David Haye's handy bet (and subsequent u-turn)

[Tricky Dicky]

I don't really see the problem betting on yourself to win generally, but a specific bet to win in the third, is out of order. If (and i didn't see the fight, but I gather it was one-sided), Haye could have fnished it off in the first, but chose not to, then in a way he has defrauded all those who bet on round 1. In the city that would be called insider-trading.

Betting on yourself for a result to win, seems fine, you can't try harder to win just cos you've bet on it. Football bans all betting in games you're involved in, I gather, and that is a safer way to go.

 

[Nathan]

The sort of character haye is, i can imagine that before every fight he would say to his friends and family to back him in a certain round. This time it was a high profile fight, and he got the round right.

Its a gamble, thats the point.

Is it fair to have two horses in the same race that are trained by the same trainer. The trainer must know which one has the best chance of winning but the punter doesn't always. You place a bet and take the gamble.

 

[niknokseagull]

If I was any more cynical than I already am, I might have been tempted to say yesterday's Chelsea v. Sunderland game had 'asian betting syndicate' written all over it.

A virtually unbeatable home side capitulate uncharacteristically to unfancied northerners who had yet to win away from home all season. Really? 0-3? Are you sure?

Witness Onuoha's dance unimpeded through the Chelsea backline with nary a foot waved in his direction and young Ashley's 'cross' into his own box and the onrushing Welbeck for the third. Reminded me somewhat of this ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FP8NFfllII

 

[Monty]

The sort of character haye is, i can imagine that before every fight he would say to his friends and family to back him in a certain round. This time it was a high profile fight, and he got the round right.

Its a gamble, thats the point.

Is it fair to have two horses in the same race that are trained by the same trainer. The trainer must know which one has the best chance of winning but the punter doesn't always. You place a bet and take the gamble.

but he admitted not trying in rounds one and two. Surely you can see thats wrong? If he had tried and failed to knock him out in one and two then personally I wouldn't have a problem.

If hes done it in the past then hes even more of a cheat not less of a cheat.

 

[Nathan]

Betting on yourself for a result to win, seems fine, you can't try harder to win just cos you've bet on it. Football bans all betting in games you're involved in, I gather, and that is a safer way to go.[/QUOTE]


Maybe haye didn't want to 'over-reach' in the first round and wanted to sound out audrey over a couple of rounds, before knocking him out. Didn't want to leave himself open to be knocked out!

From memory the bookies had haye to win in the 3rd round as the shortest odds. So they must have known that was the likely outcome.

 

[Gritt23]

Boxers say stuff like that all the time about "I'll knock him out in the 9th round" or whatever. It's never taken very seriously, but then again it's rare that the opponent just stands there throwing absolutely NOTHING and waiting to be taken out in the round you choose.

 

[Nathan]

I do see what you are saying, but he got the result he was after - a win.

It happens in all sports, thats my point. In snooker a few weeks back when o'sullivan wasn't going to pot the black for a 147. What about all the punters who bet on a maximum break, and how gutted they would be if he had walked away.

I am not saying it is right, but a bet is a gamble.

 

[Fungus]

If I was any more cynical than I already am, I might have been tempted to say yesterday's Chelsea v. Sunderland game had 'asian betting syndicate' written all over it.

A virtually unbeatable home side capitulate uncharacteristically to unfancied northerners who had yet to win away from home all season. Really? 0-3? Are you sure?

Shock horror - runaway leaders concede three to unfancied team from the north-east.

 

[Monty]

I do see what you are saying, but he got the result he was after - a win.

It happens in all sports, thats my point. In snooker a few weeks back when o'sullivan wasn't going to pot the black for a 147. What about all the punters who bet on a maximum break, and how gutted they would be if he had walked away.

I am not saying it is right, but a bet is a gamble.

True. He should of just kept his mouth shut.

 

[Easy 10]

Everyone I was with in the pub were looking around at each other saying "what the f*** ?" after that first round, and same again after the second. I have NEVER seen two opening rounds like that, with two fighters basically circling each other for six minutes without doing a damn thing.

You half expected it from Audley, but for Haye to play that game as well seemed bizarre at the time. Obviously its all become clear now that we know he'd heavily wagered himself to finish it in the 3rd. He plainly could have opened up that assault any time he liked, but he wanted his extra payout and stuff any punters who had something riding on him for the 1st/2nd round.

Luckily this complete mismatch afforded him that luxury I suppose. I wouldn't be all that surprised if he colluded with Harrison over it.

 

[beorhthelm]

i do think it more likly a figure of speech. wouldn't he have got better odds for 1st round?

 

[Gritt23]

I have NEVER seen two opening rounds like that, with two fighters basically circling each other for six minutes without doing a damn thing.

You've either not seen many Audley fights, or your brain has removed the memories from your consciousness to save you, in a similar way to how it forgets the details of car crashes, or personal trauma.

 

[Easy 10]

You've either not seen many Audley fights, or your brain has removed the memories from your consciousness to save you, in a similar way to how it forgets the details of car crashes, or personal trauma.

I've seen a few lumbering messes (my god, that Danny Williams one that went the distance), and yes they are always complete shite when involving him. But ZERO punches being thrown ?? A ref calling them together to TELL them to fight ? Naah, thats a new low. Usually with Audley it'd be a couple of half-hearted jabs followed by a load of holding, or his opponent at least having a bit of a pop, but not six minutes of absolutely nothing.

 

[logan89]

Can't remember Haye's exact wording after the fight but he didn't say he didn't try in the first 2 rounds but that Audley didn't leave himself open. He said that had he left himself open in round 1 or 2 he would have gone for it.