In a new SBC feature we will be releasing Snapshot Reviews, where we take a look at services and let the betting public know about how they work, the performance during our time observing them and anything else that we pick up on whilst trying them out.

These reviews will not have all of the in-depth analytics that we use in our full reviews, but should give you a good idea of whether the service in the Snapshot is something that may interest you. These pieces will be free for everyone to view, whether they are an SBC Member or not.

Snapshot Review #1 Sharp Betting: Boxing

• Boxing opinion pieces with recommended bets, analysis & more
• Written by two well-established and experienced bettors with very different backgrounds
• 14.68% ROI using a unit loss staking plan
• Only 34 bets so far; difficult to measure CLV
• Qualitative measurements (judgement!) used

Betting Bluster

Two betting events in 2024 left me questioning the betting world and its ‘experts’ more than any others and to be honest, I had no idea how to go about pricing either of them up. My bewilderment came from listening to or reading commentators exude overconfidence, blatant biases and hubris when talking about things that they very obviously had no domain knowledge of.

The US Presidential Election market was the first. I read some extraordinary takes about the probabilities of each candidate’s chances given their respective odds and the depth of the market in the weeks leading up to the Electoral College count. A book could be written about how some people would be (a lot) poorer if they really believed the things they said with such conviction but I’m A) a poor writer and B) too lazy to write a book.

The second event was Jake Paul vs. Mike Tyson, the weird, wonderful or woeful matchup (you choose which camp you fall into) that took place in Mid-November. Like US Politics betting, I would be lost if asked to price something like this up from scratch but yet again, I saw such disparate (yet definitive) opinions so confidently decreed – it was very clear that a lot of the ‘expert betting community’ had no idea either.

Sharp Betting: Boxing 

Luckily, this coincided with trying to learn a little about boxing betting via the Sharp Betting site and their collective commentary around the fight was a lot more balanced, probability based and, with the ‘bullshit detector’ on full alert due to everything else I’d seen, informed. The outcome was irrelevant to me (even though the core bet and top-up landed) – it was one of very few places that talked without emotion or the nostalgic memory of Tyson’s brilliance. Fighter A was up against Fighter B – what should the odds be? How did these odds compare to the prices available in the market? 

Sharp Betting’s boxing offering has been live since February this year and they have provided 30 pieces during that time, talking about everything from specific boxing cards and suggested bets right through to quizzes, opinion pieces, trends and analysis – all of which are freely available to read here. New previews are promoted on Sharp Betting’s social media channels for less regular visitors to the site. 

The Numbers

I will get into what I think about this content shortly but first you will no doubt want to know how these opinions have stacked up figures wise.

You can find a full record of Sharp Betting’s boxing recommendations here, with the following headlines:

• 34 bets have been advised with selections ranging from straight ‘win’ bets through to round betting, method of victory betting and some multiples where value was identified in several spots on a card
• The advised odds average out at 3.63 (2.63/1) with the shortest-priced selection being put forward at 1.33 (1/3) and the longest-priced selection being put forward at 19.0 (18/1)
• 17/34 (50%) of bets won, with the longest priced of these delivering at 5.0 (4/1)

No stakes are advised alongside selections so I have deployed a unit-win strategy to assess the bets with a uniform edge. With all bets staked to make £100 profit, turnover totals £3,337.22 so far and the resultant profit of £473.07 using this strategy represents a 14.68% ROI. 

Reading the columns will give you an idea of the conviction that the writer has – variable staking is well worth considering here if you ever follow the advice in as both massive ricks and lukewarm leans are both present throughout the catalogue – my crude unit-win numbers can no doubt be improved upon.

This sample is still small so we can’t read too much into the data so far. Ordinarily I would use Closing Line Value (CLV) to analyse such a sample but obtaining accurate closing odds for most selections was difficult (please see the notes at the bottom of the results sheet for more information). With both of these things in mind, we need something more qualitative to judge whether the service is worth following moving forward.

About The Contributors

The core contributor is David Hipkin, the co-founder of Sharp Betting and a former boxing trader in the industry. David has been responsible for the majority of the selections and write-ups so far and you can see/hear him talk about his betting and processes in several videos on the Sharp Betting site.

The other regular contributor is Johnny Wright, a well-connected US wing of the group who brings nuance and a very obvious expertise to the fore. 

Both David and Johnny talk about past fights, fighting styles, psychology, ‘ring IQ’ and the verbal sparring that preempts the physical action. From all that I have read, David leans on this heavily for his analysis; Johnny introduces less visible factors (boxing politics, the unseen yet evident pressure on judges & boxing media narratives) to provide a good blend of the quantitative and qualitative.  

In this video, you can view the pair talk about the biggest bouts of 2024 from a betting perspective, with price and probability yet again central to everything they cover:  

Is It Worth Following?

So, is it good? I’m nowhere near being a boxing betting expert but I feel that I’ve seen enough tipster services and commentary to take a stab at answering the question with a few observations.

I like the fact that odds and probability are central to every chat. The underdog is value? Why? Fighter A is 1.33 but should be 1.2? Why? These questions are posed and answered, something that is an issue in betting chat generally, but especially so in the boxing content I have consumed.

David’s first write up – which covered the Ngannou vs Joshua and Zhang vs Parker bouts – is a prime example. The fact that both of his recommendations won is irrelevant when we’re looking for a long-term edge – he called the fights based on the odds and the chances of the fighters winning, not by lazily saying ‘I think this fighter will win, 2 point win’. Here is how he concluded his Zhang vs Parker write-up:

‘When this fight was announced, Parker was a generously priced 3/1 outsider. You’ll do well to find 2/1 odds for him now.  Zhang is a huge test, but he is a 40-year old man with a 20-stone frame to carry over the scheduled 12-rounds.  Parker is underrated in this fight, he will present more movement, speed and athleticism than Zhang faced in his headline-grabbing wins over Joyce. I think the market has got this one wrong and would have Parker no bigger than 6/4.’

 Johnny’s writings have a different flavour, as the man himself points out here:

‘We will weigh thoughts about each of the fights we dissect by giving a breakdown of some of the lesser analyzed & somewhat overlooked aspects of each fight and fighter. Many of the aspects of the fights we analyze might not be considered by the average bettor and/or might not be weighed heavily enough. In fact, some of the stuff we discuss might be completely overlooked by some bettors, possibly due to some bettors being swayed by Boxing Media propaganda or the consistent ramblings of many clueless online casuals.’

This type of take on other commentary is one that I appreciate but can it provide the edge we are looking for?

I think so. Johnny’s breakdown of the mental frailties of both fighters in the Joshua vs Dubois fight was a fascinating read and before making a value based call, he freely admitted the uncertainty he felt: ‘Trying to look into the psyche of Daniel Dubois to try to figure out his mindset heading into this specific match is like trying to solve a Rubik’s Cube after drinking 12 pints of Guinness.’

After ‘toing and froing’ he landed two bets based on odds he thought were too disparate from their opposites – Dubois to win and for the fight to go the distance. The former landed (at odds of 4.50) but the latter lost (at 5.00) as Dubois KOd Joshua in the 5th.

Away from the relative merits of any given fighter, analysis of the collective mindset of the market is a prominent factor in David and Johnny’s work and I have been regularly reminded of ‘talking horses’ who are so often overbet. They regularly oppose this mindset with very clear reasoning whenever they do so.

Conclusion 

The snippets shared above provide examples of what we can expect from Sharp Betting’s boxing coverage and this Saturday (21st December) will provide another that we can watch play out live. A 4.0 (3/1) shot is Johnny’s call for ‘Usyk vs Fury II’ – you can read why here.

What I have observed from Sharp Betting’s offering so far is excellent and it fits the criteria of what I look for in analysis and commentary. Doubt is a positive, probabilistic calculations are essential and the market can be both a guide and a paradox (see Paul vs Tyson) with a sport that is so hard to model.

As a ‘boxing betting layman’, I rate this service and will continue to follow it. Listen to the chats or read the previews and you hear about bouts talked about in a way that is the polar opposite of the overconfident bluster I referenced in the introduction.

Do I rate Sharp Betting’s boxing offering enough to follow in selections with chunky stakes? No, probably not. This isn’t due to a lack of confidence in the contributors – I really like what I’ve seen so far. I save my bigger banks for things that I have an opinion on myself and with any tipster/betting record, I like to build up a more comprehensive idea of CLV and other data points before taking the plunge towards staking aggressively.

What I will be doing is reading and listening to anything they produce and follow them in for bouts that I will be watching (starting with Usyk vs Fury II this weekend). If you decide to join me, good luck! 

Like This Piece? Sign Up Or Learn More With A Free Membership

This Snapshot Review is a little less detailed than most of our reviews but I hope that the fact you’ve got to the end means you enjoyed it! If you would like to see what our more detailed analysis looks like then please click here to sign up for a Free SBC Membership which will provide you with a sample magazine with four full reviews inside alongside some other content from 2024 that we have delivered to our members.

If you would like a full membership with instant access to all of the SBC Membership benefits then you can find sign up options here.