BoxRec

You guys are so damned stupid it's unbelievable... There were relatively few bets on AJ because of the odds... Most all bets went with Whyte because many were picking him to win and the odds were so lopsided... To get a good return on a massive favorite you have to bet very big... Betting 100,000 or more on a boxing match is not impossible Tomasino, you stupid, creepy bastard... I've seen bets of 300,000 and 400,000 dollars posted. Joshua figured to be a 12/1 favorite in any proper analysis, so it was a damned good bet... Anyway the article on boxing247.com made exactly that claim.

Kalan wrote:You guys are so damned stupid it's unbelievable... There were relatively few bets on AJ because of the odds... Most all bets went with Whyte because many were picking him to win and the odds were so lopsided... To get a good return on a massive favorite you have to bet very big... Betting 100,000 or more on a boxing match is not impossible Tomasino, you stupid, creepy bastard... I've seen bets of 300,000 and 400,000 dollars posted. Joshua figured to be a 12/1 favorite in any proper analysis, so it was a damned good bet... Anyway the article on boxing247.com made exactly that claim.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

davie wrote:a full on wind up merchant, bat poo crazy, mind numbingly stupid, ridiculously argumentative or a combination of the 4.

You know me too well davie.

I can assure you, from the posts quoted there, you are not the one who's sanity I'm questioning

Tomasino wrote:

Kalan wrote:You guys are so damned stupid it's unbelievable... There were relatively few bets on AJ because of the odds... Most all bets went with Whyte because many were picking him to win and the odds were so lopsided... To get a good return on a massive favorite you have to bet very big... Betting 100,000 or more on a boxing match is not impossible Tomasino, you stupid, creepy bastard... I've seen bets of 300,000 and 400,000 dollars posted. Joshua figured to be a 12/1 favorite in any proper analysis, so it was a damned good bet... Anyway the article on boxing247.com made exactly that claim.

A recurring theme of the seasoned internet troll.
Even when caught slavering unquestionable drivel, they absolutely refuse point blank to back down and will argue absolutely any ludicrous claim they've made, until you give up.

davie wrote:

Tomasino wrote:

Kalan wrote:You guys are so damned stupid it's unbelievable... There were relatively few bets on AJ because of the odds... Most all bets went with Whyte because many were picking him to win and the odds were so lopsided... To get a good return on a massive favorite you have to bet very big... Betting 100,000 or more on a boxing match is not impossible Tomasino, you stupid, creepy bastard... I've seen bets of 300,000 and 400,000 dollars posted. Joshua figured to be a 12/1 favorite in any proper analysis, so it was a damned good bet... Anyway the article on boxing247.com made exactly that claim.

A recurring theme of the seasoned internet troll.
Even when caught slavering unquestionable drivel, they absolutely refuse point blank to back down and will argue absolutely any ludicrous claim they've made, until you give up.

I have him on ignore but still see him quoted and end up replying. I was in stitches when he called me a creepy bastard

You know what you are then creep... Some punters made over 100,000 pounds betting on Joshua... That was before the pound dropped so massively, so at those odds that's a damned hefty bet... There were stories of winning like this all over the internet, so some bettors were going huge -- but the vast majority of UK bettors were going with Whyte, and that's why those bets could be made.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:He's definitely a troll, I've had him on ignore for ages. Not difficult at all. Just odd to see him around after so many have been banned for way less.

Just in case you haven't been paying attention....about the only thing that has ever caused the tar and feathering, and ushering out, is the chronic vicious personal attacks on sweet little grandmotherly types. Granted that goes along with the bombastic and unusual, but I don't think "so many have been banned for less" is an accurate descriptor here.

LOL... Oh BuzzBox, flying to my defense as usual -- after all the berating I've aimed at your less than thoughtful posts.

Kalan wrote:LOL... Oh BuzzBox, flying to my defense as usual -- after all the berating I've aimed at your less than thoughtful posts.

Hes the only person who has any sort of affinity with you here. From what I've read everyone else laughs your posts as you know pretty much fuckall about boxing.

BoxBuzz wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:He's definitely a troll, I've had him on ignore for ages. Not difficult at all. Just odd to see him around after so many have been banned for way less.

Just in case you haven't been paying attention....about the only thing that has ever caused the tar and feathering, and ushering out, is the chronic vicious personal attacks on sweet little grandmotherly types. Granted that goes along with the bombastic and unusual, but I don't think "so many have been banned for less" is an accurate descriptor here.

Kalan wrote:but the vast majority of UK bettors were going with Whyte

Let me be clear...... YOU'RE MAKING THIS UP!!!!!

Karlane, I wear your insults as a badge of honor, it may be the only reason Saad needed only one eye roll at my statement. And I appreciate his restraint.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Kalan wrote:but the vast majority of UK bettors were going with Whyte

Let me be clear...... YOU'RE MAKING THIS UP!!!!!

Google it you idiot... Many times more Brits bet on Whyte then Joshua... You have to be the thickest nutcase who ever posted here

Kalan wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Kalan wrote:but the vast majority of UK bettors were going with Whyte

Let me be clear...... YOU'RE MAKING THIS UP!!!!!

Google it you idiot... Many times more Brits bet on Whyte then Joshua... You have to be the thickest nutcase who ever posted here

I have Googled it, I've Yahoo'd it, I've Bing'd it, hell, I've even Lycos'd it. Can't find anything anywhere. Strangest thing, that.

What did you say the average bet was?

You didn't google it... or you're an inept searcher.. Many more Brits bet on Whyte than Joshua because dummies saw the very wide odds as gold.

Kalan wrote:You didn't google it... or you're an inept searcher.. Many more Brits bet on Whyte than Joshua because dummies saw the very wide odds as gold.

This is a lack of proper medication. Please seek medical advice

Please break into a drug store and take whatever medication you can find... All of it.

Kalan wrote:You didn't google it... or you're an inept searcher.. Many more Brits bet on Whyte than Joshua because dummies saw the very wide odds as gold.

What did you say the average bet was?

The average bet combining both wasn't calculated... But many thousands of bettors took Whyte -- while far fewer, much huger, and smarter bets backed AJ.