LOL...NBA

i'm simply pointing out that there's tremendous amounts of money to be made on slim margins if you're able to milk them for a long time. a ref interjecting himself to be a 90% factor in a game's outcome isn't something that will last very long. it'll be interesting to learn just how much of an effect this ref had on the game and how successful he was at getting overs and unders (if that was the strategy).

if he was good at it, they'd take overs in games where both teams were inept offensively and unders where both teams were offensive powerhouses. that would be the best strategy, wouldn't it? shouldn't take too much to delve into his games to see what the results were.

 

No. You're still trying to make everyone agree with your nonsense about trends. As others already explained, you'd always want to push the over because not even refs can make someone not score.

 

you're absolutely wrong. refs can make people not score -- they get them in foul trouble. scoring from the bench is a pretty rare trait in the nba.

for example, you tag lebron james with 3 fouls in the first half and the cavs offense goes to absolute shit.

or you take a team that utilizes fast breaks as their main offensive threat and put them in half court situations by calling more fouls -- creating more deadballs and more time for the defense to set up. you'd be crazy to try to get the suns v warriors to go over. it'd be way easier to get them under by popping a few cheapies on baron davis and whoever else might be hot that night.

and if more whistles means higher total points, wouldn't fewer whistles mean less lower points?

but let's say you're right -- that donaghy only fixed games for the over. his over % is 57% for the last two years.

 

Why? The over/under isn't just set at the same thing for every match-up. It's tailored to create betting on both sides, which means it's supposed to be an estimate of what they think the score would be. So Suns vs. Warriors would have a much higher over than Spurs vs. Cavaliers, but it would still be more than possible to push both games above the over.

Not necessarily. If they're making shots, there's not a lot that you can do to stop them from making them. If they're missing, though, you can get them to the line for additional chances.

 

of course, but there's only "so high" a score will be. influencing the suns up is not as easy as influencing them down, imo. tagging nash with a couple early and i'll bet they score less. you think the over/under with nash in foul trouble is the same as with nash not in foul trouble?

so what if they're missing and you don't call fouls to get them to the line? lower score. if they're missing their shots and their ft's there's not a lot you can do to get points up. there are only so many fouls you can call before people start fouling out. i don't see fouling out important players being a way to increase a score, unless those players are defenders and rebounders.


if the number of whistles is proportional to the overall points put up, i don't see how you could be arguing that fewer whistles wouldn't tend to result in lower scores.

 

You're only looking at it from one side though. Say that the Suns had a low o/u because they were playing a good defensive team - say the Pistons. Well, a couple of quick wistles on whoever is guarding Nash and maybe one or two on the best help defender, and voila - Stevie has free reign.

These guys weren't betting every game. They picked their matchups and loaded up. The fact tah the lines moved tells you that there was MAJOR action on the games he threw. And his success rate was like 80% I think.

 

Yes, and your opinion is wrong. This has been explained to you repeatedly, not only by me, but someone who actually gambles regularly. You are continuing to argue it despite no legitimate objection simply because you enjoy arguing.

Good lord, man. This has been explained to you in detail. It is infuriating that you pretend to be too stupid to understand the point when you clearly are not. A referee cannot make someone miss shots. It's just that simple. He can't do it. And with the six foul limit in the NBA, you don't see a lot of players fouling out, especially guards. So if you tag Nash with three quick ones, you might hurt Phoenix's point total (although they still score big with Barbosa), but you're also pushing up their opponent's total and exposing yourself to more risk of discovery. When there are a lot of fouls in general, people chalk it up to refs calling the game tight. When one player gets singled out, they think something funny is going on.

This is what I mean. There is no way you are too stupid to understand that there are more relationships than direct linear ones. More whistles means more points because you're putting players on the line. Fewer whistles do not necessarily mean anything, because then it leaves scoring up to the individual players and whether they make or miss their shots. Once again, a referee cannot make someone miss shots.


Now please do everyone a favor and shut up. You have no idea what you're talking about, the issue has been explained to you, and you are so desperate to keep arguing this that you are making yourself look stupid (like not understanding the existence of non-linear relationships).

 

i'm not looking at it from only one side. i was saying it would make sense to influence up games with low o/us and influence down games with high o/u. so your scenario is exactly what i was saying would make sense.

how have you determined his success rate?

 

They weren't going or the under though. They know the games he worked. They know the O/U totals. They know the games where the lines moved. They went for the over.

I saw it somewhere - I can't remember where - but they know the games that he worked where the lines moved significantly. That's the rate I was using.

We are talking about a couple of points here. He probably wouldn't have to do anything at all until the last quarter, and then just blow his whistle a few times to beat the over.

Vegas know what it's doing - lines are generally right on it. I'm sure that Kent can post a study of how close every single game came to being right at the number.

 

Very good my young Padawan. We shall make a member of the Degenerate Order out of you yet. You can pick and choose your spots. You skip the 215 total on Phx/GS and the game in Cleveland. That is also directly on point with this:

You can play the margins for extended periods if you are legit entity with an addictive customer like the casino. Or tobacco companies. Or an oligarchy like the oil companies. Or even some energy traders colluding in a fixed California energy market.

But you can’t fix 100 sports games because the risk is way too great. You are messing with some very bad folks if you are the player or ref. In the list above, only the energy traders have a real shot of going to jail. They – for the most part I would think - won’t end up dead either. So you are (or should be) looking for a few big money shots. I’m surprised this crew got into double digits. That’s just flat out greed.

Over and under bets aren’t created equal. Overtime? Always helps the over. The over isn’t out of reach until the last play of any game (where there’s no sudden death). That’s important. And that blowout with Steve Nash VP mentioned? Or the one in Cleveland after LeBron gets a quick three fouls? Blowouts lead to garbage time which tends to help an over. If it’s not garbage enough? The ref can blow a whistle and put someone on the line. Under plays, btw, are not for the weak. You can lose an under in the second quarter of a football game. But in general, more unpredicatable events - or in this case uncontrollable - leads you to an over. Turnovers kill a football under. The only thing that pretty much always helps the under is injury. Trying to simulate that with the whistle just puts teams in the bonus early.

That 80% number is probably someone referencing Donaghe’s O/U numbers on games @ 184.5. They were 10-2 to the over. That's the sorta thing that is gonna get attention. Covers.com has data.