Betting to Risk Free Fights

[cabron]

Would you be able to decide which fight could be risk free that you will bet your weekly pay despite the small odd like 1.50 or would you still rethink if there is an upset like Weili Zhang and Rose Namajunas.  

How about Jairzinho Rozenstruik vs Augusto Sakai, is this a risk free fight to you?



Jairzinho Rozenstruik by the way is the one that did the nasty cuts to Allistair's mouth.

[1715447367]

1715447367

[1715447367]

1715447367

[Darker45]

Is there even such a thing as a risk-free fight? I mean, both fighters are going to meet each other because they are still a match regardless of the fact that one of them is a favorite and the other underdog.

I do decide on which of the two is probably going to win, but that is not saying the one I picked for my money is going to be the sure winner. The risk of losing is always there.

1.50 is not even the lowest of odds. It is not the most lop-sided of matches.

For as long as the two fighters have complete hands and feet, anybody could turn out the winner.

[mu_enrico]

1.5 is nothing compared to Mayweather vs Paul (before they took it down). I think it should have been the closest risk-free fight as the odd is crap.
If both fighters professional, there is no such thing as "risk-free fight." Yes #7 vs #17 is a tremendous gap, but not risk-free.

[Oshosondy]

There is nothing like risk-free in matches, even if the certainty of wining is 99.99%, the 0.1% still means the winner can be anyone. If my the chance of winning can be very high, but that does not mean the person that have such high probability of wining can not lose. Even in previous match cases, there has been many cases of someone that have high probability of wining ended up losing. 100% guarantee is uncertain.

[Kemarit]

I agree, there's no such thing as risk free fight in any sports, so I'm not going to bet on it. I would rather do my own analysis first and see if there could be an upset going to happen. Unless you have a lot of money and willing to put a huge amount @1.50 to get a decent profit, for average gamblers, they might do a parlay or look for a better fight with good odds.

[acener]

Is there even such a thing as a risk-free fight? I mean, both fighters are going to meet each other because they are still a match regardless of the fact that one of them is a favorite and the other underdog.

Exactly what I have in mind when I saw the caption,
For me there is no such thing as risk free fights when it is an official match because it wouldn't be accepted if their gap is too far from each other.
Even if someone is underdog on the eyes of the people that underdog could still win and there is still a chance.
I could only consider a risk free fight if it is an underground fight where fighter could fight even amateurs who doesn't have experience.

[YOSHIE]

I see between Jairzinho Rozenstruik vs Augusto Sakai, not a tough risk challenge for me, if I want to place a bet for them, even though they are both in the category of heavyweight boxers at the moment, they both had different ranks in the boxing fight. Rozenstruik was ranked sixth and sakai was currently ranked ninth, You don't look at the rankings, you have to judge them both also in terms of the record they got during the match.

For me personally, the match between Rozenstruik vs Sakai which took place on Sunday (6/6), this week, I have a stronger bet on: Sakai, it's my right to make my choice, of course other people have their own choices in judging them both, my bet this time fell to Sakai, I took my own risk in their duel this time.

[cabron]

I agree, there's no such thing as risk free fight in any sports, so I'm not going to bet on it. I would rather do my own analysis first and see if there could be an upset going to happen. Unless you have a lot of money and willing to put a huge amount @1.50 to get a decent profit, for average gamblers, they might do a parlay or look for a better fight with good odds.

While I can agree that there are no risk free fights, still there is a higher percentage of winning against an underdog. The chances of Rose Namajunas winning against Weili Zhang is actually small but it happens somehow that small chance hit.

I see between Jairzinho Rozenstruik vs Augusto Sakai, not a tough risk challenge for me, if I want to place a bet for them, even though they are both in the category of heavyweight boxers at the moment, they both had different ranks in the boxing fight. Rozenstruik was ranked sixth and sakai was currently ranked ninth, You don't look at the rankings, you have to judge them both also in terms of the record they got during the match.

For me personally, the match between Rozenstruik vs Sakai which took place on Sunday (6/6), this week, I have a stronger bet on: Sakai, it's my right to make my choice, of course other people have their own choices in judging them both, my bet this time fell to Sakai, I took my own risk in their duel this time.

The date of the last time they fight, that's still a factor. The last fight of Sakai was September 2020.
Rozenstruik I believe will win this fight $100 at least almost a double because the odd are now 1.85. Could get batter the next day.
Adesanya vs Vettori 2 is somehow also is a risk free to me.

[wildan88]

It's betting and it's a match no one's for sure what will going to happen. There's no such thing as risk free fight in sports betting or any kind of gambling. Their stats were pretty much the same with two losses all you have to do now is to compare their fighting style and think to yourself which could have an advantage.

If you were afraid of risk then betting is not for you.

[ralle14]

From my betting experience every UFC match is like a coinflip no matter how one sided or even the odds are, the only risk free match i'd take is probably the Adesanya match against Vettori next Sunday since Stake is offering a money back promo on the match winner market.

Anyway with both fighters having a good record I think the value is on Sakai at plus odds but I don't follow these two that much and I have a bad record on UFC. 

[swogerino]

I have lost money even with 1.10 odd in my gambling experience so I don't think risk free bets exist in sport betting.
I may bet my weekly pay in a soccer game or other sport event I have high confidence it can be a win but not bet it if someone tells me to bet on this x event because it is a sure win.These things do not exist at least this is what I believe.

[Smartprofit]

In my opinion, it is very important to correctly assess the probabilities of the outcome of the battle. 

Usually experts are very subjective in this assessment.  This is due to the human factor.  People know very little about mathematical probability theory.  Therefore, there is an illusion that the fight is essentially risk-free. 

In fact, even a low-rated fighter is likely to win the fight.  In this situation, betting on the victory of the outside fighters is perhaps a perfectly reasonable idea.

[Reatim]

Would you be able to decide which fight could be risk free that you will bet your weekly pay despite the small odd like 1.50 or would you still rethink if there is an upset like Weili Zhang and Rose Namajunas.  

How about Jairzinho Rozenstruik vs Augusto Sakai, is this a risk free fight to you?



Jairzinho Rozenstruik by the way is the one that did the nasty cuts to Allistair's mouth.

Risk free fight? are you sure that you are asking about Gambling betting ? and not a Loaning Business? 

the word GAMBLING stands for RISK TAKING.

Meaning the very moment that you decide to bet you also Waving your decision to accept defeat or losses.

if you are looking for pure winning , then best you loan the funds with valid collateral .

[slaman29]

Nothing is risk free in betting, unless there are terms and conditions of course;)

Stake for example right now has a risk free bet on UFC. Bet on one guy, and if he loses, you get your money back as a free bet (so okay not entirely risk free because you HAVE to spend that freebet on 2x to get it back in cash).

But Sportsbet have had promos for Euro where if you lose, your bet is Void (money back).

[madnessteat]

Of course there are no risk-free fights, otherwise we'd all be rich by now. Even a negotiated fight cannot be considered risk-free, because no one knows how a fighter will behave in a rage.

But the proposal to use the earned money from the signature campaign on the bets, I fully support it, because if you lose, it will have a small impact on the budget.

[Jackl87]

Would you be able to decide which fight could be risk free that you will bet your weekly pay despite the small odd like 1.50 or would you still rethink if there is an upset like Weili Zhang and Rose Namajunas.  

How about Jairzinho Rozenstruik vs Augusto Sakai, is this a risk free fight to you?

Jairzinho Rozenstruik by the way is the one that did the nasty cuts to Allistair's mouth.

Like others already replied in this thread, there will never be a completely risk free bet because if that would be the case the betting companies would not offer that bet. Especially in martial arts like boxing and UFC the risk for a big upset are always there as one punch or kick can change everything and end a match basically out of nowhere anytime.
I would consider first round matches of tennis grand slams of top players vs qualifiers or matches between first division football clubs vs. 4th or 5th division football clubs in national cup championships as almost risk free but even their big upsets already happened and will continue to happen.

[Mauser]

I am not sure if I would call these fights risk free. Odds of 1.50 sound pretty nice, but I wouldn't say that they are risk free. Even if a fighter is a strong favourite to win the fight, it is no guarantee it is going to happen. Every athelete can have a some mild injuries right before the fight, or just sleep bad and have a bad day. When we bet on such low risk fights we need to beware that we could actually lose. I did a similar strategy in football matches, where I only bet on odds between 1.10 and 1.30. In 90% of the time you make small profit, but unfortunately if you bet long enough you will get to that one unlucky match where you lose it all. That is why I only bet smaller amounts now on such low risk bets.

[Ziskinberg]

There's no such thing as risk-free when you are gambling, you'll only find it risk-free if you are doing arbitrage betting which is also not an easy thing to do.

Please don't think of a "risk-free" gambling as it's only a misconception, that will lead you to more losses.  

Even the 1.01 odds could lose.

[Oasisman]

Risk-free matches? In the professional sports scene?
I mean, these are trained professionals no matter how underdog a fighter is but still they always stand a chance to win the match, and the risk is always there.
I don't have any idea how good or how bad these two fighters are, but whoever the underdog between them has always still a chance to win. So, there is no risk-free betting. There's no guaranteed win in gambling world.

[Botnake]

Low odds are not risk-free, it only has a high chance of winning but it does not guarantee a win, in fact, if you are just betting on low odds all the time, it's guaranteed that you will still lose in the long run. You gotta be smart man, look at where the value is, whether it's the favorites or the underdog, just make your own research before putting a bet, don't rely too much on the odds.

[AicecreaME]

Such thing doesn't even exist. If we are talking about bet, then risk will be always involve. Gambling is all about risk and how we manage it, gambling without any risk at all is playing gambling with free satoshis given by the gambling site or whoever sponsors your gambling addiction and not asking in return.

Another way to explain risk is, if you don't know what will happen and really wanted to know the result, that's where you are risking whatever it is to figure out what's gonna happen next.

[Hypnosis00]

The only risk free is not to gamble at all.

As per average, favorites do win most of the time, however, because of the odds, that would still make you unprofitable in the long run.
If you are good to go with just one shot of a bet, then bet on the underdog, but always remember that it could also lose.

Just imagine, your $100 will only win $50 because you bet on the underdog, I think that's too small.

[DoublerHunter]

Low odds are not risk-free, it only has a high chance of winning but it does not guarantee a win, in fact, if you are just betting on low odds all the time, it's guaranteed that you will still lose in the long run. You gotta be smart man, look at where the value is, whether it's the favorites or the underdog, just make your own research before putting a bet, don't rely too much on the odds.

^ Probably the better way to find value is when the public does not give a team nearly enough credit. Not all underdogs did not have the potential to make a profit on the table, sometimes in terms of luck they will win and there are too many cases like this that recently happened. But yeah, doing good research give us a high potential for making a profit even though we place a bet on the underdog team. Each game is unpredictable and you did not even know what will happen next.

[michellee]

When you are betting, you have a risk, and whether that risk is big or small, there will still a risk. No matter how much money you place for a bet, you should be ready for the risk. If you do not want to have a risk, you do not have to gamble because once you gamble, the risk will be behind.

The situations on the game can change anytime, and you need to have a good analysis and have information before you put your bet.

[harizen]

Even 1.00 odds can't guarantee you a risk-free bet even the chances of winning of the dominant one is 90% based on speculators and analysts.

That's why don't even consider it a safe bet. It's even more painful to lose on that line of odds compare to dealing in above @1.5 odds.

To somehow help you what to do, and looks like you have some information about those two fighters, try to make your own analysis based on your own factors and criteria. You can also refer to other analysts and combined it with yours and from there make a wild and fearless forecast about the fight.

[Zilon]

I would still have to do a rethink irrespective of their tight tale of the tape both can't win. Going into their past performances which would help better in predicting their outcome from the present match. I wouldn't dare bet based on risk free fights. since one of the opponent must remain an underdog so why should I risk such fights.

[dothebeats]

I don't think there are 'risk-free' fights at all. There are a lot of ways through which a fight could sway towards the underdog, and you'll never know it since you do not control the variables in the arena. An accidental strike leading to the disadvantage of the favored contender may end the fight abruptly, and even seasoned bookies nor sports analyst won't have any means to know when or how it would possibly happen. Due to this, it is unwise to allocate a week's pay on a bet unless you're willing to lose that pay should the result of the fight go against your bet.

[Fundamentals Of]

I admit I have not watched any of the fighters face each other in the ring. But looking at the stats of both fighters it seems there is no one who is really way way ahead than the other. So there is no risk-free bet on this particular match.

I think there is really no huge favorite in this fight. Rozenstruik is older but only 3 years. But he's got the height as well as the reach advantages. Sakai may be shorter but he's the younger fighter and has at least 10 kgs advantage over Rozenstruik.

[pinggoki]

To be honest 1.50 is not a bad odd, there are more odds that is more worst than that but betting on a risk-free fight? Hell No! I will better bet on E-Sport gambling than betting my money over here because in E-Sport you can do your own research by just checking the gameplays and game styles of each team than risking your money on a free fight however we are in the gambling world where everything is a risk in which you need to risk in order for you to win always remember that there's no such thing as a 100% of winning in gambling.

[Fatunad]

Low odds are not risk-free, it only has a high chance of winning but it does not guarantee a win, in fact, if you are just betting on low odds all the time, it's guaranteed that you will still lose in the long run. You gotta be smart man, look at where the value is, whether it's the favorites or the underdog, just make your own research before putting a bet, don't rely too much on the odds.

Majority would be thinking off about betting on favorite would always win and doesn't mind about possible upset where even myself do also believe on that thing wayback but soon you will realize things where it doesn't really work nor make out guarantee.Yes, chances of winning is high but odds aren't really worth to
test or bet on because one lost will really result into wiping out 2-4 wins that you had made earlier. Just let those people think off that way because
sooner or later they would realize that it doesn't really work that way presumpting about easy bets or easy income when sticking to favorites.

[Oilacris]

Low odds are not risk-free, it only has a high chance of winning but it does not guarantee a win, in fact, if you are just betting on low odds all the time, it's guaranteed that you will still lose in the long run. You gotta be smart man, look at where the value is, whether it's the favorites or the underdog, just make your own research before putting a bet, don't rely too much on the odds.

Majority would be thinking off about betting on favorite would always win and doesn't mind about possible upset where even myself do also believe on that thing wayback but soon you will realize things where it doesn't really work nor make out guarantee.Yes, chances of winning is high but odds aren't really worth to
test or bet on because one lost will really result into wiping out 2-4 wins that you had made earlier. Just let those people think off that way because
sooner or later they would realize that it doesn't really work that way presumpting about easy bets or easy income when sticking to favorites.

Guaranteed win doesnt exist on this world and it do only happen in dreams.Even having 1.01x odds doesnt give 100% to win and its really a bad mindset
to have as a gambler.

You will just make yourself to be an addict and risk out bets and go all in because you do feel out some assurance. For most part of time then its really a winning or heavily favorite would win but there would always be an accompanied risk.

One single loss could really entire wipe your winnings that you had in past bets out of those low odds which i dont see to be worth.

[Fredomago]

Low odds are not risk-free, it only has a high chance of winning but it does not guarantee a win, in fact, if you are just betting on low odds all the time, it's guaranteed that you will still lose in the long run. You gotta be smart man, look at where the value is, whether it's the favorites or the underdog, just make your own research before putting a bet, don't rely too much on the odds.

Majority would be thinking off about betting on favorite would always win and doesn't mind about possible upset where even myself do also believe on that thing wayback but soon you will realize things where it doesn't really work nor make out guarantee.Yes, chances of winning is high but odds aren't really worth to
test or bet on because one lost will really result into wiping out 2-4 wins that you had made earlier. Just let those people think off that way because
sooner or later they would realize that it doesn't really work that way presumpting about easy bets or easy income when sticking to favorites.

They will realized and start to think differently, there's no free of risk in any types of gambling, even you are betting with the heavy favorite there's always shit that might happen along the way.

You are still assuming that you have a much better edge but in terms of odds you are risking much to win a little bit low.

It's up to the bettors understanding though, as there are gamblers who believe on this strategy and some are enjoying it,

winning decently from time to time.

[dunfida]

You would realize through real experience and find out for yourself that you do need lots of wins before hitting up 100% profit on your trading capital then after 1 lost then all of those would be wiped in instant and you would say that you shouldnt be that confident next time.Typical reactions into those
people who do expecting much about sure wins.

[Hydrogen]

Jairzinho Rozenstruik should be the betting favorite here. He's not a guaranteed win. Augusto Sakai does have a potential path to victory.

Rozenstruik's biggest shortcoming is his low strike volume. He models himself after Deontay Wilder believing he only needs 1 punch to KO his opponents and win fights. Past opponents outworked and outpointed Rozenstruik beating him on activity. That is Augusto Sakai's most likely path to victory, should he win.

The real question is what changes Rozenstruik will make if any. Will Rozenstruik try to be more active. Or will he fall into his old habit of looking for the 1 punch knockout. Be outworked. And lost on points.

[AmoreJaz]

Low odds are not risk-free, it only has a high chance of winning but it does not guarantee a win, in fact, if you are just betting on low odds all the time, it's guaranteed that you will still lose in the long run. You gotta be smart man, look at where the value is, whether it's the favorites or the underdog, just make your own research before putting a bet, don't rely too much on the odds.

Majority would be thinking off about betting on favorite would always win and doesn't mind about possible upset where even myself do also believe on that thing wayback but soon you will realize things where it doesn't really work nor make out guarantee.Yes, chances of winning is high but odds aren't really worth to
test or bet on because one lost will really result into wiping out 2-4 wins that you had made earlier. Just let those people think off that way because
sooner or later they would realize that it doesn't really work that way presumpting about easy bets or easy income when sticking to favorites.

Guaranteed win doesnt exist on this world and it do only happen in dreams.Even having 1.01x odds doesnt give 100% to win and its really a bad mindset
to have as a gambler.

You will just make yourself to be an addict and risk out bets and go all in because you do feel out some assurance. For most part of time then its really a winning or heavily favorite would win but there would always be an accompanied risk.

One single loss could really entire wipe your winnings that you had in past bets out of those low odds which i dont see to be worth.

and one can take good examples from boxing, there were many underdogs that did win this year. so yeah, not all favourites or having lower odds mean that it will be risk-free bet or guaranteed win. if you've been betting for quite a while, you already know that there's no such thing as guaranteed win even at low odds. probability of winning may be high but don't forget that an upset may happen anytime.

[Twentyonepaylots]

For me there is no such thing as a risk-free fight especially if it's between two people who are either going to bet their own lives for a title, such as in the case of martial arts tournaments like the UFC and most boxing matches. And if there is some form of balance involved between the two of them, meaning there is an either-or scenario.

[South Park]

Is there even such a thing as a risk-free fight? I mean, both fighters are going to meet each other because they are still a match regardless of the fact that one of them is a favorite and the other underdog.

I do decide on which of the two is probably going to win, but that is not saying the one I picked for my money is going to be the sure winner. The risk of losing is always there.

1.50 is not even the lowest of odds. It is not the most lop-sided of matches.

For as long as the two fighters have complete hands and feet, anybody could turn out the winner.

There are no bets that are risk-free, even bets that offer the possibility of earning money almost anytime you make a bet like arbitraging cannot be said to be risk-free as there are many risks that you are incurring and you could still lose your bet or get your account blocked for being a profitable gambler, what you can do is to use your expertise about a particular sport to try to find games or matches in which the odds do not seem to match what you think it will happen, but this can only be done by those that are experts on a particular sport.

[harizen]

and one can take good examples from boxing, there were many underdogs that did win this year. so yeah, not all favourites or having lower odds mean that it will be risk-free bet or guaranteed win. if you've been betting for quite a while, you already know that there's no such thing as guaranteed win even at low odds. probability of winning may be high but don't forget that an upset may happen anytime.

Just recently, Oubaali vs Donaire; odds to win the match are @1.33 and @3.25 respectively.

The odds of around @1.33 is already considered an 85% winning chance*** but look what happens. Donaire made an upset and what's surprising, it's a TKO where the odds I think are around @6. I'd rather trust a team play matches with odds @1.33 to win a match compared to a single match between player vs player like the sports of boxing as upset always happened.

That's why I told OP to make an analysis out of all the sources he can look at as he seems knowledgeable on those 2 fighters of the subject. It's definitely not wrong if OP chooses the @1.5 odds but we just want to clarify here that there's no such thing as a risk-free bet at that line of odds even at @1.00.

[Saint-loup]

Would you be able to decide which fight could be risk free that you will bet your weekly pay despite the small odd like 1.50 or would you still rethink if there is an upset like Weili Zhang and Rose Namajunas.  

How about Jairzinho Rozenstruik vs Augusto Sakai, is this a risk free fight to you?



Jairzinho Rozenstruik by the way is the one that did the nasty cuts to Allistair's mouth.

Risk free fights don't exist in sport betting, even when odds are 1.01 or 1.00. The only risk free bets existing are on rigged matchs. So if you want to really get a risk free bet, you need to look for some bonuses or promotions offered by sportsbooks. At Stake for example there will be a risk free bet offered for the next fight of his brand ambassador Israel Adesanya : the main event of UFC263, Adesanya vs Vettori 2. Stakes on an Adesanya victory will be refunded in case of a loss of him.

[Fatunad]

Low odds are not risk-free, it only has a high chance of winning but it does not guarantee a win, in fact, if you are just betting on low odds all the time, it's guaranteed that you will still lose in the long run. You gotta be smart man, look at where the value is, whether it's the favorites or the underdog, just make your own research before putting a bet, don't rely too much on the odds.

Majority would be thinking off about betting on favorite would always win and doesn't mind about possible upset where even myself do also believe on that thing wayback but soon you will realize things where it doesn't really work nor make out guarantee.Yes, chances of winning is high but odds aren't really worth to
test or bet on because one lost will really result into wiping out 2-4 wins that you had made earlier. Just let those people think off that way because
sooner or later they would realize that it doesn't really work that way presumpting about easy bets or easy income when sticking to favorites.

They will realized and start to think differently, there's no free of risk in any types of gambling, even you are betting with the heavy favorite there's always shit that might happen along the way.

You are still assuming that you have a much better edge but in terms of odds you are risking much to win a little bit low.

It's up to the bettors understanding though, as there are gamblers who believe on this strategy and some are enjoying it,

winning decently from time to time.

You are indeed right since gamblers does have their own take on dealing with things neither they are fully aware or not when it comes to odds and
the edge that they've been eyeing on.If not then they would realize when they lost. There are indeed players which do really follow up on
heavily favorite players or teams and make out some alteration or changes for some upset match on where this is something we called
experienced one where you can easily switch up if you do see those kind of probabilities to happen and this is why its called
gambling in the first place since we are talking about game of chance on here. heheeehe

[famososMuertos]

The risk of losing is always there, even with odds of 1.01   just don't bet with fear, it's the main factor.

The fun of sports betting is above the risk,I always analyze the data well and if there is a chance to go against the odds, I do bet. Anyway, in your question the feeling is personal, so it's up to you.

[Kittygalore]

The risk of losing is always there, even with odds of 1.01  just don't bet with fear, it's the main factor.

The fun of sports betting is above the risk,I always analyze the data well and if there is a chance to go against the odds, I do bet. Anyway, in your question the feeling is personal, so it's up to you.

That's what I had thought too, pretty sure the risk of losing is the same no matter who is fighting and how the bookies are estimating and deciding their odds for that fighter. I agree that risk is part of the fun but I think another part is the feeling of superiority you feel when your bet is right.

[Saint-loup]

The risk of losing is always there, even with odds of 1.01   just don't bet with fear, it's the main factor.

The fun of sports betting is above the risk,I always analyze the data well and if there is a chance to go against the odds, I do bet. Anyway, in your question the feeling is personal, so it's up to you.

That's what I had thought too, pretty sure the risk of losing is the same no matter who is fighting and how the bookies are estimating and deciding their odds for that fighter. I agree that risk is part of the fun but I think another part is the feeling of superiority you feel when your bet is right.

How the risk of losing could be the same when a champion meets a beginner in a tournament and when 2 champions fight against each other? There are obviously less risks to bet on a champion meeting a beginner than to bet on a champion meeting another champion or to bet on a beginner fighting against a champion. So you must take into account the chances of the outcome you are betting on to happen. If you think those chances to happen are bigger than the implied probability of the odds, then you can earn some value.

[michellee]

The risk of losing is always there, even with odds of 1.01  just don't bet with fear, it's the main factor.

The fun of sports betting is above the risk,I always analyze the data well and if there is a chance to go against the odds, I do bet. Anyway, in your question the feeling is personal, so it's up to you.

That's what I had thought too, pretty sure the risk of losing is the same no matter who is fighting and how the bookies are estimating and deciding their odds for that fighter. I agree that risk is part of the fun but I think another part is the feeling of superiority you feel when your bet is right.

By doing analysis, we can know how big our risk so we can decide it later. But still, the risk will not go but it will reduce and as long as we know how to manage the risk, we do not have to worry. But if you are afraid to lose the money and not sure about handling the risk, you can leave the betting and search for the other bet. It will be better for you to know how big your chance to win by knowing the risk. We do not have to challenge the risk because the situations can change anytime, which can make us in danger.

[imstillthebest]

The risk of losing is always there, even with odds of 1.01   just don't bet with fear, it's the main factor.

The fun of sports betting is above the risk,I always analyze the data well and if there is a chance to go against the odds, I do bet. Anyway, in your question the feeling is personal, so it's up to you.

That's what I had thought too, pretty sure the risk of losing is the same no matter who is fighting and how the bookies are estimating and deciding their odds for that fighter. I agree that risk is part of the fun but I think another part is the feeling of superiority you feel when your bet is right.

How the risk of losing could be the same when a champion meets a beginner in a tournament and when 2 champions fight against each other? There are obviously less risks to bet on a champion meeting a beginner than to bet on a champion meeting another champion or to bet on a beginner fighting against a champion. So you must take into account the chances of the outcome you are betting on to happen. If you think those chances to happen are bigger than the implied probability of the odds, then you can earn some value.

thats why there are odds to know if what are the chance of winning or loosing in gambling  but its true that in every game theres a chance that we can lose if we are having a bad day .
still ,
its hard to accept for me if this happens because im confident on the player or team that im betting and random thoughts start to appear in my head .

[Botnake]

The risk of losing is always there, even with odds of 1.01   just don't bet with fear, it's the main factor.

The fun of sports betting is above the risk,I always analyze the data well and if there is a chance to go against the odds, I do bet. Anyway, in your question the feeling is personal, so it's up to you.

Even if we analyze it hard, there's still no guarantee that we will win, but in sports betting, we should believe that it's not won through luck alone. Don't believe on lock bet as it never happen, it's just a way to attract bettors to follow the tipster, the best way to succeed is to develop our personal skills in sports capping and it will require time and patiennce.

[suzanne5223]

Judging by the result of the last fight of both Rozenstruik and Augusto, I will say this is a risky fight because I believe Augusto take on Rozenstruik to be prepared for his revenge on Allistair but Rozenstruik still has the upper hand to defeat Augusto though so I will go for him to be the winning of the fight.

[carlfebz2]

The risk of losing is always there, even with odds of 1.01   just don't bet with fear, it's the main factor.

The fun of sports betting is above the risk,I always analyze the data well and if there is a chance to go against the odds, I do bet. Anyway, in your question the feeling is personal, so it's up to you.

Even if we analyze it hard, there's still no guarantee that we will win, but in sports betting, we should believe that it's not won through luck alone. Don't believe on lock bet as it never happen, it's just a way to attract bettors to follow the tipster, the best way to succeed is to develop our personal skills in sports capping and it will require time and patiennce.

Surely takes time because experience would matter most in sports betting.I do agree with theres no such thing about lock bets unless if its fixed then sure it would be a lock one but gaining such information is something impossible.

Sticking with favorites doesnt really give out guarantees for you to win but at least we can really tell that winning odds is high.Just dont go all in with your bets.

Always be mindful about handling out your capital well and make yourself sustainable and could take yourself way more further into betting career.

[TheGreatPython]

Would you be able to decide which fight could be risk free that you will bet your weekly pay despite the small odd like 1.50 or would you still rethink if there is an upset like Weili Zhang and Rose Namajunas.  

How about Jairzinho Rozenstruik vs Augusto Sakai, is this a risk free fight to you?



Jairzinho Rozenstruik by the way is the one that did the nasty cuts to Allistair's mouth.

Now since the fight is over anyone can say that it was easy money but the odds suggested that Sakai had a good chance to win and although Rozenstruik proved his power, I had a feeling that if we went to the distance there was a good chance that Rozenstruik might gas out and Sakai would take advantage of that and land some big shots late in the rounds.

There is never free money on offer even when the odds are 1.01 and as a proof, I can show you at least 5 bets I made for wager and ended up losing with seriously low odds. For example, betting on a 1-minute market on soccer and I have lost a lot of them. Similarly, I have made bets on esports and lost some bets which I felt were free money.

[South Park]

Would you be able to decide which fight could be risk free that you will bet your weekly pay despite the small odd like 1.50 or would you still rethink if there is an upset like Weili Zhang and Rose Namajunas.  

How about Jairzinho Rozenstruik vs Augusto Sakai, is this a risk free fight to you?



Jairzinho Rozenstruik by the way is the one that did the nasty cuts to Allistair's mouth.

Risk free fights don't exist in sport betting, even when odds are 1.01 or 1.00. The only risk free bets existing are on rigged matchs. So if you want to really get a risk free bet, you need to look for some bonuses or promotions offered by sportsbooks. At Stake for example there will be a risk free bet offered for the next fight of his brand ambassador Israel Adesanya : the main event of UFC263, Adesanya vs Vettori 2. Stakes on an Adesanya victory will be refunded in case of a loss of him.

And even in those circumstances the chances are not 100% because as we know there are many things that can happen in a fight, after all what if the other side is also trying to rig the fight? In that case whatever result you tried to get is going to be incredibly difficult to achieve, also sometimes people decide not to follow what has been agreed upon and do whatever they want, so it is better to accept that risk-free bets simply do not exist and make our bets accordingly.

[Hamphser]

Would you be able to decide which fight could be risk free that you will bet your weekly pay despite the small odd like 1.50 or would you still rethink if there is an upset like Weili Zhang and Rose Namajunas.  

How about Jairzinho Rozenstruik vs Augusto Sakai, is this a risk free fight to you?


Jairzinho Rozenstruik by the way is the one that did the nasty cuts to Allistair's mouth.

Risk free fights don't exist in sport betting, even when odds are 1.01 or 1.00. The only risk free bets existing are on rigged matchs. So if you want to really get a risk free bet, you need to look for some bonuses or promotions offered by sportsbooks. At Stake for example there will be a risk free bet offered for the next fight of his brand ambassador Israel Adesanya : the main event of UFC263, Adesanya vs Vettori 2. Stakes on an Adesanya victory will be refunded in case of a loss of him.

And even in those circumstances the chances are not 100% because as we know there are many things that can happen in a fight, after all what if the other side is also trying to rig the fight? In that case whatever result you tried to get is going to be incredibly difficult to achieve, also sometimes people decide not to follow what has been agreed upon and do whatever they want, so it is better to accept that risk-free bets simply do not exist and make our bets accordingly.

If this 100% purely works or could give out 100% winning rate or even with bigger chances and as said on where there are lots of factors that could happen on a certain game which would really be removing the thing of guaranteed win.

Majority is been following about heavily favorite even though winnings wont really be that big but doesnt matter as long it would be considered win
or gain then that what surely counts.

We should really remove this mindset and be mindful about factor  that could possibly affect the game.

[Fredomago]

Would you be able to decide which fight could be risk free that you will bet your weekly pay despite the small odd like 1.50 or would you still rethink if there is an upset like Weili Zhang and Rose Namajunas.  

How about Jairzinho Rozenstruik vs Augusto Sakai, is this a risk free fight to you?



Jairzinho Rozenstruik by the way is the one that did the nasty cuts to Allistair's mouth.

Risk free fights don't exist in sport betting, even when odds are 1.01 or 1.00. The only risk free bets existing are on rigged matchs. So if you want to really get a risk free bet, you need to look for some bonuses or promotions offered by sportsbooks. At Stake for example there will be a risk free bet offered for the next fight of his brand ambassador Israel Adesanya : the main event of UFC263, Adesanya vs Vettori 2. Stakes on an Adesanya victory will be refunded in case of a loss of him.

And even in those circumstances the chances are not 100% because as we know there are many things that can happen in a fight, after all what if the other side is also trying to rig the fight? In that case whatever result you tried to get is going to be incredibly difficult to achieve, also sometimes people decide not to follow what has been agreed upon and do whatever they want, so it is better to accept that risk-free bets simply do not exist and make our bets accordingly.

Simply say that shit happened, the idea of double-crossing someone, there are incidents that the plan rigged was rig as well,

inside gambling many things can happened as we deal with money, a very huge amount of money, whoever believes that there's a risk free types of betting most of the times regrets their actions in participating with this kind of bet.

Instead of winning they've situations turned to the other side, yu can't predict accurately even a heavy favorite can lose.

[goinmerry]

Would you be able to decide which fight could be risk free that you will bet your weekly pay despite the small odd like 1.50

In a MMA fight, 1.50 odds is not a small for me. Remember that MMA is obviously a 1 on 1 match and upset always happened here. I'm only considering 1.50 odds as fairly small in terms of a team match like basketball.

But in general, you can't even consider below 1.5 as risk-free odds. It's even more risky as you will put some decent bet here just to feel the profits.

The fight is now over and Jairzinho Rozenstruik did a TKO 1st round win. Do you managed to bet on a 1.50 odds here, OP?

[AmoreJaz]

Risk free fights don't exist in sport betting, even when odds are 1.01 or 1.00. The only risk free bets existing are on rigged matchs. So if you want to really get a risk free bet, you need to look for some bonuses or promotions offered by sportsbooks. At Stake for example there will be a risk free bet offered for the next fight of his brand ambassador Israel Adesanya : the main event of UFC263, Adesanya vs Vettori 2. Stakes on an Adesanya victory will be refunded in case of a loss of him.

And even in those circumstances the chances are not 100% because as we know there are many things that can happen in a fight, after all what if the other side is also trying to rig the fight? In that case whatever result you tried to get is going to be incredibly difficult to achieve, also sometimes people decide not to follow what has been agreed upon and do whatever they want, so it is better to accept that risk-free bets simply do not exist and make our bets accordingly.

If this 100% purely works or could give out 100% winning rate or even with bigger chances and as said on where there are lots of factors that could happen on a certain game which would really be removing the thing of guaranteed win.

Majority is been following about heavily favorite even though winnings wont really be that big but doesnt matter as long it would be considered win
or gain then that what surely counts.

We should really remove this mindset and be mindful about factor  that could possibly affect the game.

suffice to say, there are really no risk-free fights even if there is someone who is heavily favourite on the match, upset can always happen. we are blinded in some factors like actual condition of the fighter, actual prep, actual performance, and so on. sometimes the fighter even slightly change his style depending on his opponent. the chance of winning may be high, but don't get too contented that you will surely win.
look for other factors that may influence the fight, like personal problems (who knows, something is going on with the mental health of the fighter? - but usually this one is hard to get from the promoter, it will only come up when the fighter himself admits something is going on with his life)

[harizen]

Someone here able to watch the fight?

Jairzinho Rozenstruik is a monster and Augusto Sakai has no answer to it. It seems another dangerous heavyweight is coming up. At 33 years of age, still showing deadly moves and no signs of slowing down.

OP got a win here at @1.5 for Rozenstruik if he was able to place his bets.

[Saint-loup]

Would you be able to decide which fight could be risk free that you will bet your weekly pay despite the small odd like 1.50

In a MMA fight, 1.50 odds is not a small for me. Remember that MMA is obviously a 1 on 1 match and upset always happened here. I'm only considering 1.50 odds as fairly small in terms of a team match like basketball.

But in general, you can't even consider below 1.5 as risk-free odds. It's even more risky as you will put some decent bet here just to feel the profits.

The fight is now over and Jairzinho Rozenstruik did a TKO 1st round win. Do you managed to bet on a 1.50 odds here, OP?

I hope he placed his bet on Stake at least. Because I bet on him too and the odds at Stake were not @1.50 but @1.89
Moreover it was a main event fight, then there was a double winnings bonus for the KO   It means I've been paid @2.78 for this bet at the end.
In addition, I've also bet on Marcin Tybura @1.56 at this UFC and he also won by KO against Walt Harris, then I received a payout of @2.12 for this second bet.  

[cabron]

Would you be able to decide which fight could be risk free that you will bet your weekly pay despite the small odd like 1.50

In a MMA fight, 1.50 odds is not a small for me. Remember that MMA is obviously a 1 on 1 match and upset always happened here. I'm only considering 1.50 odds as fairly small in terms of a team match like basketball.

But in general, you can't even consider below 1.5 as risk-free odds. It's even more risky as you will put some decent bet here just to feel the profits.

The fight is now over and Jairzinho Rozenstruik did a TKO 1st round win. Do you managed to bet on a 1.50 odds here, OP?

I hope he placed his bet on Stake at least. Because I bet on him too and the odds at Stake were not @1.50 but @1.89
Moreover it was a main event fight, then there was a double winnings bonus for the KO   It means I've been paid @2.78 for this bet at the end.
In addition, I've also bet on Marcin Tybura @1.56 at this UFC and he also won by KO against Walt Harris, then I received a payout of @2.12 for this second bet.  

It was 1.58 that time. The ones who place their bet late should have gotten more but this is almost a risk-free bet.

The next one I guess is the UFC 263 Adesanya vs. Vettori 2.  The first fight didn't end with KO but you still could see Adesanya just playing around with Vettori.  All I can say is that this fight can still be considered a risk free although there is a slight difference this time because Vettori could have learned from their first fight.

[maxreish]

I think if he meant to say that risk free bet means a particular gambling site will still refund your bet if your bet loss. Since one gambling site offers some kind of risk free bet in sports promotions. Although if you are able to decide, 1.5x odds would be better. You'll still have a good profit if you win by that odds.

Anyhow, remember that this is still gambling and regardless of the odds, they might be always an unexpected result.

[Xinarae*]

It is possible to get risk free bets by analyzing the gambling sites well and it is easy to win from here. Humanity has long gone because of the uncertainty associated with gambling and betting sweepstakes were already strange in ancient rome giving people a chance not only to share their opinions on upcoming events in sports but also to make money on accurate predictions. For this reason which makes it possible to place a bet gambling has occupied a fairly significant place in the world.

[Lorence.xD]

I think if he meant to say that risk free bet means a particular gambling site will still refund your bet if your bet loss. Since one gambling site offers some kind of risk free bet in sports promotions. Although if you are able to decide, 1.5x odds would be better. You'll still have a good profit if you win by that odds.

Anyhow, remember that this is still gambling and regardless of the odds, they might be always an unexpected result.

That's actually superb if you think about it because people find it hard to gamble when they know that they will lose the money or eventually lose the money but with a risk free bet where they give it back to you, they hook people into betting again even if they aren't risk free anymore because they already got hooked.

[hahay]

I'm aware betting on any fight will always carry a risk but yes, sometimes we will assume the risk is lost when the athlete fighting has some of the better records. But believe me, it's just an analysis that still doesn't guarantee we will win when betting for him and for that reason too, I assume all bets will definitely have a risk even though it is an odds that is only 1.01 but still has a risk in it because I've experienced reality bitter like that.

[Zilon]

Is there even such a thing as a risk-free fight? I mean, both fighters are going to meet each other because they are still a match regardless of the fact that one of them is a favorite and the other underdog.

Exactly what I have in mind when I saw the caption,
For me there is no such thing as risk free fights when it is an official match because it wouldn't be accepted if their gap is too far from each other.
Even if someone is underdog on the eyes of the people that underdog could still win

Most times underdogs turn out with surprising performances or win with a slim chance he had this doesn't neget the fact that fact that risk free fights does not exist. I know this can't be classified as a risk free fight because the margin isn't much and we should expect lots of surprises from both the kids to fighters. I feel none of them should be neglected because this would be one of those matches that comes with heart treatened surprises

[zanezane]

I'm aware betting on any fight will always carry a risk but yes, sometimes we will assume the risk is lost when the athlete fighting has some of the better records. But believe me, it's just an analysis that still doesn't guarantee we will win when betting for him and for that reason too, I assume all bets will definitely have a risk even though it is an odds that is only 1.01 but still has a risk in it because I've experienced reality bitter like that.

There will always be a risk in betting, remember that an upset or a miracle can happen and you bet is lost because the one that was expected to win got destroyed by a miracle upset or something. The odds doesn't mean it's risky, it just a way to attract players, in the end it's all a 50/50 if the matchup is even.

[AicecreaME]

I'm aware betting on any fight will always carry a risk but yes, sometimes we will assume the risk is lost when the athlete fighting has some of the better records. But believe me, it's just an analysis that still doesn't guarantee we will win when betting for him and for that reason too, I assume all bets will definitely have a risk even though it is an odds that is only 1.01 but still has a risk in it because I've experienced reality bitter like that.

Maybe, but there's a lot of things that we should include other than good records.

Having a good records doesn't guarantee you always a win, things could escalate quickly anytime, so expect the unexpected. Another thing is if a match is rigged, then there's no way we could assure ourselves a win just because we bet on the fighter that has a good record, we don't know who is in favor with the judges. And the last thing of course is the records of both players, that should be the last thing we should consider, just my opinion.

[South Park]

Would you be able to decide which fight could be risk free that you will bet your weekly pay despite the small odd like 1.50

In a MMA fight, 1.50 odds is not a small for me. Remember that MMA is obviously a 1 on 1 match and upset always happened here. I'm only considering 1.50 odds as fairly small in terms of a team match like basketball.

But in general, you can't even consider below 1.5 as risk-free odds. It's even more risky as you will put some decent bet here just to feel the profits.

The fight is now over and Jairzinho Rozenstruik did a TKO 1st round win. Do you managed to bet on a 1.50 odds here, OP?

This is an important point, odds are relative to the games being played, in a full-contact sport in which anything can happen and a single punch or kick can be more than enough to change the outcome of a fight or even something as simple as not being able to reach the right weight of the division and spend a lot of time trying to lose that weight means the difference in the stamina between the fighters is going to be huge, while in team games even a drastic injury of a star player is not enough to completely change the outcome of most games.

[stomachgrowls]

When it comes to betting always on favorites. These things are bit informative to read.
https://www.bettingbilly.com/us/sports-betting/types/betting-favorites/
https://efirbet.com/en/betting-guide/betting-on-the-favourite/
https://www.wsn.com/betting-guide/public-underdog/#gref

[Woodie]

The tape tells a whole different story,  height, weight you name it but when it comes to boxing they say age gives you an edge so does height and then we have odds that have being weighed in by the bookies who are usually wrong as well,so that 1.5 is small for me to risk my money on the match.

Just some advice avoid wagering on favorites these usually turn to be headaches as the underdog always puts up a good fight.

[KTChampions]

When it comes to betting always on favorites. These things are bit informative to read.
https://www.bettingbilly.com/us/sports-betting/types/betting-favorites/
https://efirbet.com/en/betting-guide/betting-on-the-favourite/
https://www.wsn.com/betting-guide/public-underdog/#gref

As I understand these articles are paid by bookmakers? 
Betting on favorites is the most unprofitable and the bookmaker plans most of its profits here. Unlike bets on favorites, bets on underdogs are less likely to win, but in them the bookmaker's advantage is less than in bets on favorites.

[Fortify]

Would you be able to decide which fight could be risk free that you will bet your weekly pay despite the small odd like 1.50 or would you still rethink if there is an upset like Weili Zhang and Rose Namajunas.  

How about Jairzinho Rozenstruik vs Augusto Sakai, is this a risk free fight to you?



Jairzinho Rozenstruik by the way is the one that did the nasty cuts to Allistair's mouth.

It's funny that you consider a bet at 1.5 to be "risk free", however I have personally encountered several bets (in-play) at around the 1.05 to 1.01 offered by the bookmaker go against me. I don't think any sensible person should be betting a weeks pay unless they have a substantial safety net and savings that make it insignificant. You must at all times remember that you are at a information disadvantage against sportbooks because they have a long history to analyze, lots of technology to "crunch the numbers" and can fine tune their odds fairly quickly as new data becomes available (aka the golden player gets ill).  You can build tools that are able to crowd source and look for weaknesses in calculated odds, but that requires substantial investment in various forms.

[Ryker1]

When it comes to betting always on favorites. These things are bit informative to read.
https://www.bettingbilly.com/us/sports-betting/types/betting-favorites/
https://efirbet.com/en/betting-guide/betting-on-the-favourite/
https://www.wsn.com/betting-guide/public-underdog/#gref

As I understand these articles are paid by bookmakers? 
Betting on favorites is the most unprofitable and the bookmaker plans most of its profits here. Unlike bets on favorites, bets on underdogs are less likely to win, but in them the bookmaker's advantage is less than in bets on favorites.

Well, that is indeed right.
Not all underdogs in favorites are low chances of winning, most likely to they are able to win. There are some tricks of bookmakers that they only know just to gain profit from the bettors. It is just a bookmaker that offers risk-free and it should be your odds will get on that range and I think 1.4 odds or something will be profitable in the future. But when it comes to the fight, that is still unpredictable.

[cabron]

When it comes to betting always on favorites. These things are bit informative to read.
https://www.bettingbilly.com/us/sports-betting/types/betting-favorites/
https://efirbet.com/en/betting-guide/betting-on-the-favourite/
https://www.wsn.com/betting-guide/public-underdog/#gref

As I understand these articles are paid by bookmakers?  
Betting on favorites is the most unprofitable and the bookmaker plans most of its profits here. Unlike bets on favorites, bets on underdogs are less likely to win, but in them the bookmaker's advantage is less than in bets on favorites.

Well, that is indeed right.
Not all underdogs in favorites are low chances of winning, most likely to they are able to win. There are some tricks of bookmakers that they only know just to gain profit from the bettors. It is just a bookmaker that offers risk-free and it should be your odds will get on that range and I think 1.4 odds or something will be profitable in the future. But when it comes to the fight, that is still unpredictable.

Its a fight so there is no way you would know the result. David and Goliath's fight is just an example of it being unpredictable but when the history of the fighters is going to be analyzed, it's always the underdog that loses the fight.

Today is a fight between Adesanya vs Vettori 2. And Adesanya still if the Top dog making him the safe bet. Its not about the odds but its the skills that makes it risk free.

[stomachgrowls]

When it comes to betting always on favorites. These things are bit informative to read.
https://www.bettingbilly.com/us/sports-betting/types/betting-favorites/
https://efirbet.com/en/betting-guide/betting-on-the-favourite/
https://www.wsn.com/betting-guide/public-underdog/#gref

As I understand these articles are paid by bookmakers?  
Betting on favorites is the most unprofitable and the bookmaker plans most of its profits here. Unlike bets on favorites, bets on underdogs are less likely to win, but in them the bookmaker's advantage is less than in bets on favorites.

Well, that is indeed right.
Not all underdogs in favorites are low chances of winning, most likely to they are able to win. There are some tricks of bookmakers that they only know just to gain profit from the bettors. It is just a bookmaker that offers risk-free and it should be your odds will get on that range and I think 1.4 odds or something will be profitable in the future. But when it comes to the fight, that is still unpredictable.

Everything is unpredictable except if bookmaker itself does have those insider infos about fixed matches but we know that its impossible to determine these events.

When it comes to profitability then its understandable thats unprofitable on their part when people are really tending to go with the favorites since that would surely be adding on paying up more bettors unlike if people would really be betting on the underdogs.

Being a bookie isnt an exemption to lose out income this is why giving out odds should really be planned out to avoid possible paying up too much.

[Peanutswar]

There are a lot of different odds given on the match depends on the number of the bets and also the developers themselves, sometimes the gamblers always trying to bet to the opponent who has the lowest winning odds because base on common bets this is the most players thinks will win the game. Again it's better we don't underestimate the underdogs sometimes they can make a miracle comeback and winning the game. Those players or gamblers also called this bet as YOLO, just the common meaning you are willing to risk or double your funds.

[KTChampions]

Everything is unpredictable except if bookmaker itself does have those insider infos about fixed matches but we know that its impossible to determine these events.

When it comes to profitability then its understandable thats unprofitable on their part when people are really tending to go with the favorites since that would surely be adding on paying up more bettors unlike if people would really be betting on the underdogs.

Being a bookie isnt an exemption to lose out income this is why giving out odds should really be planned out to avoid possible paying up too much.

To a certain extent, the bookmaker simply does not care about the result of the match and how accurately he assessed the teams' chances - the most important thing is that the "balance" of people who made bets on different outcomes corresponds to the odds. It's like betting on a coin toss - if an equal number of people have bet on each outcome, then at odds of 1.95, the bookmaker will always win.

[Lordhermes]

There are a lot of different odds given on the match depends on the number of the bets and also the developers themselves, sometimes the gamblers always trying to bet to the opponent who has the lowest winning odds because base on common bets this is the most players thinks will win the game. Again it's better we don't underestimate the underdogs sometimes they can make a miracle comeback and winning the game. Those players or gamblers also called this bet as YOLO, just the common meaning you are willing to risk or double your funds.

But I kept asking myself why higher odd fighter wins match sometimes, in individual fighting, a fighter with slim body is liable to lose every match sometimes the case is reverse, does it mean the bigger body fighter looses control and feel anxious that moment maybe some sort of family problem hat came up at the time match is fixed, because on a normal ground, it's impossible for a slim fighter should win the other. I will rather make research before risking my bet on a fighter.

[adzino]

There is no such thing as a risk free bets. All bets that you place has risks. It's either high risk or low risk. High risks will have higher rewards and vice versa. That is how it works. Look at the odds of the fight you are talking about. I am sure the odds of the winning team has lower payout. It's all based on probabilities using various data/statistics (previous records and so on). So it might look like a "risk free bet" for you, but there will always be a small chance where you will lose everything you placed on the bet.

[aioc]

There's no such thing as a risk-free fight if you are going to the ring you are fit and capable of winning you are trained to hurt your opponent, defend yourself and do whatever you need to win, that is why we have a thing called upset and bettors should not disregard upsets its part of the game, we have seen so many upsets in the past and let's admit it we love to see upsets.

[fiulpro]

Indeed, there is no such fight as "Risk free"
You have to understand that if a player wins even 1000 times there is not 100% probability that he will win the next time. There will always be odds that you might not be able to analyze right now.
-I will bet for fight ofc but would not set it in my mind that I am going to win 100%
-Whenever I would bet, I know that what I am doing is risky -I would only consider doing it, if I am economically stable , not because someone in the Gambling section feels that we have something called "risk free" bets.
This is a mere delusion.
It can give you good odds but never 100% wins everytime.

[dunfida]

There's no such thing as a risk-free fight if you are going to the ring you are fit and capable of winning you are trained to hurt your opponent, defend yourself and do whatever you need to win, that is why we have a thing called upset and bettors should not disregard upsets its part of the game, we have seen so many upsets in the past and let's admit it we love to see upsets.

Upsets can really possibly happen from time to time and when you are a bettor then not all favorites would really be having 100% to win.
If you do know on how to check out teams and possible events or switch ups or players cant play or some turn of events specially on team based sports
then you can really determine out on which would be the best thing to be done.Same goes for single matches where there are several factors that you
can consider before heading out.

[bitbollo]

risk-free bet is an oxymoron.
but if you have enough information it can be a sort of risk-free.
mostly of you need is not related to the match but to certain condition "externally".
I have placed awesome bet (team going in a lower series) when it was unofficial bankrupted and in a very bad position in the league.

There was a local news saying that this team was selling the bench and buses.
It was clear they was unable to join again the same league (literally failure, restart from the scratch). Nice experience but such events happens around few times each year and are very hard to be detected

[Saint-loup]

There's no such thing as a risk-free fight if you are going to the ring you are fit and capable of winning you are trained to hurt your opponent, defend yourself and do whatever you need to win, that is why we have a thing called upset and bettors should not disregard upsets its part of the game, we have seen so many upsets in the past and let's admit it we love to see upsets.

However on Stake there are 2 risk free fights this night at UFC 263 : Nate Diaz @5.80 against Leon Edwards. Refund up to 50$ in case of loss of Nate Diaz. Israel Adesanya @1.38 against Marvin Vettori. Refund up to 50$ in case of loss of Israel Adesanya.

[Slow death]

honestly speaking, there are certain events in which the person can perceive that it is an event where the risk is practically zero, I'll give you an example:

if my country played against brazil (I'm talking about soccer), it would be impossible for my country to win brazil and all bettors who bet in brazil would be placing a bet without the risk of losing money

Upsets can really possibly happen from time to time and when you are a bettor then not all favorites would really be having 100% to win.
If you do know on how to check out teams and possible events or switch ups or players cant play or some turn of events specially on team based sports
then you can really determine out on which would be the best thing to be done.Same goes for single matches where there are several factors that you
can consider before heading out.

and that's why I set my country's example against Brazil. there are events that have zero risk

There's no such thing as a risk-free fight if you are going to the ring you are fit and capable of winning you are trained to hurt your opponent, defend yourself and do whatever you need to win, that is why we have a thing called upset and bettors should not disregard upsets its part of the game, we have seen so many upsets in the past and let's admit it we love to see upsets.

again I will set the example of my country. if they say today that they would do a boxing match where some boxing athlete from my country would fight someone from the USA I am absolutely sure that the athlete from the USA would win easily

[Oceat]

Why would you bet your whole weekly salary/payment? That's too much risk to take and you aren't sure about the fighter you are betting on not unless if it's a Mayweather vs Logan maybe, maybe you will risk everything as it is a clear way to win without having a doubt.

And yes, there is no risk-free at all it would depend on a lot of different factors that you can't consider it as a risk-free bet when it comes to money. Just bet or risk the money that you can afford to lose that's the least risk you can do unless if you have someone from the inside of each team to know which one would likely gonna win the match but it's not a risk-free bet also.

[magneto]

There are simply no risk-free fights.

The best that you can do is to somehow arbitrage your way into a surebet, whereby your are able to secure a winning outcome regardless of the winner of the match. But arbitrage betting is incredibly hard to come by usually.

But just because something seems likely doesn't mean that it's a good bet. These are usually the bets that give you the least amount of EV, actually.

[xSkylarx]

Would you be able to decide which fight could be risk free that you will bet your weekly pay despite the small odd like 1.50

Even if it is a risk-free fight, betting your whole weekly salary is already a big risk. Let's say in the current NBA season, a match between LA Lakers vs Houston Rockets. Are you confident enough that LA Lakers will definitely win in that match and bet your whole weekly pay? Will you not consider the risk if Rockets win, what will you do if Lakers lose. Going all-in just because you think the winner of the match is obvious isn't good, it is still a gamble and there is still a chance for you to lose no matter how small it is.

[sempak]

I'm not really sure if I would use all my weekly pay to place bet on something like this even the odds were really low or high chance of winning because you know, it's gambling, anything can happen even the chance of winning is high there's still a chance of losing.

[Oilacris]

Would you be able to decide which fight could be risk free that you will bet your weekly pay despite the small odd like 1.50

Even if it is a risk-free fight, betting your whole weekly salary is already a big risk. Let's say in the current NBA season, a match between LA Lakers vs Houston Rockets. Are you confident enough that LA Lakers will definitely win in that match and bet your whole weekly pay? Will you not consider the risk if Rockets win, what will you do if Lakers lose. Going all-in just because you think the winner of the match is obvious isn't good, it is still a gamble and there is still a chance for you to lose no matter how small it is.

Nothing in this world is surely guaranteed and even its heavily favorite but doesnt mean that it will surely win.You should really remove into your mind that assurance or guaranteed wins is there unless if you do hear up some informations or insider for some rigged or fixed match then that would surely
be a win but its not easy can be attained.

Risk-free is something doesnt fit out in gambling world.You wouldnt know on what comes next even it do looks a sure win but as long it isnt over then
chances of change of events is always next on the line.

Dont remove the possibilities because it can really fucked you up if you do make yourself confident.

[Wexnident]

There are simply no risk-free fights.

The best that you can do is to somehow arbitrage your way into a surebet, whereby your are able to secure a winning outcome regardless of the winner of the match. But arbitrage betting is incredibly hard to come by usually.

But just because something seems likely doesn't mean that it's a good bet. These are usually the bets that give you the least amount of EV, actually.

Facts. There are no risk-free fights and they would always, ALWAYS have some kind of win/loss chance. That is, unless, the match is fixed. Though I think your bet is nulled in those types of cases, and even if it wasn't and you somehow knew that it was fixed, it's still a "risk" since again, it could get caught. On the notion of a fight between two unmatched players, it's more of like a low risk instead? After all, a dark horse could appear at any time. Not to mention that low risk bets means low odds means low cashout, kinda boring if I do say so if you were to only do that all the time.

[Fredomago]

Would you be able to decide which fight could be risk free that you will bet your weekly pay despite the small odd like 1.50

Even if it is a risk-free fight, betting your whole weekly salary is already a big risk. Let's say in the current NBA season, a match between LA Lakers vs Houston Rockets. Are you confident enough that LA Lakers will definitely win in that match and bet your whole weekly pay? Will you not consider the risk if Rockets win, what will you do if Lakers lose. Going all-in just because you think the winner of the match is obvious isn't good, it is still a gamble and there is still a chance for you to lose no matter how small it is.

Shit happened and for sure you'll regret if you push and yolo everything that you have, thinking that because you are betting with the favorites everything will turned smoothly.

There are so many cases that this kind of almost 100% sure win got burned out, not even you place your bet with 1.01 odd, that's still possible to lose out.

Keep in mind that you are inside gambling and that's the very definitions of everything.

[KTChampions]

risk-free bet is an oxymoron.
but if you have enough information it can be a sort of risk-free.
mostly of you need is not related to the match but to certain condition "externally".
I have placed awesome bet (team going in a lower series) when it was unofficial bankrupted and in a very bad position in the league.

There was a local news saying that this team was selling the bench and buses.
It was clear they was unable to join again the same league (literally failure, restart from the scratch). Nice experience but such events happens around few times each year and are very hard to be detected

I agree with you, but sometimes there are bets where the profit outweighs the risk. It is difficult to prove, but in my opinion yesterday there was such a bet on the Belgium - Russia match. The odds for the victory of Belgium was 1.8, I was absolutely sure of their victory and was going to make a bet, but household chores distracted me and when I went to bet the match was already underway and Belgium was leading 1-0 already in the 10th minute 

[robelneo]

Dictionary defines gambling as

take risky action in the hope of a desired result.

if it's risk-free it's not gambling at all, some gambling site offers a cashback on a particular fight, but it's not attractive to bettors if you offer the fight risk-free, I am betting on basketball and boxing and even if the match is not equal there is still a possibility of an upset, I still don't want to consider this as risk free betting but low risk betting

[ethereumhunter]

I'm not really sure if I would use all my weekly pay to place bet on something like this even the odds were really low or high chance of winning because you know, it's gambling, anything can happen even the chance of winning is high there's still a chance of losing.

Then you do not have to use your payment to place a bet. There is no risk-free in gambling. Even for just a small risk, that still a risk. If you do not play gambling at all, you will have risk-free and use the money for other things. As a gambler, we should know that the risk will be there and we can not avoid it, but we can reduce the risk by always limiting the money.

[South Park]

When it comes to betting always on favorites. These things are bit informative to read.
https://www.bettingbilly.com/us/sports-betting/types/betting-favorites/
https://efirbet.com/en/betting-guide/betting-on-the-favourite/
https://www.wsn.com/betting-guide/public-underdog/#gref

As I understand these articles are paid by bookmakers? 
Betting on favorites is the most unprofitable and the bookmaker plans most of its profits here. Unlike bets on favorites, bets on underdogs are less likely to win, but in them the bookmaker's advantage is less than in bets on favorites.

That is not entirely the fault of the bookmaker, people have the tendency to bet on the favorites so the bookmakers give worst odds to those teams in order to account for this but in the scenario that people bet even more money than what they thought they would then they have no other option but to reduce the odds even further than that, so as you can see this happens because of the desire to get some easy profits coming from their customers, if people were risk-takers then we will see the opposite happening.

[Lanatsa]

Dictionary defines gambling as

take risky action in the hope of a desired result.

if it's risk-free it's not gambling at all, some gambling site offers a cashback on a particular fight, but it's not attractive to bettors if you offer the fight risk-free, I am betting on basketball and boxing and even if the match is not equal there is still a possibility of an upset, I still don't want to consider this as risk free betting but low risk betting

This one.

With just basing on the definition alone then you can really tell that there's no such thing about risk free fights as simply you are not doing gambling at all in the case.

Don't know on what others been thinking about this even having that leaked rigged possible games cant even guarantee to win yet you wont be sure if that would really hit up or not.

Heavily favorites doesn't mean that they are sure wins and I don't consider those as risk free.

[iv4n]

...

This one.

With just basing on the definition alone then you can really tell that there's no such thing about risk free fights as simply you are not doing gambling at all in the case.

Don't know on what others been thinking about this even having that leaked rigged possible games cant even guarantee to win yet you wont be sure if that would really hit up or not.

Heavily favorites doesn't mean that they are sure wins and I don't consider those as risk free.

I watched some shows... about Las Vegas, casino owners, gambling/mafia/everything else! And there's an upcoming fight, they push the rumor that one boxer will fall in the third round! So the rumor is going around for days, people place bets to make a profit... but in the end, it all was just a trick! They draw people into a safe bet and casinos just collected all the money, because most bettors lost!

When something is too good to be true, the red lamp in my head turns on! What is risk-free in this world?! Don't let anyone convince you there's something like that!

[South Park]

...

This one.

With just basing on the definition alone then you can really tell that there's no such thing about risk free fights as simply you are not doing gambling at all in the case.

Don't know on what others been thinking about this even having that leaked rigged possible games cant even guarantee to win yet you wont be sure if that would really hit up or not.

Heavily favorites doesn't mean that they are sure wins and I don't consider those as risk free.

I watched some shows... about Las Vegas, casino owners, gambling/mafia/everything else! And there's an upcoming fight, they push the rumor that one boxer will fall in the third round! So the rumor is going around for days, people place bets to make a profit... but in the end, it all was just a trick! They draw people into a safe bet and casinos just collected all the money, because most bettors lost!

When something is too good to be true, the red lamp in my head turns on! What is risk-free in this world?! Don't let anyone convince you there's something like that!

As someone that sometimes makes informal bets on live sports with other fans that are attending at the event I can say this is true, many times I hear rumors about this or that other fight being fixed and that a fighter is going to take a dive before a round and I see the betting activity increasing which benefits everyone except the gamblers and many times the prediction does not come true which tells me it was an attempt to manipulate us and makes us part with our money.

[Saisher]

Even if there is a mismatch in a card we should consider the possibility of upsets it always happen the favorite relaxing thinking that he can take him down anytime and the underdog trying to prove that he can take this guy, upsets always happen they will not face each other if they are not capable of taking down each other I will not even bet 100% winning over the other, I will still doubt the favorite.

[Oilacris]

Even if there is a mismatch in a card we should consider the possibility of upsets it always happen the favorite relaxing thinking that he can take him down anytime and the underdog trying to prove that he can take this guy, upsets always happen they will not face each other if they are not capable of taking down each other I will not even bet 100% winning over the other, I will still doubt the favorite.

Upsets is something that would be always part in sports betting and there's no such thing about risk free fights because chances or odds of turn about of events could really happen no matter how heavily favorite it is or been favored.

This is why when i do make out bets i do always consider the probabilities for the opposite team or player to have chance to take the win.

Just remember on not to go all in and always handle and manage your finances well then you should be fine.

[goinmerry]

This is why when i do make out bets i do always consider the probabilities for the opposite team or player to have chance to take the win.

As a basic rule of thumb, that should be a good approach in sports betting. Not just relying on the favorites' strength but also considering the chance of the opponent. For basketball example, the ball is round that even an unexpected thing to happen, really happens!

A good example in NBA, Atlanta Hawks vs Philadephia 76ers series. Before the series started, the majority doesn't really think that the Hawks have a chance at Sixers but look at the series now, they are now going into decisive Game 7 and to be honest, I can't pick who will be the series winner.

That's how important analyzing team at both ends as there is no assurance that a team will win with good odds like for example 1.1 to 1.5.

[smyslov]

This is why when i do make out bets i do always consider the probabilities for the opposite team or player to have chance to take the win.

Just remember on not to go all in and always handle and manage your finances well then you should be fine.

The recent fight between Inoue and Dasmarinas can be considered a risk free fights but there is still what you might call an upset and it can happen, sometimes a risk free fights are those fixed and staged fights, but if it is not a stage fight you should still consider an upset it's always present in any fights between team and individuals.

[KTChampions]

As I understand these articles are paid by bookmakers? 
Betting on favorites is the most unprofitable and the bookmaker plans most of its profits here. Unlike bets on favorites, bets on underdogs are less likely to win, but in them the bookmaker's advantage is less than in bets on favorites.

That is not entirely the fault of the bookmaker, people have the tendency to bet on the favorites so the bookmakers give worst odds to those teams in order to account for this but in the scenario that people bet even more money than what they thought they would then they have no other option but to reduce the odds even further than that, so as you can see this happens because of the desire to get some easy profits coming from their customers, if people were risk-takers then we will see the opposite happening.

I understand the motivation of the bookmakers and it is quite logical. I just expressed my opinion in order for the author of the topic to understand that betting on favorites is actually unprofitable. In general, the most important indicator of the profitability of any strategy is how much earlier / later you achieve doubling the deposit than losing it. When betting on favorites, you have to make a huge number of bets to double it and the likelihood of losing is higher than when betting on underdogs in this case.

[ethereumhunter]

Even if there is a mismatch in a card we should consider the possibility of upsets it always happen the favorite relaxing thinking that he can take him down anytime and the underdog trying to prove that he can take this guy, upsets always happen they will not face each other if they are not capable of taking down each other I will not even bet 100% winning over the other, I will still doubt the favorite.

Upsets is something that would be always part in sports betting and there's no such thing about risk free fights because chances or odds of turn about of events could really happen no matter how heavily favorite it is or been favored.

This is why when i do make out bets i do always consider the probabilities for the opposite team or player to have chance to take the win.

Just remember on not to go all in and always handle and manage your finances well then you should be fine.

If you can accept everything that will happen later, the upsets will not become bigger because you will think that in gambling, there is only two option, win and lose. We feel upsets because we lose, but we need to realize that is the risk that we get in gambling. Checking the probabilities for each team or player will help us know how good their performance is so we can select the right one. But betting risk-free fights will not be there because we risk our money and lose that money once we are gambling. It needs understanding and realizes about the result in the gambling games in the end.

[jostorres]

As a basic rule of thumb, that should be a good approach in sports betting. Not just relying on the favorites' strength but also considering the chance of the opponent. For basketball example, the ball is round that even an unexpected thing to happen, really happens!

A good example in NBA, Atlanta Hawks vs Philadephia 76ers series. Before the series started, the majority doesn't really think that the Hawks have a chance at Sixers but look at the series now, they are now going into decisive Game 7 and to be honest, I can't pick who will be the series winner.

That's how important analyzing team at both ends as there is no assurance that a team will win with good odds like for example 1.1 to 1.5.

Similarly the recent series between Nets and Bucks, it was a hilarious one where an injured James Harden looked out of sorts yet KD alone managed to carry the team to lead the series 3-2 after which the Bucks won at home which was somewhat expected since the home fans not just influence players but also the referees, I feel.

Anything you bet on has a chance to win or lose and hence there is nothing such as a risk-free bet unless we are moving to the grey area of rigging games. You must analyze which team or player has a better chance and if the odds disagree then maybe it is worth betting. For example, you feel Nadal has an obviously better chance against Federer on clay but the odds favor Federer for his recent results, then betting on Nadal is much more value betting. Although you may lose, of course.

[SirLancelot]

Even if there is a mismatch in a card we should consider the possibility of upsets it always happen the favorite relaxing thinking that he can take him down anytime and the underdog trying to prove that he can take this guy, upsets always happen they will not face each other if they are not capable of taking down each other I will not even bet 100% winning over the other, I will still doubt the favorite.

Absolutely and such mismatches hardly happen in the UFC and if even they happen sometimes you will see the odds will clearly revealing it. Recently Nate Diaz was mismatched with Leon and despite the legacy and history of Diaz, it was quite obvious that Leon would win and the odds were 1.1 or something like that for Leon Edwards to win which he did but not without some hiccups and crazy last round shenanigans from Diaz.

I hardly bet on such heavy favorites because although chances are you will win but the odds are just not worth it at all. I rather back underdogs especially in fighting sports where a small mistake from the favorite will do a whole world of good for the underdog. In sports like tennis, a small mistake won't mean much because one point doesn't change the game but a bad movement and kick can create severe issues for a fighter.

[Saint-loup]

This is why when i do make out bets i do always consider the probabilities for the opposite team or player to have chance to take the win.

As a basic rule of thumb, that should be a good approach in sports betting. Not just relying on the favorites' strength but also considering the chance of the opponent. For basketball example, the ball is round that even an unexpected thing to happen, really happens!

A good example in NBA, Atlanta Hawks vs Philadephia 76ers series. Before the series started, the majority doesn't really think that the Hawks have a chance at Sixers but look at the series now, they are now going into decisive Game 7 and to be honest, I can't pick who will be the series winner.

That's how important analyzing team at both ends as there is no assurance that a team will win with good odds like for example 1.1 to 1.5.

No I confirm to you, there is no assurance for a team or a player to win with such odds : @1.5 odds means there are only 66% chances (maybe even 60% with the vigorish) to win for the player or the team chosen. An (almost) risk free bet with no bonuses couldn't be above @1.01 if bookmakers have correctly assessed it.

[Fredomago]

No I confirm to you, there is no assurance for a team or a player to win with such odds : @1.5 odds means there are only 66%(maybe 60% with the vigorish) to win.

If there's any assurance it not gambling anymore, even in a slight percentage of losing shit may happened. Even after all the research that you made there's always a chance that your bet will lose.

We as gamblers understand that, we do have our different approach and system that we use each time we sort and pick the team or players that we are riding,

Knowing that even how small the odds if luck will not permit we still going to lose our money.

[Saint-loup]

No I confirm to you, there is no assurance for a team or a player to win with such odds : @1.5 odds means there are only 66%(maybe 60% with the vigorish) to win.

If there's any assurance it not gambling anymore, even in a slight percentage of losing shit may happened. Even after all the research that you made there's always a chance that your bet will lose.

We as gamblers understand that, we do have our different approach and system that we use each time we sort and pick the team or players that we are riding,

Knowing that even how small the odds if luck will not permit we still going to lose our money.

I agree with you but the real "risk" of a bet or in other words the likeliness of the outcome to happen has nothing to do with the money and the profit you can get from it. If the likeliness of the outcome is actually 90% but the bet is only paid out @1.01, the bet is almost risk free but not profitable at the end.

[South Park]

This is why when i do make out bets i do always consider the probabilities for the opposite team or player to have chance to take the win.

Just remember on not to go all in and always handle and manage your finances well then you should be fine.

The recent fight between Inoue and Dasmarinas can be considered a risk free fights but there is still what you might call an upset and it can happen, sometimes a risk free fights are those fixed and staged fights, but if it is not a stage fight you should still consider an upset it's always present in any fights between team and individuals.

I watched that fight and it is true that it was very one-sided in favor of Inoue, however even if he was the favorite and he showed why we cannot ever discard that something happens that could change the results, after all we know that in the world of boxing only one hit is needed to change everything, so if the one that is the favorite relaxes himself thinking he is going to have an easy win he could be surprised and face a lose that he never expected, similar to what happen in the first Ruiz vs Joshua fight.

[cabron]

This is why when i do make out bets i do always consider the probabilities for the opposite team or player to have chance to take the win.

Just remember on not to go all in and always handle and manage your finances well then you should be fine.

The recent fight between Inoue and Dasmarinas can be considered a risk free fights but there is still what you might call an upset and it can happen, sometimes a risk free fights are those fixed and staged fights, but if it is not a stage fight you should still consider an upset it's always present in any fights between team and individuals.

I watched that fight and it is true that it was very one-sided in favor of Inoue, however even if he was the favorite and he showed why we cannot ever discard that something happens that could change the results, after all we know that in the world of boxing only one hit is needed to change everything, so if the one that is the favorite relaxes himself thinking he is going to have an easy win he could be surprised and face a lose that he never expected, similar to what happen in the first Ruiz vs Joshua fight.

Inoue and Dasmarinas is one example of the risk free fight I can agree to that. Just think about it, if Inoue had knockout the bigger boxers in the past, there is just a tiny chance for Dasmarinas to win against him when you compare their previous fights and opponents. Dasmarinas knew that Inoue is going to target the liver as he always does, a dreadful loss.

[stomachgrowls]

This is why when i do make out bets i do always consider the probabilities for the opposite team or player to have chance to take the win.

Just remember on not to go all in and always handle and manage your finances well then you should be fine.

The recent fight between Inoue and Dasmarinas can be considered a risk free fights but there is still what you might call an upset and it can happen, sometimes a risk free fights are those fixed and staged fights, but if it is not a stage fight you should still consider an upset it's always present in any fights between team and individuals.

I watched that fight and it is true that it was very one-sided in favor of Inoue, however even if he was the favorite and he showed why we cannot ever discard that something happens that could change the results, after all we know that in the world of boxing only one hit is needed to change everything, so if the one that is the favorite relaxes himself thinking he is going to have an easy win he could be surprised and face a lose that he never expected, similar to what happen in the first Ruiz vs Joshua fight.

Inoue and Dasmarinas is one example of the risk free fight I can agree to that. Just think about it, if Inoue had knockout the bigger boxers in the past, there is just a tiny chance for Dasmarinas to win against him when you compare their previous fights and opponents. Dasmarinas knew that Inoue is going to target the liver as he always does, a dreadful loss.

I do actually saw the opposite thing when you do try to read on on most comments on this thread where they do really believe that Dasmarinas could really pull off some upset fight with Inoue without minding about those past fights or histories of previous opponents on where these each fighters had fought on which you cant really make out presumption on whose the better boxer.

I cant really say so about for this fight to be a free risk fight because you can really still see those kind of chance even though its a bit slim but its there.

When it comes to risk free fights then i dont usually have confidence no matter how obvious it is when it comes to become some mismatch
or whatsoever.

Now that Casimero vs Donaire would be the next in line which the winner would be the one to face up Inoue then its really even more hard to tell
which one would able to take the monster down.

[South Park]

I watched that fight and it is true that it was very one-sided in favor of Inoue, however even if he was the favorite and he showed why we cannot ever discard that something happens that could change the results, after all we know that in the world of boxing only one hit is needed to change everything, so if the one that is the favorite relaxes himself thinking he is going to have an easy win he could be surprised and face a lose that he never expected, similar to what happen in the first Ruiz vs Joshua fight.

Inoue and Dasmarinas is one example of the risk free fight I can agree to that. Just think about it, if Inoue had knockout the bigger boxers in the past, there is just a tiny chance for Dasmarinas to win against him when you compare their previous fights and opponents. Dasmarinas knew that Inoue is going to target the liver as he always does, a dreadful loss.

Poor Dasmarinas he never got a chance, he was outright destroyed by those punches to the liver that I was actually sorry for the guy, I know that it is not as impressive as a KO but unlike when you get KO in which you loss your consciousness on the spot when you are hit on the liver you get a pain as if you have been stabbed and the pain is very intense, and he received three heavy shots there and all of this happens while you are completely conscious so it is a terrible experience for the one that has to go through it.

[Fredomago]

No I confirm to you, there is no assurance for a team or a player to win with such odds : @1.5 odds means there are only 66%(maybe 60% with the vigorish) to win.

If there's any assurance it not gambling anymore, even in a slight percentage of losing shit may happened. Even after all the research that you made there's always a chance that your bet will lose.

We as gamblers understand that, we do have our different approach and system that we use each time we sort and pick the team or players that we are riding,

Knowing that even how small the odds if luck will not permit we still going to lose our money.

I agree with you but the real "risk" of a bet or in other words the likeliness of the outcome to happen has nothing to do with the money and the profit you can get from it. If the likeliness of the outcome is actually 90% but the bet is only paid out @1.01, the bet is almost risk free but not profitable at the end.

Another thing to consider, yeah it's right the worth of your possible earnings compared how big you are risking, not worthy unless you are willing to take that gamble for the sake of small gain as what you mentioned.

For most cases, gamblers will take much bigger risk targetting more higher profits, instead of trying to play safe since there's still risk behind.

Though it always depends from how gamblers take things out and what system they are using while working inside this field.

[Mahanton]

No I confirm to you, there is no assurance for a team or a player to win with such odds : @1.5 odds means there are only 66%(maybe 60% with the vigorish) to win.

If there's any assurance it not gambling anymore, even in a slight percentage of losing shit may happened. Even after all the research that you made there's always a chance that your bet will lose.

We as gamblers understand that, we do have our different approach and system that we use each time we sort and pick the team or players that we are riding,

Knowing that even how small the odds if luck will not permit we still going to lose our money.

I agree with you but the real "risk" of a bet or in other words the likeliness of the outcome to happen has nothing to do with the money and the profit you can get from it. If the likeliness of the outcome is actually 90% but the bet is only paid out @1.01, the bet is almost risk free but not profitable at the end.

Another thing to consider, yeah it's right the worth of your possible earnings compared how big you are risking, not worthy unless you are willing to take that gamble for the sake of small gain as what you mentioned.

For most cases, gamblers will take much bigger risk targetting more higher profits, instead of trying to play safe since there's still risk behind.

Though it always depends from how gamblers take things out and what system they are using while working inside this field.

As an experienced gambler then you can eventually make some own decision whether a certain bet would really be worth of the risk or not and this is just personal choice because not all would be having the same views on a particular situation and its true that theres no such thing about guaranteed or risk free bets no matter how small the odds is there would always be a tendency on losing that one and this is why we shouldnt really get that confident on making out big bets just for small gains.You can always determine because sometimes guts do really set in and give you some feeling.

[goinmerry]

Inoue and Dasmarinas is one example of the risk free fight I can agree to that.

Totally wrong. There is no risk-free fight even there's a large distance between Inoue and Dasmarinas.

You just actually say that because you already know the result. I'm sure that's not your view before the fight.

And I doubt you will put a bet on a @1.2 odds for Inoue prior to that match.

[chaser15]

For most cases, gamblers will take much bigger risk targetting more higher profits, instead of trying to play safe since there's still risk behind.

I agree. Imagine betting a big amount which is already risky then winnings will just be small.

More regrettable to lose on a low odds since we are expecting already a win but it turned out it's not.

I'd rather bet on 1.8 odds minimum compare to below 1.2 odds.

[milewilda]

For most cases, gamblers will take much bigger risk targetting more higher profits, instead of trying to play safe since there's still risk behind.

I agree. Imagine betting a big amount which is already risky then winnings will just be small.

More regrettable to lose on a low odds since we are expecting already a win but it turned out it's not.

I'd rather bet on 1.8 odds minimum compare to below 1.2 odds.

When it comes to standard betting odds then i do usually consider on making on between 1.3 - 1.6 on the lowest rather than on taking 1.01-1.1 or something like that.It isnt really worth the risk
but hey, there are people or gambler who do really take risk because they do believe that this is already a sure win but its actually not unless if you do know its fixed match then that would really be
a nice hit when you do go all in but to think that even with fixed games doesnt really give out assurance since you wont know if that info is legit or not or just basically some basic guess.
It all matters on how much risk you can put on so its a personal choice most of the time.

[Kyraishi]

Unless you're talking about arbitrage sportsbetting, I don't see any risk-free bets here.

No matter how low the odds may get, there will be a chance that the opponent gets upset once in a blue moon. Heck, if things were really guaranteed to be a win, then why would bookies even offer an odd on these events to begin with?

In fact, fights that you think are the most guaranteed wins are likely going to turn out to have the least EV out of the bunch because there is not a lot of interest in the market and hence the spreads are very high.

[agustina2]

Unless you're talking about arbitrage sportsbetting, I don't see any risk-free bets here.

Arbitrage betting or not, there's no such thing as risk-free bets. Can you explain how arbitrage sports betting becomes a risk-free bet?

The actions are still the same either the bettor uses the usual and common betting or applies some other forms of betting. The bettor will bet to an odds relatively below 1.2 as they think, it's a sure win which is not.

I can't see how the risk will be minimized by doing arbitrage betting.

[decodx]

I can't see how the risk will be minimized by doing arbitrage betting.

Arbitrage is a form of betting that guarantees winnings regardless of the result of the match. You are betting on both outcomes of an event at different bookmakers and combining them to ensure a profit.
Of course, there are some pitfalls to avoid, but I believe many people still do this.

[KTChampions]

Unless you're talking about arbitrage sportsbetting, I don't see any risk-free bets here.

Arbitrage betting or not, there's no such thing as risk-free bets. Can you explain how arbitrage sports betting becomes a risk-free bet?

The actions are still the same either the bettor uses the usual and common betting or applies some other forms of betting. The bettor will bet to an odds relatively below 1.2 as they think, it's a sure win which is not.

I can't see how the risk will be minimized by doing arbitrage betting.

You should read a little about arbitrage bets before making such strong claims. They are really risk-free.
Imagine that an event has only two outcomes. Different bookmakers give different odds for this event and you can choose different bookmakers and place a bet with odds 2.1 on outcome A and bet with odds 2.05 on outcome B.
This is a risk-free bet. By placing $ 100 on each outcome, you will receive either $ 5 or $ 10 of guaranteed profit.

[wheelz1200]

Nope no fight is risk free.  I witnessed the most risk free fight possibly ever.  Tyson vs buster Douglass.  No way was buster even going to last the first round against Mike.  Think he was a 40-1 chump.  Buster wrecked him and most betters along the way.  No gamble or bet is risk free unless you have the known outcome already (cheating).

[cabron]

Nope no fight is risk free.  I witnessed the most risk free fight possibly ever.  Tyson vs buster Douglass.  No way was buster even going to last the first round against Mike.  Think he was a 40-1 chump.  Buster wrecked him and most betters along the way.  No gamble or bet is risk free unless you have the known outcome already (cheating).

There are risk-free fights but it's just something you analyze yourself. Many will disagree and some will agree but this is because it's how they see the match and the fighters.

Take for instance the Poirer vs McGregor this July 11. We know Poirer is just as good as Mcgregor, these are top-notch martial artists and a bettor might not foresee which will win until it ends. This fight is a high-risk fight.

[rodskee]

Would you be able to decide which fight could be risk free that you will bet your weekly pay despite the small odd like 1.50 or would you still rethink if there is an upset like Weili Zhang and Rose Namajunas.  

How about Jairzinho Rozenstruik vs Augusto Sakai, is this a risk free fight to you?



Jairzinho Rozenstruik by the way is the one that did the nasty cuts to Allistair's mouth.

Sorry mate but what you are looking is impossible to happen , This is why Sports and gambling are almost the same , know why? because they are both risky and has 2 sides.

The Winner and the Loser..

That is what gambling and sports must be so looking for free fights means you are wanting to have FIXED FIGHTS and that is not a Legit way of betting .

[zanezane]

~

Indeed! you can assure yourself that just because the odd is really small for the heavy favorite then they'll going to win it
easily, not all the time that it will be like that.

There's still a chance that you'll experienced bad luck and your pick will suffer, gambling always accompanied by risk its
always that way.

Isn't the heavy favorite with low odds the one that you should be betting on a risk free fights because I think in this kind of set up, they try to lower the odds for the favorite pick and sweeten the pot for the least favorite?

[hahay]

Nope no fight is risk free.  I witnessed the most risk free fight possibly ever.  Tyson vs buster Douglass.  No way was buster even going to last the first round against Mike.  Think he was a 40-1 chump.  Buster wrecked him and most betters along the way.  No gamble or bet is risk free unless you have the known outcome already (cheating).

There are risk-free fights but it's just something you analyze yourself. Many will disagree and some will agree but this is because it's how they see the match and the fighters.

Take for instance the Poirer vs McGregor this July 11. We know Poirer is just as good as Mcgregor, these are top-notch martial artists and a bettor might not foresee which will win until it ends. This fight is a high-risk fight.

That's right and besides, when they say it is a risk free bet then at least they will only get small odds and thus, a risk free bet can also be said to be a bet with no profit or only a small profit. But regarding the Poirer vs McGregor match, I think Poirer will be the favorite even though both of them fill the top ranks but with Poirer's position being better, then I'm pretty sure the match will be won by Poirer. Well, this match is an example, although I predict Poirer will win but still, I can't say it's a risk free bet because both of them still have a chance to win. It's different if the match is very unbalanced by giving odds like 1.xx vs 10 or higher, then with the difference in odds we can at least say whether it will be a risk-free bet or not.

[South Park]

Unless you're talking about arbitrage sportsbetting, I don't see any risk-free bets here.

No matter how low the odds may get, there will be a chance that the opponent gets upset once in a blue moon. Heck, if things were really guaranteed to be a win, then why would bookies even offer an odd on these events to begin with?

In fact, fights that you think are the most guaranteed wins are likely going to turn out to have the least EV out of the bunch because there is not a lot of interest in the market and hence the spreads are very high.

And even then those kind of bets are not really risk-free, you still need to make your bets  correctly and even then casinos will eventually realize what you are doing since your betting patterns are going to be very different, most gamblers concentrate in just a few markets giving away your preferences, if you bet in all kind of sports and the casinos realize that you are always taking their best lines then they will realize that you are making arbitrage bets and limit your account.

[decodx]

...then they will realize that you are making arbitrage bets and limit your account.

This is easy to avoid if you use some common sense. Many people use arbitrary betting, and there is nothing a casino can do about it.

[South Park]

...then they will realize that you are making arbitrage bets and limit your account.

This is easy to avoid if you use some common sense. Many people use arbitrary betting, and there is nothing a casino can do about it.

It will be interesting to know how this can be done as casinos realize how this is done in several ways, arbitrage bettors take the best lines all the time and this makes the casinos suspicious that you are betting professionally and nor for recreation, arbitrage gamblers use weird betting sizes in order to obtain profits so this is a giveaway of what you are doing as well, and as I said the fact an arbitrage gambler will bet in almost any market is also a way to flag them as one.

[Lanatsa]

...then they will realize that you are making arbitrage bets and limit your account.

This is easy to avoid if you use some common sense. Many people use arbitrary betting, and there is nothing a casino can do about it.

It will be interesting to know how this can be done as casinos realize how this is done in several ways, arbitrage bettors take the best lines all the time and this makes the casinos suspicious that you are betting professionally and nor for recreation, arbitrage gamblers use weird betting sizes in order to obtain profits so this is a giveaway of what you are doing as well, and as I said the fact an arbitrage gambler will bet in almost any market is also a way to flag them as one.

Really hard to be determine but casinos aren't that numb on not to notice those kind of arbitrage and even if you do make some constant winning then there would be some possible limitation

or something like that will happen on you. Arbitrage is something different compared into the thing we've been talking about risk free bets specially on those typical ones.

Arbitrage can really be considered risk free but it wont be a noob friendly strategy but of course the risk does always lies ahead.

[KTChampions]

It will be interesting to know how this can be done as casinos realize how this is done in several ways, arbitrage bettors take the best lines all the time and this makes the casinos suspicious that you are betting professionally and nor for recreation, arbitrage gamblers use weird betting sizes in order to obtain profits so this is a giveaway of what you are doing as well, and as I said the fact an arbitrage gambler will bet in almost any market is also a way to flag them as one.

I think the big casinos/bookmakers exchange information about the players and the bets they make. Although they are competitors, they are on the same side of the front in relation to the players. So I think if you want to seriously engage in arbitration and not get caught very quickly, you should use accounts registered for different people, this makes the task much more difficult for the casino.

[Fortify]

Would you be able to decide which fight could be risk free that you will bet your weekly pay despite the small odd like 1.50 or would you still rethink if there is an upset like Weili Zhang and Rose Namajunas.  

How about Jairzinho Rozenstruik vs Augusto Sakai, is this a risk free fight to you?

-snip-

Jairzinho Rozenstruik by the way is the one that did the nasty cuts to Allistair's mouth.

You will quickly go bankrupt if you are placing a lot of bets at 1.5 thinking that they are a sure fire win. I have seen several bets at 1.03 get switched into a loser in the final few minutes of a game and it can all start going wrong very quickly. Maybe fighting it different from the sports that I follow or the odds might solidify towards the end. The whole idea of betting your weekly pay packet on anything is a dangerous game and you must not have bills or responsibilities if you could consider being so wasteful with your money for such a measly "return on investment".

[lixer]

Isn't the heavy favorite with low odds the one that you should be betting on a risk free fights because I think in this kind of set up, they try to lower the odds for the favorite pick and sweeten the pot for the least favorite?

Indeed and people will mostly go for higher odds. I mean if Djokovicis playing against a new player there would be no value in betting on Djokovic because gamblers don't want to win 5 USD on a 100 dollars bet. Hence I always feel that more gamblers bet on the least favorite outcome because everyone chases higher odds all the time.

This is easy to avoid if you use some common sense. Many people use arbitrary betting, and there is nothing a casino can do about it.

Are you even serious? You don't make sense here. You said nothing the casino can do about it, firstly it's a sportsbook, not a casino that accepts sports bets and then you say they cannot do anything but you also say it's easy to avoid, which contradicts your own statements. Anyways arbitrage betting is quite popular nowadays and yes sportsbook will quickly find and limit your account if they find out you are doing it.

[dunfida]

Would you be able to decide which fight could be risk free that you will bet your weekly pay despite the small odd like 1.50 or would you still rethink if there is an upset like Weili Zhang and Rose Namajunas.  

How about Jairzinho Rozenstruik vs Augusto Sakai, is this a risk free fight to you?

-snip-

Jairzinho Rozenstruik by the way is the one that did the nasty cuts to Allistair's mouth.

You will quickly go bankrupt if you are placing a lot of bets at 1.5 thinking that they are a sure fire win. I have seen several bets at 1.03 get switched into a loser in the final few minutes of a game and it can all start going wrong very quickly. Maybe fighting it different from the sports that I follow or the odds might solidify towards the end. The whole idea of betting your weekly pay packet on anything is a dangerous game and you must not have bills or responsibilities if you could consider being so wasteful with your money for such a measly "return on investment".

When it comes to gambling then its never been a good idea for you to make it as a source of income or does really mind about on how to make money or profits with it.
You would really turn out to be desperate and believing into something which isnt really applicable in reality and you would surely realize that when you do experience it for  yourself.
Even 1.03 odds wont really make out guarantee or even 1.01 on where i have seen some gamblers do make out all in bet with that odds which i cant see for it to be
that worth of the risk.

[RealMalatesta]

Nope no fight is risk free.  I witnessed the most risk free fight possibly ever.  Tyson vs buster Douglass.  No way was buster even going to last the first round against Mike.  Think he was a 40-1 chump.  Buster wrecked him and most betters along the way.  No gamble or bet is risk free unless you have the known outcome already (cheating).

That's so true and although I haven't watched the fight you mentioned, I have seen enough comebacks and upsets that I have the same opinion, no bet is ever risk-free and the odds usually indicate that only. If a fight or match is risk-free, there would be no odds on that event.

I have seen big upsets and hilarious comebacks in cricket, tennis and recently NBA so I would rather prefer to bet on the underdogs and them to win because losing a bet with 1.01 or such odds sucks.

Yes sometimes odds are misleading and bettors can take advantage of that but that rarely happens because the odds are developed based on how much the bettors are picking which player/fighter.

Conor was favorite against Poirier in the 2nd fight they had which Poirier won and that was because people favored Conor neglecting the fact that Dustin was better prepared for that fight.

[South Park]

It will be interesting to know how this can be done as casinos realize how this is done in several ways, arbitrage bettors take the best lines all the time and this makes the casinos suspicious that you are betting professionally and nor for recreation, arbitrage gamblers use weird betting sizes in order to obtain profits so this is a giveaway of what you are doing as well, and as I said the fact an arbitrage gambler will bet in almost any market is also a way to flag them as one.

I think the big casinos/bookmakers exchange information about the players and the bets they make. Although they are competitors, they are on the same side of the front in relation to the players. So I think if you want to seriously engage in arbitration and not get caught very quickly, you should use accounts registered for different people, this makes the task much more difficult for the casino.

That option has never passed my mind but it makes sense, after all when it comes to physical casinos we know they share information with each other about cheating gamblers or gamblers that are able to beat them so it makes sense that online casinos could do the same as they would like to protect their profits from gamblers that are able to beat them, in any case the point is that casinos can eventually find out that you are an arbitrage bettor and limit your account when they realize this.

[Pamadar]

That option has never passed my mind but it makes sense, after all when it comes to physical casinos we know they share information with each other about cheating gamblers or gamblers that are able to beat them so it makes sense that online casinos could do the same as they would like to protect their profits from gamblers that are able to beat them, in any case the point is that casinos can eventually find out that you are an arbitrage bettor and limit your account when they realize this.

Very possible that casino owners will do that.

Sharing information on how this kind of activities is being facilitated and how they'll be able to stop it asap!
They know that if they don't act as quick as they can those pro gamblers will continue to suck out their money, arbitrage betting strategy do really exist, but the risk are high since casino can easily tagged your account and freeze your money.

[Twinkledoe]

That option has never passed my mind but it makes sense, after all when it comes to physical casinos we know they share information with each other about cheating gamblers or gamblers that are able to beat them so it makes sense that online casinos could do the same as they would like to protect their profits from gamblers that are able to beat them, in any case the point is that casinos can eventually find out that you are an arbitrage bettor and limit your account when they realize this.

Very possible that casino owners will do that.

Sharing information on how this kind of activities is being facilitated and how they'll be able to stop it asap!
They know that if they don't act as quick as they can those pro gamblers will continue to suck out their money, arbitrage betting strategy do really exist, but the risk are high since casino can easily tagged your account and freeze your money.

If the casino is fast in gathering their investigation, the user doing that can very well end up not getting his money. Would be unfortunate if he is using somebody else's money. Anyway, I don't know if these online casinos really do communicate with each other. Because they are competitors and it is hard to talk with your competitors in the business.

[KTChampions]

I think the big casinos/bookmakers exchange information about the players and the bets they make. Although they are competitors, they are on the same side of the front in relation to the players. So I think if you want to seriously engage in arbitration and not get caught very quickly, you should use accounts registered for different people, this makes the task much more difficult for the casino.

That option has never passed my mind but it makes sense, after all when it comes to physical casinos we know they share information with each other about cheating gamblers or gamblers that are able to beat them so it makes sense that online casinos could do the same as they would like to protect their profits from gamblers that are able to beat them, in any case the point is that casinos can eventually find out that you are an arbitrage bettor and limit your account when they realize this.

By the way, it is actually not known how many independent casinos exist at all. The situation may be similar to the situation with drinks and chocolates - when several of the most popular supposedly competing brands belong to the same player in the market. Therefore, it is possible that we are not even talking about the exchange of information, but only about the accumulation of it from different sources managed by one management.

[South Park]

That option has never passed my mind but it makes sense, after all when it comes to physical casinos we know they share information with each other about cheating gamblers or gamblers that are able to beat them so it makes sense that online casinos could do the same as they would like to protect their profits from gamblers that are able to beat them, in any case the point is that casinos can eventually find out that you are an arbitrage bettor and limit your account when they realize this.

By the way, it is actually not known how many independent casinos exist at all. The situation may be similar to the situation with drinks and chocolates - when several of the most popular supposedly competing brands belong to the same player in the market. Therefore, it is possible that we are not even talking about the exchange of information, but only about the accumulation of it from different sources managed by one management.

Now the difficulty with such records is that when it comes to physical casinos since you need to be there paying on their installations then this means they have a very easy way to identify you, but this is not as easy to do online as an arbitrage bettor could convince a friend to open an account on their own name and just follow their system and begin to win that way while they share their profits until they are banned or limited again, so while what you are explaining is definitely happening it is easier to circumvent it online.

[cabron]

UFC 269: Oliveira vs. Poirier this December 11 seems to have good matches that seem less risky.
Lightweight   Charles Oliveira    vs.   Dustin Poirier           
Women's Bantamweight   Amanda Nunes    vs.   Julianna Peña
Bantamweight   Raulian Paiva   vs.   Sean O'Malley   

It's just these 3 that I'm looking at since they are the most dominant in their division and most likely going to win. Although Oliveira has a chance to win, I don't think he can actually beat Poirier.

No say for Nunes and Omalley, it would take a huge lucky punch to beat these two. Takedown defense of Nunes is just too much for Pena to successfully execute.

[Fundamentals Of]

UFC 269: Oliveira vs. Poirier this December 11 seems to have good matches that seem less risky.
Lightweight   Charles Oliveira    vs.   Dustin Poirier           
Women's Bantamweight   Amanda Nunes    vs.   Julianna Peña
Bantamweight   Raulian Paiva   vs.   Sean O'Malley   

It's just these 3 that I'm looking at since they are the most dominant in their division and most likely going to win. Although Oliveira has a chance to win, I don't think he can actually beat Poirier.

No say for Nunes and Omalley, it would take a huge lucky punch to beat these two. Takedown defense of Nunes is just too much for Pena to successfully execute.

Just very recently, we have seen how the heavy favorite fighter Teofimo Lopez with odds of -1000 or 1.1 has lost to the heavy underdog George Kambosos Jr. with odds of +650 or 7.5. The odds obviously suggested that Teofimo Lopez is the sure winner and George Kambosos Jr. was the sure loser. But it wasn't the result. Not only did George Kambosos Jr. win but he made the win by decision.

The risk is higher in MMA because lucky punches, kick, knee, etc are a common thing.

[Mahanton]

UFC 269: Oliveira vs. Poirier this December 11 seems to have good matches that seem less risky.
Lightweight   Charles Oliveira    vs.   Dustin Poirier           
Women's Bantamweight   Amanda Nunes    vs.   Julianna Peña
Bantamweight   Raulian Paiva   vs.   Sean O'Malley   

It's just these 3 that I'm looking at since they are the most dominant in their division and most likely going to win. Although Oliveira has a chance to win, I don't think he can actually beat Poirier.

No say for Nunes and Omalley, it would take a huge lucky punch to beat these two. Takedown defense of Nunes is just too much for Pena to successfully execute.

Just very recently, we have seen how the heavy favorite fighter Teofimo Lopez with odds of -1000 or 1.1 has lost to the heavy underdog George Kambosos Jr. with odds of +650 or 7.5. The odds obviously suggested that Teofimo Lopez is the sure winner and George Kambosos Jr. was the sure loser. But it wasn't the result. Not only did George Kambosos Jr. win but he made the win by decision.

The risk is higher in MMA because lucky punches, kick, knee, etc are a common thing.

This is why i never really cross out the probabilities of having an upset no matter how sure the odds was 1.0x or 1.1 or something but that wont really assure everything.

Lucky for those who had bet on Kambosos and that wasnt really just their analysis but rather taking some shot on underdog to have  some upset and it did happen.

Risk free bets is something that you could only acquired with those rigged or fixed matches.

[uneng]

Risk free bets is something that you could only acquired with those rigged or fixed matches.

This is a double edge sword, because although fixed matches guarantee a risk free bet for those who know about the scheme behind the curtains, for most gamblers it won't be a risk free bet, as the favorite player (on who most people is going to bet) is going to lose in order to reward a decent profit to the minority of gamblers who know about the rigged game and who bet on the underdog for this reason, knowing he will be winner for sure.
In gambling we need to be aware about all the possible scenarios, especially in sports betting, where provably fair isn't assured and human interference makes all the difference in the final results.

[dunfida]

Risk free bets is something that you could only acquired with those rigged or fixed matches.

This is a double edge sword, because although fixed matches guarantee a risk free bet for those who know about the scheme behind the curtains, for most gamblers it won't be a risk free bet, as the favorite player (on who most people is going to bet) is going to lose in order to reward a decent profit to the minority of gamblers who know about the rigged game and who bet on the underdog for this reason, knowing he will be winner for sure.
In gambling we need to be aware about all the possible scenarios, especially in sports betting, where provably fair isn't assured and human interference makes all the difference in the final results.

Human interference's or other factors would really make out some effect on a particular game and its true that this is something that can be assure because anything could happen. Fixed matches information cant really be acquired so easily and this would really be needing for you to be part of some
organization or something like that and of course it would involved to shell out lots of money on getting those information.

[Smartvirus]

Risk free bets. Well, there are a few bets that gamblers might see and then think of it as a risk free bet. Unfortunately, no bet is risk free else, what's the point for the athletes to combat themselves, the match would has well be decided and awarded to the more agile athlete. Since that isn't possible and given the chance that, in any fixture, any outcome can play out in a game, no bet is considered risk free. There could be a knockout punch when the other opponent is off-guard and that's enough to do the trick. Records counts but records are there to be broken too. So, I'll just bet and not call it risk free!

[Quidat]

Risk free bets is something that you could only acquired with those rigged or fixed matches.

This is a double edge sword, because although fixed matches guarantee a risk free bet for those who know about the scheme behind the curtains, for most gamblers it won't be a risk free bet, as the favorite player (on who most people is going to bet) is going to lose in order to reward a decent profit to the minority of gamblers who know about the rigged game and who bet on the underdog for this reason, knowing he will be winner for sure.
In gambling we need to be aware about all the possible scenarios, especially in sports betting, where provably fair isn't assured and human interference makes all the difference in the final results.

Human interference's or other factors would really make out some effect on a particular game and its true that this is something that can be assure because anything could happen. Fixed matches information cant really be acquired so easily and this would really be needing for you to be part of some
organization or something like that and of course it would involved to shell out lots of money on getting those information.

We do even seen those people who do claim that they had fixed matches information and sell it out or tending to share it to the public which is obviously a scheme which they do tend that someone will believe and it if wins then someone will be saying its true and this is where
the true intent would happen.

[Fundamentals Of]

UFC 269: Oliveira vs. Poirier this December 11 seems to have good matches that seem less risky.
Lightweight   Charles Oliveira    vs.   Dustin Poirier           
Women's Bantamweight   Amanda Nunes    vs.   Julianna Peña
Bantamweight   Raulian Paiva   vs.   Sean O'Malley   

It's just these 3 that I'm looking at since they are the most dominant in their division and most likely going to win. Although Oliveira has a chance to win, I don't think he can actually beat Poirier.

No say for Nunes and Omalley, it would take a huge lucky punch to beat these two. Takedown defense of Nunes is just too much for Pena to successfully execute.

Just very recently, we have seen how the heavy favorite fighter Teofimo Lopez with odds of -1000 or 1.1 has lost to the heavy underdog George Kambosos Jr. with odds of +650 or 7.5. The odds obviously suggested that Teofimo Lopez is the sure winner and George Kambosos Jr. was the sure loser. But it wasn't the result. Not only did George Kambosos Jr. win but he made the win by decision.

The risk is higher in MMA because lucky punches, kick, knee, etc are a common thing.

This is why i never really cross out the probabilities of having an upset no matter how sure the odds was 1.0x or 1.1 or something but that wont really assure everything.

Risk free bets is something that you could only acquired with those rigged or fixed matches.

Simply said, there are really no risk free bets. All bets are called bets because they are risked.

If we take a look at those matches which are considered risk free, they are not really risk free. Dustin Poirier for example is really a strong fighter in the lightweight division but so is Oliveira. Lest we forget, he's the champ. Mate, he's on a winning streak for 9 matches in total since 2018.

And the odds are not really saying Dustin is the sure winner. With Dustin's at 1.56 and Oliveira at 2.27, it is not really a one-sided match.

[traderethereum]

Risk free bets. Well, there are a few bets that gamblers might see and then think of it as a risk free bet. Unfortunately, no bet is risk free else, what's the point for the athletes to combat themselves, the match would has well be decided and awarded to the more agile athlete. Since that isn't possible and given the chance that, in any fixture, any outcome can play out in a game, no bet is considered risk free. There could be a knockout punch when the other opponent is off-guard and that's enough to do the trick. Records counts but records are there to be broken too. So, I'll just bet and not call it risk free!

If you gamble, no matter how much money you use, there will be a risk that will give you lose or win.
If you win, you get the loss, but you will lose your money if you lose.
Related to the match, I think we need to think about the surprise factor for every player as they can keep a secret of what they will use for their opponent.
So there will still be a risk for you even if you can predict that player can win easily from the opponent.
We can check their history and what practising they already use. Still, we also need to search for another possibility for that player if the situation is changing to have another thing that needs to be prepared.

[Lucasgabd]

Risk free bets. Well, there are a few bets that gamblers might see and then think of it as a risk free bet. Unfortunately, no bet is risk free else, what's the point for the athletes to combat themselves, the match would has well be decided and awarded to the more agile athlete. Since that isn't possible and given the chance that, in any fixture, any outcome can play out in a game, no bet is considered risk free. There could be a knockout punch when the other opponent is off-guard and that's enough to do the trick. Records counts but records are there to be broken too. So, I'll just bet and not call it risk free!

If you gamble, no matter how much money you use, there will be a risk that will give you lose or win.
If you win, you get the loss, but you will lose your money if you lose.
Related to the match, I think we need to think about the surprise factor for every player as they can keep a secret of what they will use for their opponent.
So there will still be a risk for you even if you can predict that player can win easily from the opponent.
We can check their history and what practising they already use. Still, we also need to search for another possibility for that player if the situation is changing to have another thing that needs to be prepared.

this is correct
but it's also possible to find asymmetrical opportunities with a smaller risk
even free money ones like when you could bet against Trump after he had already lost the elections and had no chance of coming back.

[cabron]

Risk free bets is something that you could only acquired with those rigged or fixed matches.

This is a double edge sword, because although fixed matches guarantee a risk free bet for those who know about the scheme behind the curtains, for most gamblers it won't be a risk free bet, as the favorite player (on who most people is going to bet) is going to lose in order to reward a decent profit to the minority of gamblers who know about the rigged game and who bet on the underdog for this reason, knowing he will be winner for sure.
In gambling we need to be aware about all the possible scenarios, especially in sports betting, where provably fair isn't assured and human interference makes all the difference in the final results.

Human interference's or other factors would really make out some effect on a particular game and its true that this is something that can be assure because anything could happen. Fixed matches information cant really be acquired so easily and this would really be needing for you to be part of some
organization or something like that and of course it would involved to shell out lots of money on getting those information.

I don't think there can be a risk-free fight always.
There's always a possibility that a player that is weak is winning due to whatever reason.

And when that happens then people that placed bets on the stronger one lose a lot.
In any case I'd say always bet the money you can afford to lose in any bet you make.

The promotions are normally going to find matches and weaknesses of the fighter and match them with a fighter with a higher rate to test because it's supposedly one fighter to rule in one division. Champions are matched to someone that could potentially outrank them. It's true. there is a possibility that a champion can be defeated by a lucky punch.

Risk free bets. Well, there are a few bets that gamblers might see and then think of it as a risk free bet. Unfortunately, no bet is risk free else, what's the point for the athletes to combat themselves, the match would has well be decided and awarded to the more agile athlete. Since that isn't possible and given the chance that, in any fixture, any outcome can play out in a game, no bet is considered risk free. There could be a knockout punch when the other opponent is off-guard and that's enough to do the trick. Records counts but records are there to be broken too. So, I'll just bet and not call it risk free!

If you gamble, no matter how much money you use, there will be a risk that will give you lose or win.
If you win, you get the loss, but you will lose your money if you lose.
Related to the match, I think we need to think about the surprise factor for every player as they can keep a secret of what they will use for their opponent.
So there will still be a risk for you even if you can predict that player can win easily from the opponent.
We can check their history and what practising they already use. Still, we also need to search for another possibility for that player if the situation is changing to have another thing that needs to be prepared.

this is correct
but it's also possible to find asymmetrical opportunities with a smaller risk
even free money ones like when you could bet against Trump after he had already lost the elections and had no chance of coming back.

It feels sort of like that because you know putting your money on the picks is less risky. I can not pick the other cards though some of them have been great in the past like Cody Garbrandt. The recent fights are not impressive and he had his worse 3 losing streaks. But sure with Amanda Nunes, Dustin Poirier, and Sean O'Malley has the highest winning rate.

[Fundamentals Of]

UFC 269: Oliveira vs. Poirier this December 11 seems to have good matches that seem less risky.
Lightweight   Charles Oliveira    vs.   Dustin Poirier           
Women's Bantamweight   Amanda Nunes    vs.   Julianna Peña

There you go. We have another proof that every bet is risky, equally risky. No matter the odds, since the fight is still to be fought, the risk is always there. You could win but you could also lose. That's still 50/50.

We have just seen how considering these two fights as less risky is risky enough. If you bet on Poirier and Nunes, the odds may say you are placing a less risky bet but when the fighters finally face each, they are all in perfect condition and are equally capable of defeating each other.

Peña and Oliveira just submitted Nunes and Poirier, respectively.

[cabron]

UFC 269: Oliveira vs. Poirier this December 11 seems to have good matches that seem less risky.
Lightweight   Charles Oliveira    vs.   Dustin Poirier           
Women's Bantamweight   Amanda Nunes    vs.   Julianna Peña

There you go. We have another proof that every bet is risky, equally risky. No matter the odds, since the fight is still to be fought, the risk is always there. You could win but you could also lose. That's still 50/50.

We have just seen how considering these two fights as less risky is risky enough. If you bet on Poirier and Nunes, the odds may say you are placing a less risky bet but when the fighters finally face each, they are all in perfect condition and are equally capable of defeating each other.

Peña and Oliveira just submitted Nunes and Poirier, respectively.

Now I really think this is rigged 
Nunes seems like a sitting duck without head movement and did nothing when she pinned Pena down. I didn't expect the performance of Nunes, she was hit over and over with just a jab. I'm never gonna update this thread to prove my bets Just like Poirier, both of them got exhausted after just 2 rounds what happened to the cardio training of these guys?

[Saint-loup]

UFC 269: Oliveira vs. Poirier this December 11 seems to have good matches that seem less risky.
Lightweight   Charles Oliveira    vs.   Dustin Poirier            
Women's Bantamweight   Amanda Nunes    vs.   Julianna Peña

There you go. We have another proof that every bet is risky, equally risky. No matter the odds, since the fight is still to be fought, the risk is always there. You could win but you could also lose. That's still 50/50.

We have just seen how considering these two fights as less risky is risky enough. If you bet on Poirier and Nunes, the odds may say you are placing a less risky bet but when the fighters finally face each, they are all in perfect condition and are equally capable of defeating each other.

Peña and Oliveira just submitted Nunes and Poirier, respectively.

LOL I was also thinking Amanda Nunes victory was a risk-free bet and then I put a decent amount of money on her to be able to benefit from the Stake promotion. I bet 1.6 LTC on her victory that is to say 250USD and the GOAT female fighter of all time lost in only 2 rounds lol  
That's just a crazy outcome, I wonder if it's not a rigged fight, and if she didn't voluntarily lose in order to pocket money by betting against herself.
But I wouldn't say it was "50/50" and fighters were "equally capable of defeating each other" you're wrong mate, she had 90% chances to win but 90% is only 9 times on 10 and not 10 times on 10, that's all.

[Fundamentals Of]

UFC 269: Oliveira vs. Poirier this December 11 seems to have good matches that seem less risky.
Lightweight   Charles Oliveira    vs.   Dustin Poirier            
Women's Bantamweight   Amanda Nunes    vs.   Julianna Peña

There you go. We have another proof that every bet is risky, equally risky. No matter the odds, since the fight is still to be fought, the risk is always there. You could win but you could also lose. That's still 50/50.

We have just seen how considering these two fights as less risky is risky enough. If you bet on Poirier and Nunes, the odds may say you are placing a less risky bet but when the fighters finally face each, they are all in perfect condition and are equally capable of defeating each other.

Peña and Oliveira just submitted Nunes and Poirier, respectively.

LOL I was also thinking Amanda Nunes victory was a risk-free bet and then I put a decent amount of money on her to be able to benefit from the Stake promotion. I bet 1.6 LTC on her victory that is to say 250USD and the GOAT female fighter of all time lost in only 2 rounds lol  
That's just a crazy outcome, I wonder if it's not a rigged fight, and if she didn't voluntarily lose in order to pocket money by betting against herself.
But I wouldn't say it was "50/50" and fighters were "equally capable of defeating each other" you're wrong mate, she had 90% chances to win but 90% is only 9 times on 10 and not 10 times on 10, that's all.

I mean, I am looking at it from a different perspective. Could Amanda win? Yes. But could she also lose? Yes. Those are two possibilities that could happen regardless of the odds. You know, when two fighters both have two hands, two feet, fully conditioned, could KO or submit the opponent anytime, could land a deadly kick, could sneak a hand for a choke, could catch a hand for an armbar, and so on, anything could happen. Those two fighters are, after all, both very capable of defeating each other. And especially in MMA, an upset could easily happen. What I'm saying is that there is really no risk-free bet.

[cabron]

I mean, I am looking at it from a different perspective. Could Amanda win? Yes. But could she also lose? Yes. Those are two possibilities that could happen regardless of the odds. You know, when two fighters both have two hands, two feet, fully conditioned, could KO or submit the opponent anytime, could land a deadly kick, could sneak a hand for a choke, could catch a hand for an armbar, and so on, anything could happen. Those two fighters are, after all, both very capable of defeating each other. And especially in MMA, an upset could easily happen. What I'm saying is that there is really no risk-free bet.

While it's true, there is just more possibility that Amanda will win because of her experience. It's just that Pena found a way to hit her many times while Amanda pick this bad luck day to give up her back.

But I believe many people pick her to win. You could say Pena just become a better fighter, it is a historic win to outbox someone who had been a champ for years and suddenly even in Champ's prime got beatten.

[VanityWallets2015]

While it's true, there is just more possibility that Amanda will win because of her experience. It's just that Pena found a way to hit her many times while Amanda pick this bad luck day to give up her back.

But I believe many people pick her to win. You could say Pena just become a better fighter, it is a historic win to outbox someone who had been a champ for years and suddenly even in Champ's prime got beatten.

This just shows that anything that is related to or directly connected to betting has risks, because in betting it consequently means that there will be losing and winning. In this case in MMA, it is indeed true that any fighter has the capacity to beat the other. And so the determining factor that must be considered here in choosing to bet is the historic background and known capabilities of the players. Hence, there is no such thing as betting to risk free fights, unless it is rigged like what was stated by the others.

[romero121]

I mean, I am looking at it from a different perspective. Could Amanda win? Yes. But could she also lose? Yes. Those are two possibilities that could happen regardless of the odds. You know, when two fighters both have two hands, two feet, fully conditioned, could KO or submit the opponent anytime, could land a deadly kick, could sneak a hand for a choke, could catch a hand for an armbar, and so on, anything could happen. Those two fighters are, after all, both very capable of defeating each other. And especially in MMA, an upset could easily happen. What I'm saying is that there is really no risk-free bet.

While it's true, there is just more possibility that Amanda will win because of her experience. It's just that Pena found a way to hit her many times while Amanda pick this bad luck day to give up her back.

But I believe many people pick her to win. You could say Pena just become a better fighter, it is a historic win to outbox someone who had been a champ for years and suddenly even in Champ's prime got beatten.

The majority was on the side of Amanda, but things took place in the opposite way. This makes people think of the match being manipulated. We don't know the truth, but unexpected performance comes out a person it leads to such question. No doubt, Pena had turned to be a better fighter. These days making controversies has turned to be a way of marketing. This also looks in similar style. Nothing offensive.

[Wexnident]

The majority was on the side of Amanda, but things took place in the opposite way. This makes people think of the match being manipulated. We don't know the truth, but unexpected performance comes out a person it leads to such question. No doubt, Pena had turned to be a better fighter. These days making controversies has turned to be a way of marketing. This also looks in similar style. Nothing offensive.

Well in the end the reason for the controversy was because of Amanda losing where everyone else expected her to win. In the end, the result of a match isn't all dependent on the data that was shown or what the fighter has shown. At the very least, it isn't a factor that would 100% affect the match, just like how Amanda lost contrary to everyone's expectations, but still, it is a factor, and I guess it's because most people felt that that factor was enough for Amanda to win, hence why the controversy even rose up in the first place.

[Mauser]

Do you mean risk free fights in the sense that one fighter is such a strong favourite, there is 0 chance of him losing the fight? I don't really believe in such risk free money anymore. In the past I tried a similar strategy in football and only bet on matches with 1.2 and below payouts. The profit was very small but atleast I thought its risk free. Until of course it wasn't risk free anymore and I lost it all. After that I stopped betting on such low risk matches. Because athletes are just humans. Every fighter can have a bad day and something unexpected happen. Doing such risk free bets a few times works, but the longer we bet on them the higher the chance to get the 0.01% tail risk event.

[CDC AP]

I would still have to do a rethink irrespective of their tight tale of the tape both can't win. Going into their past performances which would help better in predicting their outcome from the present match. I wouldn't dare bet based on risk free fights. since one of the opponent must remain an underdog so why should I risk such fights.

[Beparanf]

I would still have to do a rethink irrespective of their tight tale of the tape both can't win. Going into their past performances which would help better in predicting their outcome from the present match. I wouldn't dare bet based on risk free fights. since one of the opponent must remain an underdog so why should I risk such fights.

Do you even read the OP content before you make a post here? The OP is pertaining to a risk free fight base on there previous record and stats. So of course your betting will be base on past records. You can't tell that a match is risk free unless you see there records. The risk free match  that I know are those fight by pro and newbie that usually happening on Boxing like May weather VS Connor in boxing and many more.

There's really no risk free match. There's always a risk even how small it is. Maybe small risk not risk free.

[Fatunad]

I would still have to do a rethink irrespective of their tight tale of the tape both can't win. Going into their past performances which would help better in predicting their outcome from the present match. I wouldn't dare bet based on risk free fights. since one of the opponent must remain an underdog so why should I risk such fights.

Do you even read the OP content before you make a post here? The OP is pertaining to a risk free fight base on there previous record and stats. So of course your betting will be base on past records. You can't tell that a match is risk free unless you see there records. The risk free match  that I know are those fight by pro and newbie that usually happening on Boxing like May weather VS Connor in boxing and many more.

There's really no risk free match. There's always a risk even how small it is. Maybe small risk not risk free.

Even if you do know those information it cant really be possible for a fight to be risk free specially on your betting.There's no way that it could give out 100% assurance

that you would win a certain bet but with due some common sense then you could really able to point out which one would have the higher chance to win basing up with stats

but we know the probabilities of upsets but sometimes we could really say about high probability of winning.

[Fortify]

Would you be able to decide which fight could be risk free that you will bet your weekly pay despite the small odd like 1.50 or would you still rethink if there is an upset like Weili Zhang and Rose Namajunas.  

How about Jairzinho Rozenstruik vs Augusto Sakai, is this a risk free fight to you?

Jairzinho Rozenstruik by the way is the one that did the nasty cuts to Allistair's mouth.

There have been so many upsets in sports like boxing and martial arts that you should never consider there to be a "risk free" fight. You also never know what sort of deals or strategies may be taking place behind the scenes to engineer a victory for a specific player - when it could lead to a lot of money for people with the right information. It seems to me that odds of "1.5" are very far from guaranteed, as I often see similar odds go the opposite way and the return is not worth the risk involved. Unless you're getting those sorts of odds on a fight between McGregor and some fresh amateur to the ring, anything can happen to take down the more formidable opponents.

[batang_bitcoin]

I would still have to do a rethink irrespective of their tight tale of the tape both can't win. Going into their past performances which would help better in predicting their outcome from the present match. I wouldn't dare bet based on risk free fights. since one of the opponent must remain an underdog so why should I risk such fights.

That's how it should be. A bettor is going to make sure that he's going to bet with where his money is going to multiple. Betting with risk free fights, I don't think that I would ever consider a match as risk free. Even if I'm betting for the better person for that match, most of the time I'm still worried if there could be some lucky punch or attack like for boxing and MMA too. The same applies for other sporting events that could also flip the opponent surprisingly.

[Silberman]

I would still have to do a rethink irrespective of their tight tale of the tape both can't win. Going into their past performances which would help better in predicting their outcome from the present match. I wouldn't dare bet based on risk free fights. since one of the opponent must remain an underdog so why should I risk such fights.

Do you even read the OP content before you make a post here? The OP is pertaining to a risk free fight base on there previous record and stats. So of course your betting will be base on past records. You can't tell that a match is risk free unless you see there records. The risk free match  that I know are those fight by pro and newbie that usually happening on Boxing like May weather VS Connor in boxing and many more.

There's really no risk free match. There's always a risk even how small it is. Maybe small risk not risk free.

Some consider arbitrage bets to be free of risk but the truth is that this is not the case at all, even arbitrage bets which in theory can make you win 100% of the time have their own risks, so I think people need to accept that when it comes to sport betting, and in fact on any activity we may decide to engage in, there is always going to be some inherent risk and we must accept it, otherwise we will deceive ourselves and begin to look for methods that promise to do exactly that but that will not deliver on their promise.

[STT]

Arbitrage is higher risk and should be viewed that way, it can move against you.  The idea might be to hedge all outcomes and Ive done that for more then once but also the devil in the detail can mean you lose out anyway or even worse then normal.   Nice idea but never view any option as risk free, its a great idea if you can grab it to minimize risk and still earn a decent return.  Low risk usually means low returns and alot of patience required not to over bet and raise risk from that.

[Lucasgabd]

Do you mean risk free fights in the sense that one fighter is such a strong favourite, there is 0 chance of him losing the fight? I don't really believe in such risk free money anymore. In the past I tried a similar strategy in football and only bet on matches with 1.2 and below payouts. The profit was very small but atleast I thought its risk free. Until of course it wasn't risk free anymore and I lost it all. After that I stopped betting on such low risk matches. Because athletes are just humans. Every fighter can have a bad day and something unexpected happen. Doing such risk free bets a few times works, but the longer we bet on them the higher the chance to get the 0.01% tail risk event.

yes, I believe this is what the OP meant

the biggest problem in this cases is that these are asymmetrical bets but to the downside (you can earn little or lose it all)
we usually should search for asymmetrical bets for the upside (little change of losing with big prize if you win)

the first kind of bet can still be profitable if one knows how to manage bankroll and limit losses
so if betting like that the best option is not using all the money you have but just a small part of it

professional traders usually limit losses to a max of 1% of total amount they have.

[Pamadar]

I would still have to do a rethink irrespective of their tight tale of the tape both can't win. Going into their past performances which would help better in predicting their outcome from the present match. I wouldn't dare bet based on risk free fights. since one of the opponent must remain an underdog so why should I risk such fights.

Do you even read the OP content before you make a post here? The OP is pertaining to a risk free fight base on there previous record and stats. So of course your betting will be base on past records. You can't tell that a match is risk free unless you see there records. The risk free match  that I know are those fight by pro and newbie that usually happening on Boxing like May weather VS Connor in boxing and many more.

There's really no risk free match. There's always a risk even how small it is. Maybe small risk not risk free.

Some consider arbitrage bets to be free of risk but the truth is that this is not the case at all, even arbitrage bets which in theory can make you win 100% of the time have their own risks, so I think people need to accept that when it comes to sport betting, and in fact on any activity we may decide to engage in, there is always going to be some inherent risk and we must accept it, otherwise we will deceive ourselves and begin to look for methods that promise to do exactly that but that will not deliver on their promise.

In terms of winning rate, yes, this kind of system gives you a risk-free bet, but the ground to consider is something inside,

technicalities inside the house, good example is when house void the game or your account got suspected doing
suspicious activities.

You can claim your earnings or your balance will be frozen and subjected to deeper investigations.

[Smartprofit]

Risk-free fights is a very conventional concept.  

What does no risk mean?  In gambling, the probability of winning is always positively correlated with risk.  The greater the risk, the higher the probability of winning.  Otherwise it can not be!  If this were not the case, all players would be betting on risk-free fights .  This is similar to the concept of a grail or perpetual motion machine.  

In my opinion, it is pointless to place bets on the outcome of sports without insider knowledge or serious analytics.  It is a trap.  Loss of money

[AicecreaME]

Risk-free fights is a very conventional concept.  

What does no risk mean?  In gambling, the probability of winning is always positively correlated with risk.  The greater the risk, the higher the probability of winning.  Otherwise it can not be!  If this were not the case, all players would be betting on risk-free fights .  This is similar to the concept of a grail or perpetual motion machine.  

In my opinion, it is pointless to place bets on the outcome of sports without insider knowledge or serious analytics.  It is a trap.  Loss of money

Exactly.

It wouldn't be called "gambling" without any risk at all. Risk free fights do not exist, unless you won't bet anything to it, unless the fight won't have any winner because that's the deal, like a sparring fight. Risk free means you're not doing anything at all, your money is at rest and your profit is just imagination, that's the simplest way to explain that.

[madnessteat]

Risk-free fights is a very conventional concept. 

What does no risk mean?  In gambling, the probability of winning is always positively correlated with risk.  The greater the risk, the higher the probability of winning.  Otherwise it can not be!  If this were not the case, all players would be betting on risk-free fights .  This is similar to the concept of a grail or perpetual motion machine. 

In my opinion, it is pointless to place bets on the outcome of sports without insider knowledge or serious analytics.  It is a trap.  Loss of money

There are no completely risk-free bets, but there are fights where the favorite is clear at once, so the risks when betting on it are significantly reduced. The recent Lomachenko vs Commey fight was a low-risk fight for those who wanted to bet on the Ukrainian boxer and many people who knew that increased their deposits. But as you have noticed the lower the risks the lower the possibility of winning. In this case this rule was reflected in the odds of 1.15.

[xSkylarx]

Risk-free fights is a very conventional concept. 

What does no risk mean?  In gambling, the probability of winning is always positively correlated with risk.  The greater the risk, the higher the probability of winning.  Otherwise it can not be!  If this were not the case, all players would be betting on risk-free fights .  This is similar to the concept of a grail or perpetual motion machine. 

In my opinion, it is pointless to place bets on the outcome of sports without insider knowledge or serious analytics.  It is a trap.  Loss of money

There are no completely risk-free bets, but there are fights where the favorite is clear at once, so the risks when betting on it are significantly reduced. The recent Lomachenko vs Commey fight was a low-risk fight for those who wanted to bet on the Ukrainian boxer and many people who knew that increased their deposits. But as you have noticed the lower the risks the lower the possibility of winning. In this case this rule was reflected in the odds of 1.15.

Agree, but still has a risk. We don't know what will happen. Like you are expecting that the other team will win 100% since the other team is the underdog, but it turns out that the underdog teams win the game. It still has a risk. Anything is possible in gambling. If you have luck, you will also win a large amount of money. We usually see this in the bets that if you bet on an underdog team, you will make more money than those teams that are the choice of many.

[Cling18]

Would you be able to decide which fight could be risk free that you will bet your weekly pay despite the small odd like 1.50 or would you still rethink if there is an upset like Weili Zhang and Rose Namajunas.  

How about Jairzinho Rozenstruik vs Augusto Sakai, is this a risk free fight to you?

Jairzinho Rozenstruik by the way is the one that did the nasty cuts to Allistair's mouth.

There have been so many upsets in sports like boxing and martial arts that you should never consider there to be a "risk-free" fight. You also never know what sort of deals or strategies may be taking place behind the scenes to engineer a victory for a specific player - when it could lead to a lot of money for people with the right information. It seems to me that odds of "1.5" are very far from guaranteed, as I often see similar odds go the opposite way and the return is not worth the risk involved. Unless you're getting those sorts of odds on a fight between McGregor and some fresh amateur to the ring, anything can happen to take down the more formidable opponents.

There's no such thing as risk-free fights especially if it's a good match where guessing who has an edge would be too difficult. There could be favorable players but there's still a risk since we have no idea regarding the possible scenario on the ring. The risks could be high or low but we shouldn't disregard the fact that we couldn't predict the game flow.

[Natalim]

Having this thing in our mind would only lead to more losses because we are not realistic, we are thinking it would happen but in reality it's not. Risk free bets only happen if you are the one who rigged the right, if you are just getting some information about a rigged fight, there's still risk although the chance of winning would be high.

[Smartprofit]

Risk-free fights is a very conventional concept. 

What does no risk mean?  In gambling, the probability of winning is always positively correlated with risk.  The greater the risk, the higher the probability of winning.  Otherwise it can not be!  If this were not the case, all players would be betting on risk-free fights .  This is similar to the concept of a grail or perpetual motion machine. 

In my opinion, it is pointless to place bets on the outcome of sports without insider knowledge or serious analytics.  It is a trap.  Loss of money

There are no completely risk-free bets, but there are fights where the favorite is clear at once, so the risks when betting on it are significantly reduced. The recent Lomachenko vs Commey fight was a low-risk fight for those who wanted to bet on the Ukrainian boxer and many people who knew that increased their deposits. But as you have noticed the lower the risks the lower the possibility of winning. In this case this rule was reflected in the odds of 1.15.

Risk is usually accounted for in ratios. 

That is, by placing one bet, you are likely to win a small amount of money.  But if you play this strategy for a long time, then sooner or later you will lose.  And the likelihood of losing will increase significantly if you accidentally place a bet on a contractual (fictitious) match. 

There is an opposite strategy.  Search for the Black Swan.  That is, to place bets on outsiders.  This strategy may be more beneficial. 

And contractual (fictitious) matches will bring you a win, not a loss.

[madnessteat]

Risk is usually accounted for in ratios. 

That is, by placing one bet, you are likely to win a small amount of money.  But if you play this strategy for a long time, then sooner or later you will lose.  And the likelihood of losing will increase significantly if you accidentally place a bet on a contractual (fictitious) match. 

There is an opposite strategy.  Search for the Black Swan.  That is, to place bets on outsiders.  This strategy may be more beneficial. 

And contractual (fictitious) matches will bring you a win, not a loss.

My betting strategies are always designed to minimize the risks, as high risks will sooner lead to the depletion of my deposit. In addition, there are far fewer match-fixing games than honest ones. I can afford to try my luck, but in games where little depends on me, such as slots. If I have doubts about the outcome of a match, I just won't bet on that match. Luckily I don't have gambling addiction and I can wait for a match that has a minimum risk for a very long time.

[Lucasgabd]

Risk-free fights is a very conventional concept.  

What does no risk mean?  In gambling, the probability of winning is always positively correlated with risk.  The greater the risk, the higher the probability of winning.  Otherwise it can not be!  If this were not the case, all players would be betting on risk-free fights .  This is similar to the concept of a grail or perpetual motion machine.  

In my opinion, it is pointless to place bets on the outcome of sports without insider knowledge or serious analytics.  It is a trap.  Loss of money

I'd love to see some deep data on that
like, is it possible to make money on a consistent base gambling on fights just based on math, odds and risk management, not even knowing about the fights, results and not having sports knowledge?

Feels like some would be able to do it but I don't have proper evidence to defend this line of thinking.

[Japinat]

Having this thing in our mind would only lead to more losses because we are not realistic, we are thinking it would happen but in reality it's not

That's right, no such thing as "risk free" in gambling as it's design for us to take the risk every time put our bet, and that makes gambling very exciting, reason why lots of people are addicted to it, it's challenging in short.

Risk free bets only happen if you are the one who rigged the right, if you are just getting some information about a rigged fight, there's still risk although the chance of winning would be high.

Unless you are a star player, you cannot rig the game which would result in a huge impact.

If a star player will play, he'll get huge minutes so he can manipulate by controlling his game just to win his bet or whoever betting on him.
If we look at that scenario, it's very complicated but when it comes to money, nothing is impossible.

[noormcs5]

Risk is usually accounted for in ratios. 

That is, by placing one bet, you are likely to win a small amount of money.  But if you play this strategy for a long time, then sooner or later you will lose.  And the likelihood of losing will increase significantly if you accidentally place a bet on a contractual (fictitious) match. 

There is an opposite strategy.  Search for the Black Swan.  That is, to place bets on outsiders.  This strategy may be more beneficial. 

And contractual (fictitious) matches will bring you a win, not a loss.

My betting strategies are always designed to minimize the risks, as high risks will sooner lead to the depletion of my deposit. In addition, there are far fewer match-fixing games than honest ones. I can afford to try my luck, but in games where little depends on me, such as slots. If I have doubts about the outcome of a match, I just won't bet on that match. Luckily I don't have gambling addiction and I can wait for a match that has a minimum risk for a very long time.

Can you share some of your betting strategies which are risk free ?
I think that there is no sport betting which is risk free. No matter how much confident you're on a match, the result could still be against you.

There will always be wins and loses in your betting career. The only thing which may help to be in overall profit will be your money management skills.

[Mahanton]

Risk is usually accounted for in ratios. 

That is, by placing one bet, you are likely to win a small amount of money.  But if you play this strategy for a long time, then sooner or later you will lose.  And the likelihood of losing will increase significantly if you accidentally place a bet on a contractual (fictitious) match. 

There is an opposite strategy.  Search for the Black Swan.  That is, to place bets on outsiders.  This strategy may be more beneficial. 

And contractual (fictitious) matches will bring you a win, not a loss.

My betting strategies are always designed to minimize the risks, as high risks will sooner lead to the depletion of my deposit. In addition, there are far fewer match-fixing games than honest ones. I can afford to try my luck, but in games where little depends on me, such as slots. If I have doubts about the outcome of a match, I just won't bet on that match. Luckily I don't have gambling addiction and I can wait for a match that has a minimum risk for a very long time.

Can you share some of your betting strategies which are risk free ?
I think that there is no sport betting which is risk free. No matter how much confident you're on a match, the result could still be against you.

There will always be wins and loses in your betting career. The only thing which may help to be in overall profit will be your money management skills.

Even betting constant with favorites doesnt really assure that you could really hit up wins and i dont really believe that there would really be those risk free bets because it wont be called gambling in the first place it there would be no risk at all.If thats the case on where it do really exist out then lots of gamblers would definitely be just stick around on this kind of method and making out myself get rich. People should be at least realistic and dont believe that this thing exist and you would really able
to see for yourself if you do tend to make out some bets.

[Silberman]

Agree, but still has a risk. We don't know what will happen. Like you are expecting that the other team will win 100% since the other team is the underdog, but it turns out that the underdog teams win the game. It still has a risk. Anything is possible in gambling. If you have luck, you will also win a large amount of money. We usually see this in the bets that if you bet on an underdog team, you will make more money than those teams that are the choice of many.

There are some fights that have a very low risk if you bet on the favorite, however as you mention this does not mean that the bets are completely risk-free, after all anything can happen in a fight, for example if the favorite to win the fight gets sick the day before or in the day of the fight then his performance level is going to be affected to the point he could lose the fight, this is very rare of course as fighters take great care of their bodies and their health before the fight but it happens, so even a bet that seems like it can be easily won can be lost under the wrong circumstances.

[Lanatsa]

Agree, but still has a risk. We don't know what will happen. Like you are expecting that the other team will win 100% since the other team is the underdog, but it turns out that the underdog teams win the game. It still has a risk. Anything is possible in gambling. If you have luck, you will also win a large amount of money. We usually see this in the bets that if you bet on an underdog team, you will make more money than those teams that are the choice of many.

There are some fights that have a very low risk if you bet on the favorite, however as you mention this does not mean that the bets are completely risk-free, after all anything can happen in a fight, for example if the favorite to win the fight gets sick the day before or in the day of the fight then his performance level is going to be affected to the point he could lose the fight, this is very rare of course as fighters take great care of their bodies and their health before the fight but it happens, so even a bet that seems like it can be easily won can be lost under the wrong circumstances.

Having issues with health most of the time could really result into cancellation or wont be considered to be a lost bet. The most common thing to happen is on

when making out sure bets with favorite ones and did really make out some upset which there would always be the odds or chance for it to happen and bettors shouldnt really be not minding off those probabilities.

I dont know about risk free bets unless if you do know some rigged or fixed matches then i would consider for it to be like that.

[paxmao]

No such a thing as risk free, not in fights but, in general, not in life. No free meals, no free rides, no 100% safe. Having said that, on the fight you mention the weight difference is spectacular and that is a teller of the result in the wide majority of cases. However, just as you can see it, so can the bookies and those are the odds you are getting, which adds to the previous assertions - this is designed so that you will lose more time than you will win. Play for fun and to make it interesting.

[pieppiep]

Agree, but still has a risk. We don't know what will happen. Like you are expecting that the other team will win 100% since the other team is the underdog, but it turns out that the underdog teams win the game. It still has a risk. Anything is possible in gambling. If you have luck, you will also win a large amount of money. We usually see this in the bets that if you bet on an underdog team, you will make more money than those teams that are the choice of many.

There are some fights that have a very low risk if you bet on the favorite, however as you mention this does not mean that the bets are completely risk-free, after all anything can happen in a fight, for example if the favorite to win the fight gets sick the day before or in the day of the fight then his performance level is going to be affected to the point he could lose the fight, this is very rare of course as fighters take great care of their bodies and their health before the fight but it happens, so even a bet that seems like it can be easily won can be lost under the wrong circumstances.

So from that, we can conclude that there is no risk-free in gambling and we need to know before we bet on gambling games. If you don't bet on that games or sports, that will be free from the risk because you don't spend any money to earn money but you decide just to watch the games until you see the winner. When you are involved in gambling games, no matter whether you use your own money or from the bonuses, you will still risk losing that money, especially if the situation is changing.

[molsewid]

No such a thing as risk free, not in fights but, in general, not in life. No free meals, no free rides, no 100% safe. Having said that, on the fight you mention the weight difference is spectacular and that is a teller of the result in the wide majority of cases. However, just as you can see it, so can the bookies and those are the odds you are getting, which adds to the previous assertions - this is designed so that you will lose more time than you will win. Play for fun and to make it interesting.

Me too, I haven't heard such thing as risk-free betting fights especially in sports like boxing not unless you are going to bet on a fixed kind of game like exhibition bouts that was just made to hype the game and to earn profit. Lucky are those who can have the right combination or scorecard because probably they will be one of the winners betting on that sport. But then, there's no such risk-free even in trading or in investment or even in simple making our life decisions because there will be pros and cons to every situation. 

[blockman]

Me too, I haven't heard such thing as risk-free betting fights especially in sports like boxing not unless you are going to bet on a fixed kind of game like exhibition bouts that was just made to hype the game and to earn profit. Lucky are those who can have the right combination or scorecard because probably they will be one of the winners betting on that sport. But then, there's no such risk-free even in trading or in investment or even in simple making our life decisions because there will be pros and cons to every situation. 

I don't have thought about such fights and bets too. But what I know with these are likely the sold games and only a few people know about it. A fix match it is.
But are they still a thing these days? Probably to the amateur matches, they are still there but for the pro and big fights, hard to find out about them.

[Beparanf]

Me too, I haven't heard such thing as risk-free betting fights especially in sports like boxing not unless you are going to bet on a fixed kind of game like exhibition bouts that was just made to hype the game and to earn profit. Lucky are those who can have the right combination or scorecard because probably they will be one of the winners betting on that sport. But then, there's no such risk-free even in trading or in investment or even in simple making our life decisions because there will be pros and cons to every situation. 

I don't have thought about such fights and bets too. But what I know with these are likely the sold games and only a few people know about it. A fix match it is.
But are they still a thing these days? Probably to the amateur matches, they are still there but for the pro and big fights, hard to find out about them.

This kind of fixed matches in only available on local leagues but not on international league like boxing. I believe the main point of OP here as risk free match are those wrong odds put by bookmakers to an athlete with a better standings to the other one. Not totally a risk free, He just exaggerated it that's why this discussions became so long for a topic that doesn't exist. Either way, Fixed match nowadays is very rare and easy to caught due to good camera vision and many analysts following every players.

[Oilacris]

Me too, I haven't heard such thing as risk-free betting fights especially in sports like boxing not unless you are going to bet on a fixed kind of game like exhibition bouts that was just made to hype the game and to earn profit. Lucky are those who can have the right combination or scorecard because probably they will be one of the winners betting on that sport. But then, there's no such risk-free even in trading or in investment or even in simple making our life decisions because there will be pros and cons to every situation. 

I don't have thought about such fights and bets too. But what I know with these are likely the sold games and only a few people know about it. A fix match it is.
But are they still a thing these days? Probably to the amateur matches, they are still there but for the pro and big fights, hard to find out about them.

This kind of fixed matches in only available on local leagues but not on international league like boxing. I believe the main point of OP here as risk free match are those wrong odds put by bookmakers to an athlete with a better standings to the other one. Not totally a risk free, He just exaggerated it that's why this discussions became so long for a topic that doesn't exist. Either way, Fixed match nowadays is very rare and easy to caught due to good camera vision and many analysts following every players.

Fixed matches do really happen only on small leageus or local ones which same or you are right on what you had said but not wont really be possible to be applied on bigger or popular ones because they do know that fans arent that blind and bettors when it comes to unusual
things that do happen.

This do applies on all sports because we know that fixed matches do exist but wont really be simple on acquiring these informations.

Risk free fights doesnt exist even if you do say about betting on favorites for you to win doesnt give out sureness.

[Fortify]

Me too, I haven't heard such thing as risk-free betting fights especially in sports like boxing not unless you are going to bet on a fixed kind of game like exhibition bouts that was just made to hype the game and to earn profit. Lucky are those who can have the right combination or scorecard because probably they will be one of the winners betting on that sport. But then, there's no such risk-free even in trading or in investment or even in simple making our life decisions because there will be pros and cons to every situation. 

I don't have thought about such fights and bets too. But what I know with these are likely the sold games and only a few people know about it. A fix match it is.
But are they still a thing these days? Probably to the amateur matches, they are still there but for the pro and big fights, hard to find out about them.

This kind of fixed matches in only available on local leagues but not on international league like boxing. I believe the main point of OP here as risk free match are those wrong odds put by bookmakers to an athlete with a better standings to the other one. Not totally a risk free, He just exaggerated it that's why this discussions became so long for a topic that doesn't exist. Either way, Fixed match nowadays is very rare and easy to caught due to good camera vision and many analysts following every players.

Nobody who is fixing matches is going to allow that information to get into the public domain, because either one of two things will happen 1) the odds will be adjusted to nullify the fact that the match will be fixed. 2) the match will be cancelled along with fighter being excluded from the sport in future - shutting down a potentially lucrative income. The reason people fix matches is to make large amounts of money, which will not happen unless it stays a tightly guarded secret. Lower league matches will rarely receive any odds from reputable bookmakers because it is simply too easy to corrupt the fighters in this way and it can be hard to prove.

[goaldigger]

Me too, I haven't heard such thing as risk-free betting fights especially in sports like boxing not unless you are going to bet on a fixed kind of game like exhibition bouts that was just made to hype the game and to earn profit. Lucky are those who can have the right combination or scorecard because probably they will be one of the winners betting on that sport. But then, there's no such risk-free even in trading or in investment or even in simple making our life decisions because there will be pros and cons to every situation. 

I don't have thought about such fights and bets too. But what I know with these are likely the sold games and only a few people know about it. A fix match it is.
But are they still a thing these days? Probably to the amateur matches, they are still there but for the pro and big fights, hard to find out about them.

This kind of fixed matches in only available on local leagues but not on international league like boxing. I believe the main point of OP here as risk free match are those wrong odds put by bookmakers to an athlete with a better standings to the other one. Not totally a risk free, He just exaggerated it that's why this discussions became so long for a topic that doesn't exist. Either way, Fixed match nowadays is very rare and easy to caught due to good camera vision and many analysts following every players.

Exhibition matches for me are more on a fixed matches and yes it really exist and honeslty, it becomes more popular nowadays. Betting on a risk free fights works locally, I can’t see any betting site without a risk since it always involve money. A fix match is risky as well, because you can’t know who will win on that match.

[FatFork]

...A fix match is risky as well, because you can’t know who will win on that match.

What then constitutes as a fixed match if the winner is not known ahead of time? That doesn't make sense.

[Lucasgabd]

Can you share some of your betting strategies which are risk free ?
I think that there is no sport betting which is risk free. No matter how much confident you're on a match, the result could still be against you.

There will always be wins and loses in your betting career. The only thing which may help to be in overall profit will be your money management skills.

this is the point
I wouldn't say there are many risk free opportunities but that we can find asymmetrical possibilities where risk is really small, much smaller than the possible reward
these are the best ones, even though they may not be the most common ones

[alegotardo]

this is the big difference between betting based solely on luck (dice, cards, roullete, etc) and sports betting.
In the first, the risks and chances of winning are immensely greater. But in the second, the risks are reduced because we can use the factor "statistical data" in our favor, analyzing the probabilities of a fight.
However, the house will always have better tools to predict the outcome of a fight and thus this significantly reduces the gains.

In short... the lesser the risks, the lesser the gains. How much does this pay off for players?

[blockman]

Me too, I haven't heard such thing as risk-free betting fights especially in sports like boxing not unless you are going to bet on a fixed kind of game like exhibition bouts that was just made to hype the game and to earn profit. Lucky are those who can have the right combination or scorecard because probably they will be one of the winners betting on that sport. But then, there's no such risk-free even in trading or in investment or even in simple making our life decisions because there will be pros and cons to every situation. 

I don't have thought about such fights and bets too. But what I know with these are likely the sold games and only a few people know about it. A fix match it is.
But are they still a thing these days? Probably to the amateur matches, they are still there but for the pro and big fights, hard to find out about them.

This kind of fixed matches in only available on local leagues but not on international league like boxing. I believe the main point of OP here as risk free match are those wrong odds put by bookmakers to an athlete with a better standings to the other one. Not totally a risk free, He just exaggerated it that's why this discussions became so long for a topic that doesn't exist. Either way, Fixed match nowadays is very rare and easy to caught due to good camera vision and many analysts following every players.

Okay, so that's it and I understand. Maybe you're right that it came into a different thing and it should be like that when the odds should be good for the better player.
I agree about catching those obvious thrown games and matches that are likely sold. If they've done it intentionally, they would really have a problem with that.

[decodx]

Me too, I haven't heard such thing as risk-free betting fights especially in sports like boxing not unless you are going to bet on a fixed kind of game like exhibition bouts that was just made to hype the game and to earn profit. Lucky are those who can have the right combination or scorecard because probably they will be one of the winners betting on that sport. But then, there's no such risk-free even in trading or in investment or even in simple making our life decisions because there will be pros and cons to every situation. 

I don't have thought about such fights and bets too. But what I know with these are likely the sold games and only a few people know about it. A fix match it is.
But are they still a thing these days? Probably to the amateur matches, they are still there but for the pro and big fights, hard to find out about them.

This kind of fixed matches in only available on local leagues but not on international league like boxing. I believe the main point of OP here as risk free match are those wrong odds put by bookmakers to an athlete with a better standings to the other one. Not totally a risk free, He just exaggerated it that's why this discussions became so long for a topic that doesn't exist. Either way, Fixed match nowadays is very rare and easy to caught due to good camera vision and many analysts following every players.

Okay, so that's it and I understand. Maybe you're right that it came into a different thing and it should be like that when the odds should be good for the better player.
I agree about catching those obvious thrown games and matches that are likely sold. If they've done it intentionally, they would really have a problem with that.

I don't know, I would be skeptical about such matches. If I saw the wrong odds on a sportsbook, I would always have a shred of doubt that they might know something I don't. Those odds are set by professionals, I really think the chances are very small that they make a mistake. But I guess anything is possible.

[blockman]

Okay, so that's it and I understand. Maybe you're right that it came into a different thing and it should be like that when the odds should be good for the better player.
I agree about catching those obvious thrown games and matches that are likely sold. If they've done it intentionally, they would really have a problem with that.

I don't know, I would be skeptical about such matches. If I saw the wrong odds on a sportsbook, I would always have a shred of doubt that they might know something I don't. Those odds are set by professionals, I really think the chances are very small that they make a mistake. But I guess anything is possible.

You just have to avoid that match if you find it odd. But most of the bettors that sees the advantage and good odds, they won't just allow to miss it.
That's why some bettors have always been looking for the best odds and they're deciding which they'll bet so they have the best possible wins if ever they know and have an idea who's got a better chance of winning.

[Oasisman]

I don't know, I would be skeptical about such matches. If I saw the wrong odds on a sportsbook, I would always have a shred of doubt that they might know something I don't. Those odds are set by professionals, I really think the chances are very small that they make a mistake. But I guess anything is possible.

IMO, there's only a very slim to non chances that the sportsbook will put a wrong odd for most of the matches. If they did put anything wrong, they'll probably notice it since bettors knew that there's something wrong about it especially when it favours the bettors, thus there would be an unusual surge of bets towards that specific match. So, it would be fixed in no time.

Now, If you saw something's wrong about the odds, that probably tells you to be careful on betting for that matches and you need to do your research first. It is most of the time not fixed.

[Kasabus]

Risk is usually accounted for in ratios. 

That is, by placing one bet, you are likely to win a small amount of money.  But if you play this strategy for a long time, then sooner or later you will lose.  And the likelihood of losing will increase significantly if you accidentally place a bet on a contractual (fictitious) match. 

There is an opposite strategy.  Search for the Black Swan.  That is, to place bets on outsiders.  This strategy may be more beneficial. 

And contractual (fictitious) matches will bring you a win, not a loss.

My betting strategies are always designed to minimize the risks, as high risks will sooner lead to the depletion of my deposit. In addition, there are far fewer match-fixing games than honest ones. I can afford to try my luck, but in games where little depends on me, such as slots. If I have doubts about the outcome of a match, I just won't bet on that match. Luckily I don't have gambling addiction and I can wait for a match that has a minimum risk for a very long time.

Can you share some of your betting strategies which are risk free ?
I think that there is no sport betting which is risk free. No matter how much confident you're on a match, the result could still be against you.

There will always be wins and loses in your betting career. The only thing which may help to be in overall profit will be your money management skills.

Even betting constant with favorites doesnt really assure that you could really hit up wins and i dont really believe that there would really be those risk free bets because it wont be called gambling in the first place it there would be no risk at all.If thats the case on where it do really exist out then lots of gamblers would definitely be just stick around on this kind of method and making out myself get rich. People should be at least realistic and dont believe that this thing exist and you would really able
to see for yourself if you do tend to make out some bets.

Indeed, that's why it is called gambling. The gambling sites or online casinos are always on the other side hoping that you would lose that is why they're giving tempting odds that makes you want to bet to the other player to give them chances of winning. But mostly, people always go to the crowd favorites, sure it doesn't pay off as much but atleast you gained some profits from it. The greedy ones will always lose because they're seduced to that odds.
But this is not always the case because sometimes by luck or by chance the underdog wins, and those who had partake the positive odds will definitely gain serious profits.

[madnessteat]

this is the big difference between betting based solely on luck (dice, cards, roullete, etc) and sports betting.
In the first, the risks and chances of winning are immensely greater. But in the second, the risks are reduced because we can use the factor "statistical data" in our favor, analyzing the probabilities of a fight.
However, the house will always have better tools to predict the outcome of a fight and thus this significantly reduces the gains.

In short... the lesser the risks, the lesser the gains. How much does this pay off for players?

The odds put up by bookmakers are also based on analysis only they have a separate team consisting of several people professionally engaged in the analysis of sporting events and athletes. Therefore, their analysis is almost always correct, but they can also make mistakes since nobody cancels the human factor.

[milewilda]

this is the big difference between betting based solely on luck (dice, cards, roullete, etc) and sports betting.
In the first, the risks and chances of winning are immensely greater. But in the second, the risks are reduced because we can use the factor "statistical data" in our favor, analyzing the probabilities of a fight.
However, the house will always have better tools to predict the outcome of a fight and thus this significantly reduces the gains.

In short... the lesser the risks, the lesser the gains. How much does this pay off for players?

The odds put up by bookmakers are also based on analysis only they have a separate team consisting of several people professionally engaged in the analysis of sporting events and athletes. Therefore, their analysis is almost always correct, but they can also make mistakes since nobody cancels the human factor.

As a bookmaker then there's always a risks on making out their decisions on which one would be on favorites and which one would be underdog and since they are running a business then its just normal that they would be hiring those kind of analyst and would help out on making out decisions on what odds would be offered.They havent built a business without having these considerations
because it would surely cost them if they would really be having a mistake on giving out those odds but actually there are times which odds offered are totally out of
on what we do anticipate.

[Silberman]

Me too, I haven't heard such thing as risk-free betting fights especially in sports like boxing not unless you are going to bet on a fixed kind of game like exhibition bouts that was just made to hype the game and to earn profit. Lucky are those who can have the right combination or scorecard because probably they will be one of the winners betting on that sport. But then, there's no such risk-free even in trading or in investment or even in simple making our life decisions because there will be pros and cons to every situation. 

I don't have thought about such fights and bets too. But what I know with these are likely the sold games and only a few people know about it. A fix match it is.
But are they still a thing these days? Probably to the amateur matches, they are still there but for the pro and big fights, hard to find out about them.

Unfortunately fixed matches are still a thing, it is true that with the size of professional sports it is way harder to fix a match now than when the leagues were smaller decades ago, but it still happens, and when it does there is a huge uproar as many people think that it is impossible that such a thing happens in professional sports, however even if the number of cases is small at the same time this brings the question, how many more matches are fixed that we do not know about? And that is a question no one can really answer.

[goinmerry]

however even if the number of cases is small at the same time this brings the question, how many more matches are fixed that we do not know about? And that is a question no one can really answer.

Fixed on not, our bets are still subject to who will win. A win-win situation indeed. What if we bet on an underdog that is supposed to be fixed, it's still a good win to us. Let's now accept that rigged games system will not end. At least today, especially in big fights, we can conclude that it will be less chance of that game being rigged.

Unless, it's an exhibition match, expect that results are all staged.

[Reatim]

Agree, but still has a risk. We don't know what will happen. Like you are expecting that the other team will win 100% since the other team is the underdog, but it turns out that the underdog teams win the game. It still has a risk. Anything is possible in gambling. If you have luck, you will also win a large amount of money. We usually see this in the bets that if you bet on an underdog team, you will make more money than those teams that are the choice of many.

There are some fights that have a very low risk if you bet on the favorite, however as you mention this does not mean that the bets are completely risk-free, after all anything can happen in a fight, for example if the favorite to win the fight gets sick the day before or in the day of the fight then his performance level is going to be affected to the point he could lose the fight, this is very rare of course as fighters take great care of their bodies and their health before the fight but it happens, so even a bet that seems like it can be easily won can be lost under the wrong circumstances.

Yes , we cannot really predict the outcome because even if the game is rigged but when the opponent that supposed to win had trouble the night before then the wins may take place by the other one and this will also change the fixed game.
though if this is team effort there will some that can cover the leave of the sick player.
so meaning this is not really a sure win game but 90-99% only and there will always a small portion that may change the course.

[TopTort777]

What really is risk free fight? Such thing does not exist. One punch or kick or minor injury can spoil any risk free bet. Recent UFC fight between champion Amanda Nunes (former champ already) vs Julianna Pena is good example. The odds were like 1.4 for Nunes and 7 for Pena. Nunes was dominating first round. One punch from Pena in round two and Nunes did not manage to get together. As a result, new champ and those who bet on Pena got nice cheque.

[Lucasgabd]

this is the big difference between betting based solely on luck (dice, cards, roullete, etc) and sports betting.
In the first, the risks and chances of winning are immensely greater. But in the second, the risks are reduced because we can use the factor "statistical data" in our favor, analyzing the probabilities of a fight.
However, the house will always have better tools to predict the outcome of a fight and thus this significantly reduces the gains.

In short... the lesser the risks, the lesser the gains. How much does this pay off for players?

you are right, we are probably not betting on
Team A 15 x 4 Team B
on a soccer team because it's really hard to see a match with more than 9 goals, as an example

but even with the statistics still quite hard to predict sports results, even harder to predict many correct ones in a row.

[carlfebz2]

What really is risk free fight? Such thing does not exist. One punch or kick or minor injury can spoil any risk free bet. Recent UFC fight between champion Amanda Nunes (former champ already) vs Julianna Pena is good example. The odds were like 1.4 for Nunes and 7 for Pena. Nunes was dominating first round. One punch from Pena in round two and Nunes did not manage to get together. As a result, new champ and those who bet on Pena got nice cheque.

Thats how upset works and we know that it does exists and could really happen anytime on a strong and highly favorite against underdog thats always been the risks as a bettor on which you wouldnt know on when

those lucky punches or kicks would really land out or to those other sports as well on last minute kind of move which make those underdogs win.I dont really see on those claims about risk free fights because

whenever you do deal with gambling then this is something which you would be mainly facing on and you cant really get rid nor able to remove the risk unless if you are dealing with fixed matches.

[rodskee]

No such a thing as risk free, not in fights but, in general, not in life. No free meals, no free rides, no 100% safe. Having said that, on the fight you mention the weight difference is spectacular and that is a teller of the result in the wide majority of cases. However, just as you can see it, so can the bookies and those are the odds you are getting, which adds to the previous assertions - this is designed so that you will lose more time than you will win. Play for fun and to make it interesting.

nice answer , But i do love the last part in which "Play for fun and to make it Interesting" because majority of us here plays only on sole purpose and that is to Win and take homemore money same reason why they felt desperate and sad when Losing.

Like also what you said there is no 100%  safe as there are no risk free, so Gamble only when you think you can risk and accept the outcome, but if not then better not to play at all.

[michellee]

No such a thing as risk free, not in fights but, in general, not in life. No free meals, no free rides, no 100% safe. Having said that, on the fight you mention the weight difference is spectacular and that is a teller of the result in the wide majority of cases. However, just as you can see it, so can the bookies and those are the odds you are getting, which adds to the previous assertions - this is designed so that you will lose more time than you will win. Play for fun and to make it interesting.

nice answer , But i do love the last part in which "Play for fun and to make it Interesting" because majority of us here plays only on sole purpose and that is to Win and take homemore money same reason why they felt desperate and sad when Losing.

Like also what you said there is no 100%  safe as there are no risk free, so Gamble only when you think you can risk and accept the outcome, but if not then better not to play at all.

Play for fun and to make it interesting should be our reason for gambling, not depend on what gambling games we played but on what we need to remember when we want to play gambling. If we always remember that, we will not try hard to chase the winning instead, just try to enjoy and have fun and make it interesting for ourselves. We will consider that losing here will be part of the gambling game itself but when we win, that is also part of gambling and of course, it is because of our luck. Gamble when we can accept to lose and not desperate because the luck will be necessary and needed to be wise using the money to gamble.

[molsewid]

Play for fun and to make it interesting should be our reason for gambling, not depend on what gambling games we played but on what we need to remember when we want to play gambling. If we always remember that, we will not try hard to chase the winning instead, just try to enjoy and have fun and make it interesting for ourselves. We will consider that losing here will be part of the gambling game itself but when we win, that is also part of gambling and of course, it is because of our luck. Gamble when we can accept to lose and not desperate because the luck will be necessary and needed to be wise using the money to gamble.

Yes, absolutely right mate, as gamblers, we shouldn't have to forget to have fun while gambling and not just for the sole reason of chasing winning because the more we chase the win the more we lose the chances. However, having fun while gambling should also have a limit, so much fun will sometimes lead us to more spending in gambling and that's somehow a critical case that must be resolved by having self-control and limitation. When it comes to betting to risk-free fights well I don't think that such kind of betting existed.  

[xSkylarx]

The only risk free is not to gamble at all. As per average, favorites do win most of the time, however, because of the odds, that would still make you unprofitable in the long run.
If you are good to go with just one shot of a bet, then bet on the underdog, but always remember that it could also lose.

But there are also fixed matches happening. Yes, most of the crowd favorites are winning the game, but sometimes if the game was fixed, they would change it to the opposite side. I agree you should not bet, but how could you enjoy and win something if you don't bet? The best solution is to bet for entertainment and bet what you can afford to lose, so it is not going to hurt in the end. In gambling, there are no risk-free games or fights. It all comes with risk, but the probability of winning is also higher.

[Fatunad]

The only risk free is not to gamble at all. As per average, favorites do win most of the time, however, because of the odds, that would still make you unprofitable in the long run.
If you are good to go with just one shot of a bet, then bet on the underdog, but always remember that it could also lose.

But there are also fixed matches happening. Yes, most of the crowd favorites are winning the game, but sometimes if the game was fixed, they would change it to the opposite side. I agree you should not bet, but how could you enjoy and win something if you don't bet? The best solution is to bet for entertainment and bet what you can afford to lose, so it is not going to hurt in the end. In gambling, there are no risk-free games or fights. It all comes with risk, but the probability of winning is also higher.

And knowing about fixed matches information is something that you cant really able to do so thats why you cant be sure if it was fixed or totally a fair result out of a certain game.Risk free bets is only applicable into this one but in overall aspect then this is something cant be possible. Everything has risk specially when you are dealing with gambling. You wouldnt know on when those lucky punches or shots would be made even if you do
make out some favorite bets but still that wont really be giving out any assurances for you to win 100%.

[Oasisman]

The only risk free is not to gamble at all. As per average, favorites do win most of the time, however, because of the odds, that would still make you unprofitable in the long run.
If you are good to go with just one shot of a bet, then bet on the underdog, but always remember that it could also lose.

Betting on the underdog will usually result to a loss. That's actually one way of not betting with minimum risk. If you are going to do that, just make sure you made enough research about that match and the potential winning rate for the underdog as well as understanding the gap from the odd.
Huge gaps usually an easy win for the favourite.
I can also say that betting with the favourite is actually profitable but with very less and minimal amount when you lost once, you'll have to get what you lost after several games betting with the favourites again.

[Trojane]

Betting isn't for the broke! That's how I see it because if you barely have enough for yourself and you gamble the little you have, you'll end up running bankrupt and getting more wretched.
 Any broke person that is staking his coins will always wanna earn so much with just few bucks or end up staking much coins ( which is almost his life savings) into a dead game.
Gambling is meant for people that doesn't really value the winning; if it comes, fine if it doesn't , very well then....!
I can only do this for pleasure and not as a job. I don't think they is any casino that makes their offers risk free so that's to make a preview that gamblers are losers

[Japinat]

Betting isn't for the broke! That's how I see it because if you barely have enough for yourself and you gamble the little you have, you'll end up running bankrupt and getting more wretched.

You are right, the gambling principle to follow is to gamble what you can afford, how can a broke person afford to gamble at all? If he will do that, then he certainly has a problem and that is being stupid because what he is doing is digging a hole for him to bury himself in the long run.

When someone is gambling, he should feel the entertainment as well, and a broke person would never feel it.
In the end, understanding the risk and reward is a must, otherwise, we are gambling unrealistically.

[cabron]

Betting isn't for the broke! That's how I see it because if you barely have enough for yourself and you gamble the little you have, you'll end up running bankrupt and getting more wretched.

You are right, the gambling principle to follow is to gamble what you can afford, how can a broke person afford to gamble at all? If he will do that, then he certainly has a problem and that is being stupid because what he is doing is digging a hole for him to bury himself in the long run.

When someone is gambling, he should feel the entertainment as well, and a broke person would never feel it.
In the end, understanding the risk and reward is a must, otherwise, we are gambling unrealistically.

It's the hope of winning that makes them bet despite being broke. Winning doesn't happen all the time but if they got lucky to have chosen the lucky champ who won the fight, they'd get the money. Seen many times people who do bet even with so little they have but the hope to get out of that misery is diverted into betting.

It's not unrealistic to analyze which fighter could win but we can be entertained as well to see the strength of one fighter can be suppressed by another. Thus identifying less risky fights is a must.

[michellee]

Play for fun and to make it interesting should be our reason for gambling, not depend on what gambling games we played but on what we need to remember when we want to play gambling. If we always remember that, we will not try hard to chase the winning instead, just try to enjoy and have fun and make it interesting for ourselves. We will consider that losing here will be part of the gambling game itself but when we win, that is also part of gambling and of course, it is because of our luck. Gamble when we can accept to lose and not desperate because the luck will be necessary and needed to be wise using the money to gamble.

Yes, absolutely right mate, as gamblers, we shouldn't have to forget to have fun while gambling and not just for the sole reason of chasing winning because the more we chase the win the more we lose the chances. However, having fun while gambling should also have a limit, so much fun will sometimes lead us to more spending in gambling and that's somehow a critical case that must be resolved by having self-control and limitation. When it comes to betting to risk-free fights well I don't think that such kind of betting existed.  

Using limitations is a must for a gambler to manage his money in gambling, preventing him from the big loss. As long as a gambler has a strong hand to manage how much money he uses to gamble, everything will be in his control while enjoying and having fun in gambling. If those betting use money, then there is no risk-free as you will lose the money if you lose so be careful to gamble with your money and not just follow their offers saying that betting to risk-free fights because the risk of losing the money will always be there.

[Rruchi man]

Is there really any risk free fight? I doubt. Some fights more risky than the others, but none completely without risk. Betting to what you think is a risk free fight is not an assurance for victory, the losses you fear to incur may still be waiting for you in those fights that you have deemed risk free. The fear of playing it safe always and only betting on risk free fights may mean you never get to win a good reward IMO, because where's the good reward without an equivalent risk?

[Wexnident]

Is there really any risk free fight? I doubt.

Well betting itself is a risk, so if it's risk-free, it's not betting but rather playing around. Even the most uneven match doesn't have a 100% win rate for the more advantageous side. There would always be at least 1% chance of the other side winning due to a lot of factors. A match isn't as simple as 1 + 1, there's a lot of factors involved in a fight though ofc, the biggest factor involved would be the fighters though then, as I said, there's a lot of factors that could affect a players performance, therefore affecting the result of a match.

[Smartprofit]

The only risk free is not to gamble at all. As per average, favorites do win most of the time, however, because of the odds, that would still make you unprofitable in the long run.
If you are good to go with just one shot of a bet, then bet on the underdog, but always remember that it could also lose.

Betting on the underdog will usually result to a loss. That's actually one way of not betting with minimum risk. If you are going to do that, just make sure you made enough research about that match and the potential winning rate for the underdog as well as understanding the gap from the odd.
Huge gaps usually an easy win for the favourite.
I can also say that betting with the favourite is actually profitable but with very less and minimal amount when you lost once, you'll have to get what you lost after several games betting with the favourites again.

Yes, it is right.  If you constantly place bets on favorites, then you need to be prepared for the fact that one day your bet will not win. 

At the same time, your loss will be very significant.  This is due to the presence of coefficients.  The odds are set for a reason. 

They take into account the probability of winning and the probability of losing.  According to the mathematical theory of probability. 

A risk free bet is always inside information.  You should have more information about athletes than other players. 

There is no other way.

[Lucasgabd]

<...>

this reminds me of the old saying: "do you want to be right or do you want to make money?"
different ways to approach the world
maybe its better to approach betting as a job than as a pure entertainment activity if you want to win on the long run

[qwertyup23]

What really is risk free fight? Such thing does not exist. One punch or kick or minor injury can spoil any risk free bet. Recent UFC fight between champion Amanda Nunes (former champ already) vs Julianna Pena is good example. The odds were like 1.4 for Nunes and 7 for Pena. Nunes was dominating first round. One punch from Pena in round two and Nunes did not manage to get together. As a result, new champ and those who bet on Pena got nice cheque.

Thats how upset works and we know that it does exists and could really happen anytime on a strong and highly favorite against underdog thats always been the risks as a bettor on which you wouldnt know on when

those lucky punches or kicks would really land out or to those other sports as well on last minute kind of move which make those underdogs win.I dont really see on those claims about risk free fights because

whenever you do deal with gambling then this is something which you would be mainly facing on and you cant really get rid nor able to remove the risk unless if you are dealing with fixed matches.

I do feel like there is no such thing as a "risk free fights" based on the example that you have provided.

As much as the odds may seem to be in favor of a particular person due to the enormous advantage that they have over their counterparts, there is always that possibility of a 'lucky strike' (like the one you mentioned) from happening. Basically whenever a person bets, he puts himself in a situation where he accepted that anything could happen. There can be no "absolute" result from a risk free fight in a betting scenario- or else that would definitely make everybody rich from betting.

[Lanatsa]

What really is risk free fight? Such thing does not exist. One punch or kick or minor injury can spoil any risk free bet. Recent UFC fight between champion Amanda Nunes (former champ already) vs Julianna Pena is good example. The odds were like 1.4 for Nunes and 7 for Pena. Nunes was dominating first round. One punch from Pena in round two and Nunes did not manage to get together. As a result, new champ and those who bet on Pena got nice cheque.

Thats how upset works and we know that it does exists and could really happen anytime on a strong and highly favorite against underdog thats always been the risks as a bettor on which you wouldnt know on when

those lucky punches or kicks would really land out or to those other sports as well on last minute kind of move which make those underdogs win.I dont really see on those claims about risk free fights because

whenever you do deal with gambling then this is something which you would be mainly facing on and you cant really get rid nor able to remove the risk unless if you are dealing with fixed matches.

I do feel like there is no such thing as a "risk free fights" based on the example that you have provided.

As much as the odds may seem to be in favor of a particular person due to the enormous advantage that they have over their counterparts, there is always that possibility of a 'lucky strike' (like the one you mentioned) from happening. Basically whenever a person bets, he puts himself in a situation where he accepted that anything could happen. There can be no "absolute" result from a risk free fight in a betting scenario- or else that would definitely make everybody rich from betting.

If it does exist on the first place then people would really be simply betting with favorites for them to win constantly and make themselves rich on gambling which we know that it cant be possible or impossible thing to happen as we all know and as mentioned about those lucky moments then it could really happen.You wouldn't know on what will be the moment in next seconds or minute
inside of the duration and this is what makes betting more interesting and thrilling and this is where people shouldn't really mind off about those risk free bets
that it cant be possible.

[hello_good_sir]

No fight is ever risk free.

That's why the term "puncher's chance" exists - you simply can't count someone out.

Otherwise, if this was a repeatable and profitable strategy, why would bookies even offer these low odds?

[paxmao]

The only risk free is not to gamble at all. As per average, favorites do win most of the time, however, because of the odds, that would still make you unprofitable in the long run.
If you are good to go with just one shot of a bet, then bet on the underdog, but always remember that it could also lose.

Betting on the underdog will usually result to a loss. That's actually one way of not betting with minimum risk. If you are going to do that, just make sure you made enough research about that match and the potential winning rate for the underdog as well as understanding the gap from the odd.
Huge gaps usually an easy win for the favourite.
I can also say that betting with the favourite is actually profitable but with very less and minimal amount when you lost once, you'll have to get what you lost after several games betting with the favourites again.

Yes, it is right.  If you constantly place bets on favorites, then you need to be prepared for the fact that one day your bet will not win. 

...

When betting in general on sports that actually depend on information to improve your odds over those of the house, you have to ask yourself the same as if you would be investing in stocks that are well known and followed. The key question is What is your advantage? For example, there are a million funds and people out there investing in Google. If you intend to compete with them, you should have better information or otherwise you will be the shrimp in the ocean ready to be eaten. Betting is similar, you need to find your advantage when betting for profit or expecting to have it.

[michellee]

The only risk free is not to gamble at all. As per average, favorites do win most of the time, however, because of the odds, that would still make you unprofitable in the long run.
If you are good to go with just one shot of a bet, then bet on the underdog, but always remember that it could also lose.

Betting on the underdog will usually result to a loss. That's actually one way of not betting with minimum risk. If you are going to do that, just make sure you made enough research about that match and the potential winning rate for the underdog as well as understanding the gap from the odd.
Huge gaps usually an easy win for the favourite.
I can also say that betting with the favourite is actually profitable but with very less and minimal amount when you lost once, you'll have to get what you lost after several games betting with the favourites again.

Yes, it is right.  If you constantly place bets on favorites, then you need to be prepared for the fact that one day your bet will not win. 

At the same time, your loss will be very significant.  This is due to the presence of coefficients.  The odds are set for a reason. 

They take into account the probability of winning and the probability of losing.  According to the mathematical theory of probability. 

A risk free bet is always inside information.  You should have more information about athletes than other players. 

There is no other way.

If favorites can win most of the time, people will choose the favorite team to eliminate losing the money. But we know that people can challenge themselves by betting on the underdog too, especially if they see the underdog chance is good to compare to opponent whether that opponent is favorable by the people or not.

They can use the mathematical theory of probability but they should have more info about the match to know which team they should select.

But even if there is inside information that can give us almost accurate info, it still has a risk, especially if you are trying to bet in a big amount.

[AicecreaME]

<...>

this reminds me of the old saying: "do you want to be right or do you want to make money?"
different ways to approach the world
maybe its better to approach betting as a job than as a pure entertainment activity if you want to win on the long run

It depends, I mean some of rich people would never consider betting as a job, it is just pure entertainment on them, however for those unfortunate people, they always consider betting as a job no matter how hard is it for them in winning. Your bets will never be always be right based on the information you've gathered, sometimes it is being bended by something that change everything, a win became a loss and a loss became a win, if you know what I mean.

[electronicash]

<...>

this reminds me of the old saying: "do you want to be right or do you want to make money?"
different ways to approach the world
maybe its better to approach betting as a job than as a pure entertainment activity if you want to win on the long run

It depends, I mean some of rich people would never consider betting as a job, it is just pure entertainment on them, however for those unfortunate people, they always consider betting as a job no matter how hard is it for them in winning. Your bets will never be always be right based on the information you've gathered, sometimes it is being bended by something that change everything, a win became a loss and a loss became a win, if you know what I mean.

it's upsetting when the underdog win which you hopefully will not because most of the time the analysis is that a champion will always be the favorite and the odds speaks for it. if you are going to be banking on the underdog, it could just mean that you are really a fan of that MMA fighter which could be entertainment for you. but for a broke man who wants to win big but has small capital, he meant money and might just bet his $50 to win 3x rooting for the underdog.

[Lucasgabd]

<...>

this reminds me of the old saying: "do you want to be right or do you want to make money?"
different ways to approach the world
maybe its better to approach betting as a job than as a pure entertainment activity if you want to win on the long run

It depends, I mean some of rich people would never consider betting as a job, it is just pure entertainment on them, however for those unfortunate people, they always consider betting as a job no matter how hard is it for them in winning. Your bets will never be always be right based on the information you've gathered, sometimes it is being bended by something that change everything, a win became a loss and a loss became a win, if you know what I mean.

yes, I meant more in a sense for those who want to make money betting, but of course there are lots of approaches, nothing wrong with betting for fun, it's ok too

I know what you mean too,if we rely in luck it comes in goes, in weaves

[Silberman]

Is there really any risk free fight? I doubt.

Well betting itself is a risk, so if it's risk-free, it's not betting but rather playing around. Even the most uneven match doesn't have a 100% win rate for the more advantageous side. There would always be at least 1% chance of the other side winning due to a lot of factors. A match isn't as simple as 1 + 1, there's a lot of factors involved in a fight though ofc, the biggest factor involved would be the fighters though then, as I said, there's a lot of factors that could affect a players performance, therefore affecting the result of a match.

Which by the way that is the whole point of watching a sport competition, after all if the favorite always won and there was no risk of losing for them then there will be no need to watch any competition as the only thing we will need to do is to look at their stats and we will know who will win, but things do not work like that, which means that luckily for us even a very bad team can beat a great one any given day no matter how unlikely it may be.

[madnessteat]

^

You are right, but the chance that the team with high odds wins is much smaller and such wins do not happen as often as we would like, so this kind of betting is even more risky. I personally choose the lower risk so I bet on favourites.

[Fatunad]

^

You are right, but the chance that the team with high odds wins is much smaller and such wins do not happen as often as we would like, so this kind of betting is even more risky. I personally choose the lower risk so I bet on favourites.

As a bettor then you do know about the basics and arrangement between odds which is understandable that favorites would be having higher chances of winning but just
like on what others been saying is that there are people who do make out underdog bets because they are hoping into those upsets that do really happen even though
its not on high probability but at least they are waiting for some good multiplier of their best via underdog betting but it wont be a good idea
if you dont be having any basis or research on why you do bet the least favorite.

[Oasisman]

<...>

this reminds me of the old saying: "do you want to be right or do you want to make money?"
different ways to approach the world
maybe its better to approach betting as a job than as a pure entertainment activity if you want to win on the long run

Well, that saying perfectly suits with the lawyers lol, not much for gambling or sports betting.
Threating gambling as a regular job might never be easy, it'll give you unstable income, sometimes you won't get anything yet you've even lost money for it.
The only time I consider gambling as a regular job is when you're get paid to play like poker tournaments or any other gambling tournaments.

[ethereumhunter]

<...>

this reminds me of the old saying: "do you want to be right or do you want to make money?"
different ways to approach the world
maybe its better to approach betting as a job than as a pure entertainment activity if you want to win on the long run

Well, that saying perfectly suits with the lawyers lol, not much for gambling or sports betting.
Threating gambling as a regular job might never be easy, it'll give you unstable income, sometimes you won't get anything yet you've even lost money for it.
The only time I consider gambling as a regular job is when you're get paid to play like poker tournaments or any other gambling tournaments.

Only some gamblers can use gambling as a regular job, while the rest will fail in the middle of their journey. It is hard to use betting as a job because that needs more knowledge than regular people who bet. If you can get paid by playing poker tournaments, then you do not risk anything since you only need to use your skills, no matter what the result is in the end. But everything related to gambling will have a risk. Whether that risk is big or small, you will still get that risk. The only thing that makes it different is how good you can manage the risk.

[KTChampions]

it's upsetting when the underdog win which you hopefully will not because most of the time the analysis is that a champion will always be the favorite and the odds speaks for it. if you are going to be banking on the underdog, it could just mean that you are really a fan of that MMA fighter which could be entertainment for you. but for a broke man who wants to win big but has small capital, he meant money and might just bet his $50 to win 3x rooting for the underdog.

Many bettors place their bets on underdogs not because they are fans of them, but because they see (or think they see) underestimation of the underdog. For example, if you see that the bookmaker gives a odds of getting a 6 when throwing the dice as 1:5, then most likely you will not bet, right? But if you see the odds for the same event 7 or higher, then you will make as many bets as you can, because it is profitable and not because you are a fan of 6s.

[madnessteat]

Only some gamblers can use gambling as a regular job, while the rest will fail in the middle of their journey. It is hard to use betting as a job because that needs more knowledge than regular people who bet. If you can get paid by playing poker tournaments, then you do not risk anything since you only need to use your skills, no matter what the result is in the end. But everything related to gambling will have a risk. Whether that risk is big or small, you will still get that risk. The only thing that makes it different is how good you can manage the risk.

How can you manage your risk if you play by the rules that are set by bookmakers or casinos (in the case of gambling)? You can reduce your risks to a certain percentage but still the risk will be enough for you to lose your money as it is assumed in the betting (gambling) system.

[Mahanton]

Only some gamblers can use gambling as a regular job, while the rest will fail in the middle of their journey. It is hard to use betting as a job because that needs more knowledge than regular people who bet. If you can get paid by playing poker tournaments, then you do not risk anything since you only need to use your skills, no matter what the result is in the end. But everything related to gambling will have a risk. Whether that risk is big or small, you will still get that risk. The only thing that makes it different is how good you can manage the risk.

How can you manage your risk if you play by the rules that are set by bookmakers or casinos (in the case of gambling)? You can reduce your risks to a certain percentage but still the risk will be enough for you to lose your money as it is assumed in the betting (gambling) system.

Even it would be having 1% chance of losing then it would be consider as risks but we know that once we do step our foot on gambling or betting then these things would really be typical for you to experience on
and people should really be aware of that and not just minding about those risk free bets which it doesnt really exist or no matter on how sure you are when it comes into your dealings
with things. This is why its called betting because you are something needs to choose in between options which losing is always been a probability.