LOL...NBA

Can <> best.

 

wtf? let's not hide behind abstracts:

me: finding good opportunities to push the under would work into a comprehensive strategy to make money off of fixing games as a ref.

collin: a ref cannot influence the score of a game to be lower than it "should be" with any reliability.

since my responses to collin got responses from you, i presumed you were picking up his argument. where did i go wrong there?

i had no idea you were even arguing that i had mischaracterized the argument. i mentioned the rest of the world because we're discussing opinions and mine was considered less weighty because i'm not a gambler. i believe i have found people to back up my scenario -- experts have stated (lang i believe) that a ref can make the score go up or down. not that he can only make it go up.

and of course, we're talking about influencing things with predictable, reliable results not just the possibility. joey crawford's record indicates that ref style plays a role in nba scores.

i have no idea what you're talking about.

you'll note that i am careful to use words like "indicate" and "suggest" when talking about the crawford record.

do you think vegas would not bother too look at who was reffing a game when setting the over/under line if that data was available?

post 69? i don't see that in post 69. i wasn't confused at all about the word, you just wanted to read into it something more than was there. if i wanted to say fix, i would use the word fix. could you come up with a better word for influence (one without the connotation of volition)?

you say crawford was involved in a trend. that's a bit passive given the extreme nature of the trend. i would say the evidence suggests he created the trend (or had a large hand in it). i don't mean to say he PURPOSEFULLY created the trend, just that he, as a ref, did things that made the score not as high as vegas was thinking it would be.

you're a sucker for a sure thing.

 

best = subjective

 

Not really. A ref can obviously provide more opportunities to score by calling a foul. It's not really possible for him to limit opportunties though.

 

see, when you say things like "it's not possible" how am i to interpret that? that it's possible but difficult? that it's possible but risky? that it's possible and easy, but easier to go the other direction?

 

How would a ref limit the number of opportunties?

 

That's a lie. In fact, it's disturbing how often you outright lie any time you feel out-maneuvered in an argument. I said that a ref cannot insure the under because they can't make players miss shots. I never said that they have no ability whatsoever to "influence scores down," I said that they don't exert enough control to feel very confident that the under will be achieved. That's why you never fix the under.

That has been explained to you repeatedly, and yet you continue arguing because you cannot help yourself. You know nothing about gambling, little more about basketball, and yet you keep babbling because you are a compulsive arguer, to the point that you are willing to lie to keep from conceding a point. That's just sad, and it's why I have you on ignore (vpkozel's quote of your post is why I knew that you lied about what I said, and thus I felt like I should respond).

 

have you ever watched the nba? bias your calls in favor of the defense and you'll get lower scoring games. ball out of bounds and it was a close one, it's going the other way. charge or block? it's a charge. hey wait -- how long was that guy in the lane? musta been at least a couple seconds, he's getting a whistle if he does anything but shoot. travelling. illegal screens. foul before the shot.

 

i actually quoted you, but i guess since you didn't see the original post you'd have no way of knowing that. i could have been clearer that when i said you insisted a ref couldn't influence the scores down, i meant in the scheme of things -- over a period of time with expected results (i thought i had said that elsewhere, but i can't find it).

oh wait, here it is -- in the next bit of the post vp quoted:

"and of course, we're talking about influencing things with predictable, reliable results not just the possibility. joey crawford's record indicates that ref style plays a role in nba scores."

well, hopefully somebody will quote this then, too.

 

You said "collin insists that a ref has no ability to influence scores down." That was a lie. There's no misunderstanding there, it's just an outright lie. I never said or even insinuated that the ref has no ability whatsoever to influence the score downward. What I have repeatedly said, and what you repeatedly refuse to acknowledge despite everyone else telling you this, is that the ref cannot cause with under with any degree of certainty. He can increase the odds of hitting the under with his calls, but no ref can ever make players miss shots, and therefore the under represents a far greater risk to a fixer than the over. Kshead explained this to you as well, but because you are a compulsive arguer, you didn't even pretend to listen.