Betting to Risk Free Fights

[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.