Betting to Risk Free Fights

[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.