Just like you probably beat your *****?

Post #403,471 by crazy 7/15/15 4:50:33 PM Reply	Just like you probably beat your *****? Really, 1st making an unsubstantiated accusation then stating how wrong it is, what the f is wrong with you?
Post #403,487 by lincoln 7/16/15 11:26:40 AM 7/16/15 11:34:01 AM Reply	Re: Just like you probably beat your ****? http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/08/why-pete-rose-still-cant-be-absolved/378866/ I haven't been able to Google proof that he bet against his own team so I withdraw the claim that he did so. However, as the above story shows, how much he bet on his team to win signaled to the bookies his confidence level regarding the team's chances in that game: It matters for two reasons. First, when Rose did not bet on the Reds, his inaction was a signal to his bookies that he wasn’t very confident in that game. Those bookies may have used this inside information to place a bet against the Reds. This doesn’t mean the game was fixed, but is reflective of Rose’s state of mind. He was compromised. Second, his wager on certain games, but not others, may have influenced the way he made decisions as a manager. [...] Differing bet amounts are telling. If he bet $100 one game and $1,000 another game, what message is he telling his team? Or his bookie? Or himself? It shows he had fluid levels of confidence in certain games versus others. This distinction is important. For example, according to John Dowd, when certain Reds’ pitchers took the mound, Rose didn’t bet at all. Also, read the Dowd report for much more information: http://thedowdreport.com/ Satan (impatiently) to Newcomer: The trouble with you Chicago people is, that you think you are the best people down here; whereas you are merely the most numerous. - - - Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's New Calendar" 1897* Edited by lincoln July 16, 2015, 11:31:45 AM EDT Edited by lincoln July 16, 2015, 11:34:01 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #403,492 by drook 7/16/15 12:38:00 PM Reply	Reading the entrails I'm sure bookies watch interviews with coaches/managers before games and parse what they say to figure out how confident they are. "But they're doing that to signal to their players and the other team what they want them to believe." And couldn't that also be true of betting patterns? So he didn't bet when certain pitchers were up. Probably because he knew they didn't win as often. Don't bookies have access to won/lost records, too? The one possible accusation is that he would schedule a stronger pitcher in a mathematically unimportant late-season game rather than saving him for a division rival later in the week. But considering the bonuses teams usually get for post-season appearances, those would have to be pretty big bets to change his scheduling. -- Drew
Post #403,509 by crazy 7/17/15 7:45:39 AM Reply	And I accept this is a good point I find it telling that you found it and used it after your previous argument was so easily discounted. Basically, you had a viewpoint based on assumptions, found the assumptions were invalid, then dug for someone else's opinion (not fact, opinion) that would help support your original viewpoint. Note: as drook pointed out, reading the patterns MAY indicate something is up, or that the game could be manipulated. But it is all supposition. I don't really care either way, since it is entertainment, and I have no stake in it. I just hate when people badmouth other people based on assumptions. That is worth fighting over.
Post #403,513 by lincoln 7/17/15 10:51:24 AM Reply	You didn't prove my point wrong I thought that I had heard he bet both ways. I posted that I didn't find proof that he did that. Satan (impatiently) to Newcomer: The trouble with you Chicago people is, that you think you are the best people down here; whereas you are merely the most numerous. - - - Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's New Calendar" 1897

Welcome to IWETHEY!