I've got £950 on Guzman to beat Arthur

How about you tell everyone the bookie that's giving you 1/4?

 

It's actually quite a sensible bet if he did get 1/4. Bookies make money off stupid bets that never win. And does Arthur really have a 1 in 4 chance of winning this fight? :-(

 

Yup, £950 @ 1/4 gets you back the grand reward of £1,190!! You are gambling (regardless of how you choose to phrase it) 950 of your own money to win a sum of £240 profit! The old 'risk v reward' curve would suggest that you are not really a gambling genius!

Even if Guzman wins, i'm not sure you should bump this thread, as it is a stupid bet that makes you look like a twat! If I started with a tenner, I am sure I would make more than the £250 quid gambling on football accumulators between now and fightnight!

In order for a bet to work, you really should consider when the bet will materialise (ie. what can the cash you have locked with the bookies win in other bets between now and fightime); whether the reward is worth the risk (ie, gambling 950 to clear 250 profit is not smart). You clearly have ignored this and came on here talking up a stupid bet on a 2 horse race!:good

You make me laugh my simple friend! Before your next bet, try and balance the risk and reward curve!

Finzwinz
(Always happy to help mungtards):hi:

 

I'm guessing you haven't won too many bets in your life,
I remember hearing someone put £20,000 on Phil Taylor to win a first round match a couple of years ago at 1/50 to win £400... to me that is risk/reward stupidity.

1/4 on Arthur beating Guzman is a sound bet. It's how you make money if you have sense. Arthur DOES NOT have a 1 in 4 chance of beating Guzman.

 

Most likely he'll make his £240 BUT its a poor risk-reward ratio. What if Guzman has a **** night, maybe he gets a stumach bug, maybe Arthur hurts him early, or maybe Arthur just happens to have the style to win rounds

What if Mr Warren asks the judges to look at Arthurs work more favourably than Guzmans?

Guzman could win 8-4 and still lose the decision

 

It suprises me how many of you don't know betting at all. 1/4 (If he got those odds) is not a bad risk-reward ratio bet.

If you place 5 bets on different 1/4 odds you can lose 1 and still be up. But if you know how to pick good ones, you should be able to win 19 out of 20 bets at 1/4 odds...

I think Guzman is 1/10 to 1/15 in reality to win this fight. 1/4 is great odds. Best I can see are 1/7, so I won't be placing anything on the fight because those odds aren't great.

 

But using your methodology, if you put 8 bets on at 1/7, you should still win; and as such the odds shouldn't matter if you bet on a related volume????
I think it is madness personally betting at 1/4. The chap has also not alluded to having 5 bets on at 1/4....he has one single 1/4 bet (with all the cash he can free I imagine - ie 950 rather than a grand) - and to say that it is worth gambling 950 to win 250 in a boxing match (when 1 punch changes everything) is IMO a silly bet! I am a regular gambler with reasonable success. I do not allude (unlike yourself) to be some sort of 'Michael Jordan' of the gambling scene!

Now if you think the risk/reward curve is balanced in this particular bet, I think you stand to lose a lot of money at some point in your gambling career!

 

I don't have a gambling career, but I place around 5 bets a year when I'm confident. And I haven't lost a bet for years.

If I think the "real" odds of something happening are 1/20 and the odds at a bookies are 1/2... I put a lot of money on that bet. Twice it has happened in boxing in the last few years Pacquiao-Morales III and Mayweather-Hatton. the later being even better than 1/2 come fight time.
You stake £2000 on each those bets you bring back £3000 a time. For a 1/20 bet.

But I've taken worse odds than that 1/4 on Mayweather-Baldomir, 1/7 on Taylor-Spinks, and I was very excited about 1/3 on Guzman-Katsidis before it was called off.

1/7 for Guzman-Arthur in Scotland isn't good enough for me, but 1/4 I'd think about.

I presume the boy who made this thread bets regularly, it's not the kind of bet I'd expect as a one-off.

 

You can possibly discuss whether or not the 'risk v reward' equation without some reference to the actual odds of the event that you're discussing happening or not happening.

The fact that you choose to do so instantly suggests that you haven't the faintest clue what you're on about.

 

But you need to place such large bets to make any substancial profit. You'd need to bet a car to win a holiday.

Look at recent fights, you could easily have lost a tonne of money on Diaz/Campbell. There have also been other upsets recently.

 

I made a similar bet on Spinks to beat Phillips not too long ago atsch

 

Yeah i'm a good picker usually but i'm at 69% this year....

 

And if you put the correct 6 numbers on the lottery you make a £3,000,000 profit.

Who knew Campbell would beat Diaz? It was a BIG upset. If you bet on upsets you normally lose.

The last "upset" I won on was 3/1 Rampage to beat Chuck in the rematch... but we'd already seen that fight - and he'd smashed Chuck before.

 

The amount you 'need' to bet is irrelevant.

If you make bets where the odds favour you, then you make a profit. If you generally make bets where the odds do not favour you, you make a loss.

That means a 1/20 bet can be a good one and a 20/1 bet can be a bad one. Or vice versa.

The amount you bet is down to management of your bankroll.