Why Was Trinidad Such A Big Favorite Vs Hopkins

[MikeyMike100]

Bernard Hopkins made 12 consecutive title defenses as a middleweight and Tito was the smaller guy moving up. Also Tito had been throughly out boxed by Oscar De La Hoya and been giving a controversial decision?

I wasnt around watching boxing then so please help me understand why was Trinidad a 3/1 favorite?

[Willie Pep 229]

Latinos have more money than American Blacks.

Betting odds are set, and move, according to the action (betting). They are NOT set as a prediction of the outcome by experts, as often believed.

They are set by bookmakers to induce the most possible action. (Bookmakers take their profit off the top.)

Latinos bet more on boxing than American Blacks, so the odds on Hopkins needed to be longer to induce more Hopkins money.

That is why betting on boxing can be occasionally profitable - if you can keep a clear unbias head you can take advantage of others biases.

Cultural pride can make for some very ****** betters.

Most recently White people poured money down the drain on Loma-Lopez. A 5k bet on Lopez got you 13.5k payoff. Most of the self-proclaimed experts on this forum saw what was coming and were, pre-fight, already making excuses for Loma's loss based on Lopez's size. Yet White betters still threw money away on Loma.

P.S. Also in the more conventional sense . . . Hopkins stopped Oscar after he fought Tito so we didn't know about that triangle logic at the time and despite a poor showing against Del La Hoya Trinidad was 40-0 at the time of the fight.

[QueensburyRules]

I wasnt around watching boxing then so please help me understand why was Trinidad a 3/1 favorite?

- -Tito was walking on water by then while Popkins still slogging in the mud of middling career known to quit and bust out squallin' when the going got rough.

It's the way he finished his career.

[DeeMoney]

Trinidad was in his 20s a good looking kid with a dynamite left hook, I remember the ladies always cheered for Trinidad. Hopkins was on the wrong side of 35 and fought grimy. As was stated above, its about balancing the bets and Trinidad had a following.

[MikeyMike100]

- -Tito was walking on water by then while Popkins still slogging in the mud of middling career known to quit and bust out squallin' when the going got rough.

It's the way he finished his career.

But DLH beat Trinidad in most peoples view so why was Tito losing so un thinkable ?

[ShoulderRoll]

Everybody likes the puncher.

It takes a more discerning eye to appreciate the crafty boxer.

[siablo14]

Latinos have more money than American Blacks.

Betting odds are set, and move, according to the action (betting). They are NOT set as a prediction of the outcome by experts, as often believed.

They are set by bookmakers to induce the most possible action. (Bookmakers take their profit off the top.)

Latinos bet more on boxing than American Blacks, so the odds on Hopkins needed to be longer to induce more Hopkins money.

That is why betting on boxing can be occasionally profitable - if you can keep a clear unbias head you can take advantage of others biases.

Cultural pride can make for some very ****** betters.

Most recently White people poured money down the drain on Loma-Lopez. A 5k bet on Lopez got you 13.5k payoff. Most of the self-proclaimed experts on this forum saw what was coming and were, pre-fight, already making excuses for Loma's loss based on Lopez's size. Yet White betters still threw money away on Loma.

P.S. Also in the more conventional sense . . . Hopkins stopped Oscar after he fought Tito so we didn't know about that triangle logic at the time and despite a poor showing against Del La Hoya Trinidad was 40-0 at the time of the fight.

Red - Money is to be made off the Pinays(lol) on here from the Spence-Pacquiao fight.

[billeau2]

But DLH beat Trinidad in most peoples view so why was Tito losing so un thinkable ?

Casuals = Look at the judge's decision to determine who won the fight. Pundits= Look at the actual fights.

Las Vegas makes its bones on ****** Money. Once you follow this sport for more than about 15 years, you realize you would be better off playing local lotteries than betting on a fight, even when you are sure you will be correct... Judges don't get it right more than 50%. There is nothing more frustrating than seeing you were right and being a s s fcked by the corrupt judges.

My point in mentioning this is that unless one is a professional gambler, like Dwyer, the odds in Vegas often reflect sensible outcomes at the beginning, then some smart money comes in, and then all the dumb money. I would be willing to bet that ****** money pushed up the Trinidad odds. I well remember knowing Hopkins would be too strong, too technically sound for Tito. But I also had learned... not to bet money and be in need of the judges to confirm the obvious.

And... regarding De Lo Hoya? look at the first thing posted.

[The Common Man]

Trinidad was the bigger fighter when the fight got signed, at the 10 day pre-weigh in, at the official weigh in, and on fight night. The narrative that Trinidad was the smaller man just because he moved up from a weight class he could no longer make is patently false.

[mrbig1]

You have to ask yourself who did Hopkins fight up to that point in his career. Tito had the better resume. Before the fight I was asking my boxing pals if Tito was tough enough. I know he had the skills along with good speed and some pop in his punch. You have to be tough in order to beat Hopkins. plus, Hopkins was a very smart fighter. So, on paper Tito was the betting favorite. The fight is not fought on paper.