Here is how you bet. Bet on the guy you don't want to win. That way, if you lose money, at least your guy won and if you're guy loses, you win money. That way you come out with something positive in every fight. If you bet on fighters from bias, or dislike for the opponent, you're going to have a lot of heartache and money loss.
This makes sense if one is a ******** hobbyist, but I get the impression that the OP (among others around this joint) might be other than hobbyists.
Sorry i don't understand those odds... Can somebody please translate them into decimal odds.. Eg $1.50 (which means you get $1.50 for your one dollar).
Sorry i don't understand those odds... Can somebody please translate them into decimal odds.. Eg $1.50 (which means you get $1.50 for your one dollar).
This makes sense if one is a ******** hobbyist, but I get the impression that the OP (among others around this joint) might be other than hobbyists.
With cuts, early stoppages, bad decisions, corrupt judges, out of shape fighters, a bad style matchup, all the sht in Boxing, someone has to have a screw loose to bet on Boxing for money reason....Boxing is TOO unpredictable.
With cuts, early stoppages, bad decisions, corrupt judges, out of shape fighters, a bad style matchup, all the sht in Boxing, someone has to have a screw loose to bet on Boxing for money reason....Boxing is TOO unpredictable.
Here's the thing......all of the things you just mentioned, are ALL taken into account by anyone that's really betting.
Boxing is a lot more predictable, than say, the NBA.
Rigo was never +1000. The guy in that thread didn't know what he was talking about.
It would take a billionaire to move odds from +1000 to +180.
It was just that 1 website that made Donaire -1000 and also made rigo +200, which was still the same as the consensus among almost all odd makers, rigo being a 2-1 underdog.
Comment