7-25-2015

[Romulus9]

(07-25-2015 10:57 AM)BrutalBodyShots Wrote:  Are you sure about that? With a line of 1.57 the "1" I always took as you getting back the risked money. The risked money in a bet is only lost if you lose the bet. So, if you are wagering $1000 ($500 x 2 outcomes) and either outcome hits you lose the $500 from the outcome that didn't hit but don't lose it from the other.

So if you bet $500 at 1.57, you can look at it as $500 x 1.57 = $785 but you "lose" the $500 bet, so you net $285, or you can multiply the $500 x 0.57 to see how much you win just "risking", but not losing your wager for that outcome.

Does that make sense?

They are calculated the same way. It's all good.

[TheTeddyBear]

3k on Kovalev to just win

[Romulus9]

Safe to say that if Kovalev loses tonight... I'm beyond finished.

[Spyder]

5k Flores
3k Kovalev 1-3

[and the NEW]

(07-25-2015 10:57 AM)BrutalBodyShots Wrote:  Are you sure about that? With a line of 1.57 the "1" I always took as you getting back the risked money. The risked money in a bet is only lost if you lose the bet. So, if you are wagering $1000 ($500 x 2 outcomes) and either outcome hits you lose the $500 from the outcome that didn't hit but don't lose it from the other.

So if you bet $500 at 1.57, you can look at it as $500 x 1.57 = $785 but you "lose" the $500 bet, so you net $285, or you can multiply the $500 x 0.57 to see how much you win just "risking", but not losing your wager for that outcome.

Does that make sense?

Positive.

Do the math.

1-3 is 2.62.
4-6 is 3.40.
1-6 is 1.57.

Bet 100 on 1-6. Win 157, you net 57.

Instead, bet 50 on each of 1-3 and 4-6. If 1-3 wins, you win 131 (off of 50 bucks). But you still must deduct the money you lost betting on 4-6 (which totals 100 on both bets). So you net 31 (less than you would have won betting on 1-6).

Alternatively, if 4-6 gets up, you win 170 (off of 50 bucks). But you still must deduct the money you lost betting on 1-3 (which totals 100 on both bets). So you net 70 (more than you would have won betting on 1-6).

Make sense? Effectively, by splitting the bets across two individual different bets you are just halving the odds of both individual bets.

[JONdaCON]

When I bet, id love to sit around and calculate the money situation(losing, betting only to gain, multiple bets but with positive payouts) but I don't... I just throw random amounts at whatever seems to make more sense or be more likely.. I don't really play the odds.

I also just like the added motivation in cheering for a guy.

[and the NEW]

(07-25-2015 10:46 PM)JONdaCON Wrote:  When I bet, id love to sit around and calculate the money situation(losing, betting only to gain, multiple bets but with positive payouts) but I don't... I just throw random amounts at whatever seems to make more sense or be more likely.. I don't really play the odds.

I also just like the added motivation in cheering for a guy.

I actually find betting ruins my pure enjoyment of the sport. I always hope for one guy to win in the way I bet (watching rounds, looking for that big knockout shot etc) rather than just appreciating the skills on show.

[BrutalBodyShots]

(07-25-2015 10:27 PM)and the NEW Wrote:  Instead, bet 50 on each of 1-3 and 4-6. If 1-3 wins, you win 131 (off of 50 bucks). But you still must deduct the money you lost betting on 4-6 (which totals 100 on both bets). So you net 31 (less than you would have won betting on 1-6).


Make sense?

No, because you don't lose the $50 you risked on the bet you won. You aren't "betting" $50... you are "risking" $50 in the event you lose. If you don't lose the bet, the risked money is moot whether it's a dollar or a million dollars.

In your example above if round 1-3 hits off of a $50 bet for $131 yes you'll deduct the $50 from the other bet that didn't hit, netting $81 but you don't deduct the $50 risked for the bet you won because you didn't lose what was risked.

If that were the case, any bet that paid out < 1 (such as .75 for example) would be a loss. You bet $100, win $75 for getting your bet right but then you still lose your $100 so your net is -$25? That would make no sense.

There have been plenty of times on here that I've bet a certain amount, say $10k for a winning profit of say $6k, for example. I didn't lose the $10k risked because I didn't lose that bet. If I did, I would net a negative amount which would be pointless.

[and the NEW]

Brutal, put it this way.

If you halve the odds on rounds 1-3 and 4-6, what odds do you get? 1.31 and 1.70. One is higher, one is lower than 1.57 (rounds 1-6). So there is no difference, the odds are just skewed towards it ending in rounds 1-3. As such, by splitting the bets, you just got paid out 1.31 on your win, rather than 1.57 (if you bet on rounds 1-6). Both ways, you just laid down the same amount of cash (chu cha).

[BrutalBodyShots]

I think that what's confusing me is that any time something has been listed with 1.xy odds, Rom has listed the bet as 0.xy. Look back at any of the past bet threads. If it says it pays out 1.28 Rom lists the bet as "$amount on whoever @ 0.28" - so on a $100 bet is it paying out $28 or $128? In all of the threads thus far, the answer is that you net $28 in this example.