Betting on mayweather v alvarez

The odds for the fights yesterday was 5/1 for Alvarez to win by stoppage and 8/15 for mayweather to win by points (betfred odds other stores had better odds).

In my opinion the above odds as an easy way to make money (sonmething I did). There was really only ever going to be one outcome  of maywether on points and a second most unlikely outcome of Alvarez winning by ko



If you bet £15 on Alvarez to win by KO you would walk out a winner with £90 (£75 winnings + £15 bet return).

If you bet £15 on Mayweather to win on points you would walk out with £23 (£8 winnings and £15 bet return).


So if you believe the two most likely situations to happen in the above fight is mayweather points of alvarez ko then in order to get a profit gambling on the two above outcomes you would need to Bet a minimum of £15 for alvarez to win by KO to get a profit of £75 (potential loss of £15) or £30 on mayweather to win on points to get a profit of £16 (potential loss of £30)

So if you put the above bets on then if alvarez won by KO you would walk away with a £45 profit after deducting your £30 losing bet on mayweather.

If Mayweather won by points you would walk away with a £1 profit after deducting your £15 losing bet on alvarez.

The above is when you put just a £15 bet on. Put a £15,000 bet on alvarez and a £30,000 bet on mayweather and you walk away with a £1000 profit if mayweather won and £45,000 if Alvarez won by ko.

I think the fight yesterday was easy money because we all knew floyd was 90% going to win by points and the other 10% was Alvarez to win by KO in my view. No way was floud going to ko the much bigger alvarez and no way was alvarez going to outwork floyd for 12 rounds to win a decision. only way alvarez would win was by ko.

Just thought I would share my boxing strategy for placing bets on how to basically be 'guaranteed' a profit.

Even better, there was no chance of Alvarez winning by KO.

I mentioned earlier that Floyd to win by UD was a good bet even at 1/2. I'll be doing it next time.

Some bet on Floyd by UD but CJ Ross ruined that. Adds to the intrigue of why she scored it a draw.

Scottrf wrote:Even better, there was no chance of Alvarez winning by KO.

HE had a punching chance and as a gambling man you need to place bets to minimise your losses. Yes betting on alvarez means you walk away with less profit but if the unthinkable happened and alvarez won by KO (something that is not impossible considering his massive weight advantage) then you would lose everything.

At least placing the two bets meant you was 'guaranteed' a profit.

Strongback wrote:I mentioned earlier that Floyd to win by UD was a good bet even at 1/2. I'll be doing it next time.

Some bet on Floyd by UD but CJ Ross ruined that. Adds to the intrigue of why she scored it a draw.

The odds at betfred of 8/15 was just floys to win on points (not SD or UD)

Well that's a good strategy only if you thought the punching chance was more likely than 5/1. It wasn't close.

Scottrf wrote:Well that's a good strategy only if you thought the punching chance was more likely than 5/1. It wasn't close.

I ust looked at the two ways both fighters could possible win and I saw that there was a profit to be made by placing bets on both fighters to win by the two most likely ways (floyd decision or alvarez KO)

The way the odds were meant I was given a profit even after betting on both fighters to win by their strongest possible way.

All you're doing is eating into your profits though, and maximising the hit of an eventual fluke result.

I always considered Mayweather the more likely to get a stoppage anyway.

Scottrf wrote:All you're doing is eating into your profits though, and maximising the hit of an eventual fluke result.

I always considered Mayweather the more likely to get a stoppage anyway.

I agree with that but my intention was to be guaranteed a profit. No matter what people say now, Alvarez was the biggest challenge to Floyd since de la hoya (the fight wasn't close but I am talking pre-fight). Yes you could say I ate into profits by betting on Alvarez too but it was a wise decision because Alvarez is a great fighter and so I chose to reduce profits in order to 'guarantee' a profit and eliminate the risk of a loss.

How is it a guarantee though? Floyd could have knocked him out.

Scottrf wrote:How is it a guarantee though? Floyd could have knocked him out.

I put 'guarantee'. Alvarez could have won by UD but do you really think that is possible?

Floyd has not won a real KO since 2007 (Ortiz was a cheap shot), he lacks power at 152 especially against a guy weighing nearly 170lbs.

Looking at the odds like I said previously, I was given the opportunity to bet on both fighters winning in the most likely manner (alvarez ko and floyd points) and still come out with a profit.

Your bet on Canelo just REDUCED your profit bro. Thats all.

YDKSAB wrote:Your bet on Canelo just REDUCED your profit bro. Thats all.

Thanks sis for repeating what someone else already said. the reduction was planned because it meant i was still 'guaranteed' a profit whilst basically 'eliminating' a loss.

Gambling is not about just betting to make the most money, it is about eliminating losses and making sure you stand the most chance of being profitable.

Casual gamblers just bet on the result they think is most likely and go broke if an upset happens. A 'professional' gambler will place bets that will reduce his winnings if it means he is 'guaranteed' a profit because the bets he has placed have 'eliminated' the risk of a loss.

Or you're just trying to sound smart when you are in fact making betting at all pointless because it only become profitable if Alvarez wins. All you are doing is limiting the gains on the most likely outcome not guaranteeing a profit.

You werent GUARANTEEING a profit or ELIMINATING a loss bro.

Canelo to knock out Money May 5/1 is a sucker price.

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:Or you're just trying to sound smart when you are in fact making betting at all pointless because it only become profitable if Alvarez wins. All you are doing is limiting the gains on the most likely outcome not guaranteeing a profit.

it is still profitable if Maywether wins by £1 for every £30 gambled. You bet big money and you will be guaranteed a profit.

Alverez isn't a concussive puncher and Floyd rarely gets caught clean.

Some people lost money because of CJ Ross. They are complaining about it. The Floyd win by decision is the way to go with the shenanigans that go on with judging.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:Or you're just trying to sound smart when you are in fact making betting at all pointless because it only become profitable if Alvarez wins. All you are doing is limiting the gains on the most likely outcome not guaranteeing a profit.

it is still profitable if Maywether wins by £1 for every £30 gambled. You bet big money and you will be guaranteed a profit.

Please stop saying guaranteed, you haven't guaranteed a thing.

Professional gamblers don't try to cover every outcome, they bet where they think the odds on offer are inaccurate (in a beneficial way).

If those are your odds, you're laying Mayweather KO, Alvarez points, draw or disqualifications at 1/30. Far too high a risk IMO.

Strongback wrote:Alverez isn't a concussive puncher and Floyd rarely gets caught clean.

Some people lost money because of CJ Ross. They are complaining about it.  The Floyd win by decision is the way to go with the shenanigans that go on with judging.

the judging decision was clearly because she was paid off. She probably put a massive bet on floyd to win by SD which would have had amazing odds.

But the judge has form because she was the judge who said bradley beat pacquio

A professional gambler will bet when he feels confident in winning and will try to maximise his profits rather than minimise his losses.

Scottrf wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:Or you're just trying to sound smart when you are in fact making betting at all pointless because it only become profitable if Alvarez wins. All you are doing is limiting the gains on the most likely outcome not guaranteeing a profit.

it is still profitable if Maywether wins by £1 for every £30 gambled. You bet big money and you will be guaranteed a profit.

Please stop saying guaranteed, you haven't guaranteed a thing.

Professional gamblers don't try to cover every outcome, they bet where they think the odds on offer are inaccurate (in a beneficial way).

'guaranteed' is different to guaranteed,

Homie you crazy. Something aint a GUARANTEE just coz you say so. You werent guaranteed NOTHING if Mayweather knocked him out and betting on Canelo to knock Money May out 5/1 just sucks man.

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:A professional gambler will bet when he feels confident in winning and will try to maximise his profits rather than minimise his losses.

Nope it is all about reducing losses. I am a profesional gambler ( in the sense the maority of my income is from gambling) and It is all about loss reduction. A steady income is what professional gamblers look for and they try to avoid big swings.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Strongback wrote:Alverez isn't a concussive puncher and Floyd rarely gets caught clean.

Some people lost money because of CJ Ross. They are complaining about it.  The Floyd win by decision is the way to go with the shenanigans that go on with judging.

the judging decision was clearly because she was paid off. She probably put a massive bet on floyd to win by SD which would have had amazing odds.

But the judge has form because she was the judge who said bradley beat pacquio

She bet on on Mayweather by SD and scored it a draw??? Bro you need help.

Semantics CS and it's all vain attention seeking garbage, there are too many variables in boxing to make anything a guarantee, the aim of gambling is to maximise profits.

YDKSAB wrote:Homie you crazy. Something aint a GUARANTEE just coz you say so. You werent guaranteed NOTHING if Mayweather knocked him out and betting on Canelo to knock Money May out 5/1 just sucks man.

Try reading my post just above your post sis.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:A professional gambler will bet when he feels confident in winning and will try to maximise his profits rather than minimise his losses.

Nope it is all about reducing losses. I am a profesional gambler ( in the sense the maority of my income is from gambling) and It is all about loss reduction. A steady income is what professional gamblers look for and they try to avoid big swings.

Of course you are CS, of course you are.

YDKSAB wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Strongback wrote:Alverez isn't a concussive puncher and Floyd rarely gets caught clean.

Some people lost money because of CJ Ross. They are complaining about it.  The Floyd win by decision is the way to go with the shenanigans that go on with judging.

the judging decision was clearly because she was paid off. She probably put a massive bet on floyd to win by SD which would have had amazing odds.

But the judge has form because she was the judge who said bradley beat pacquio

She bet on on Mayweather by SD and scored it a draw??? Bro you need help.

Becuse she obviously knew the other two judges would score it a UD to mayweather thus making the result a SD. only a blind person would score that fight anything other than a UD.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:A professional gambler will bet when he feels confident in winning and will try to maximise his profits rather than minimise his losses.

Nope it is all about reducing losses. I am a profesional gambler ( in the sense the maority of my income is from gambling) and It is all about loss reduction. A steady income is what professional gamblers look for and they try to avoid big swings.

You must be able to live on a shoestring budget if you think betting on an outcome priced in the bookies favour to try and 'minimise losses' is a good thing.

You're not minimising losses, you're laying Mayweather KO, Alvarez decsision, draw or DQs at 30/1 i.e. risking a lot for very little.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

YDKSAB wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Strongback wrote:Alverez isn't a concussive puncher and Floyd rarely gets caught clean.

Some people lost money because of CJ Ross. They are complaining about it.  The Floyd win by decision is the way to go with the shenanigans that go on with judging.

the judging decision was clearly because she was paid off. She probably put a massive bet on floyd to win by SD which would have had amazing odds.

But the judge has form because she was the judge who said bradley beat pacquio

She bet on on Mayweather by SD and scored it a draw??? Bro you need help.

Becuse she obviously knew the other two judges would score it a UD to mayweather thus making the result a SD. only a blind person would score that fight anything other than a UD.

A majority decision is not a split decision.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

YDKSAB wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Strongback wrote:Alverez isn't a concussive puncher and Floyd rarely gets caught clean.

Some people lost money because of CJ Ross. They are complaining about it.  The Floyd win by decision is the way to go with the shenanigans that go on with judging.

the judging decision was clearly because she was paid off. She probably put a massive bet on floyd to win by SD which would have had amazing odds.

But the judge has form because she was the judge who said bradley beat pacquio

She bet on on Mayweather by SD and scored it a draw??? Bro you need help.

Becuse she obviously knew the other two judges would score it a UD to mayweather thus making the result a SD. only a blind person would score that fight anything other than a UD.

No bro, that would it a MD. Sounds like YDKSAB sorry bro.

You must be an awesome gambler not to know the difference.

Scottrf wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:A professional gambler will bet when he feels confident in winning and will try to maximise his profits rather than minimise his losses.

Nope it is all about reducing losses. I am a profesional gambler ( in the sense the maority of my income is from gambling) and It is all about loss reduction. A steady income is what professional gamblers look for and they try to avoid big swings.

You must be able to live on a shoestring budget if you think betting on an outcome priced in the bookies favour to try and 'minimise losses' is a good thing.

It is all about loss reduction whilst still maintaining a profit and avoiding big swings. You are not just betting on 1 fight a month you are betting on boxig, football, rugby, athletics, baseball etc. You are betting on so many events that when you bet and win small profit margins on each event the profits add up to a healthy sum.

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

YDKSAB wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Strongback wrote:Alverez isn't a concussive puncher and Floyd rarely gets caught clean.

Some people lost money because of CJ Ross. They are complaining about it.  The Floyd win by decision is the way to go with the shenanigans that go on with judging.

the judging decision was clearly because she was paid off. She probably put a massive bet on floyd to win by SD which would have had amazing odds.

But the judge has form because she was the judge who said bradley beat pacquio

She bet on on Mayweather by SD and scored it a draw??? Bro you need help.

Becuse she obviously knew the other two judges would score it a UD to mayweather thus making the result a SD. only a blind person would score that fight anything other than a UD.

A majority decision is not a split decision.

thats what I meant.

At the end of the day you're talking complete and utter garbage.

You talking BS man because the ODDS is a KEY factor. The BOOKIES the ones with the powers to adjust and you need to KNOW if you are getting a good price. NO point betting on Canelo to KO Money at 5/1 unless its GOOD odds but its a SUCKER bet. All you did was REDUCE profit man but you think you PLAYING the bookies because its reducing risk.

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:At the end of the day you're talking complete and utter garbage.

Don't be mad cos you don't know how to bet to minimise losses and thus make it a sustainable business plan.

Go bet your £4500 on mayweather to win by UD which is the favourite outcome' and then get screwed over by some judge when it is a MD and go broke or use a gambling formula where you limit profit but basically 'eliminate' losses and you bet £3000 on my betting tactics above end up with £100 profit for 1 event that night.

Don't waste your time with this guy.

I'll just do what most people do and work for a living and not risk the future of my family in the vain hope of winning a little bit of money. The thing is there's a fair few people on here who are pretty smart so it's quite stupid to try and sound smart when you're doing the complete opposite.

If you're betting on odds of 5/1 on something that will happen less often than 1 in 6 times, then it's a bad bet.

Nothing else about 'minimising losses' etc is relevant, it's just the odds vs percentage chance of occurance.

If you disagree with this simple premise then there's no hope.

Scottrf wrote:If you're betting on odds of 5/1 on something that will happen less often than 1 in 6 times, then it's a bad bet.

Nothing else about 'minimising losses' etc is relevant, it's just the odds vs percentage chance of occurance.

If you disagree with this simple premise then there's no hope.

Exactly bro.

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:I'll just do what most people do and work for a living and not risk the future of my family in the vain hope of winning a little bit of money. The thing is there's a fair few people on here who are pretty smart so it's quite stupid to try and sound smart when you're doing the complete opposite.

Once again don't get mad cos you can't think of a sustainable business plan for gambling. You just bet all your money on the 'favourite' outcome to increase winnings but lose it all if an upset happens (which would have happened to a lot of gamblers who bet big money on a mayweather UD victory).

Take a business view approach to gambling and reduce winnings but 'eliminate' losses. If you are betting on 100 events a week etc it is all about reducing losses whilst still maintaining a profit.

You're such an idiot, you have no clue at all.

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:You're such an idiot, you have no clue at all.

sure that is why I am making profit by sitting on my sofa watching boxing whilst you are out working all day

Of course you are mate.

Sorry bro but sounds like you a PHONEY. You think saying "ELIMINATING" is eliminating but it aint. PRO Gamblers look at the prices being offered and only bet if they think they are getting a GOOD price. VERY difficult to beat the bookies long run because they OWN the prices. You think your system is guaranteed bro but you dont have a DAMN CLUE about the price you backing. Hell anybody tell you that Money wins the fight but not many know if the price the bookies offering is a good one.

YDKSAB wrote:Sorry bro but sounds like you a PHONEY. You think saying "ELIMINATING" is eliminating but it aint. PRO Gamblers look at the prices being offered and only bet if they think they are getting a GOOD price. VERY difficult to beat the bookies long run because they OWN the prices. You think your system is guaranteed bro but you dont have a DAMN CLUE about the price you backing. Hell anybody tell you that Money wins the fight but not many know if the price the bookies offering is a good one.

If i gave you odds of 3/25 that if i flip a coin 10x that if it lands on heads once you will win. That is basically 'eliminating' losses. Gambling will never truely eliminate losing unless you are betting on a fixed corrupt result. As a rofessional gambler (mainly but not solely online poker) for a number of years I know all about maintaining a profit whilst reducing losses to keep a steady flow of positive results.

You know message me on here what site you play poker on and i'll give you a game, let me witness first hand these legendary gambling skills.

That dont have NOTHING to do with your bet bro. Money May knocks Canelo out, the judges rob Money or Canelo quits or gets injured then you aint getting NOTHING! NO GUARANTEE. All you doing is REDUCING risk in return for REDUCING profit at SUCKER prices bro.