Boxing Betting

Trust me, you can feel sure, doesn't mean it is

I like a gamble and the feeling you describe is true, and of course many times I've had it, and many times I've been right and won a few quid

But the day you think you are 110% right is the day you should stop gambling


Of course what you are describing is actually looking for value in the market anyway, which is entirely different from a 'sure thing'. If you were sure about Mayweather and Pac you'd put your mortgage on it, whatever the odds.

Which I presume you didn't?

You are a cautious gambler, that's all.

 

It's quite simple. Lazcano is 9/1 so if you think he has a greater than 10% chance of winning you put some money on him. If you don't then don't.

 

You have a horrible understanding of how probability works.

Here's a clue. You can't place a bet on things that 'will happen' because a bookmaker will not take the bet. Try going to Ladbrokes and asking for odds that tomorrow will be Sunday as a test.

You can only bet on things that have a certain probability of happening or not happening. People who actually understand that know that it is not relevant what that probability actually is, but how it relates to the odds being offered.

In other words, just because something has a higher probability of happening doesn't automatically make betting on it correct. Nor does something having a low probability of happening mean that it can't be a good bet. It all depends what odds are being offered.

 

I don't need to waste my time telling you about betting.

The thing here is that nobody even thinks Lazcano is going to win, it's just the stupid "he's 9/1 so it's worth putting a tenner on it" attitude.
I think it's nonesense.

I bet on what I THINK based on what I've seen are sure things when bookies don't agree. I don't get the... put money on an outsider because maybe he might win.

 

If I believed Lazcano was 2/1 to win, that would still mean he probably won't.

I'd rather take Hatton at 1/25, because then I'll probably make money instead of losing it. Of course I wouldn't do that either because the odds don't make sence.

Hence I'm not betting on this fight. I'll wait for Mayweather W12 De La Hoya II... or other such bets.

 

Yes I know. As do the majority of people. There's a reason why bookmaking is a profitable business.

If Lazcano's real chances of winning are actually 12%, then that makes betting on him at the available best odds a profitable scenario. If Hatton's real chances of winning are 85% then that makes betting on him a losing scenario. A bookmaker would want you to bet on Hatton, and not on Lazcano, in those scenarios, even though the likelihood is that Hatton will win.

 

This man is correct. You're not looking to win an individual bet, you're looking to make long term profit. If that means losing 8 bets and winning one then fine.

 

I don't think he is right. Just because a fighter has a 10% chance of winning it doesn't mean that if he fights 10 times he wins one of them. This isn't rolling a dice. He's got a 10% chance every time and therefore will probably lose 10 times.

I have never handed money to a bookmaker expecting to not get it back. I don't understand that.

 

Erm, statistically that's exactly what it means. Though if you ran ten fights he could win none, one or more. If you ran the scenario enough times to take variation out of it as much as possible, then the fighter with the 10% chance would win 10% of the time.

 

But in that case you may aswell just bet on anything, because the bookies have the odds perfectly correct.

Put money on 10/1 bets, 1/100 bets, 5/4... you'll end up just getting your money back... Not in my experience.

This is sport, you're betting on fighters, and backing 10/1 shots you do not win 1 out of 10. No way.

 

Which is why you wait until you think the bookies have it wrong for whatever reason. If the bookies' odds imply Lazcano has a 10% chance and you agree then yes there is no point in betting. If you believe his chance of winning is sufficiently above 10% to make it worth your while then you go for it.

 

Not sure what you're on about now. Your previous example referenced the actual chances of something happening, not the bookmaker's odds offered.

You are correct that you would not statistically win one out of ten backing a 10/1 shot (or a 9/1 I guess you mean). The reason for that is that bookmakers odds do not just convert the real % chance into a decimal form, they also build in an advantage for the bookmaker (commonly called the over-round). Hence, if you convert bookmakers odds for any event into percentages, you will find that the total comes to more than 100%. This, however, applies to the lower odds just as much as the higher ones.

If you bet on events that have an actual 10% chance of happening then, yes, you will win one in ten in the long term. Because that's exactly what that means.

 

This is probably the least understood principle in sports betting.

People look at a sporting event, and look for which is the 'value bet' assuming that there must be one there.

As you say, this will depend on the odds being wrong (and being sufficiently wrong to overcome the advantage the bookmaker has from any overround).

In most cases, the correct decision to make is not to bet on the event at all.

 

So YOU are making up the 10% chance of winning, as opposed to a bookie pricing something 9/1 and therefore THEM calling it a 10% chance.

OK, it's not betting that I believe makes sense. Backing odds that still mean you'll probably lose. By your own percentages, you think you're backing a loser. It's not something I'd ever do.