expe wrote:If a fighter's good enough to pick the round he takes his opponent out in, then why not?
Let's say I make a match between you and David Haye and all the bookmakers open a market on that event. When they initially calculate the odds, they'll study you, they'll study Haye and they'll arrive at what they think are fair odds to tempt the punters and also, if all goes as they expect, to make a profit.
Every punter that makes a bet on the fight will also have some system they use to decide what to bet on, how much to bet, etc. Some systems will be more sophisticated than others but they'll all rely to an extent on information available to them.
We'll assume that the overwhelming majority of people reach the conclusion that you're going to get your clock cleaned quickly and bet accordingly. We'll also assume that millions have been bet on that outcome. All the time the odds of a Haye points victory would be lengthening dramatically as the bookmakers try to keep their book balanced by tempting people in.
At some point Haye sees the potential for a huge return if he were to win on points. He bets on himself to win in that fashion and doesn't disclose that information. He then carries you and cleans up. Is that okay?
What about if the bookmaker who took Haye's bet thought "wait a second, I can get myself out of the pit here. Haye has bet on himself to win on points. I can limit my exposure by going to the bookie down the road and lumping a load on a Haye points win", and so on....and then you notice a suspicious betting pattern as a rush of people start betting a lot of money on Haye to win on points. A highly unlikely outcome unless the fight is fixed. Is that okay?
a couple get caught every 5 seasons and they must be totally inept, good money to be made.