentators seemed to believe he had in his last fight. Just know that you’re essentially betting him blind and there’s every chance the same fighter who lost to Josh Fremd is the man you have money on. Not my kind of style to take a risk on that. Easy pass.
How I line this fight: Sedriques Dumas -175 (64%), Abu Azaitar +175 (36%)
Bet or pass: Pass x10000
Prop leans: None
​
Mike Breeden v Anshul Jubli
Quickest breakdown ever but no need to say much. Mike Breeden is pretty damn bad. Anshul Jubli’s only notable wins are from Road to UFC, which is an inferior version of DWCS. Breeden is obviously an auto fade at this point, but you’re crazy if you think I’m laying -400 on someone as unproven as Jubli. No need to look into it any further than that.
How I line this fight: Not done tape but Jubli can’t be -400 when he’s so unproven
Bet or pass: Pass
Prop leans: None
​
Nathaniel Wood v Muhammad Naimov
Nathaniel Wood really impressed me in his last fight. I backed Andre Fili, and whilst I still think it was a good bet as a decent sized underdog, Wood still looked good against a fighter like Fili who is no slouch at all. I’m a big Nathanial Wood fan, and his fights are often the highlight of a UFC London card…but there’s something about the guy that always makes me concerned he’s going to shit the bed. Maybe it was the KO loss to John Dodson and the decision loss to Casey Kenney, which really put irreparable dents in his campaign to be a top 15 fighter.
He faces Muhammad Naimov here, who is definitely nowhere near the calibre of Andre Fili or Wood himself. Naimov won his UFC debut against Jamie Mullarkey after getting soundly beaten for almost the entire fight. Mullarkey made one mistake for a split second, closing distance and brain farting as his arms weren’t sure if they were shooting takedowns or returning to striking…and Naimov blasted him square in the face. I did actually think the stoppage was a bit early as Mullarkey recovered quickly, which is backed up by the idea he’s incredibly durable usually.
Wood will have this fight covered as long as he doesn’t get KO’d. He’s been stopped before (by John Dodson of all people!) which makes me think there’s a possibility it happens, but it’s still not a highly likely outcome. I can’t really fault the -350 pricetag, but I wouldn’t really say there’s a whole lot of meat left on the bone. There’s the potential to bet Wood by Decision, given that Wood’s not really much of a finisher and Naimov’s never been finished…but it’s a very obvious conclusion to come to so I doubt the books will leave the door open.
How I line this fight: Nathaniel Wood -400 (80%), Muhammad Naimov +400 (20%)
Bet or pass: 3u Nathaniel Wood and Caio Borralho Both to Win (-140) (this week and next week's card)
Prop leans: Wood by Decision potentially
​
Viktoriia Dudakova v Jinh Yu Frey
Well I just rewatched Dudakova’s debut against Nunes because I forgot how it ended, and I wish I’d gotten a content warning because I watched the injury all over again. There’s something about elbow breaks that make me feel so much worse than leg breaks. Gross. Side note: the injury completely overshadowed it, but DUDE-AKOVA DID YOU SEE THAT TAKEDOWN SHE LANDED!? GOT THE LOWER LEG AND DID A BARREL ROLL TO GET THE TAKEDOWN!? That was sick, I’ve never seen that before!
Anyway, it’s a shame the debut was so short because I was interested in seeing how good Dudakova actually looks. She’s been tipped as a prospect by some people, and it seems like the UFC have high hopes for her by gifting her Jinh Yu Frey as an opponent in her sophomore fight.
I’ve never quite understood what’s been wrong with Frey in recent fights, because on paper I actually think she’s got a lot of good tools. Decent striker, good effective top control, good takedown defence…that honestly should be enough to get you near the top 15 at Strawweight. Unfortunately she’s just looked so, so bad in her last three losses, against increasingly terrible opposition in Demopoulos, Polyana Viana and Elise Reed. Three terrible opponents that anyone who is deemed “UFC quality” should be going at least 2-1 against (you could also add Kay Hansen to that list, another fighter she lost to in her debut). In hindsight, Frey’s wins have come against Gloria de Paula and Ashley Yoder, so it would appear I’ve massively overrated her.
Without any worthwhile UFC level footage for Dudakova, I’m not really interested in trying to figure this one. Frey’s looked awful, but I still believe that she’s much better than we’ve seen in recent fights, and if perhaps there’s some sort of external factor causing her to be performing badly, it could disappear at any minute. I just think she’s good enough everywhere to not look +300 against anyone unranked in that division…but I could very easily be wrong here.
I’ve held my hands up before when my opinion of a fighter has gone massively against the odds (JJ Aldrich, which I was completely right about!), so I’m going to do the same here and just acknowledge my opinion of Frey is for some reason really far off reality. With that said, it kind of makes this fight unbettable for me with no reason to trust Dudakova either. Easy pass (yet again, sorry these conclusions are so boring but parlay cards just aren’t the best for my risk-averse style).
EDIT: Personally I expected the FDGTD price to be closer to a pick'em, as I think Frey is a bit flakey and Dudakova's been pretty consistent as a finisher. I took the Under 2.5 Rounds for 1u at +180
How I line this fight: Viktoriia Dudakova -250 (71%), Jinh Yu Frey +250 (29%)
Bet or pass: 1u Under 2.5 Rounds (+180)
Prop leans: See above
​
Shara Magomedov v Bruno Silva
Oh boy, I am excited for this one. I did tape on Shara Magomedov because he’s got a bit of hype to him, and this guy is all the way crazy. By the looks of it, he’s only got one eye, and apparently people were angry that the UFC signed him due to some of his actions in public in recent years.
But inside the cage, he’s fucking terrifying. He’s got a really diverse arsenal of kicks and forward pressure, has decent power, and is also Dagestani with competent anti-grappling skills to boot. What’s not to like!?
He faces Bruno Silva…who just got pieced up on the feet by Gerald Meerschaert and Brendan Allen…two lifelong grapplers/submission artists. Yes he sandwiched a win in against Brad Tavares, but I think we can all agree that Brad has unfortunately declined quite massively and is now nothing except a glorified takedown defence machine. His win over Chris Weidman was a shockingly bad look, as was Silva’s against Brendan Allen. Bruno is also returning just four months after getting dropped by Allen, where his durability looked shakey as fuck.
I go back to the narrative about UFC matchmaking – there is no upside to Bruno Silva’s UFC career, they are not giving him an undefeated Dagestani to get him back in the win column. He is there to lose, or he is there to put on an exciting fight for the fans. They don’t waste shots like this, they’re giving Magomedov a winnable entry into the company to get a highlight and get everyone talking. This is how they build prospects.
Yes, a 1 punch KO is possible for Bruno, but given the way Magomedov manages distance with his kicking game I expect him to be just fine. Silva also spends a lot of time in southpaw which will open up the body to Magomedov’s kicking game, and I just generally expect him to struggle to really land on his opponent.
I’m surprised the line is only -200 here, I genuinely think this could be one of the most dominant performances on the entire card…yet Shara’s one of the smaller favourites available! Doesn’t quite make sense to me, so I’ve put 3u on Shara Magomedov to Win, and parlay’d him with Said Nurmagomedov for another unit. 4u in total, all at -188. I’d get on quick if you were planning to, I think he should go off at -300 by fight night when people start doing their research.
How I line this fight: Shara Magomedov -300 (75%), Bruno Silva +300 (25%)
Bet or pass: 3u Shara Magomedov to Win at -200, 1u Shara Magomedov + Said Nurmagomedov both to Win at +137, 0.5u Shara KO at +110
Prop leans: Most likely Shara ITD, though I doubt you’ll get value
​
Bets (Bold = been placed)
5u Islam Makhachev to Win & Over 1.5 Rounds (-150) (added a further two units after the Wood fight went sideways)
3u Said Nurmagomedov to Win (-188)
0.5u Said Nurmagomedov to Win by Submission (+270)
✅ 3u Shara Magomedov to Win (-200)
❌ 0.5u Shara Magomedov to Win by KO (+110)
1u Shara Magomedov & Said Nurmagomedov both to Win (+137)
❌ 0.25u Said Nurmagomedov to Win by Submission & Shara Magomedov to Win by KO (+677)
❌ 1u Dudakova v Frey to Last Under 2.5 Rounds (+180)
❌ 3u Nathaniel Wood & Caio Borralho (next event) Both to Win (-140)
0.5u Parlay Pieces (+591)
❌ 0.1u Twelve fold of every favourite on the card except Dudakova, Jubli and Peek (+2627)
✅ Arb - 5u Trevor Peek to Win (+100) and 4.31u Mohammad Yahya to Win (+130), for +0.7u guaranteed
Parlay Pieces: Khamzat Chimaev, Magomed Ankalaev, Ikram Aliskerov, Said Nurmagomedov, Shara Magomedov, (had Basharat included here but it's a push so not counting)
Dog of the Week: Tim Elliott (very favourite heavy card, I’m not keen enough on Elliott to bet him here but just strongly believe he performs better than his price).
​
Future Bets
UFC Sao Paulo
3u Armen Petrosyan to Win (-110 or better)
3u Angela Hill to Win (+125)
3u Rinat Fakhretdinov & Caio Borralho Both to Win (-125)
UFC 295
2u Alex Pereira to Win (-135)
2u Matt Frevola to Win (+188)

If you're wondering where you've seen him before... the answer is everywhere 😁
Film Thief (1981) as Mechanic #3 Tootsie (1982) as Actor at Party (uncredited) Doctor Detroit (1983) as Rush Street Dude Class (1983) as Bellman Sixteen Candles (1984) as Rudy The Naked Face (1984) as Frank The Breakfast Club (1985) as Carl Weird Science (1985) as Dino My Man Adam (1985) as Mr. Rangle Head Office (1985) as General Sepulveda Off Beat (1986) as Lou Wareham Nothing in Common (1986) as Roger the Commercial Director Roxanne (1987) as Chuck Vibes (1988) as Eugene The Boost (1988) as Joel Miller All's Fair (1989) as Eddie Internal Affairs (1990) as Steven Arrocas Defenseless (1991) as Jack Hammer We're Talkin' Serious Money (1992) as Marty 'the Greek' Man Trouble (1992) as Detective Melvenos Guilty as Sin (1993) as Ed Lombardo The Shadow (1994) as Duke Rollins The Craft (1996) as Ray (uncredited) The Late Shift (1996) The Relic (1997) as McNally Johnny Skidmarks (1998) as Walter Lippinscott The Deep End of the Ocean (1999) as George Karras Blood Type (1999) as ER Policeman Bad Faith (2000) as Lou Miles Legally Blonde (2001) as Dewey Newcombe (uncredited) Ignition (2001) as Conor's Lawyer Auto Focus (2002) as Bruno Gerussi Fast Food High (2003) as John Redding I Accuse (2003) as Det. Murray Mimic 3: Sentinel (2003, Video) as Det. Gary Dumars Shallow Ground (2004) as Leroy Riley Knuckle Sandwich (2004) as Mr. O'Doogle Phil the Alien (2004) as The General Aurora Borealis (2005) as Stu The River King (2005) as Joey Tosh Stick It (2006) as Chris DeFrank Fifty Pills (2006) as Harold Mr. Soul (2006) as Bill Corrigan Whisper (2007) as Whitley Everybody Wants to Be Italian (2007) as Steve Bottino Snow Buddies (2008, Video) as Jean George Tripping Forward (2009) as Vladdy Junkyard Dog (2010) as Hellerman Santa Buddies: The Legend of Santa Paws (2010, Video) Not That Funny (2012) as Kevork Sarkissian Afternoon Delight (2013) as Jack Miss Dial (2013) as Creepy Guy Free Ride (2013) as Coast Guard Captain Who the F Is Buddy Applebaum (2013) as Maggs Underdog Kids (2015) as Teacher First Round Down (2016) as Sonny The Shape of Water (2017) as Mr. Arzoumanian The Unicorn (2018) as Louis Blood Type (2018) as ER Police Officer Lewis 22 Chaser (2018) as Bissey Love Shot (2018) as Tony
Television Miami Vice (1985) as Andy Sloan Onassis: The Richest Man in the World (1988, TV Movie) as Costas Gratsos Nick Knight (1989, TV Movie) as Det. Don Schanke And the Sea Will Tell (1991, TV Movie) as Len Weinglass Forever Knight (1992–1995) as Det. Don Schanke Seinfeld (1993, Episode: "The Sniffing Accountant") Cool and the Crazy (1994, TV Movie) as The Greek Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman (Episode 16, aired Jun 10, 1995) as Vassily Savchenko (Lucky Leon) God, the Devil and Bob (2000) (voice) Angel (2000) as Roland Meeks The X-Files (2002) as Special Agent Fordyce State of Grace (2002) as Milton Figer The District (2002) as Victor Abbot CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (2002) as Chief Duke Rittle Just Cause (2002) as Carlos Ramirez Boomtown (2002) as Hugo Pinkston ER (2002) as Mr. Irby Judging Amy (2003) as Zack Wiley The Dead Zone (2003) as Patrick Hanchin Dead Like Me (2003) as Angus Cook Frasier (2004) as Policeman Cold Case (2004) as John Butler Crossing Jordan (2004) as Halper Identity Theft: The Michelle Brown Story (2004, TV Movie) as Ray De Lucc Without a Trace (2004) as Ezra Hafetz Boston Legal (2004) as Detective Wayne Farley Queer as Folk (2005) as Don McBride: Tune in for Murder (2005, TV Movie) as Bob Carter Gilmore Girls (2005) as Orientation Leader Flight 29 Down (2005-2007) as Captain Russell Category 7: The End of the World (2005) as Secretary of Homeland Security Jim Roberts Desperate Housewives (2006) as Eugene Beale The Minor Accomplishments of Jackie Woodman (2006) as Ken CSI: NY (2006) as Bobby Rossmore One Tree Hill (2007) as Carl Monk (2007) as Paulie Flores Chuck (2008) as Yari Demitrios The Suite Life on Deck (2008) as Elias Zeke & Luther (2009) as Discount Dave iCarly (2009) as Morris Criminal Minds (2011) as Sheriff Montell Modern Family (2013, Episode: "Fulgencio") as Stavros Psych (2013) as Tom Swaggerty Justified (2013–2014) as Picker Transparent (2014) as Gary Republic of Doyle (2014) as Inspector Vince Pickard NCIS (2016) as Victor Castor Impastor (2016) as Judge Brenden Bell The Expanse (2018, Episode: "Delta V") as Ren The Umbrella Academy (2020) as Jack Ruby

**INTRO**
​
In a previous post I defended Hendricks impairment argument against abortion, however, in doing so I appealed to controversial metaphysics about the fetuses future, which presupposed too many things PC people generally don’t accept. In this post I attempt to show abortion as *prima facie* immoral without relying on components of Don Marquis FLO argument.
​
**SET UP**
​
The argument goes as followed:
​
1.If it is immoral to impair an organism O to the nth degree, then, ceteris paribus, it is immoral to impair O to the n+1 degree
2.It is immoral to impair the fetus by *intentionally* giving it fetal alcohol syndrome

1. Ceteris paribus, it is immoral to kill the fetus.
   
2. To abort a fetus is (in most cases) to kill it.
   
3. So, ceteris paribus, to abort a fetus is (in most cases) immoral.
   

​
**Defending P1**
​
In short, P1 states if it is immoral to give organism O a mild impairment, ceteris paribus, it is immoral to impair organism O to a greater degree. To illustrate, if it is immoral to cut off a dogs leg, then, *ceteris paribus*, to cut off both of the dogs legs is also immoral.
This seems intuitive, for it seems hard to imagine a world in which this principle is false.
However, a much more controversial, thing in this premise needs to be clarified. That is, the *ceteris paribus clause*.I will understand the *ceteris paribus clause* as being broken if there is a sufficiently valuable good that obtains from impairing O to the n+1 degree and no sufficiently valuable good obtains from impairing O to the nth degree. In all other cases, the *ceteris paribus clause* holds. And we may say that a good is sufficiently valuable only if it justifies causing the impairment. Furthermore, if a good justifies causing an impairment to the nth degree, then it also justifies causing an impairment to the n-1 degree; if it justifies allowing some impairment, then it will also justify allowing a less severe impairment.
Thus, the ceteris paribus clause of The Impairment Principle and premise (1) holds only if there is no sufficiently valuable good that obtains from killing the fetus that does not also obtain from giving it FAS; it holds only if there is no good that justifies killing the fetus that would also justify giving it FAS.
​
**Defending P2**
​
Suppose that a woman were to know she was pregnant and planned on drinking enough to cause her fetus to have FAS. Such an action would no doubt be wrong. This judgment of immorality appears quite common: people are horrified if they see a pregnant woman drinking large amounts of alcohol, and this is true whether or not one thinks the fetus is a person. This judgment that giving the fetus FAS is immoral remains even if the mother miscarries or has a still-birth. For example, suppose that a pregnant woman, Alice, knew she was pregnant and knew that drinking X amount of alcohol would give her fetus FAS. Suppose that she nevertheless drank X amount of alcohol. What Alice did was immoral, and we would all judge it to be that way even if she gave birth to a stillborn and even if we do not think fetuses are persons. So, at least initially, premise (2) seems widely accepted: we all think it is immoral to give a fetus FAS whether or not the fetus is a person.
​
NOTE: The impairment argument does not rely on *only* FAS being immoral, all it requires is for *some* instances of prenatal impairment to be immoral. To demonstrate, imagine a woman named Mary injected her fetus with A, a drug that makes the fetus develop abnormal desires akin to that of a shark, or makes her fetus not develop a leg. In these cases FAS is not present, but the impairment argument is not harmed, for it can be substituted with any prenatal impairment.
​
**Defending P4**
​
Abortion typically involves killing the fetus this shouldn’t be controversial.For example, common methods of abortion involve vacumming out the fetus (suction curettage), scraping out the fetus (dilation and curettage), and injecting the amniotic fluids with salt solution (induction). If any of these were done to an adult human resulting in their death, we would call this an act of killing. And if doing this to an adult human amounts to killing, then doing this to a human at a prior stage is also killing. And so premise (4) is true. Moreover, even if abortion did not involve killing, premise (4) could be restated in terms of impairment: abortions typically involve lethally impairing the fetus. This just follows from Hendricks definition of impairment: the above methods all result in the fetus being maximally impaired all of its abilities are completely limited during the process of abortion. And so even if abortion does not involve killing the fetus and it almost certainly does it involves lethally impairing the fetus, and this is sufficient for the purposes of The Impairment Argument.
​
**Objections to *ceteris paribus* clause**
​
Many philosophers, including, but not limited to Dustin Crummett argue that pregnancy carries with it various burdens, and that having an abortion eliminates these burdens produces a great good while giving a fetus FAS does not. Pickard claims that abortion brings with it the good of women being able to imbibe ethically, whereas giving a fetus FAS does not. And Rasanan claims that abortion brings with it several goods that giving a fetus FAS does not: it brings about the good of one less person damaging the environment, it makes it such that the burdensomness of parenthood does not come about, and it prevents a person coming into existence.
​
*RESPONSE*
Luckily, the way the *ceteris paribus clause* has been states, provides a way from us to deal with these objections(I)-(V).
Recall that the ceteris paribus clause holds unless there is a sufficiently valuable good that obtains from impairing an organism to the n+1 degree and there is no sufficiently valuable good that obtains from impairing it to the nth degree. And if (i)-(V) are sufficiently valuable which they need to be in order to break the ceteris paribus clause they would also justify giving a fetus FAS. Thus, we may test to see whether any are sufficiently valuable by considering whether they would also justify giving a fetus FAS. If they would, then they are sufficiently valuable and the ceteris paribus clause is broken. If not, then not. Would giving a fetus FAS be justified if doing so would bring about (i)? For example, suppose that by giving A's fetus FAS, you could eliminate the burdens associated with B's pregnancy. Would that justify one in giving A's fetus FAS? Surely not. And so (i) is not sufficiently valuable. What about (ii)? Suppose that by giving A's fetus FAS, it allowed B to drink ethically. Would that render it permissible to give A's fetus FAS? Again, surely not. And so (ii) is not sufficiently valuable. Would (iii) justify giving a fetus FAS? Suppose that by giving a fetus FAS, it somehow resulted in the reduction of environmental harm as much harm as a typical human produces during their lifetime. Would giving a fetus FAS be justifiable in that case? Yet again, surely not. And so (iii) is not sufficiently valuable. What about (iv)? Suppose that giving A's fetus FAS resulted in B not being a parent. Would that be justified? Of course not.
And so (iv) is not sufficiently valuable. Finally, consider (v). Would it be permissible to give A's fetus FAS if it resulted in one fewer person coming into existence? Again, the answer is "No." And so (v) is not sufficiently valuable. So, individually, these goods fail to justify giving a fetus FAS. But what about collectively? For example, suppose that all of (i)-(v) hold for some instance of giving a fetus FAS: suppose that if A were to give he fetus FAS, then it would eliminate the burdens associated with B's pregnancy, it would enable B to drink ethically, reduce the amount of environmental harm by the amount typically caused by a person. and would result in one fewer person coming into existence. Would it be permissible for A to give her fetus FAS? Again, clearly not. And so these goods collectively do not justify giving a fetus FAS.
From this, it seems evident none of these *sufficient goods*, that arise from the nth degree impairment, does not break the *ceteris paribus clause*, individually, or collectively.
​
**Fate based objection**
​
The idea here is giving the fetus FAS is immoral, when it makes a future being worse off. Abortion prevents a future being from existing, and so the idea here is giving the fetus FAS is immoral because of the fate of the fetus, but abortion is not immoral because no future being ends up suffering the effects of FAS.
​
*RESPONSE*
However, it is unclear even if the fetus does not experience the fate of FAS, giving the fetus FAS is morally permissible.
To demonstrate, suppose Mary intentionally gives her fetus FAS, that’s probably bad. But then she miscarries the next day. It seems hard to believe that the morality of FAS has gone from morally impermissible, to morally permissible, literally over night. Instead, it seems more plausible the morality of FAS is decided at the moment on consumption.
​
Hendricks also asks us to imagine the following: Welma and Alex are married. Welma is pregnant. Alex wants a child, but he wants a particular type of child he wants a child with FAS (for whatever reason). He concocts a plan to ensure that this happens: he discovers a drug that, if injected into the fetus, will cause the same impairments that FAS does. One night while Welma is asleep, Alex puts a needle through her belly, and injects the fetus with the formula. 3 months later, Welma gives birth to a child that has FAS. Three weeks later, the infant is killed in a car crash.
​
The proponent of the Fate based objection must claim Alex’s actions of giving his child FAS was morally permissible. But that’s absurd. From the moment Alex gave his wife’s fetus FAS, the morality of the action was decided. He is not morally lucky his fetus died, it seems hard to believe he hasn’t actually done anything wrong by giving his fetus FAS, and so this objection should be reviewed and revised.
​
**Intention Based Objection.**
​
one might argue that if a woman gives her fetus FAS while intending to have an abortion, then it is not immoral for her to do so. After all, she is intending to ensure the no human will consciously suffer the debilitating effects of FAS, and so she has done nothing wrong. Thus, premise (2) is false: it is only immoral to give a fetus FAS if one does not intend have an abortion.
​
*Response*
To see why this fails suppose a pregnant woman, Wanda, gave her fetus FAS *deliberately* while simultaneously intending to have an abortion. But suppose the incredibly unlikely happened:
Wanda got lazy. She kept postponing getting an abortion until finally, it was too late: she went into labor and gave birth. Wanda giving her fetus FAS was still immoral; we would still rightly judge Wanda as acting immorally when she gave her FAS. That she intended to have an abortion did not magically make her actions morally permissible, and so this objection should be aborted.
​
Additionally, suppose Wanda gave her fetus FAS at week 9, deliberately, but don’t worry she intends to have an abortion. However, at week 10 she changes her mind and wants to keep the fetus. Lastly, at week 10 she intends to abort once again, and has an abortion. It seems odd to suggest the morality of inflicting FAS has gone from morally permissible, to morally impermissible, back to morally permissible.
It seems more plausible that infliction of FAS was immoral at the moment of consumption. And so this objection to P2 should be reviewed and revised.
​
**CONCLUSION**
What I’ve tried to show, is even without appealing to don marquis FLO argument, the impairment argument is sound, and follow, because of the P1 P2 and P4.
I hope you all enjoyed this post and make sure to let me know your thoughts!

Purtle's Internet Lineup for January 1st, 2023! 4:25pm
Pics:

• Dec 2022 streams summary https://twitter.com/Purtle28/status/1609591655962710017
  
• Best wishes for 2023 - peace and love, share and enjoy. On this first day of year, I thought it a good moment to look back at one of the first sparks that started video game history: Ralph Baer's Brown Box. (picture taken in 2016 at American Museum of the Moving Image, NY). https://twitter.com/beforemario/status/1609459926195372032
  
• year of the rabbit https://twitter.com/JamesTurner_42/status/1609477308842123264
  
• New year new me https://twitter.com/EliteSonicFan/status/1609289232698445825
  
• Pokemon news
  
  • Dogasu - Last year I made a bunch of predictions about what I thought would happen with the Pokémon franchise in the year 2022. Today, let's take a look back at those predictions to see how many of them I ended up getting right! https://twitter.com/DogasusBackpack/status/1609531388038090753
  • 2023 is looking pretty sweet. Happy New Year, Trainers! [sculpture] [1:50] https://twitter.com/Pokemon/status/1609636637436416000

Clips:

• starting off the new year right https://twitter.com/UltimaShadowX/status/1609519941467652096
  
• the entire idea of having heroes fight giant monsters in a mech is attributed to this show - Japanese spider man https://twitter.com/UltimaShadowX/status/1609565239099498496
  
  • now heres a crazy spiderman japan clip https://twitter.com/Spiders_Might/status/1609194269360721924
• happy new year https://twitter.com/tamphopho/status/1609636537532047366
  

Videos

• Payday 3 announced - 2023 https://twitter.com/paydaygame/status/1609325511724990464
  
• The Grinch Song Uncensored is BRUTAL (ft Joel Haver and Trent Lenkarski) [5:08] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQLJNCDa4GA
  

Articles/News/Other

• Today on Public Domain Day, Metropolis enters the public domain in the US among other works released in 1927 including the first feature film with sound The Jazz Singer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BBnMCAIuQg
  
  • reddit thread https://old.reddit.com/videos/comments/100lr3z/today_on_public_domain_day_metropolis_enters_the/
• Twitter Sued For Failing To Pay Rent Of San Francisco Office https://old.reddit.com/news/comments/100o55f/twitter_sued_for_failing_to_pay_rent_of_san/
  
• Dog behavior is a product of their genes: By analyzing DNA samples from over 200 dog breeds along with nearly 50,000 pet-owner surveys, researchers at the National Institutes of Health have pinpointed many of the genes associated with the behaviors of specific dog breeds. https://old.reddit.com/science/comments/zyoc82/dog_behavior_is_a_product_of_their_genes_by/
  
• Man captured on video attacking and nearly drowning a Black teen at a South African swimming pool he considered “Whites only” has been charged with attempted murder. Two other men involved are facing assault charges. Lock them all up https://twitter.com/DailyLoud/status/1608948238165639168
  
• millennials aren’t getting more right-wing as they age: fascinating statistics https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1608732051481444356
  

Having a historical perspective of the court cases, laws, and mandates that have shaped English language instruction policy enables teachers to understand the necessity for addressing the learning needs of English language learners (ELLs).
Complete the "Legislative Events and Issues" template (150-200 words per section) to explain each of the following and discuss how knowledge of them will affect your future professional practice.

• How the following legal cases have affected the policies and laws governing language instruction in Arizona: Lau v. Nichols, Castaneda v. Pickard, Flores v. Arizona, and Plyler v. Doe.
• How the following federal laws and requirements have affected accountability, assessment, funding, and identification in ELL education in Arizona: Every Student Succeeds Acts (ESSA), Title III, Title VI, and Office for Civil Rights/Department of Justice resolutions.
• How the following state laws and policies have affected language acquisition methodology, student grouping, and the time frame to achieve language proficiency: Proposition 203, House Bill 2010, House Bill 2064, SB1014, and Move On When Reading.
• Two current societal trends and issues in the education of ELLs.

Deanna Troi had bad luck of being a very badly written character for most of the TNG seasons, receiving no character development and being used to mostly to stand next to Pickard and state things already obvious to the viewers ("He's dimsissive of me, captain."). She gets better only in 6th-7th season, with much more character development and leaps in competence.
However, writers not knowing what to do with the character aside, what if there is an in-universe explanation? Troi is an empath, rised by society of telepaths. She's conditioned for not verbal communication, used to people knowing what she thinks before she says anything and she did't have many opportunities to develop social or communication skills as humans understand them. She relies heavily on being an empath when trying to "get" people, demonstrated by her losing much confidence wherever she had to rely on verbal skills only; could it be that her "underdeveloped" personality is just inability to get her point across verbally? And her season 6 ascention just a moment when she "got" how to talk to non-telepaths, and started applying her full potential?
Definetely an interesting PoV when rewatching TNG again.

Aboriginal Shamans speak of the spirit world and other realms. Science speaks of quantum parallel universes and quantum entanglement. The latter seems to suggest that all things in the universe are one just as the Aboriginals say.
These other dimensions seem to correlate with what shamans refer to as the spirit world, to which they gain access to using psychedelics, tuning their mind to higher frequencies like a radio, and perceiving these dimensions and entities.
If we go by Terence Mckenna's stoned ape theory, it would imply that humans have been accessing these realms for thousands of years, leading to the formation of religions and spirituality. And, throughout the ages have been interpreted (based on the cultural paradigm of the time) as Fairies, Elves, Angels, Demons, and in modern times more so than not, Aliens.
These dimensions and the beings that reside, have a direct effect on our world...Some of these beings wish to aid us, others seek to harm us. One entity in particular, a Demiurge, has been manipulating the human race, ever since the fall of the The Lost Civilization (read Graham Hancock's work and the source material he references!!!).
As farfetched as all this sounds, the evidence shows that this may very well be the truth. Cognitive Dissonance occurs when people reject reality in order to preserve their belief systems... this allows the Matrix to exist; a system designed to imprison the collective mind, a system created by the Demiurge...
The only way for us to be free, we must awaken from the matrix.
Check it out {and maybe smoke DMT!]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE0-EEF_Nhc
Written and edited by David Al-Badri Narrated by Dundaya Maat Bey
Based on:
Graham Hancock Banned TED talk.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0c5nIvJH7w
'Supernatural: Meetings With The Ancient Teachers of Mankind'. Written by Graham Hancock.https://www.amazon.com/Supernatural-Meetings-Ancient-Teachers-Mankind/dp/1932857842
Graham Hancock: Elves, Aliens, Angels & Ayahuasca FULL LECTURE:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMVb3mtdUdI
The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross PDF:https://cochabambahotel.noblogs.org/files/2017/09/John-Marco-Allegro-The-Sacred-Mushroom-and-the-Cross.pdf
Rupert Sheldrake - Morphic Fields and Cosmic Consciousness https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFSsJHI5Zds
Ralph Abraham - The Cognitive Factor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shbpkxoZ4Ps
Quantum Entanglement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
Eamonn Healy Neohumanism http://www.telescopicevolution.com/tag/eamonn-healy/
The Venus Project - Jacque Fresco's Visionhttps://www.thevenusproject.com
Zeitgeist 2 - Addendumhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbvCxMfcKv4
Buckminster Fuller - Thinking Out Loud (documentary 1996)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZ1PkrumLPc Neohumanismhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neohumanism
This documentary series is based on the works of:
David Icke Graham Hancock John Anthony West Robert Bauval Robert Schoch René Adolphe Schwaller de Lubicz Randall Carlson Malcolm LeCompte Raj Ramesar David Reich Mait Metspalu Danny Hilman Natawidjaja Jacque Fresco Peter Joseph Ashra Kwesi Klaus Schmidt Buckminster Fuller Frances A. Yates Julius Evola Rick Strassman Terrence Mckenna Paul Stamets Rupert Sheldrake Ralph Abraham Laird Scranton Alex Grey Eamonn Healy Michael Moore Joe Rogan Noam Chomsky Martin Luther King John Lennon Alan Watts Mooji Osho Bill Hicks Robert Anton Wilson Nassim Haramein Dennis McKenna Albert Hoffman Stanislav Grof John Hoffman Timothy Leary Jessie Ventura Dundaya Maat Bey Michael Pollen Carlos Castenada

Aboriginal Shamans speak of the spirit world and other realms. Science speaks of quantum parallel universes and quantum entanglement. The latter seems to suggest that all things in the universe are one just as the Aboriginals say.
These other dimensions seem to correlate with what shamans refer to as the spirit world, to which they gain access to using psychedelics, tuning their mind to higher frequencies like a radio, and perceiving these dimensions and entities.
If we go by Terence Mckenna's stoned ape theory, it would imply that humans have been accessing these realms for thousands of years, leading to the formation of religions and spirituality. And, throughout the ages have been interpreted (based on the cultural paradigm of the time) as Fairies, Elves, Angels, Demons, and in modern times moreso than not, Aliens.
These dimensions and the beings that reside, have a direct effect on our world...Some of these beings wish to aid us, others seek to harm us. One entity in particular, a Demiurge, has been manipulating the human race, ever since the fall of the The Lost Civilization (read Graham Hancock's work and the source material he references!!!).
As farfetched as all this sounds, the evidence shows that this may very well be the truth. Cognitive Dissonance occurs when people reject reality in order to preserve their belief systems... this allows the Matrix to exist; a system designed to imprison the collective mind, a system created by the Demiurge...
The only way for us to be free, we must awaken from the matrix.
Check it out {and maybe smoke DMT!]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE0-EEF_Nhc
Written and edited by David Al-Badri Narrated by Dundaya Maat Bey
Based on:
Graham Hancock Banned TED talk.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0c5nIvJH7w
'Supernatural: Meetings With The Ancient Teachers of Mankind'. Written by Graham Hancock.https://www.amazon.com/Supernatural-Meetings-Ancient-Teachers-Mankind/dp/1932857842
Graham Hancock: Elves, Aliens, Angels & Ayahuasca FULL LECTURE:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMVb3mtdUdI
The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross PDF:https://cochabambahotel.noblogs.org/files/2017/09/John-Marco-Allegro-The-Sacred-Mushroom-and-the-Cross.pdf
Rupert Sheldrake - Morphic Fields and Cosmic Consciousness https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFSsJHI5Zds
Ralph Abraham - The Cognitive Factor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shbpkxoZ4Ps
Quantum Entanglement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
Eamonn Healy Neohumanism http://www.telescopicevolution.com/tag/eamonn-healy/
The Venus Project - Jacque Fresco's Visionhttps://www.thevenusproject.com
Zeitgeist 2 - Addendumhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbvCxMfcKv4
Buckminster Fuller - Thinking Out Loud (documentary 1996)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZ1PkrumLPc Neohumanismhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neohumanism
This documentary series is based on the works of: Graham Hancock John Anthony West Robert Bauval Robert Schoch René Adolphe Schwaller de Lubicz Randall Carlson Malcolm LeCompte Raj Ramesar David Reich Mait Metspalu Danny Hilman Natawidjaja Jacque Fresco Peter Joseph Ashra Kwesi Klaus Schmidt Buckminster Fuller Frances A. Yates Julius Evola Rick Strassman Terrence Mckenna Paul Stamets Rupert Sheldrake Ralph Abraham Laird Scranton Alex Grey Eamonn Healy Michael Moore Joe Rogan Noam Chomsky Martin Luther King John Lennon Alan Watts Mooji Osho Bill Hicks Robert Anton Wilson Nassim Haramein Dennis McKenna Albert Hoffman Stanislav Grof John Hoffman Timothy Leary Jessie Ventura Dundaya Maat Bey Michael Pollen Carlos Castenada