Hatton v Lazcano Betting

[toffeejack]

You can get Lazcano at 9/1 on betfair.

Now I realize he's the outsider here but those are crazy odds. You never know how a fighter will react to their first loss and if previous form is anything to go by the longer the fight goes on the more you wonder if any stamina issues will hit Ricky.

[Benjiabc]

worth a fiver im sure

[kurt2006]

No way he wins this, Lazcano is only here so Hatton can have a warm up and like those boxers who go to germany to fight he knows what is expected of him.

[D-MAC]

No way he wins this, Lazcano is only here so Hatton can have a warm up and like those boxers who go to germany to fight he knows what is expected of him.

That's about the whole story:good

I wouldn't take Laz at 90/1

[SleazeNation]

On here you seem to get two types of people who bet.

One's who throw away money on things that will probably lose. Lazcano winning tomorrow.

And people who put money on things that will happen. Floyd Mayweather winning fights.

I don't understand putting a fiver on something that will not happen, I don't get that. The last two posters seem to have some sense.

[GazOC]

What are the odds on N'Dou? I think he could upset the apple cart tomorrow...

[kurt2006]

What are the odds on N'Dou? I think he could upset the apple cart tomorrow...

(Using decimal odds)

You can back N'Dou @ 7 (thats 6-1).

(Betfair).

[trotter]

No way he wins this, Lazcano is only here so Hatton can have a warm up and like those boxers who go to germany to fight he knows what is expected of him.

If you think he has no chance, fair enough

But to insinuate it's all fixed anyway, well, I think that's pretty low, groundless, just poor really

[dwilson]

Jeez those are good odds for Lazcano. I thought he woulds be more 16-1.

[Betty Swollocks]

On here you seem to get two types of people who bet.

One's who throw away money on things that will probably lose. Lazcano winning tomorrow.

And people who put money on things that will happen. Floyd Mayweather winning fights.

I don't understand putting a fiver on something that will not happen, I don't get that. The last two posters seem to have some sense.

:patsch
what do you mean by 'something that will not happen?' Like Buster beating Tyson or one of the many other examples of big underdogs upsetting the probability? And that's not just in boxing.
Betting is assessing risk v reward, as a Hatton zealot you should know about that, but it seems not.

[Claypole]

On here you seem to get two types of people who bet.

One's who throw away money on things that will probably lose. Lazcano winning tomorrow.

And people who put money on things that will happen. Floyd Mayweather winning fights.

I don't understand putting a fiver on something that will not happen, I don't get that. The last two posters seem to have some sense.There is a big difference between "probably lose" and "will not happen". This difference is what keeps bookmakers in business, and also what makes sport worth following.
If Lazcano beating Hatton "will not happen", then you wouldn't be able to get odds on it.

[trotter]

Also if you are so sure Lazcano won't win, you can lay him on betfair

i.e. you take the bets from people who think he's worth a gamble

[SleazeNation]

:patsch
what do you mean by 'something that will not happen?' Like Buster beating Tyson or one of the many other examples of big underdogs upsetting the probability? And that's not just in boxing.
Betting is assessing risk v reward, as a Hatton zealot you should know about that, but it seems not.
Ok, things that are unlikely to happen.

People giving money to a bookie expecting (probably) to not get it back is weird to me. I wouldn't put money on anything I wasn't sure would win.

[trotter]

Ok, things that are unlikely to happen.

People giving money to a bookie expecting (probably) to not get it back is weird to me. I wouldn't put money on anything I wasn't sure would win.

No such thing as a sure thing, if you ever start to believe something is sure (in gambling terms) you are in difficulty

You must be prepared to lose if you gamble

[SleazeNation]

No such thing as a sure thing, if you ever start to believe something is sure (in gambling terms) you are in difficulty

You must be prepared to lose if you gamble
I've been sure about fights in the past.

Mayweather over Hatton, Pacquaio over Morales the third time... I just wait till the odds aren't short enough on one sided fights.

[trotter]

I've been sure about fights in the past.

Mayweather over Hatton, Pacquaio over Morales the third time... I just wait till the odds aren't short enough on one sided fights.

Trust me, you can feel sure, doesn't mean it is

I like a gamble and the feeling you describe is true, and of course many times I've had it, and many times I've been right and won a few quid

But the day you think you are 110% right is the day you should stop gambling


Of course what you are describing is actually looking for value in the market anyway, which is entirely different from a 'sure thing'. If you were sure about Mayweather and Pac you'd put your mortgage on it, whatever the odds.

Which I presume you didn't?

You are a cautious gambler, that's all.

[mike464]

It's quite simple. Lazcano is 9/1 so if you think he has a greater than 10% chance of winning you put some money on him. If you don't then don't.

[Cobbler]

On here you seem to get two types of people who bet.

One's who throw away money on things that will probably lose. Lazcano winning tomorrow.

And people who put money on things that will happen. Floyd Mayweather winning fights.

I don't understand putting a fiver on something that will not happen, I don't get that. The last two posters seem to have some sense.

You have a horrible understanding of how probability works.

Here's a clue. You can't place a bet on things that 'will happen' because a bookmaker will not take the bet. Try going to Ladbrokes and asking for odds that tomorrow will be Sunday as a test.

You can only bet on things that have a certain probability of happening or not happening. People who actually understand that know that it is not relevant what that probability actually is, but how it relates to the odds being offered.

In other words, just because something has a higher probability of happening doesn't automatically make betting on it correct. Nor does something having a low probability of happening mean that it can't be a good bet. It all depends what odds are being offered.

[SleazeNation]

You have a horrible understanding of how probability works.

Here's a clue. You can't place a bet on things that 'will happen' because a bookmaker will not take the bet. Try going to Ladbrokes and asking for odds that tomorrow will be Sunday as a test.

You can only bet on things that have a certain probability of happening or not happening. People who actually understand that know that it is not relevant what that probability actually is, but how it relates to the odds being offered.

In other words, just because something has a higher probability of happening doesn't automatically make betting on it correct. Nor does something having a low probability of happening mean that it can't be a good bet. It all depends what odds are being offered.
I don't need to waste my time telling you about betting.

The thing here is that nobody even thinks Lazcano is going to win, it's just the stupid "he's 9/1 so it's worth putting a tenner on it" attitude.
I think it's nonesense.

I bet on what I THINK based on what I've seen are sure things when bookies don't agree. I don't get the... put money on an outsider because maybe he might win.

[toffeejack]

I don't need to waste my time telling you about betting.

The thing here is that nobody even thinks Lazcano is going to win, it's just the stupid "he's 9/1 so it's worth putting a tenner on it" attitude.
I think it's nonesense.

I bet on what I THINK based on what I've seen are sure things when bookies don't agree. I don't get the... put money on an outsider because maybe he might win.

As someone as also simiilarly pointed out, if Lazcano has a greater than 1 in 10 chance of winning (which he arguably does) then it's a profitable bet, that's the way I look at it and that's why the 9/1 odds are appealing.

Are you saying that if Lazcano was 100/1 to win tonight then you wouldn't back it?

[SleazeNation]

As someone as also simiilarly pointed out, if Lazcano has a greater than 1 in 10 chance of winning (which he arguably does) then it's a profitable bet, that's the way I look at it and that's why the 9/1 odds are appealing.

Are you saying that if Lazcano was 100/1 to win tonight then you wouldn't back it?
If I believed Lazcano was 2/1 to win, that would still mean he probably won't.

I'd rather take Hatton at 1/25, because then I'll probably make money instead of losing it. Of course I wouldn't do that either because the odds don't make sence.

Hence I'm not betting on this fight. I'll wait for Mayweather W12 De La Hoya II... or other such bets.

[Cobbler]

I don't need to waste my time telling you about betting.

The thing here is that nobody even thinks Lazcano is going to win, it's just the stupid "he's 9/1 so it's worth putting a tenner on it" attitude.
I think it's nonesense.

I bet on what I THINK based on what I've seen are sure things when bookies don't agree. I don't get the... put money on an outsider because maybe he might win.

Yes I know. As do the majority of people. There's a reason why bookmaking is a profitable business.

If Lazcano's real chances of winning are actually 12%, then that makes betting on him at the available best odds a profitable scenario. If Hatton's real chances of winning are 85% then that makes betting on him a losing scenario. A bookmaker would want you to bet on Hatton, and not on Lazcano, in those scenarios, even though the likelihood is that Hatton will win.

[mike464]

Yes I know. As do the majority of people. There's a reason why bookmaking is a profitable business.

If Lazcano's real chances of winning are actually 12%, then that makes betting on him at the available best odds a profitable scenario. If Hatton's real chances of winning are 85% then that makes betting on him a losing scenario. A bookmaker would want you to bet on Hatton, and not on Lazcano, in those scenarios, even though the likelihood is that Hatton will win.This man is correct. You're not looking to win an individual bet, you're looking to make long term profit. If that means losing 8 bets and winning one then fine.

[SleazeNation]

I don't think he is right. Just because a fighter has a 10% chance of winning it doesn't mean that if he fights 10 times he wins one of them. This isn't rolling a dice. He's got a 10% chance every time and therefore will probably lose 10 times.

I have never handed money to a bookmaker expecting to not get it back. I don't understand that.

[Cobbler]

I don't think he is right. Just because a fighter has a 10% chance of winning it doesn't mean that if he fights 10 times he wins one of them.


Erm, statistically that's exactly what it means. Though if you ran ten fights he could win none, one or more. If you ran the scenario enough times to take variation out of it as much as possible, then the fighter with the 10% chance would win 10% of the time.

[SleazeNation]

Erm, statistically that's exactly what it means. Though if you ran ten fights he could win none, one or more. If you ran the scenario enough times to take variation out of it as much as possible, then the fighter with the 10% chance would win 10% of the time.
But in that case you may aswell just bet on anything, because the bookies have the odds perfectly correct.

Put money on 10/1 bets, 1/100 bets, 5/4... you'll end up just getting your money back... Not in my experience.

This is sport, you're betting on fighters, and backing 10/1 shots you do not win 1 out of 10. No way.

[mike464]

But in that case you may aswell just bet on anything, because the bookies have the odds perfectly correct.Which is why you wait until you think the bookies have it wrong for whatever reason. If the bookies' odds imply Lazcano has a 10% chance and you agree then yes there is no point in betting. If you believe his chance of winning is sufficiently above 10% to make it worth your while then you go for it.

[Cobbler]

But in that case you may aswell just bet on anything, because the bookies have the odds perfectly correct.

Put money on 10/1 bets, 1/100 bets, 5/4... you'll end up just getting your money back... Not in my experience.

This is sport, you're betting on fighters, and backing 10/1 shots you do not win 1 out of 10. No way.

Not sure what you're on about now. Your previous example referenced the actual chances of something happening, not the bookmaker's odds offered.

You are correct that you would not statistically win one out of ten backing a 10/1 shot (or a 9/1 I guess you mean). The reason for that is that bookmakers odds do not just convert the real % chance into a decimal form, they also build in an advantage for the bookmaker (commonly called the over-round). Hence, if you convert bookmakers odds for any event into percentages, you will find that the total comes to more than 100%. This, however, applies to the lower odds just as much as the higher ones.

If you bet on events that have an actual 10% chance of happening then, yes, you will win one in ten in the long term. Because that's exactly what that means.

[Cobbler]

Which is why you wait until you think the bookies have it wrong for whatever reason. If the bookies' odds imply Lazcano has a 10% chance and you agree then yes there is no point in betting. If you believe his chance of winning is sufficiently above 10% to make it worth your while then you go for it.

This is probably the least understood principle in sports betting.

People look at a sporting event, and look for which is the 'value bet' assuming that there must be one there.

As you say, this will depend on the odds being wrong (and being sufficiently wrong to overcome the advantage the bookmaker has from any overround).

In most cases, the correct decision to make is not to bet on the event at all.

[SleazeNation]

Not sure what you're on about now. Your previous example referenced the actual chances of something happening, not the bookmaker's odds offered.

You are correct that you would not statistically win one out of ten backing a 10/1 shot (or a 9/1 I guess you mean). The reason for that is that bookmakers odds do not just convert the real % chance into a decimal form, they also build in an advantage for the bookmaker (commonly called the over-round). Hence, if you convert bookmakers odds for any event into percentages, you will find that the total comes to more than 100%. This, however, applies to the lower odds just as much as the higher ones.

If you bet on events that have an actual 10% chance of happening then, yes, you will win one in ten in the long term. Because that's exactly what that means.
So YOU are making up the 10% chance of winning, as opposed to a bookie pricing something 9/1 and therefore THEM calling it a 10% chance.

OK, it's not betting that I believe makes sense. Backing odds that still mean you'll probably lose. By your own percentages, you think you're backing a loser. It's not something I'd ever do.

[SleazeNation]

This is probably the least understood principle in sports betting.

People look at a sporting event, and look for which is the 'value bet' assuming that there must be one there.

As you say, this will depend on the odds being wrong (and being sufficiently wrong to overcome the advantage the bookmaker has from any overround).

In most cases, the correct decision to make is not to bet on the event at all.
This is understood. But I take that and only back things I think will win.

[mike464]

This is probably the least understood principle in sports betting.

People look at a sporting event, and look for which is the 'value bet' assuming that there must be one there.

As you say, this will depend on the odds being wrong (and being sufficiently wrong to overcome the advantage the bookmaker has from any overround).

In most cases, the correct decision to make is not to bet on the event at all.Exactly. I always keep an eye on the latest boxing odds but find there is very rarely something worth betting on. I think the best time to look for generous odds is when a guy with a large fan base like Hatton or DLH is fighting. The opponent's odds get pushed out a bit. I think Mayweather ended up at something like 2/3 for the Hatton fight and that was good enough for me to put some money on it.

[168 lbs]

From what I've seen of Lazcano in training for this fight, he looks finished. Hatton is going for the KO in this one. Only way to come back, I figure.

If you want to bet on this fight, I'd bet on Hatton by stoppage.

[mike464]

This is understood. But I take that and only back things I think will win.You only back things you think will win. Okay so say I have a bag with 10 balls in it. One is red and the others are blue. I'm going to pick one at random and am offering 100/1 that the red one will be picked. You wouldn't bet on it because you don't think the red one will win?

[mike464]

If you want to bet on this fight, I'd bet on Hatton by stoppage.You miss the point that it's not just about what you think will happen but also about what odds you can get. No statement about betting on a fight should be made without some consideration of the odds.

[onourway]

The 'value' in this fight is Hatton on points.

Hence why I backed that.

[mike464]

The 'value' in this fight is Hatton on points.

Hence why I backed that.You might well be right. 7/4 at Bet365.

[onourway]

I'm also tempted to throw a few quid on Lazcano.

I think he might stop Hatton with body shots late on.

Not sure whether Lazcano's appalling speed and long arms on the inside are going to help though, so it's an outside chance as the odds suggest.

[SleazeNation]

You only back things you think will win. Okay so say I have a bag with 10 balls in it. One is red and the others are blue. I'm going to pick one at random and am offering 100/1 that the red one will be picked. You wouldn't bet on it because you don't think the red one will win?
I wouldn't, you're correct. I don't put money on raffles.

I actually cannot pay a bookie money knowing that the chances are I'll never see it again. It's not a good thing to do.

[Cobbler]

I wouldn't, you're correct. I don't put money on raffles.

I actually cannot pay a bookie money knowing that the chances are I'll never see it again. It's not a good thing to do.

So you accept what we're saying about probability and the relationship between the odds offered and actual chance of an event happening, but would still rather put money on a bet with a higher chance of return, but which is guaranteed to lose you money in the long term, rather than one with less chance of immediate return which is guaranteed to win you money in the long term?

See, this is what seems bizarre to me.

[SleazeNation]

So you accept what we're saying about probability and the relationship between the odds offered and actual chance of an event happening, but would still rather put money on a bet with a higher chance of return, but which is guaranteed to lose you money in the long term, rather than one with less chance of immediate return which is guaranteed to win you money in the long term?

See, this is what seems bizarre to me.
How is betting on things you're confident of winning "guaranteed to lose money in the long term"?

[onourway]

How is betting on things you're confident of winning "guaranteed to lose money in the long term"?

Because if you keep betting for low rewards then you don't make a lot when you win and you'll take a big hit if you lose.

[Betty Swollocks]

How is betting on things you're confident of winning "guaranteed to lose money in the long term"?

professional punters don't bet on what they think will win, they bet when the price of offer is higher than the true price.
so, opinions and knowledge are useless, no matter how well informed, unless said person has the ability to assess the probabilities and use that to convert knowledge into numbers.

[Cobbler]

How is betting on things you're confident of winning "guaranteed to lose money in the long term"?

It doesn't matter whether you're 'confident of them winning'. If the chance of them winning is less than the odds offered, then you will lose in the long term. That's fairly simple maths.

[SleazeNation]

It doesn't matter whether you're 'confident of them winning'. If the chance of them winning is less than the odds offered, then you will lose in the long term. That's fairly simple maths.
And when have I ever said I bet on fights that "the chances of winning is less than the odds offered", I've said the exact opposite.

[Cobbler]

And when have I ever said I bet on fights that "the chances of winning is less than the odds offered", I've said the exact opposite.

Actually you haven't mentioned the relationship between the real probability and the odds at all.

If you do accept the idea that a value bet is one where the odds are better than the real probability, then I don't see why it matters to you what the actual odds are. A value bet can equally be one at 1/10 or at 10/1. Backing a series of value 1/10 bets will ensure a profit, as will backing a big enough sequence of value 10/1 bets. The first scenario will lead to having more 'winners', but if you're only interested in profit why does that matter?

[Betty Swollocks]

sleaze is a lost cause, that was establised quite a while ago.

[SleazeNation]

Actually you haven't mentioned the relationship between the real probability and the odds at all.

If you do accept the idea that a value bet is one where the odds are better than the real probability, then I don't see why it matters to you what the actual odds are. A value bet can equally be one at 1/10 or at 10/1. Backing a series of value 1/10 bets will ensure a profit, as will backing a big enough sequence of value 10/1 bets. The first scenario will lead to having more 'winners', but if you're only interested in profit why does that matter?
If you believe a 10/1 bet is more likely to happen than not to the point where you're placing the bet expecting to win I can understand it.

However, If you think a fighters chances are better than the odds given - but you favour his opponent to win. Then you're betting on something you believe will lose.

As a boxing fan I like my opinion good enough to believe I'll pick a fight correctly, so I wouldn't bet against what I think will happen.

[mike464]

Sleaze, you don't seem to grasp the fundamental concepts that will enable you to make long term profit from gambling. That's fair enough as long as you never take the gambling too seriously. Stick to small stakes and you'll be fine.

[mike464]

If you believe a 10/1 bet is more likely to happen than not to the point where you're placing the bet expecting to win I can understand it.

However, If you think a fighters chances are better than the odds given - but you favour his opponent to win. Then you're betting on something you believe will lose.

As a boxing fan I like my opinion good enough to believe I'll pick a fight correctly, so I wouldn't bet against what I think will happen.But you must know that you don't always predict the outcome correctly! The chances that you've predicted the outcome incorrectly are the same as the chances of the other guy winning so what you've predicted doesn't matter.

Look back at my mini lottery example, 9 blue balls and one red. You've predicted a blue ball will come out so you wouldn't bet on red even at 100/1. The 10% of times your prediction is wrong you'll win more than the 90% of times your prediction is right.

[SleazeNation]

But you must know that you don't always predict the outcome correctly! The chances that you've predicted the outcome incorrectly are the same as the chances of the other guy winning so what you've predicted doesn't matter.

Look back at my mini lottery example, 9 blue balls and one red. You've predicted a blue ball will come out so you wouldn't bet on red even at 100/1.
Backing short odds doesn't mean you have to win every single one. If you back things around 1/2 you can afford to lose 1 in 3 (But if you are losing 1 in 3 you should give up btw).

Lottery is not an example, your theory is fine for a lottery.
I'm talking about betting on boxing when you know the sport and pick your bets carefully when the odds are good.

[Cobbler]

Lottery is not an example, your theory is fine for a lottery.
I'm talking about betting on boxing when you know the sport and pick your bets carefully when the odds are good.

Actually it's exactly the same thing which is what you don't seem to get. The only difference is that, in a lottery, we can know the real probabilities exactly whereas for a sports bet we can only estimate them to the best of our abilities.

You say you already do that. But, having done so, you then exclude a whole raft of value bets that you could be making money for a completely arbitrary and illogical reason.

[mike464]

Backing short odds doesn't mean you have to win every single one. If you back things around 1/2 you can afford to lose 1 in 3 (But if you are losing 1 in 3 you should give up btw).

Lottery is not an example, your theory is fine for a lottery.
I'm talking about betting on boxing when you know the sport and pick your bets carefully when the odds are good.But once you've assessed the probabilities you're in the same situation as you are with the lottery. You know your predictions are not right all the time. You know there is a chance you could be wrong and Lazcano wins. It's less than 1 and more than 0. So there is some probability you assign to Lazcano winning. Say it's 1%. Now it's just a matter of wherther you can find favourable odds. You'd take 1000/1 right? Well it turns out that any odds ABOVE 99/1 are favourable to you in this situation.

[SleazeNation]

Actually it's exactly the same thing which is what you don't seem to get. The only difference is that, in a lottery, we can know the real probabilities exactly whereas for a sports bet we can only estimate them to the best of our abilities.

You say you already do that. But, having done so, you then exclude a whole raft of value bets that you could be making money for a completely arbitrary and illogical reason.
They're not value bets, they're bets you think will lose.

Your logic is fine, it's the same one I have. Except I only back ones that I think are going to win.

[SleazeNation]

I'm out, I'm fight watching...

[mike464]

I'm just hoping that in the almost certain event that Hatton wins, Sleaze doesn't use it as proof that he is right and we are wrong!

[SleazeNation]

I'm just hoping that in the almost certain event that Hatton wins, Sleaze doesn't use it as proof that he is right and we are wrong!
You're betting on fighters you think will lose, the proof is already there.

[mike464]

You're betting on fighters you think will lose, the proof is already there.:bart

[SleazeNation]

I'm just hoping that in the almost certain event that Hatton wins, Sleaze doesn't use it as proof that he is right and we are wrong!
Haha sucker you lost...

I made £00.06 on a Hatton win!!! :lol:

[onourway]

7/4 Hatton decision.

Told ya that's where the money should go.

[SleazeNation]

7/4 Hatton decision.

Told ya that's where the money should go.
Good bet. You thought it'd happen and it did, well done. :good

[mike464]

OK Sleaze you win. If you just bet on what you think will happen you can never lose.