Betting to Risk Free 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.