7-25-2015

[BrutalBodyShots]

(08-01-2015 11:04 PM)and the NEW Wrote:  To be honest, I haven't been looking closely at all of Rom's payouts. But this one is wrong, no doubt about it.

Man, Brutal, your maths is horrible. Calculate this maths along with me. Stop using hypotheticals. You bet 20k at 2.62 on rounds 1-3. Add that up bro. 20,000 X 2.62, what does that equal? 52.4k right? That is what you won gross. But that also includes your 20k. So you won 32.4k net right?

Now deduct the 20k you lost on 4-6, which means you only netted 12.4k. That is what Rom failed to do and that is what you are failing to do.

---

Brutal, if the odds were 2.00 then yes, you would only win 1 dollar. You get back 2 dollars for winning the bet, but 1 of those dollars was what you laid out. So you get back 2 dollars gross, but 1 dollar net.

Why do you think Kovalev's last fight paid like 1.005. You bet a dollar, you win the dollar back and half a cent on top of that. So you net half a cent.

I understand math man, as do you. MATH isn't the problem here. The problem is you not understanding that you don't lose the money you risk when you win a bet. It's risked in the event you lose. If you lose you lose the money. If you win the bet you don't lose it. Do you not understand that simple concept?

I gave you a simple hypothetical with a simple $1.00 amount to illustrate a simple point. According to your theory. ANY AND ALL BETS placed on an underdog that's anywhere between a 2-1 underdog and even money in your world yields ZERO return. If this criteria existed in the real gambling world, no one would obviously ever bet on a 2-1 dog, an even money bet or anything in between as they would always net nothing.

Again, I ask, does that really make sense to you?

If your theory is in fact correct, then all of Rom's payouts have been incorrect this entire time.