Odds on Calzaghe,Hatton and Haye losing?

[thaibox uk]

Ive never been really clued up on having a bet at the bookies etc but I can,t help feeling that you would get good odds and that it would be worth putting a few bob on Calzaghe,Hatton and Haye all getting beat.
So what would be the best way to go about it?
Don,t get me wrong I,ll be really happy if the Brits win but I think all three fights could go either way.

[Abbo]

You can get odds of 55 on that treble with Bluesq.com

[thaibox uk]

Now thats gotta be worth at least a tenner of anybodies money
cheers

[WildWaylon]

Its negative betting though.

[Mario]

Ladbrokes have a special bet on Malignaggi, Barrett and Jones Jnr all to win and they're offering 66/1

[Hardhitters11]

Entirely possible that it could happen as well although I don't expect it to, Got to be worth a tenner as the other fella said though.

[Hagler2002]

Personally I would put in on as 3 doubles and a treble .

[Tykemania]

If you were doing that, surely you'd put it on as four trebles with each of the British fighters appearing once?

[thaibox uk]

Its negative betting though.

Yes but for £20 it would certainly ease the pain I,d feel if all three lost

[Hagler2002]

If you were doing that, surely you'd put it on as four trebles with each of the British fighters appearing once?

How can you have 4 trebles with only 3 selections?

[Carbo]

If you were doing that, surely you'd put it on as four trebles with each of the British fighters appearing once?

How can you have 4 trebles with only 3 selections?

How can you have more than one treble with only three selections, I wonder? Maths was never my strong point, though.

Perhaps he means:

1) Calzaghe, Hatton and Haye to lose,
2) Hatton, Calzaghe and Haye to lose,
3) Haye, Calzaghe and Hatton to lose
4) Haye, Hatton and Calzaghe to lose.

But why stop at four?

Anyway, although, in isolation, I fully expect one of them to lose, I don't see all three losing. Each has a decent chance of losing (Hatton and Haye somewhat more than Calzaghe), but together, I would guess that even at 66-1, the bookies are on a winner.

[Asterix]

I don't see Calzaghe or Hatton losing. Haye is more unpredictable - First fight at a higher weight (roughly 20 lbs higher, for this fight) and against an experienced veteran with a decent punch, who's confidence is sky high after defeating a big (in terms of size) prospect.

[Hagler2002]

If you were doing that, surely you'd put it on as four trebles with each of the British fighters appearing once?

How can you have 4 trebles with only 3 selections?

How can you have more than one treble with only three selections, I wonder? Maths was never my strong point, though.

Perhaps he means:

1) Calzaghe, Hatton and Haye to lose,
2) Hatton, Calzaghe and Haye to lose,
3) Haye, Calzaghe and Hatton to lose
4) Haye, Hatton and Calzaghe to lose.

But why stop at four?

They are all the same bet.

[Marlin]

Ladbrokes have a special bet on Malignaggi, Barrett and Jones Jnr all to win and they're offering 66/1

You can take that to the bank

[jomothepure]

Hagler is suggesting 3 doubles and a treble (known as a trixie) which comprises 4 bets:

1) Hatton & Haye to lose
2) Hatton & Calzaghe to lose
3) Haye and Calzaghe to lose
4) Haye, Hatton and Calzaghe to lose.

This way, it means one of the three boxers could win, but if the other two lose you've still made a profit, where as if you had all three in a straight treble, you will have lost. Basically, if Haye, Hatton & Calzaghe all lose, you won't win quite as much with this method, but it gives you a safety net whereby you still make a profit even if one of them wins.

[Hagler2002]

Hagler is suggesting 3 doubles and a treble (known as a trixie) which comprises 4 bets:

1) Hatton & Haye to lose
2) Hatton & Calzaghe to lose
3) Haye and Calzaghe to lose
4) Haye, Hatton and Calzaghe to lose.

This way, it means one of the three boxers could win, but if the other two lose you've still made a profit, where as if you had all three in a straight treble, you will have lost. Basically, if Haye, Hatton & Calzaghe all lose, you won't win quite as much with this method, but it gives you a safety net whereby you still make a profit even if one of them wins.

I couldn't have put it better myself

With the enhanced odds of 66/1 at Ladcrooks it would be better taking that bet for the treble then backing the 3 doubles separate.

[Carbo]

If you were doing that, surely you'd put it on as four trebles with each of the British fighters appearing once?

How can you have more than one treble with only three selections, I wonder? Maths was never my strong point, though.

Perhaps he means:

1) Calzaghe, Hatton and Haye to lose,
2) Hatton, Calzaghe and Haye to lose,
3) Haye, Calzaghe and Hatton to lose
4) Haye, Hatton and Calzaghe to lose.

But why stop at four?

They are all the same bet.

You gotta be kidding me.

[thaibox uk]

What odds would you get on the doubles?

[Chris W 1982]

What odds would you get on the doubles?

Work it out with the individual odds. Ive seen Jones at 3-1, Malignaggi at 11-4, so say 3-1, and Barrett at fours.

A tenner on Jones and Barrett gets you £200 (19-1)
Its the same for Barrett and Malignaggi
And a tenner on Jones/Malignaggi gets you around £160 (15-1)

[thaibox uk]

What odds would you get on the doubles?

Work it out with the individual odds. Ive seen Jones at 3-1, Malignaggi at 11-4, so say 3-1, and Barrett at fours.

A tenner on Jones and Barrett gets you £200 (19-1)
Its the same for Barrett and Malignaggi
And a tenner on Jones/Malignaggi gets you around £160 (15-1)

cheers

[caffrey]

What odds would you get on the doubles?

Work it out with the individual odds. Ive seen Jones at 3-1, Malignaggi at 11-4, so say 3-1, and Barrett at fours.

A tenner on Jones and Barrett gets you £200 (19-1)
Its the same for Barrett and Malignaggi
And a tenner on Jones/Malignaggi gets you around £160 (15-1)

jones at 3s i like that whos that with mate
even though id feel like an unpatriotic twat 66-1 is a great bet