BoxRec

crusader wrote:

hulkmaniac wrote:Brook is going to win in statement fashion and shock the world.

Him winning convincingly is actually a fairly common prediction, though admittedly it would shock some people.

I visit a few boxing forums and a majority about 80% are picking Porter. A few guys here and there are picking Brook but most seem to be Brits supporting their countryman.

I think Brook will freeze on the night.

columbo wrote:I think Brook will freeze on the night.

Agreed

Brook needs to utilize the uppercut in this fight. Eventually Porters gunna try and fight on his chest, and when he does Kell needs to throw that mother trucker as much as he can.

I favor Porter maybe 60/40 but he cant afford to get reckless, even in the late rounds.

There should be a poll on this.

I'd expect about 70% to side with Porter, I'd count myself in that group. Brook is good, but he should have been at this level years ago. That's not going to be good for him going in.
I once adopted a chicken from a battery farm. The fvcker refused to leave my shed and died a week later.

Lenny Cravats wrote:There should be a poll on this.

I'd expect about 70% to side with Porter, I'd count myself in that group. Brook is good, but he should have been at this level years ago. That's not going to be good for him going in.
I once adopted a chicken from a battery farm. The fvcker refused to leave my shed and died a week later.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic in reference to the poll or you just mean in this part of the forum lol

This is a 50/50 fight in my view. While many people know what Porter is capable of doing, very few know how tough Brook really is and what tricks he has up his sleeves. This is the fight/event I'm looking forward to the most this remaining year.

Holy sh!t is this really gonna happen? I'm getting a lil excited. Always interesting to see two undefeated guys fight.

Lenny Cravats wrote:There should be a poll on this.

I'd expect about 70% to side with Porter, I'd count myself in that group. Brook is good, but he should have been at this level years ago. That's not going to be good for him going in.
I once adopted a chicken from a battery farm. The fvcker refused to leave my shed and died a week later.

You should have fed that chicken where he shat ie: the shed. Nothing likes eating where it shats and the little fella would have surely ventured out of the shed in time. The chicken had obviously lived a cruel and thankless life in the battery hole and in his final days was scared to set foot out of the shed. He needed coaxing out, slowly slowly catch the mongoose.

It saddens me that this wretched creature's only footprint on life is to be labelled a Fvcker on a boxing forum.

If Kell can find his lines and lengths early doors he has a cracking chance. If he wants 4 or 5 rounds to figure out Porter, (like he has taken in a lot of his previous fights) he might be KOd. He is ready, Kell says he is ready, I believe him this time, he has gone over there in good time, so all the bells are ringing for a new champion... ding ding

Loved how PM gives advice

Brook is in for a hard night. Can't see him winning unless he lands a bomb. Not likely.

SFW wrote:Brook is in for a hard night. Can't see him winning unless he lands a bomb. Not likely.

I hope Brook does the business but am not convinced he has the power at world level, I think other boxers at world level who aren't thought of as big punchers would have had similar results as Kell. I've been wrong often though so we'll see.

.

ReggieDiggs wrote:Holy sh!t is this really gonna happen? I'm getting a lil excited. Always interesting to see two undefeated guys fight.

last time?

There is absolutely no value in betting Porter. Would you risk $300 to win $100 profit on him? I wouldn't. If you are betting this fight you have to take Brook just based on the value. I'm certainly not all in on Kell, but I might throw a few bucks on him and hope he can control the fight from distance

drew kim wrote:There is absolutely no value in betting Porter. Would you risk $300 to win $100 profit on him? I wouldn't. If you are betting this fight you have to take Brook just based on the value. I'm certainly not all in on Kell, but I might throw a few bucks on him and hope he can control the fight from distance

There is no value in a losing bet. Winning £100 (or dollars) to a £300 stake is a far better return than any bank interest.

People often do not correctly understand the concept of value. Getting 50/1 about a 10/1 shot is no good at all if you lose your money.

Ian1973 wrote:

drew kim wrote:There is absolutely no value in betting Porter. Would you risk $300 to win $100 profit on him? I wouldn't. If you are betting this fight you have to take Brook just based on the value. I'm certainly not all in on Kell, but I might throw a few bucks on him and hope he can control the fight from distance

There is no value in a losing bet. Winning £100 (or dollars) to a £300 stake is a far better return than any bank interest.

People often do not correctly understand the concept of value. Getting 50/1 about a 10/1 shot is no good at all if you lose your money.

Apparently you don't understand what "value" is lol. If you can get 50-1 on something that has a 1 in 10 chance you take that every F'ING TIME! because if you win 1 out of 10 times at 50-1 odds you are going to way ahead!

As in the Brook, Porter fight. I see Brook as having maybe a 40% chance to win but the odds show him as only about a 25% chance to win, so I am getting value if I bet him with they way I am thinking

drew kim wrote:

Ian1973 wrote:

drew kim wrote:There is absolutely no value in betting Porter. Would you risk $300 to win $100 profit on him? I wouldn't. If you are betting this fight you have to take Brook just based on the value. I'm certainly not all in on Kell, but I might throw a few bucks on him and hope he can control the fight from distance

There is no value in a losing bet. Winning £100 (or dollars) to a £300 stake is a far better return than any bank interest.

People often do not correctly understand the concept of value. Getting 50/1 about a 10/1 shot is no good at all if you lose your money.

Apparently you don't understand what "value" is lol. If you can get 50-1 on something that has a 1 in 10 chance you take that every F'ING TIME! because if you win 1 out of 10 times at 50-1 odds you are going to way ahead!

As in the Brook, Porter fight. I see Brook as having maybe a 40% chance to win but the odds show him as only about a 25% chance to win, so I am getting value if I bet him with they way I am thinking

What you say is good on paper but in reality the vast majority of 10/1 shots lose and unless you hit the ground running you are likely to lose your bank pretty early on. You can find fantastic "value" but winning once at 50/1 is very, very difficult even in 50 bets for a "real" 10/1 chance. It is subjective, what you deem as a 9% chance someone else may deem a 4% chance and in theory no-one is right and no-one is wrong - only results decide that.

I think Brook has around a 20% chance of winning so in theory 5/1 should be value. However, regardless of odds I think Porter has far too much for Brook and I'd rather take prohibitive odds and collect the money rather than sit there proud of myself holding a 8/1 losing ticket.

What you say is good on paper but in reality the vast majority of 10/1 shots lose and unless you hit the ground running you are likely to lose your bank pretty early on. You can find fantastic "value" but winning once at 50/1 is very, very difficult even in 50 bets for a "real" 10/1 chance. It is subjective, what you deem as a 9% chance someone else may deem a 4% chance and in theory no-one is right and no-one is wrong - only results decide that.

I think Brook has around a 20% chance of winning so in theory 5/1 should be value. However, regardless of odds I think Porter has far too much for Brook and I'd rather take prohibitive odds and collect the money rather than sit there proud of myself holding a 8/1 losing ticket.[/quote]

I agree with most of what you are saying. Value is all in perspective. What you think is likely to happen, someone else might think the opposite is likely to happen. However...lets say you think Fighter A has a 15% chance to win, but you can get 20-1 on him....I would take that all day. I think you on the other hand would just say "well he wont win so..." When you take big odds like 20-1 you don't need to win anywhere near half the time to profit. So when I see big odds and think the underdog fighter has a somewhat legit chance to win I'll take it. I'm not saying that I would take something like Sergio Mora at 20-1 vs GGG (I just made that matchup in my head) because I don't think Mora could win, so 20-1 on something that can't happen doesn't interest me.

As for Brook vs Porter this is where perspective comes into play. You think Brook only has a 1 in 5 shot so Porter at 1/3 is decent value for you. I just hate risking a lot of money to win a little money, it makes me nervous, and I also think Brook has almost as good a chance to win as Porter.

I don't really bet on "50-1" shots too often because 99 times out of 100 those fights are about like GGG vs Me LOL. What I usually bet is about like the Brook odds. If I think someone has almost a 50% chance or better to win, and they are 2-1 odds or more I'll go for it. That's not to say If I see someone that is 10-1 and I think they have a 25% chance to win I wouldn't be in on that, because I likely would be, but like I said I would not take 50-1 on something that realistically has no shot in hell

drew kim wrote:What you say is good on paper but in reality the vast majority of 10/1 shots lose and unless you hit the ground running you are likely to lose your bank pretty early on. You can find fantastic "value" but winning once at 50/1 is very, very difficult even in 50 bets for a "real" 10/1 chance. It is subjective, what you deem as a 9% chance someone else may deem a 4% chance and in theory no-one is right and no-one is wrong - only results decide that.

I think Brook has around a 20% chance of winning so in theory 5/1 should be value. However, regardless of odds I think Porter has far too much for Brook and I'd rather take prohibitive odds and collect the money rather than sit there proud of myself holding a 8/1 losing ticket.

I agree with most of what you are saying. Value is all in perspective. What you think is likely to happen, someone else might think the opposite is likely to happen. However...lets say you think Fighter A has a 15% chance to win, but you can get 20-1 on him....I would take that all day. I think you on the other hand would just say "well he wont win so..." When you take big odds like 20-1 you don't need to win anywhere near half the time to profit. So when I see big odds and think the underdog fighter has a somewhat legit chance to win I'll take it. I'm not saying that I would take something like Sergio Mora at 20-1 vs GGG (I just made that matchup in my head) because I don't think Mora could win, so 20-1 on something that can't happen doesn't interest me.

As for Brook vs Porter this is where perspective comes into play. You think Brook only has a 1 in 5 shot so Porter at 1/3 is decent value for you. I just hate risking a lot of money to win a little money, it makes me nervous, and I also think Brook has almost as good a chance to win as Porter.

I don't really bet on "50-1" shots too often because 99 times out of 100 those fights are about like GGG vs Me LOL. What I usually bet is about like the Brook odds. If I think someone has almost a 50% chance or better to win, and they are 2-1 odds or more I'll go for it. That's not to say If I see someone that is 10-1 and I think they have a 25% chance to win I wouldn't be in on that, because I likely would be, but like I said I would not take 50-1 on something that realistically has no shot in hell

It's interesting you mention the nerves you have. Studies indicate that people are more successful betting with lower stakes. I can readily understand why. If people bet in leisure (or "for fun") they have a different mentality to betting if they are doing it for a living. When it really "matters", people think differently and they act differently because of the pressure it creates upon them.

Statistically 8% of punters win in the long term. These people have not only the know how but the ability to treat betting as a business also. It doesn't sound that difficult to do but it is incredibly difficult when it is your livelihood hence the fact that 92% will eventually lose.

Anyway, good luck with your bet mate. I think Brook is a decent fighter but I can't get Malignaggi out of my head. He got blasted well and truly by Porter and I don't think Brook would've done that to him in a million years. I see Porter stopping Brook but hey ho I have been wrong before, 1984 I think it was. D ;;-)

Ian1973 wrote:

drew kim wrote:What you say is good on paper but in reality the vast majority of 10/1 shots lose and unless you hit the ground running you are likely to lose your bank pretty early on. You can find fantastic "value" but winning once at 50/1 is very, very difficult even in 50 bets for a "real" 10/1 chance. It is subjective, what you deem as a 9% chance someone else may deem a 4% chance and in theory no-one is right and no-one is wrong - only results decide that.

I think Brook has around a 20% chance of winning so in theory 5/1 should be value. However, regardless of odds I think Porter has far too much for Brook and I'd rather take prohibitive odds and collect the money rather than sit there proud of myself holding a 8/1 losing ticket.

I agree with most of what you are saying. Value is all in perspective. What you think is likely to happen, someone else might think the opposite is likely to happen. However...lets say you think Fighter A has a 15% chance to win, but you can get 20-1 on him....I would take that all day. I think you on the other hand would just say "well he wont win so..." When you take big odds like 20-1 you don't need to win anywhere near half the time to profit. So when I see big odds and think the underdog fighter has a somewhat legit chance to win I'll take it. I'm not saying that I would take something like Sergio Mora at 20-1 vs GGG (I just made that matchup in my head) because I don't think Mora could win, so 20-1 on something that can't happen doesn't interest me.

As for Brook vs Porter this is where perspective comes into play. You think Brook only has a 1 in 5 shot so Porter at 1/3 is decent value for you. I just hate risking a lot of money to win a little money, it makes me nervous, and I also think Brook has almost as good a chance to win as Porter.

I don't really bet on "50-1" shots too often because 99 times out of 100 those fights are about like GGG vs Me LOL. What I usually bet is about like the Brook odds. If I think someone has almost a 50% chance or better to win, and they are 2-1 odds or more I'll go for it. That's not to say If I see someone that is 10-1 and I think they have a 25% chance to win I wouldn't be in on that, because I likely would be, but like I said I would not take 50-1 on something that realistically has no shot in hell

It's interesting you mention the nerves you have. Studies indicate that people are more successful betting with lower stakes. I can readily understand why. If people bet in leisure (or "for fun") they have a different mentality to betting if they are doing it for a living. When it really "matters", people think differently and they act differently because of the pressure it creates upon them.

Statistically 8% of punters win in the long term. These people have not only the know how but the ability to treat betting as a business also. It doesn't sound that difficult to do but it is incredibly difficult when it is your livelihood hence the fact that 92% will eventually lose.

Anyway, good luck with your bet mate. I think Brook is a decent fighter but I can't get Malignaggi out of my head. He got blasted well and truly by Porter and I don't think Brook would've done that to him in a million years. I see Porter stopping Brook but hey ho I have been wrong before, 1984 I think it was. D ;;-)

LOL, I do not gamble for a living at all. I might have $100 on Brook at most. When I say I get "nervous" betting a lot of money to win a little money. That's all relative to the bet. What I really meant is I don't see the point of betting $100 to win $30. I guess If I had $10,000 to bet to win $3,000 that would be more worthwhile but I don't have the funds to do something like that lol. I just try to win a few hundred here or there, its all for fun...and I realize I won't get rich off it. As for Malinaggi, he's pretty weak and at the end of the road, not sure blasting him makes you a powerhouse, but we will see

drew kim wrote:

Ian1973 wrote:

drew kim wrote:What you say is good on paper but in reality the vast majority of 10/1 shots lose and unless you hit the ground running you are likely to lose your bank pretty early on. You can find fantastic "value" but winning once at 50/1 is very, very difficult even in 50 bets for a "real" 10/1 chance. It is subjective, what you deem as a 9% chance someone else may deem a 4% chance and in theory no-one is right and no-one is wrong - only results decide that.

I think Brook has around a 20% chance of winning so in theory 5/1 should be value. However, regardless of odds I think Porter has far too much for Brook and I'd rather take prohibitive odds and collect the money rather than sit there proud of myself holding a 8/1 losing ticket.

I agree with most of what you are saying. Value is all in perspective. What you think is likely to happen, someone else might think the opposite is likely to happen. However...lets say you think Fighter A has a 15% chance to win, but you can get 20-1 on him....I would take that all day. I think you on the other hand would just say "well he wont win so..." When you take big odds like 20-1 you don't need to win anywhere near half the time to profit. So when I see big odds and think the underdog fighter has a somewhat legit chance to win I'll take it. I'm not saying that I would take something like Sergio Mora at 20-1 vs GGG (I just made that matchup in my head) because I don't think Mora could win, so 20-1 on something that can't happen doesn't interest me.

As for Brook vs Porter this is where perspective comes into play. You think Brook only has a 1 in 5 shot so Porter at 1/3 is decent value for you. I just hate risking a lot of money to win a little money, it makes me nervous, and I also think Brook has almost as good a chance to win as Porter.

I don't really bet on "50-1" shots too often because 99 times out of 100 those fights are about like GGG vs Me LOL. What I usually bet is about like the Brook odds. If I think someone has almost a 50% chance or better to win, and they are 2-1 odds or more I'll go for it. That's not to say If I see someone that is 10-1 and I think they have a 25% chance to win I wouldn't be in on that, because I likely would be, but like I said I would not take 50-1 on something that realistically has no shot in hell

It's interesting you mention the nerves you have. Studies indicate that people are more successful betting with lower stakes. I can readily understand why. If people bet in leisure (or "for fun") they have a different mentality to betting if they are doing it for a living. When it really "matters", people think differently and they act differently because of the pressure it creates upon them.

Statistically 8% of punters win in the long term. These people have not only the know how but the ability to treat betting as a business also. It doesn't sound that difficult to do but it is incredibly difficult when it is your livelihood hence the fact that 92% will eventually lose.

Anyway, good luck with your bet mate. I think Brook is a decent fighter but I can't get Malignaggi out of my head. He got blasted well and truly by Porter and I don't think Brook would've done that to him in a million years. I see Porter stopping Brook but hey ho I have been wrong before, 1984 I think it was. D ;;-)

LOL, I do not gamble for a living at all. I might have $100 on Brook at most. When I say I get "nervous" betting a lot of money to win a little money. That's all relative to the bet. What I really meant is I don't see the point of betting $100 to win $30. I guess If I had $10,000 to bet to win $3,000 that would be more worthwhile but I don't have the funds to do something like that lol. I just try to win a few hundred here or there, its all for fun...and I realize I won't get rich off it. As for Malinaggi, he's pretty weak and at the end of the road, not sure blasting him makes you a powerhouse, but we will see

That's the bit I don't understand. Why not, it's a $30 profit? If it was a $3000 profit it's still relative to the stake and a profit is a profit and the whole point of the exercise isn't it?

Forgive me, I'm not trying to be a pain in the arse. I guess you and I just see the concept differently.

Yes in a way you are right, but I just dont get a thrill out of trying to win $30...

columbo wrote:I think Brook will freeze on the night.

Brook was seriously sucking down some agua after the weigh in...

Porter looked phat and happy...

For me the biggest pointer to how this fight will go is the fact that Brook was hurt by a shot from Senschenko (sorry if the spelling is wrong) and if he was hit flush by Porter I think he will unravel. He has a lot of talent but I think the chance of Porter finding that shot at some point is likely and go for Porter by KO.