Bernard Hopkins v Joe Calzaghe is going the distance

Think 1.39 is too stingy? Think on fella

OK soapscum, the wait is over. You've been bombarding Aerial Telly's inbox, hitting him up on his celly, and leaving countless messages with known associates of the boy (all of whom, incidentally, have been trained to stonewall so later for that Columboshit). He's had to switch off his pager, disconnect his fax machine and communicate solely on his Pie Phone, the phone he uses exclusively for his interactions with the opposite sex. The number of this phone is a closely guarded secret yet even on that he's been getting calls from underwear models, actresses and dancers asking if Hopkins still has what it takes, if Joe will be too young, too hungry for the grizzled old veteran. So OK, he's giving you the rundown.

"Aerial Telly has had to switch off his pager, disconnect his fax machine and communicate solely on his Pie Phone, the phone he uses exclusively for his interactions with the opposite sex."

But before Aerial Telly gets into the nuts and bolts of the fight he would like to school you in some elementary betting theory. You often hear him talk about value with regard to betting. What exactly is value? Basically, value exists when the true probability of something happening is LESS THAN the probability implied by the odds.

Example. Toss a coin. The chance of it landing heads up is 50% (2 in decimal odds or evens). If someone offers you 11/10 (2.1 in decimal odds) that the coin will land heads facing up then this will always be a value bet. The reason? Because 2.1 implies a 47.6% chance of winning where the true odds are 50%. Long-term, you will always finish ahead. Likewise, if someone offers you 10/11 you should not take the bet as those odds mean you will always lose long-term. For further discussion of value check out my manDoctor of Danger's definitive discussion.

"Aerial Telly sometimes lose bets? Hell yes. Does Aerial Telly always finish ahead in the long term? Hell yes. Aerial Telly is not God. You cannot "see" the future."

Why is Aerial Telly mentioning this? Well, because he is a betting genius with a proven track record and because he is a master of hyperbole and because he is the Don King of television criticism, you "people" may think that he never loses. Well get this, "people" - he sometimes does.

Yeah, that's right - he said it. Does Aerial Telly sometimes lose bets? Hell yes. Does Aerial Telly always finish ahead in the long term? Hell yes. Aerial Telly is not God. You cannot "see" the future. He is simply remarkably gifted at identifying the percentages so that over the long term he will win more than he loses. That is the nature of betting. So with that in mind - on to the fight.

"Hopkins is an all-time great, a master of making his opponent look bad and the fight is in Vegas, home of many shady decisions"

Calzaghe is the correct favourite but the odds for are silly. They are 1.44 currently implying 70% chance of winning. I make him around 1.75 (57% chance of winning). This makes Hopkins odds 3.65 (implying 28% chance of winning) value. The problem is that Aerial Telly very rarely backs over the price of 3.00 because he likes a stable bank growth and your bank becomes more unstable the higher odds you back at. So he is going to leave the win market alone but he will say that Calzaghe should absolutely NOT be backed at those odds. Hopkins is an all-time great, a master of making his opponent look bad and the fight is in Vegas, home of many shady decisions.

"As for Calzaghe's chin we saw that tested and proven against the hard-hitting Kessler and even Jeff Lacy early on. It's rock solid."

So anyway what he does recommend is the fight to go the distance at 1.39 on Betfair (1.41 is quite achievable). I make the true odds around 1.25. Neither fighter had ever been stopped or ever looked like being stopped. Although Calzaghe has 33 knockouts on his record none of them were against serious contenders and don't forget he is moving up in weight for this one. Plus Bernard is very difficult to catch flush and in any case has an excellent beard. Even if he gets old overnight (as can happen in boxing), he's one of the best spoilers and evasive tacticians in the game.

As for Calzaghe's chin we saw that tested and proven against the hard-hitting Kessler and even Jeff Lacy early on. It's rock solid.

Neither fighter ever really looks for a knockout. I expect a close technical fight. To knock someone out you have to take risks, plant your feet and commit to the punches, leaving yourself open to counters and both these guys are too smart to do that.

I believe a stoppage would be a big turn up. Take the 1.39.

Imagined: 18th April 2008