This is one of those fights in which i can see anything happening except maybe Pavlik on points: Can see Martinez getting a decision Can see Pavlik getting a KO/TKO Not THAT unlikely that Martinez catches Pavlik clean coming in and KO's him I respect the people that are putting money down on this fight because in my opinion it is completely 50/50 ... either man could win People betting on Martinez seem to be overlooking the fact that this fight is at 160 - natural power and size are on Kelly's side People betting on Pavlik are overlooking how one dimensional Pavlik is... literally has one combination
You don't bet on X because you think X will win. You bet on X because you think the odds on X winning don't reflect the actual probability of them winning. Example: Even though I'm not more than 50% sure Martinez will win, I've put 2,250 vCash on Martinez to win a decision because the odds were 11/4, which gives him less of a chance than he actually has.
I only bet on a fighter to win if I think he will win and if the odds underrate his chances. I don't see the point of betting on a fighter I think will lose, unless he has at least a 40% chance of winning and the odds underrate him by a country mile.
Yes, this is the stance i would take - although i see the other posters point i don't see the point in throwing money down the toilet just because you get good odds on it
So if you're 80% sure Mayweather will beat Mosley, but the odds on Mosley winning are 999,999,999,999,999/1, you aren't putting anything on Mosley? Your method is wrong.
When was the last time bookies gave odds of 999,999,999,999,999/1 on a 20% chance of winning? They don't usually even give 5/1! I wouldn't bet on Mosley to win at 5/1 if I thought his chances were 20%.
You're missing my point. If Mosley's chances were, say, 30%, but the odds were 6/1, you'd be stupid not to bet on him.
I'm not sure about being stupid. I wouldn't bet on Mosley if he only had a 30% chance of winning if the odds were 6/1. I understand how the "expected return" calculation works and what it entails. But instead of betting small amounts fairly often, playing the expected return game, I prefer to bet slightly bigger amounts less frequently, only on fairly close fights and only when the odds, in my estimation, are underrating the fighter I bet on by a fair bit. I have found from experience that I make more money this way, over the year.
Why don't you try to only bet on the underdog when you think the odds are attractive, to see whether you will make much money over a year. I will stick to my system because it works for me.
I gamble on sports for a living. Albeit not much on boxing as the lines are usually extremely sharp. Anyway, itrymariti, your theory is not a sound one. Opposed to your assertion that you bet on X because you think the odds on X winning don't reflect the actual probability of them winning, you should in fact bet not to lose. That is all. In this case you are wrong. Often, you may make bets because you get great value on a side, but you will never, ever be a successful gambler in the long term if you bet on dogs that you think have a 30% chance of winning but are paying 6/1. And just FYI, I'm on Pavlik pretty heavy tonight.
I don't bet on odds, I bet on winners. Only if the odds are ridiculous do I exempt this rule (Which are extenuating circumstances).
I put $200 on +350 Martinez decision which equals to around $650 return... I put $100 on the over which nets around $80... Pretty much if Pavlik wins by dec I lose $20 and have a possible return of $700+ if Martinez wins... If pavlik wins by KO then that's a lose and I have to take it.
