STRATEGY FORUM

Comments

  • someclevername

    UFC Fight Night 166 / UFC on ESPN+ 24

    Saturday 1.25.20 – PNC Arena – Raleigh, North Carolina

    ESPN+ Main Card – 7pm CT

    Curtis Blaydes (248) vs Junior dos Santos (247)
    Rafael dos Anjos (170) vs Michael Chiesa (170.5)
    Jordan Espinosa (126) vs Alex Perez (125.5)
    Hannah Cifers (114.5) vs Angela Hill (116)
    Jamahal Hill (205.5) vs Darko Stosic (205)

    ESPN+ Prelims – 4pm CT

    Bevon Lewis (186) vs Dequan Townsend (185)
    Arnold Allen (145.5) vs Nik Lentz (146)
    Justine Kish (126) vs Lucie Pudilova (126)
    Montel Jackson (135.5) vs Felipe Colares (135)
    Sara McMann (135) vs Lina Lansberg (135)
    Brett Johns (136) vs Tony Gravely (135)
    Herbert Burns (146) vs Nate Landwehr (146)

  • gje627

    Great card …. Unless it sucks.

    Love Jackson …. But who the hell is Felipe Colares? Does he pull-off a “Happy Warrior” shocker. BTW, I “heart” the Happy Warrior … she reminds me of all the stray, beaten-to-hell, sad-sack dogs, cats, horses I’ve adopted over the years … :)

    Going all-in …. Or not playing at all (NASCAR busy right now … too excited !!!)

    Only real thought? …. Conor pummels an over-the-hill, punch-drunk Cowboy (I “heart” Cowboy too, but only in a platonic sort of way) and Dana White thinks he deserves a post “Khabib beat-down of Tony Ferguson” rematch? … (okay, another “heart” for Tony here, but Khabib … the GOAT? … and yes, this will be the single-greatest UFC fight of all-time … too pumped !!! … c’mon Dana, show me a $200 PPV !!!)

    Anyways …

    I’m calling Bull-Sh*t on that one !!! (the Khabib/Conor rematch that is …)

    ….

    Oh?

    Hi Everyone. :)

    And Kudos to Someclevername, our fearless leader who … win, lose, or draw …. always keeps our collective …

    Eyes-on-the-Prize !!!

    Peace-Out :)

    ———-

    P.S./Edit: … Sorry, bored … scrolled the forum threads, no relief … i.e. remain bored …. Hence my meaningless comment here.

  • someclevername

    Haha, I just post the threads & give bad advice! How are you doing, gje? Hope all is well! Sounds like your NASCAR project is coming along…they start next month, right?

    I was happy for Roxanne too even though I had Barber in my lineup. Pretty lame grabbing the mic after the fight also. Like damn, you got beat down, hush your face lol.

    Dana is going to do whatever he thinks will make the most $$ – I’m just trying to keep positive thoughts on Khabib/Tony actually happening. C’mon mma gods – we need this!

  • gje627

    @someclevername said...

    Haha, I just post the threads & give bad advice! How are you doing, gje? Hope all is well! Sounds like your NASCAR project is coming along…they start next month, right?

    I was happy for Roxanne too even though I had Barber in my lineup. Pretty lame grabbing the mic after the fight also. Like damn, you got beat down, hush your face lol.

    Dana is going to do whatever he thinks will make the most $$ – I’m just trying to keep positive thoughts on Khabib/Tony actually happening. C’mon mma gods – we need this!

    Oops, sorry … deleted by author for nonsense-ilicious-ness …. Please pardon the interruption. :)

  • someclevername

    I am legit thinking about taking McMann for that td upside – I know she’s been out awhile and is 39 (she had a baby and then an injury) and even if she was tip top she’s still unreliable as F. I guess that’s just mma dfs – you have to take some chances. Lina’s tdd is not good, but she seems durable enough and can power through adversity. Sara seems to fold under adversity (least in her last 2). Hard for me to get away from Sara’s td upside for her price, but it can absolutely go sideways.

    Burns/Landwehr – ugh. This one is tricky yet a classic striker/grappler matchup. Burns’ standup is butt and if it stays there, Landwehr should take it. Flip side, if this goes ground I will be very concerned for Nate. He seems to have decent power and is aggressive – too much so at times. No need to get willy nilly against a guy who wants you on the ground. Burns will pull guard, fake being hurt, etc to get this on the ground – I’m no expert but I’ve seen nothing that gives me confidence in Nate on the ground. He’s not great off his back. I kinda sorta lean Burns but it’s real ugly if he can’t get this to the canvas. This is a tough one to call for me – still mulling it over.

    I lean to Curtis, but JDS can present some problems. I also lean to RDA but same with Chiesa. Haven’t made up my mind there.

    I think Bevon is going to walk through Townsend. Everyone down on Bevon – which is fair. But he was winning that Hall fight till Uriah did Uriah sh*t. The Dentist is really hard to look good against. Maybe I just don’t know what I’m talking about – if so please tell me what I’m missing on Townsend.

    Oh, great. Another Darko fight. He throws crazy low volume and has sh*t fight IQ – after nutshotting his last opponent to the tune of being down 2 points into the 3rd he…does not go for the finish. The question is, how good is Jamahal Hill? Is he worth a shot?

    Low key looking at Johns too – I need to look more into Gravely, but Johns is not a scrub. He was on a little roll til he was derailed by Munhoz & Sterling. Not bad comp to lose to.

  • thevogaman

    Damn welcome back gje. This will be my first card of this new year.

    The only 9k+ fighter I’m considering is Montel Jackson. In fact, I’ll basically be fading Bevon, Arnold Allen, Pudilova, Jamahall Hill, Darko, Cifers, Lentz, and Townsend.

    I’ll try to be over the field on both sides of JDS/Blaydes and RDA/Chiesa. Also, I favor Lina outright to win, just by being willing to dig deep and make it hard. If it makes it out of the first I think Mcmann just quits.

    So far my constructions have 2 pieces from the 7.9-8.3 range fights and the main/co main. Tight core… what could go wrong?

    Bevon Lewis getting a jobber/squash match and I still cant play him. Watch Dequan knock his ass out.

  • thevogaman

    @someclevername said...

    I kinda sorta lean Burns but it’s real ugly if he can’t get this to the canvas. This is a tough one to call for me – still mulling it over.

    It’s a good spot to target both sides if doing multiple lineups, but if you’re doing the single bullet…. I’d do Burns for the sub.

  • someclevername

    @thevogaman said...

    It’s a good spot to target both sides if doing multiple lineups, but if you’re doing the single bullet…. I’d do Burns for the sub.

    I am leaning toward Burns. Nate is so reckless, but Burns could absolutely get ktfo. Idk for sure what I’m doing yet, but ownership prob lands on Nate, right?

    Gje – if you want to bless us w/your ownership projections…would not hate it lol. (and if you don’t, it’s all good!)

  • someclevername

    @thevogaman said...

    Bevon Lewis getting a jobber/squash match and I still cant play him. Watch Dequan knock his ass out.

    I am wrong a lot, but I am taking a stand here – I think Bevon gets the finish. We’ll see what we see!

  • thevogaman

    @someclevername said...

    I am wrong a lot, but I am taking a stand here – I think Bevon gets the finish. We’ll see what we see!

    I just worry he dont get the finish and loses the 3rd again. Like his other fights.

    And you know… Colares ain’t bad vs. Montre(z)l Jackson either. He’s worth some flyers to win by decision. He and Stosic to me… as bets… think there’s some value there. Stosic is a fucking brute man… he’ll make it close vs.

    Disclaimer: But he’s not a good DK play.

  • someclevername

    @thevogaman said...

    I just worry he dont get the finish and loses the 3rd again. Like his other fights.

    Understand 100% but losing in the 3rd to a kill shot from Uriah Hall is one thing. Now the fight w/the Dentist – it was NOT a good look. Darren is a pill to deal with. Is Townsend? IMO, no. I could be wrong. I think this is an ultimate bounce back spot for Bevon. I think he’s going to go way under owned*.

    *Maybe not lol

  • gje627

    @thevogaman said...

    Damn welcome back gje.

    Thank you … and Howdy to You Too !!!

  • thevogaman

    @someclevername said...

    Is Townsend? IMO, no. I could be wrong. I think this is an ultimate bounce back spot for Bevon. I think he’s going to go way under owned. I could very well be wrong lol would not be the first time.

    No. Dequan is (bordering on) being a journeyman, but basically a bum.

    I think it’s a good take and a good play, but I just don’t want to go back to the well with Bevon at 9.3k.

  • gje627

    @someclevername said...

    Gje – if you want to bless us w/your ownership projections…would not hate it lol.

    Yes, definitely. Do you know the official (not ceremonial) weigh-in time tomorrow?

    Whatever time it is, I can probably post 3-4 hours after weigh-in.

  • thevogaman

    I’ll say now… non-mathematically I think Blaydes and Montell Jackson are highest owned.

  • gje627

    @thevogaman said...

    I’ll say now… non-mathematically I think Blaydes and Montell Jackson are highest owned.

    I wonder …. Think Jackson may come in lower than expected at his salary … Not yet sure about Blaydes ….I’m going to run ye’ old “projectionator” tomorrow and see what it spits out ….

    Disclaimer: Remember, my “projectionator” is me just drinking beer and making up numbers !!! :)

  • gje627

    EDIT START: Per clever’s request, I am working on ownership projections (an hour or two?) this updated post now includes Table 4, ownership projections. I needed to calculate the numbers below prior to calculating ownership projections so I thought I would post.

    Two difficulties exist when projecting ownership percentages, both unique to MMA/UFC. First, it is generally (though not always) preferable for contestants to include one fighter from the main event/championship fight(s), since fighters in both have 5 rounds instead of the 3 to accumulate fantasy points. Second, with certain exceptions typically present only in Cash games, it is generally not preferable to “stack” fights. With those things said, my ownership projections adjust for only one of these two factors; that being no fight stacks.

    Finally, regarding the “Low”, “High”, “Predict” below, please see the ranges of differences vary widely, with some ranges being very narrow and some ranges being very wide. In a nutshell, at least in my methodology, wide ranges generally indicate instances where there is a large difference between a fighter’s Win% odds and ITD%/Rd1% odds, for example when a fighter is a heavy underdog but the oddsmakers believe that if said fighter can land a shot, she/he has a reasonable chance for a stoppage. Conversely, narrow ranges generally indicate instances where Win% odds and ITD%/Rd1% odds are very similar. Next, since projecting fantasy points is almost always a futile endeavor in the UFC, fantasy points play no role in my ownership projections below; and lastly these projections are subject to change, particularly if is significant oddsmaker line movement between today and tomorrow, and even moreso if there is a fight cancellation. If the latter, the ownership projections below essentially become altogether useless. EDIT END

    As always:

    • All 5Dimes odds current as of 10:15 am MT.
    • No vig odds are true odds where implied odds include vig; consequently no vig odds are preferable.
    • Any errors in the calculations below — there are none, but if there were … :) — are mine and mine only.
    • Table 1 is inclusive of both fighters in a fight (per fight).
    • Tables 2 and 3 are per fighter, and essentially the same. The difference is that Table 2 lists actual values (continuous) and Table 3 lists rankings (discrete).
    • If you’re truly “moved” (emotionally that is) by the tables below and want them in your spreadsheet, in Excel simply “Copy” and “Paste Special** >> “Values” and column demarcations will be maintained. If you don’t have Excel copying may be slightly different.
    • Depending on your browser and display settings, all columns may or may not be visible on your screen. If all columns are not visible, simply “Zoom-Out” to see everything (Windows Ctrl -). Note: Table 1 has 5 columns; Tables 2 and 3 both have 9 columns

    __________________________________________________________________

    Table 1: UFC on ESPN+ 24 5Dimes No Vig Odds — Fight %

    —-

    Match TKO/KO% Sub% ITD% Rd1%
    ————————————- ——————- ——————- ——————- ——————-
    Blaydes/Dos Santos 68.34% 19.04% 81.35% 38.63%
    Chiesa/Dos Anjos 26.78% 31.40% 50.03% 28.43%
    Espinosa/Perez 23.93% 30.20% 46.67% 26.32%
    Cifers/Hill 18.45% 13.94% 25.66% 15.04%
    Hill/Stosic 47.82% 15.78% 56.97% 33.57%
    Lewis/Townsend 54.62% 12.26% 60.47% 37.53%
    Allen/Lentz 26.21% 18.93% 36.28% 21.30%
    Kish/Pudilova 20.73% 19.05% 32.57% 18.66%
    Colares/Jackson 45.93% 16.02% 54.38% 29.32%
    Lansberg/McMann 24.36% 31.31% 45.56% 27.14%
    Gravely/Johns 23.16% 25.69% 41.30% 24.71%
    Burns/Landwehr 25.79% 40.35% 62.98% 36.06%

    —-

    Note: In the table above I did not include Win%. The reason? … the combined odds for all fights each always be just below 100% (someone has to win, right?). Why below? … To account for the off-chance of a draw or no contest.

    —-

    Table 2: UFC on ESPN+ 24 5Dimes No Vig Odds — Fighter %

    —-

    Name Salary Fight Rds Win% TKO/KO% Sub% ITD% Rd1%
    ———————————- ——————- —————- ————— —————- ——————- ————— ————— —————
    Arnold Allen 9200 G 3 70.66% 19.86% 10.59% 25.67% 15.00%
    Nik Lentz 7000 G 3 29.34% 6.35% 8.34% 10.61% 6.30%
    Curtis Blaydes 9000 A 5 69.77% 48.10% 10.70% 55.99% 26.87%
    Junior Dos Santos 7200 A 5 30.23% 20.24% 8.34% 25.36% 11.76%
    Herbert Burns 7900 L 3 47.83% 6.20% 36.21% 39.08% 22.17%
    Nate Landwehr 8300 L 3 52.17% 19.59% 4.14% 23.90% 13.89%
    Michael Chiesa 7300 B 3 30.23% 6.48% 9.23% 13.25% 7.54%
    Rafael Dos Anjos 8900 B 3 69.77% 20.30% 22.17% 36.78% 20.90%
    Angela Hill 8600 D 3 62.79% 12.06% 7.97% 16.50% 9.54%
    Hannah Cifers 7600 D 3 37.21% 6.39% 5.97% 9.16% 5.51%
    Felipe Colares 6800 I 3 16.00% 4.28% 6.01% 7.44% 4.27%
    Montel Jackson 9400 I 3 84.00% 41.65% 10.01% 46.94% 25.05%
    Alex Perez 9100 C 3 70.23% 16.80% 22.17% 33.60% 18.92%
    Jordan Espinosa 7100 C 3 29.77% 7.13% 8.03% 13.07% 7.40%
    Brett Johns 8000 K 3 48.92% 7.54% 17.95% 21.64% 12.95%
    Tony Gravely 8200 K 3 51.08% 15.63% 7.75% 19.66% 11.76%
    Darko Stosic 7700 E 3 47.83% 25.35% 8.90% 30.65% 17.95%
    Jamahal Hill 8500 E 3 52.17% 22.47% 6.87% 26.32% 15.63%
    Justine Kish 7500 H 3 39.60% 8.60% 7.69% 14.03% 7.84%
    Lucie Pudilova 8700 H 3 60.40% 12.13% 11.37% 18.54% 10.82%
    Lina Lansberg 7800 J 3 41.18% 15.00% 7.13% 18.36% 10.82%
    Sara McMann 8400 J 3 58.82% 9.36% 24.18% 27.20% 16.32%
    Bevon Lewis 9300 F 3 79.01% 42.48% 5.51% 44.94% 29.01%
    Dequan Townsend 6900 F 3 20.99% 12.13% 6.75% 15.53% 8.52%

    —-

    Table 3: UFC on ESPN+ 24 5Dimes No Vig Odds — Fighter % Ranks

    —-

    Name Salary Fight Rds Win% TKO/KO% Sub% ITD% Rd1%
    ———————————- ——————- —————- ————— —————- ——————- ————— ————— —————
    Arnold Allen 9200 G 3 3 8 8 10 10
    Nik Lentz 7000 G 3 22 22 12 22 22
    Curtis Blaydes 9000 A 5 5 1 7 1 2
    Junior Dos Santos 7200 A 5 19 7 12 11 13
    Herbert Burns 7900 L 3 14 23 1 4 4
    Nate Landwehr 8300 L 3 10 9 24 12 11
    Michael Chiesa 7300 B 3 19 20 10 20 20
    Rafael Dos Anjos 8900 B 3 5 6 3 5 5
    Angela Hill 8600 D 3 7 15 15 17 17
    Hannah Cifers 7600 D 3 18 21 22 23 23
    Felipe Colares 6800 I 3 24 24 21 24 24
    Montel Jackson 9400 I 3 1 3 9 2 3
    Alex Perez 9100 C 3 4 10 3 6 6
    Jordan Espinosa 7100 C 3 21 19 14 21 21
    Brett Johns 8000 K 3 13 18 5 13 12
    Tony Gravely 8200 K 3 12 11 16 14 13
    Darko Stosic 7700 E 3 14 4 11 7 7
    Jamahal Hill 8500 E 3 10 5 19 9 9
    Justine Kish 7500 H 3 17 17 17 19 19
    Lucie Pudilova 8700 H 3 8 13 6 15 15
    Lina Lansberg 7800 J 3 16 12 18 16 15
    Sara McMann 8400 J 3 9 16 2 8 8
    Bevon Lewis 9300 F 3 2 2 23 3 1
    Dequan Townsend 6900 F 3 23 13 20 18 18

    —-

    Table 4: UFC on ESPN+ 24 5Dimes Ownership % Projections

    —-

    Fighter Low% High% Predict%
    ———————————- —————- —————- —————-
    Herbert Burns 41.10% 76.90% 67.80%
    Darko Stosic 62.30% 68.30% 68.20%
    Curtis Blaydes 30.30% 47.30% 45.10%
    Montel Jackson 39.10% 47.20% 42.20%
    Sara McMann 31.80% 44.20% 36.20%
    Rafael Dos Anjos 39.40% 39.60% 39.50%
    Angela Hill 6.60% 39.50% 20.90%
    Junior Dos Santos 10.80% 38.40% 27.70%
    Bevon Lewis 35.30% 37.10% 35.40%
    Brett Johns 28.30% 35.20% 32.40%
    Justine Kish 17.00% 34.80% 24.10%
    Tony Gravely 16.30% 27.50% 21.20%
    Alex Perez 22.90% 26.30% 24.20%
    Nate Landwehr 8.60% 21.70% 11.20%
    Nik Lentz 11.00% 20.20% 14.80%
    Lucie Pudilova 7.70% 20.00% 13.10%
    Lina Lansberg 15.20% 19.70% 17.00%
    Jordan Espinosa 15.10% 16.00% 15.30%
    Arnold Allen 11.40% 14.80% 12.30%
    Hannah Cifers 2.20% 14.70% 7.70%
    Dequan Townsend 4.78% 14.10% 7.76%
    Jamahal Hill 4.10% 13.60% 8.60%
    Michael Chiesa 5.60% 11.30% 7.70%
    Felipe Colares 0.08% 1.30% 1.27%

    —-

    EDIT 2: Oh, finally, if anyone is interested …. There are 106,749 possible lineups at or under the $50K salary cap. Of these, there are 44,951 possible lineups that do not include 1, 2, or 3 fight stacks.

  • someclevername

    Thank you, gje! Always appreciate when you do these!

  • someclevername

    People realize this is Herbert Burns not Gilbert, right? Might take Nate and cross my fingers.

  • joephoto

    @gje627 said...

    include one fighter from the main event/championship fight(s), since fighters in both have 5 rounds instead of the 3 to accumulate fantasy points.

    Forgive me. I’m still learning. Which fighters are going the 5 rounds ? Are all the rest 3 rounds ?
    Thanks

  • gje627

    @joephoto said...

    Forgive me. I’m still learning. Which fighters are going the 5 rounds ? Are all the rest 3 rounds ?
    Thanks

    May be hard to see, but in the first three tables I include the scheduled rounds for each fighter. Tomorrow, there is only one 5-round fight; that being Curtis Blaydes/Junior Dos Santos. The rest are 3 rounds.

    Rule-of-Thumb: All championship fights are scheduled for 5-rounds. Additionally, all main events are scheduled for 5-rounds. That’s it. There is one exception to main event/non-championship fights. That is if the scheduled main event fight gets cancelled, and there are no other championship fights on the card, the main event may be only 3-rounds. This is rare and generally occurs only when one or both of the fighters moved to the main event don’t want to go 5 rounds. Can’t remember the fight, but this happened relatively recently; I believe it was two “pudgy” heavyweights who were moved to the main event and neither one believed they were in good enough shape to go up to 5 rounds.:)

  • gje627

    @someclevername said...

    Thank you, gje! Always appreciate when you do these!

    You’re welcome. :)

  • joephoto

    @gje627 said...

    one 5-round fight; that being Curtis Blaydes/Junior Dos Santos. The rest are 3 rounds.

    Thank you gje.

  • gje627

    @joephoto said...

    Thank you gje.

    No problem …

    Based on your question, I edited my post with a Rule-of-Thumb. Not sure if you saw it, but it may help for future fight cards.

  • thevogaman

    @gje627 said...

    Can’t remember the fight, but this happened relatively recently;

    I think Zabit had a 3 round ME on short-notice at that Russia card.

    Thanks for all the info Gje… I think I’ll be surprised if Darko is above 60% owned though. I’ll be way underweight to that if he is. I just worry he wins, but he doesn’t have a good enough score. Interested to see if the switch to Elevation and his back against the wall forces him to fight with some more urgency.

    Finally taping Landwehr and I’m thinking I’m all-in on this fight with Burns. Starting every lineup with Landwehr and then swapping for Burns in the next one. We’ll see how that turns out. I think Burns will be higher owned, so 50ish% of Landwehr could work out well for some leverage.

  • gje627

    @thevogaman said...

    I think Zabit had a 3 round ME on short-notice at that Russia card.

    Thanks for all the info Gje… I think I’ll be surprised if Darko is above 60% owned though. I’ll be way underweight to that if he is. I just worry he wins, but he doesn’t have a good enough score. Interested to see if the switch to Elevation and his back against the wall forces him to fight with some more urgency.

    Finally taping Landwehr and I’m thinking I’m all-in on this fight with Burns. Starting every lineup with Landwehr and then swapping for Burns in the next one. We’ll see how that turns out. I think Burns will be higher owned, so 50ish% of Landwehr could work out well for some leverage.

    Darko is a reasonable dog, and at 7700?

    Important: Also need to mention this with regards to ownership projections. I hate them and never use them (I’ve been consistent on this … see the deep-dark-hallows of RG archives and you’ll see) and only run them when asked …. Clever?

    Why do I hate them?

    Because they make no sense.

    Ownership percentages will all be contest specific … In other words, a 150 max entry, 40,000 total entry GPP, where max entry players can diversity and need to take risks to win big is substantially different than a single-entry, 200 total entry Cash contest where chalk rules the day and safety pays dividends since place order doesn’t matter as long as you place within the top 50-60%.

    Also, importantly, and this is a HUGE CRITICISM of projection sites, RG included … is that not a single one of them offers up their methodology for how they determine anything … projections, ownership %, etc …

    If I had my own guru site… wink, wink, Clever :) … I would offer up my full methodology to my subscribers … shortcomings and all !!

    Even in these forum posts … where I don’t even get paid … I spend an extraordinary amount time/space explaining exactly how I came up with my numbers … and I even admit to possible problems and shortcomings with what I’ve done ….

    My conclusion?

    Always take fantasy points projections, ownership projections, etc. with a grain-of-salt when a site is unwilling or unable to explain their precise methodology … wouldn’t be surprised for some sites, if they didn’t simply go to two competing sites and average the two other sites’ projections, etc ….

    …..

    On another, note (the rambling continues) … all data tables, projections, etc. on each and every site should be downloadable. If we pay for projections, we should be able to sort, manipulate, etc. how we please.

    Moreover, for some data and metrics, the excuse that this-and-this, and that-is-that is proprietary by our data provider is BS. All sports data is in the public domain. Additionally, unless you’ve developed a proprietary metric, those metrics are in the public domain (metrics means different things to different people … here I define metric as mathematically taking the values of two or more variables, and combining/manipulating into a third measure) …. In baseball think ERA, wOBA, WRC+, OPS+, BABIP, ISO, etc.) …. These are moneyball metrics, most developed a long time ago by Bill James … when a data provider provides these metrics to a website, they are not the proprietary property of the data provider, but (with very few exceptions) also in the public domain.

    Wow, that was a strange and belabored response to a Vogaman’s completely inoffensive post.

    Sorry. :)

  • X Unread Thread
  • X Thread with New Replies*
  • *Jumps to your first unread reply

Subforum Index

RotoGrinders.com is the home of the daily fantasy sports community. Our content, rankings, member blogs, promotions and forum discussion all cater to the players that like to create a new fantasy team every day of the week.

Bet with your head, not over it!
Gambling Problem? Call 1-800-Gambler