Khan vs Peterson

I dont know what the odds are for a Khan decision, but he will win by decision.. The fight is in Peterson hometown but I think it will be meaningless.. Khan is waaay too fast and too good on the outside..

TheColorPurple: Khan is +150 to win by decision. Khan wins inside the distance is -150.

WOW, are you serious? No way Khan stops Peterson. Peterson is tough as nails.. Hung in there with Ortiz after being hurt..

Khan +150 is good, way better than ML -1200.

   If anyone is concerned about a hometown decision for Peterson, the over is only -130 for 9.5 rounds. Laying -1200 is retarded. I always tell people (some of them the biggest sports bettors world wide) that boxing constantly has huge overlays with even ML or underdogs that are a real favorite. A few mismatches that I did large props was Hopkins by decision over Pavlik (He was +400 ML, then +850 on the prop). Martinez was at one point +150 over Pavlik so I hit that heavy and played the decision prop as well. A few other nice over lays the past few years was Williams win by decision over Wright. Winky being a defensive master, had his hands full with an athletic Taylor in 2006, and Williams throws so much and has such a reach it was a total wipe-out fight for Winky. Match-ups like these you wait for and bet big and bet correctly, not always just taking the props for example to win by decision as a cut, swelling, tackle, etc... can happen.
   A handicapping rule (more guidelines then 100% set in stone) I learned from early years betting Harness Pacers & Trotters is when you have a $20 horse (just means 9-1 as $2.00 bet is standard board payout) that you like, don't get so tied up in exactas, trifectas, superfectas, doubles, pick threes, pick fours, pick five, pick six, or any other exotic bet (similar to boxing round props, how a fighter will win, using point totals, etc) that you forget to bet the horse to WIN (and Place if you do place betting). You are getting 9-1 odds, but many bettors get lost in the fog of greed and going for the big score because they constantly see major payouts for like a pick three. What if you found a fight and you were getting 6-1 and felt it was 50/50 fight, you would be drooling (or you should be).
   Leaks are common to more than 50% of the professional gambler. Consistent high-stakes poker players commonly blow on sports, horses, fights, and the most common is Casino house games and tables (Craps, NFL, Black Jack, Slots, March Madness). You get MLB handicappers that win every year playing the odds game, but they lose it at poker, other sports, house games, etc.
   I often get a good laugh when forum posters would ridicule me because I didn't want to bet a fighter at -300, even though I felt he was 95% favorite. That's not considering a lucky one punch KO, a rare cut or swelling (or consider Vitali Klitschko when he quit while way ahead on point over Chris Byrd due to a shoulder injury; although he caught plenty of bad mouthing I felt he was a smart fighter and he knew more than I did regarding his condition and considerations for his future). People call some fighters quitters that realize after a certain point in the fight that they have no chance and will just suffer so they refuse to come out for the next round. In other sports, like the NFL, you see a player cleared to play but even if it is a playoff game, the team owner, GM, coach, and the player himself decides that the Risk/Reward Ratio is negative and won't jeopardize their entire career.
   Don't get me wrong, there is a major gap between a fighter that decides not to continue a fight for career and health reasons and how Victor Ortiz quit against Maidana and Mayweather. I felt he had no chance against Floyd but showed no heart, and clearly Maidana isn't as good a boxer but Ortiz was overwhelmed and said "Uncle" instead of digging deep. (I don't have hard feelings toward Ortiz but he was a prime example of the difference).
   Old time fighters speak about today's fighters and for the money they make they should be willing to die in the ring. The also question whether a referee should be able to stop a fight and they criticize supporters and advocates of no more 15 rounds (all 12 round supporters). I remember a fighter speak about 18 year old men making $14,000 in the Army risking their life and a boxer making $24 million (regarding Buster Douglas) who came in 15lbs heavier but looked like he never trained and then got hit once and decided to retire. Some even bring up that fight purse should be withheld in a scenario like Hopkins-Dawson bout ending. Basically they believe that fighters are overpaid and very overly protected.
   I feel that over the years the boxing politics have implemented many rules and regulations to make a sport based on brutality appear humane. The object is to win by punching your opponent and cause damage resulting in a knock-out (or stoppage). Hurting your opponent is the key factor and you can place as many rules as you want but it remains a sport (and always will) predicated on cruelty and relentless ruthlessness.
*** My apologies again for a long winded post, but my intent is to state my opinion and also question my judgement by reading replies and constructive threads. ***

By the way, Covers pays me seven cents for every word on a post that gets 500 views (from different IP addresses).

I'm kidding... but if anyone for a minute believed it was true, please come to New York ASAP as I bought some prime property in Brooklyn and I'm taking bids at my office and on Ebay regarding a bridge I no longer have any use for and would consider even a possible trade.

Cha-cha-chu-chu.. Cha-Dee-Ya! 

Uh-Oh, Uh-Oh... CAN'T TOUCH THIS!

    
    I been warned, using over 8 little yellow men heads...
 and the GAG ORDER will be in full effect

Zouk so you wouldn't have played Vitali (-500 open) over Adamek or Floyd (-700) over Ortiz. Easy money at high odds  

Khan +150 by DEC or +135 to go distance.  You'd have to be retarded to not just bet it to go distance. 

I kind of like Khan by stoppage

My book(sportsbook.com) Boxing options are terrible.. They are only offering over 7.5 rounds -250

Khans improved a lot and I could see him hurting Peterson.

does peterson have value at +800?   I still think khan has absolutely no chin and will be finished if he gets hit by a hard flush shot.

He took some wicked shots from Maidana.  And Peterson doesn't have much power at all.  I do think Peterson can make this a close, competitive boxing match. 

 

agreed. over is money.

Slappy Khan. Like Camacho without the accuracy.

I think it was CD2010 that asked me about laying upwards of -700 on so called easy money fights. As I stated above to people that if they liked Khan on a decision (+150), it would be better to bet the over 9.5 and lay -130 and you get both fighters. Also, if Khan was way ahead and Peterson was hurt, that prop you would lose, but you would win on an over after 1:30 in the 9th. So you get both fighters (a good time to alter a bet because of so many bad hometown decisions) and also an additional 29% time slot should the fight be stopped late.

   Gambling with a positive expectation (+EV) is the goal of the professional gambler. You don't rate your handicapping ability on your results, as it is the same with poker (the reason is the short term luck factor has large swings, and when one considers the long term, it is often much longer than most calculate). I'm writing this so the non-poker player can easily understand.
     For example using No-Limit Texas Hold'em.
If I was All-In heads-up pre-flop and I had (pocket Aces) As-Ac, and my opponent had Ks-Kc. Now the flop with the turn makes my opponent in the lead with three-of-a-kind, and only one more card (river card) is left to be turned over and added to the board and finishing the hand.
(Flop & Turn: Kd-8h-2s-3c-Xz): My opponent is ahead with three Kings. I need an Ace to win. Only two cards remain that improve my hand to a winner (Ah-Ad), and a total of forty-four cards left (means 42 cards don't help compared to 2 cards that improves my losing hand to a winner).
    It's simple math: How to calculate the percentage(s) [and odd(s)]. The board reveals 4 cards, your hand shows 2, as does your opponent, thus making 8 cards subtracted from a deck of 52 and leaving 44 unexposed. The final card to is yet to be exposed thus allowing us the fact that 2 cards improve our hand to a winner while the other 42 leaves us a losing hand.
    We divide 2 (outs - card remaining that improve our hand) into 44 (the unexposed remaining deck), thus giving us 22. Figuring our odds is simple now. We have a number of 22, and to make any into an odds format we subtract 1 (the number of cards left to expose and finalize the hand) from 22, and leaving us 21 and 1, or 21 to 1 (21-1).
    Converting odds format into a percentage is simple. We have our 21 to 1 odds, now we add 21 with 1, and we have our key number again of 22. Percentages converted to whole numbers is 0 (0%) to 1 (100%). An example is 0.5, you move the decimal to the right 2 slots, giving us 50% (another is 0.09 = 9%). The formula is using 1 (100% to start) and it is divided by the key number, 22, which converts 0.04545454545¯¯. Moving two slots (decimal places) to the right, converts to 4.545454%, and rounded to 4.5%.
    The poker hand showed us how to figure our chances exactly at a certain point. Typically if you had a simulator (for poker hands), you would enter the data, of the board, my hand and my opponent(s). For the hand above, if I ran this hand on a simulator for 100 random hands, it wouldn't be odd if the simulator showed 0%, 100%, any number in between, and it could even show 500% (5 times more than regular). The more hands you run, the closer it will get to the true percentage. At 10,000 it will be within a 6% range, and 100,000 it will be within 1% range, and at 1,000,000 (million) it would be around 1/10,000 of a percent.
   Using a hand simulator on one hand for a million random river cards, the simulator would show 4.5454% if you set it at 4 decimal spots. If you set it at 5 decimal spots, it might be exact or off at the 1/100,000 of a percent, and looking like 4.54546%.
    In showing you how to figure your chances of winning a hand, the prime objective was to show you that short term luck can really throw off a gambler and his belief regarding his handicapping skill. This is why I explain basketball gives you a larger sample size, and the larger in a short time period, the more accurate you should be.
   Basketball or Football ?
     Possessions: In basketball the number of possessions is around 400 or more including the total for both teams. In football the number of possessions are somewhere around 20 when including both teams. This equates to a disparity of about 20 to 1 in favor of basketball, which better represents team skill, leaving chance much less of a determinant in a game’s final outcome.
     With more games, more scoring situations per game, fewer players, and a much simple game, relevant mathematics and good money management strongly favor the in-depth handicapper betting on basketball for profit rather than football. It definitely gives the basketball bettor a chance to make many times more money than in football.

I think that would be 1:40 of the 10th.  9 and a half rounds.  All of the 9th, and half of the 10th.

Yes, midway of 10th. I had a long post I had to break-up into #17 & #18 I didn't proof read it, but I think they got the point. Thanx anyway in case some were confused.

I figured it for an honest mistake, but I've seen people get it confused before.  

As you see, my posts are long...lol. Easily confuse myself!

LoL sorry fellas, I didnt expect the ref to takes points away from Khan like it was running out of style lol..