Of course not. The stake is always determined by the risk. I don't do average confidence, average confidence + bookies prices loses. Only likely or extremely likely in my mind Well for this I just did a double of the two I liked which was Celtic and Roma as they were best priced and I liked them more than some of the others so it made sense. I do between 20-50 on a double normally, lower for a treble and I rarely do more than that. 20-100 on boxing though I have done really big ones occasionally if something stands out but not in a while. Probably not since Katsidis/Casamayor have I done a really big bet.
By average confidence I meant your average confidence level for a result you bet on (which as you say is either likely or extremely likely ) as against a result you really really like. The stake range for the type of bet pretty much answered my question. :happy Checked my bet history recently and I'm only marginally up. I need to start thinking about my strategy more if I'm to win anything. Have been just spreading bets around with no strategy or consistency. I've been guilty of placing far too many small stake bets at relatively long odds.
Long odds and short odds are both bad strategy unless its really selective because over time you can never beat the bookmakers math when they are creaming off the top of the prices in their favour. I started off like that in university, hoping to land the jackpot with minimal risk but I was losing too much and it added up over a period. Suddenly I'd check my history realize I'm £100 down for the month...Shittttt I was startled. But eventually when I found a formula that works for me I actually paid off most of my university debt before getting a job. I had debt of £15,000 and over 3 years I chipped it down. That sounds a lot but over 3 years it isn't and I did that without risking life and limb. Try and keep around evens - 2/1 odds and see what happens, as long as your knowledge of your chosen markets is good I think it will turn out more healthy.
Leiknir 2 - 3 KR They did win in the end, but I think the scoreline probably justified the decision in the end. They were 3-0 up actually and pegged back with 8 mins to go. I bet it was frantic at the end, the 1/3 presumably wasn't looking so good
Barnes is the one, just if he can get through that first round he's the most gifted fighter in it, that first round is the tricky one because it'll be a tactical battle between two good boxers lacking confidence after lay offs. Dunno, feels like just 10 for me. Can't say I have a high degree of certainty about any of them but I'm just looking forward to watching it.
If Barnes had any other fighter in the first round i would be very very confident of him winning. Long lay off plus Lyno isn't and ideal start in this.