Posted:
#1
Did anyone get paid on this upset by chance?
Chris John
...
Views: 867
Posts: 11
Posted:
#2
Besides for his win over JMM and Rocky Juarez, the Australian-Indonesian circuit has been a tough circuit to follow. The first fight against Juarez was a draw, all cards were 114-114, LOL.
Tough to predict fights when you can barely view bouts by using Satellite to computer stream feeds. I never considered it the fight.
Posted:
#8
Because the fight was in Indonesia and highly favored to go the distance, sportsbooks are very well aware of the corruption in decisions. A fighter that is a journeyman with decent record but unknown with the average public against a fighter with a big future with high PPV revenues will get the nod (decision) in or over the 80% range.
In 1991, I remember Livingstone Bramble fighting Oba Carr in Oba's hometown. He won what appeared a decisive winning fight, and knocked Oba down twice early, and because Oba Carr was so touted highly, and Bramble was 31 and Oba was 19 and undefeated in his hometown, (and Oba was considered to be undefeated top fighter for Trinidad, Oscar, Ike, etc...), the SD was a joke. Only one judge that was a MI native and a female scored it for Bramble, unlike CJ Ross who usually give everyone a draw (lol). I might be wrong about a few the details but most of what I stated should prove to be accurate if looked up in the records.
Also, in the 80s and 90s, fighter after age 30 that never made a big name, were considered journeyman fighters to lose to up and comers. It wasn't until George Foreman and others, and then B-Hop proving that experience and fundamentals develops a great ring technician that can expose physically dominant foes that lack in ring experience. Erik Morales exposed Pacquiao with a dominant win, but after becoming a two handed fighter with better footwork his freakish physical attributes were too much, but none the less Morales put on a clinic!
I don't know what sportsbooks offered betting odds on the Chris John vs JMM bout in 2006. Besides the point deductions for JMM, and the so called somewhat shady decision, many books I remember didn't offer odds or if they did it was at a reduced maximum limit (also called special or highlighted bets you that had different limits and you couldn't parlay,etc. It was early in the year, and it wasn;t until September 2006 Neteller closed to US bettors, as did Pinnacle (was the best ever, they were the sharpest but offered the best lines) among many others with the SAFE Port Act that was during September-October 2006 that had huge online immediate and ripple effects. The first and only Bliion Dollar a year poker business "Party Poker", even did a voluntary with draw from US markets allowing "Poker Stars" and "Full Tilt" to pick up the some of the slack. After that though, you didn't have the average recreational gambler deciding to put $200 online that evening and bet a sporting event or play casino games or poker as getting money online was very difficult for the pure recreational gambler. This killed many online poker players earning livings by playing against total clueless players instead of after playing against competent players. Not to say you didn't recreational players, but "Party Poker" was 90+% all very bad players even at their highest levels.
Still with US legislation, states are having difficulties legalizing online wagering of all types. The federal government wants over-site, but is allowing each state independently to set and enforce the rules, which is basically a contradiction for being a federal over-site. The U.S. federal government wants to spend zero dollars, make the state pay their own pockets, but then pay the federal government that tax proceeds. Seems more like a Communism (Capital Democracy) to me!
Posted:
#9
Quote Originally Posted by Royd-Rages:
Because the fight was in Indonesia and highly favored to go the distance, sportsbooks are very well aware of the corruption in decisions. A fighter that is a journeyman with decent record but unknown with the average public against a fighter with a big future with high PPV revenues will get the nod (decision) in or over the 80% range.
In 1991, I remember Livingstone Bramble fighting Oba Carr in Oba's hometown. He won what appeared a decisive winning fight, and knocked Oba down twice early, and because Oba Carr was so touted highly, and Bramble was 31 and Oba was 19 and undefeated in his hometown, (and Oba was considered to be undefeated top fighter for Trinidad, Oscar, Ike, etc...), the SD was a joke. Only one judge that was a MI native and a female scored it for Bramble, unlike CJ Ross who usually give everyone a draw (lol). I might be wrong about a few the details but most of what I stated should prove to be accurate if looked up in the records.
Also, in the 80s and 90s, fighter after age 30 that never made a big name, were considered journeyman fighters to lose to up and comers. It wasn't until George Foreman and others, and then B-Hop proving that experience and fundamentals develops a great ring technician that can expose physically dominant foes that lack in ring experience. Erik Morales exposed Pacquiao with a dominant win, but after becoming a two handed fighter with better footwork his freakish physical attributes were too much, but none the less Morales put on a clinic!
I don't know what sportsbooks offered betting odds on the Chris John vs JMM bout in 2006. Besides the point deductions for JMM, and the so called somewhat shady decision, many books I remember didn't offer odds or if they did it was at a reduced maximum limit (also called special or highlighted bets you that had different limits and you couldn't parlay,etc. It was early in the year, and it wasn;t until September 2006 Neteller closed to US bettors, as did Pinnacle (was the best ever, they were the sharpest but offered the best lines) among many others with the SAFE Port Act that was during September-October 2006 that had huge online immediate and ripple effects. The first and only Bliion Dollar a year poker business "Party Poker", even did a voluntary with draw from US markets allowing "Poker Stars" and "Full Tilt" to pick up the some of the slack. After that though, you didn't have the average recreational gambler deciding to put $200 online that evening and bet a sporting event or play casino games or poker as getting money online was very difficult for the pure recreational gambler. This killed many online poker players earning livings by playing against total clueless players instead of after playing against competent players. Not to say you didn't recreational players, but "Party Poker" was 90+% all very bad players even at their highest levels.
Still with US legislation, states are having difficulties legalizing online wagering of all types. The federal government wants over-site, but is allowing each state independently to set and enforce the rules, which is basically a contradiction for being a federal over-site. The U.S. federal government wants to spend zero dollars, make the state pay their own pockets, but then pay the federal government that tax proceeds. Seems more like a Communism (Capital Democracy) to me!
OH Brother...like we don't know who this is.
Posted:
#10
Papa, my entire post was copied then it was followed by your statement. I don't follow u or comprehend, but gracias! I won't read to deeply in to it as I noticed this site has many comments that are only understood to certain members who are more familiar. Regardless, good day and good wagers!
Hot Forum Topics
