Boxing Betting

This is understood. But I take that and only back things I think will win.

 

Exactly. I always keep an eye on the latest boxing odds but find there is very rarely something worth betting on. I think the best time to look for generous odds is when a guy with a large fan base like Hatton or DLH is fighting. The opponent's odds get pushed out a bit. I think Mayweather ended up at something like 2/3 for the Hatton fight and that was good enough for me to put some money on it.

 

From what I've seen of Lazcano in training for this fight, he looks finished. Hatton is going for the KO in this one. Only way to come back, I figure.

If you want to bet on this fight, I'd bet on Hatton by stoppage.

 

You only back things you think will win. Okay so say I have a bag with 10 balls in it. One is red and the others are blue. I'm going to pick one at random and am offering 100/1 that the red one will be picked. You wouldn't bet on it because you don't think the red one will win?

 

You miss the point that it's not just about what you think will happen but also about what odds you can get. No statement about betting on a fight should be made without some consideration of the odds.

 

The 'value' in this fight is Hatton on points.

Hence why I backed that.

 

You might well be right. 7/4 at Bet365.

 

I'm also tempted to throw a few quid on Lazcano.

I think he might stop Hatton with body shots late on.

Not sure whether Lazcano's appalling speed and long arms on the inside are going to help though, so it's an outside chance as the odds suggest.

 

I wouldn't, you're correct. I don't put money on raffles.

I actually cannot pay a bookie money knowing that the chances are I'll never see it again. It's not a good thing to do.

 

So you accept what we're saying about probability and the relationship between the odds offered and actual chance of an event happening, but would still rather put money on a bet with a higher chance of return, but which is guaranteed to lose you money in the long term, rather than one with less chance of immediate return which is guaranteed to win you money in the long term?

See, this is what seems bizarre to me.

 

How is betting on things you're confident of winning "guaranteed to lose money in the long term"?

 

Because if you keep betting for low rewards then you don't make a lot when you win and you'll take a big hit if you lose.

 

professional punters don't bet on what they think will win, they bet when the price of offer is higher than the true price.
so, opinions and knowledge are useless, no matter how well informed, unless said person has the ability to assess the probabilities and use that to convert knowledge into numbers.

 

It doesn't matter whether you're 'confident of them winning'. If the chance of them winning is less than the odds offered, then you will lose in the long term. That's fairly simple maths.

 

And when have I ever said I bet on fights that "the chances of winning is less than the odds offered", I've said the exact opposite.