Guarenteed way of making money on Khan v Malignaggi

[ai786]

Originally Posted by The taff

If you were putting on £500 to make £2000, fair enough, but £2000 to make £500? too much risk. There is no guarantee Khan will win, although he probably will, it's too big a risk for the reward.

I remember when Ricky Hatton said "put your house on me winning my fight against Manny".

must be a few homeless people about now.

I know £2,000 is a big risk, but i really feel its an easy £500. I just can't see Malignaggi winning this.

[trotter]

Originally Posted by Shrewd_dude

This is possibly one of the best mug punter posts i've read. You won't put money on good odds because it normally fails and if you put money on the underdog it has to be because you think it will win not because of the odds.

Basically saying you will back short priced odds even if it is too short because it has more chance of winning but you won't back an odds against shot even if it is far bigger than it should be because you don't have a feeling it will win. Ridiculous.

So if someone sees a fight with 1/2 shot v a 11/8 in their head they shouldn't back the 11/8 shot at 15/8 because its good value odds just because it 'normally' fails. Also if a 2/1 underdog is 5/1 they shouldn't back it unless they 'really' think it will win.

He was pretty much spot on.

People who get hardons about 'value' generally gamble too much, and lose overall, no doubt. As do people who talk about 'mug punters' - the mugs are the guys handing over their hard earned, thinking they know enough to win consistently... when they don't.

Backing something because it's priced wrong - even though you don't fancy it - is stupid in my book, speaking as an average guy who has the odd bet.


Nothing is quite as stupid as this dickheads talk of 'guarantees' though.

[ai786]

Originally Posted by trotter

He was pretty much spot on.

People who get hardons about 'value' generally gamble too much, and lose overall, no doubt. As do people who talk about 'mug punters' - the mugs are the guys handing over their hard earned, thinking they know enough to win consistently... when they don't.

Backing something because it's priced wrong - even though you don't fancy it - is stupid in my book, speaking as an average guy who has the odd bet.


Nothing is quite as stupid as this dickheads talk of 'guarantees' though.

F off it is a guarantee dick!

[PaddyD1983]

Originally Posted by Beeston Brawler

Winning doesn't automatically make something a smart bet.

I'm sure every gambler has made a bet at some point that they won, but learned a lesson not to repeat it in future.

I certainly know I wouldn't shove £2k on Khan to beat anybody, especially at 1/5 - when really he shouldn't be any shorter than 4/9.

A smart bet in this one would be Khan on points, even money. No more than £20-30.

If you fancy a dabble at £2k shove it on Chisora to stop Williams.

It'll go 12

For easy money, put it all on Leeds to go straight back down next year...

[Beeston Brawler]

Originally Posted by PaddyD1983

It'll go 12

For easy money, put it all on Leeds to go straight back down next year...

Not sure I'd have the stones to put £2k on any fight, especially Danny Williams - even though everything points to him being chinned bad.

Leeds

[ai786]

two more days till my £500 quid payday lol.

[Shrewd_dude]

Originally Posted by trotter

He was pretty much spot on.

People who get hardons about 'value' generally gamble too much, and lose overall, no doubt. As do people who talk about 'mug punters' - the mugs are the guys handing over their hard earned, thinking they know enough to win consistently... when they don't.

Backing something because it's priced wrong - even though you don't fancy it - is stupid in my book, speaking as an average guy who has the odd bet.


Nothing is quite as stupid as this dickheads talk of 'guarantees' though.

Okay so if I toss a coin and ask you whether you fancy heads or tails and you say tails. Then I open a market offering odds of 6/4 on heads and 1/2 on tails you're saying you wouldn't back heads because you wouldn't back something you didn't think would win because that would be 'stupid'?

[ai786]

Originally Posted by Shrewd_dude

Okay so if I toss a coin and ask you whether you fancy heads or tails and you say tails. Then I open a market offering odds of 6/4 on heads and 1/2 on tails you're saying you wouldn't back heads because you wouldn't back something you didn't think would win because that would be 'stupid'?

thats not a good example, heads and tails is 50/50, Amir khan and Paulie Malignaggi is not 50-50 its 100-0 Khan all the way, anyone with a brain will lump it on Khan to make some cash.

[icemax]

"Guarantee" suggests that you will be compensating people who follow your advice but who are out of pocket when Khan loses...is this the case? and if so, where do I sign up?

[JonOli]

So you think Khan will more than likely win? well thanks for that amazing revelation, it's not like every bookie in the land says the same.

Also, please check out the definition of guaranteed.

[bigboxingfan]

This is no guarantee.

I see Khan winning so I have $85 on him. But not getting a lot to win- $17. Pretty shitty bet but I am very confident that Khan will win.

I'm also betting on Katsidis (who is the betting underdog)

[ImElvis666]

Originally Posted by boxingscience

like you i'm a very good gambler. i also did the mayweather win over mosley after mayweather got hurt at odds 4/5. i also did dirrell to beat abraham. ward to beat kessler, and martinez to beat pavlik. like i said i'm very good, but not even i would put money on khan. too dodgy. he's a fighter who i just don't feel confident in. i got confidence in his ability, but i'm going to be crapping myself everytime a punch lands on him, and that there is just not for me.

your bet should come through. if i had a choice i would choose khan, but not at them odds. no way.

Your virtual cash accumulation says otherwise.

[ImElvis666]

Originally Posted by ai786

thats not a good example, heads and tails is 50/50, Amir khan and Paulie Malignaggi is not 50-50 its 100-0 Khan all the way, anyone with a brain will lump it on Khan to make some cash.

Nothing is 100-0 in boxing you idiot. Christ, how can you claim to know so much about betting and come out with a statement like that. What if Khan twists his ankle and stuggles. If Paulie manages to cut Khan badly and force a stoppage, what if Khan gets disqualified. All it takes is an upset like that to swiftly change your "guaranteed result" mentality.

Betting on Khan is a decent enough bet, but nothing is 100%

[Danny-boy]

khan walked over kotelnik because he was too fast for him

he destroyed salita because he was glass jawed

paulie has the speed to compete with khan and a chin which will take his punches

this guy has been in with cotto and hatton, and to think khan will do what they couldn't and KO him (hatton was lucky the towl was thrown in, otherwise it would have been going the distance) is mad in my opinion

this fight is going the distance with a clear khan decision, at least 4-5 rounds ahead, and my £20 is on it at evens

[cankerd]

Originally Posted by ai786

I know £2,000 is a big risk, but i really feel its an easy £500. I just can't see Malignaggi winning this.

...tense, nervous, headache...