that's not how betting works, it's not like sports that have spreads. So you have to use the odds to make the bets even. Where as in other sports the spread allows you to do even bets like that.

why does any of that matter? you have a winner, and a loser.

example: i bet 300fg overeem wins his fight on friday, you bet 300fg he loses, pot is 600fg going to the winner of the bet.

i get that there are odds of winning, etc... but to base bets to an uneven amount, seems unfair to me. winner of one side, may be getting less then if the other side wins.

yur just a newb. it's ok ~ just kinda sucks u had to expose it to the whole mma subforum community

ok so lets say prime tyson fights against a completely untrained 20 year old girl, biggest PPV ever

mike tyson would win this fight 999.99 times out of 1000 fights

would you really bet your 10 dollar on the girl vs your buddys 10 dollar on tyson? does that seem fair to you?

this is an extreme example just so you get the point of odds in a fight bet

e/ wouldn't it seem much more fair to you that your buddy has to bet 1'000$ against your 1$?

because if you keep betting on this very fight a thousand times in a row by travelling to parallel universes your buddy would win by betting on mike tyson 999 times before your girl would win her1st fight. that means that after 1000 bets that you do with your buddy, he will have won 999$ from your and in the thousandst fight you would win 1000$ from him.

that are fair odds, can't explain it any better

This post was edited by nme88 on Sep 2 2014 04:08pm

i mean i do get it, but thats gambling right? to me, just seems unfair to have a lesser reward for the one with lesser odds. to me, it should be handled lke a normal bet: xx vs xx in same amount, but thats just me.


im sorry my noobish query has tickled your fancy.

Wouldn't make any sense at all

everybody would be betting on the fight favourite, nobody would be betting on the underdog

what would happen is that out of 1000 ppl betting, 999 would be betting on the fav fighter, and one person would be betting on the underdog.

that means that as soon as the favourite wins, all the 999 betters that bet on him would get their money back and they would share all the money that was on the underdog, that is 1$ ...

do you understand now why it is not possible without odds?

e/ so whether you put odds on a fight or not - the % amount of the total money that is bet on each fighter inherently creates odds

e2/ because if the 1 person that bet on the underdog would have won, he would have won 999$ by just bettin one dollar because there's no one else to share the money with since he's the sole winner.

This post was edited by nme88 on Sep 2 2014 04:15pm

okay yes, when talking about one giant pot shared by thousands, that makes perfect sense ( fair for the underdog, not fair for the favored, gotcha ). now as far as private one on one bets, the classic xx vs xx same amount, would make more sense. im guessing you guys dont do private bets, but instead bigger pots?

lol... you get less of a reward because your odds of losing are lower.

In poker you probably wouldn't go all in if all you have is a pair of twos because you have a higher chance of losing than if you have, say, aces full. You might win and you might lose in either case, but you'd be a moron to try that with a lot of money if you just have the twos.

Ofcourse this metaphor doesn't really make sense because you can win on a bluff with a pair of twos also, but you can't bluff your way to a win in this case.

Not even Rothwell would bet on Rothwell with 1:1 odds.

so you're saying you'd bet 5k fg on miesha tate beating ronda rousey vs 5k?

just isn't happening nobody would bet on somebody that is more than likely going to lose