Jean Pascal vs. Lucian Bute

...oh and by the way, if you don't like that style of expressing odds don't blame the US. :yep That is the British style, which I happen to prefer.

The European style is decimal odds. (1.80 - which includes the integer "1" to represent your $1 stake plus the .80 you stand to profit and expressing the entire sum return of $1.80 on a dollar bet...IMO this is too complicated as the "1" is redundant, of course you get your stake back, the odds should only indicate how much you stand to profit in simple terms, as British style does...)

The American style is moneyline. In this case for Pascal, where he is 4/5 expressed the British/fractional way and 1.80 the Euro/decimal way he is -125 the American/moneyline way. :good The idea there is you would need to put yourself $125 "in the hole" (thus favorites are expressed negatively) to profit $100. I find this needlessly confusing, even more than European odds. I like British style best, although some tastes may differ.

http://www.boxingforum24.com/showthread.php?t=187471

 

Speaking of Froch, even weight drained with one foot out the door of the super middleweight division Pascal managed to make Froch go life and death.

Sure, it's a valid point that Froch improved from then until knocking Bute out - but so did Pascal himself, with the move up in weight helping enormously. He was very good at 168 and even better at 175 (barring the Kuziemski performance).

 

...but they aren't expressing just the 57 cents, otherwise it would be 0.57 instead of 1.57 - see what I mean? You have to put in the additional mental step of subtracting the 1 before the decimal point (your initial wager) to reveal your profit - which takes no more effort than simply observing the fraction 57/100 and knowing you stand to reap a net gain of fifty-seven hundredths of a dollar (fifty-seven cents). As long as the fractions are simple - you happen to have chosen an example of a more awkward one there :yep - most people don't need to do arithmetic in their head anyway. Everybody who ever went to grade school knows right off the bat just by looking that 4/5 = 80%, 3/4 = 75%, 1/2 = 50%, etc.

 

In that case yes, but you deliberately gave an example like that which is hardly usual. Most odds are simple fractions, if you check the vBookie section or aggregate sites like oddschecker.com :thumbsup

 

Well, it's right in front of you - along with that superfluous 1. :yep

Then it gets more complicated when dealing with underdogs.

For instance, let's flip that 4/7 favorite and say we're discussing a 7/4 underdog. Seven divided by four equals 1.75 (not really hard arithmetic, in fact it should be literally effortless) - meaning if you bet a dollar you get $1.75 in profit should you win. Now look at the European style of expression for the same odds. It would be 2.75 - wtf? :? So now you must subtract an entire 1 from that in order to see your potential 1.75 earnings.

Or for an 11/4 underdog, expressed in the Euro style as 3.20 - which route is simpler to deduce the amount you can profit? Simply doing a quick solve on 11/4 (for some of us automatic just by looking at it) as your brain is trained instinctively to do any time you see a fraction, or having to always remember to subtract 1 because the European odds don't just show you the profit up front?

Of course, American is the worst by far. 11/4 and 3.20 are both vastly superior expressions to +220. :!:

 

Yeah but you have to remember that you're supposed to do it every time you look at European odds. Fractions are fractions, you always know what they are by looking at them. Only in European does it reflect not what the actual profit is but what the actual profit is plus a random 1 that you inconveniently have to know to exclude.