LOL...NBA

One other thing I don't think got fully addressed.....

You don’t play fixing-level money on trend-level odds because the gambling interests – both legitimate and illegitimate – and government don’t care if you’ve only fixed the game a little. “You just stole a little out of the vault? Hey, that’s ok!” Ummmm, no.

In making the decision to fix there’s only yes and no. In or out. Because “I only made a little when I fixed it” doesn’t mean shit to someone who wants a piece of your ass. They are going to break your finger all the way – not just 60-70%. Also, you are going to lose your life - figuratively in the least. Not 60% of it. Not 70% of it. But all of it. Donaghe never refs again. His career is toast. Might go to jail.

In addition, once you agree to fix a specific game on a specific date you have to go through with it because the money is down. You are forced to try to whatever it takes to win the bet on that game (another reason to avoid the under by the way – you are forced to try and control too many suspicious variables). If Daniels and Hughes go batshit after you blow three quick ones no LeBron, you have quite a choice (series of choices, actually) to make. On the fly. Not a good place to be.

So each time you agree to fix that game, you are forced to stick your head out to the risk of losing 100% of your shit if you get caught. Whether it’s in terms of your figurative life – or even literally.

You want me to expose myself to those kinds of risks for an edge that gets me to 60-70%? I don’t think so. I can do the 60% thing legally. Or walk away from the table.

 

the thing is, we don't know squat about how or which games donaghy tried to influence for his own gain.

crawford illustrates that how a ref calls a game influences the score both up and down -- not necessarily on purpose, but influence just the same. the prevailing thought in this thread has been that the only thing a ref can do is make the score go up. crawford's 2006-2007 record shows that's not entirely true.

quantify fixing-level money for me.

i don't think those odds are too crappy.

it's strong evidence that a ref can bias a score down. whether he wants to do it or even take advantage of his own natural predilection is another story.

 

I agree. We don't. You were the one trying to imply something about Crawford though. For the third time - see VP and the need to connnect the betting info dots with the O/U numbers.

No, the prevailing thought has been that the over would be easier than the under. That was established long ago. You are tap dancing like hell to try and get around it though by doing things like quoting experts that don't adress that point directly. But let's not move the bar as if this were the electoral college thread where fully proportional suddenly became proportional for the districts, +2 for winning the states as happened in that thread last night.

How many times must I do it? I think I've defined it just fine already.

 

that sounds like a rationale for not placing a few big bets and instead placing lots of smaller ones. you tie up "fixing-level" money in a game and you don't deliver? that's not a good outcome. let's say you bet on a handful of games (you seemed surprised they hit double digits earlier in the thread). you better come thru or it's gonna be ugly. there's still luck involved here. if you bet 8 games and didn't come thru on 3 of them, you're down to 63%. if those games happen to be early in your scheme, then you might be wiped out or you might feel like you need to take desperate measures (and higher risk) to salvage your bet.

on the other hand, if you go into the scheme knowing that you're not going to hit every bet, you don't freak out that you started 5-5 -- you still got another 50 games for your 60-70% to come thru. you don't need to panic and starting t'ing up everybody. having a 60-70% winning rate means a 30-40% losing rate. it's gonna happen. don't sweat the crazy bounces -- they're bound to happen. just know that you'll come out ahead in the end if you keep to the program.

 

sorry, but i guess i'm a little confused as to when a trend means something and when it doesn't. perhaps you could point out the o/u line changes as they relate to other refs and other games vs donaghy.

again, crawford was mentioned because i was told in no uncertain terms that a ref couldn't do anything to make a team score less. and yet, it seems kind of remarkable that crawford would end up being in so many games where the under was the winning bet.

i'd wager that if nba refs were announced when the nba lines were announced, vegas would take into consideration who was reffing the game and adjust the numbers accordingly.

the prevailing thought in this thread, but not the prevailing thought in the rest of the world.

the whole topic of the other thread (perhaps the two thread should just be merged) was the district+2 model.

maybe i missed it. is it like $100k? $1 mil? $10 mil? $100 mil?

 

Ok - first thing -
You were right about the +2 method, Nut. I never read the first article, just everyone else’s arguments that used the term proportional. So that’s on me. You did not move the bar in that thread. I apologize and I’ll eat the shit that comes with that admission. Now back to the latest post.....

This is the second time in three posts you’re mischaracterized what was explained to you in this thread. Like your incorrect assertion in post 92 about the prevailing thought in the thread, you were not told what you are claiming in the post. See posts 47 and 50.

Speaking of #92, it makes a fantastic bookend to this response in your current post:

That’s nice. But we weren’t arguing about what the world thinks about the over and under. You were in the middle of a mischaracterizing the prevailing thought of the thread. I pointed out you were incorrect - and then you came back with an assertion on what the rest of the world thinks. To borrow from George Michael, let’s go to the video tape:

We go to post #92 to see Nut’s assertion about the prevailing thought in this thread:

The portion in bold is incorrect, again see posts 47 and 50. So I correct him in post 93:

That’s gets us to the part of post 95 that I mentioned:

the prevailing thought in this thread, but not the prevailing thought in the rest of the world.

---

 

Got that? The short version for the folks just tuning in at home:

Nut: The thread says A.
Kshead: No, the thread says B.
Nut: Ok, thread says B but the world doesn’t say B.

Kshead (right now): You gotta be shitting me. What the fuck does the world’s opinion have to do with it when you are making a claim about the prevailing thought in the thread? Even better for me, you are still looking for someone in the world to back your opinion.

See, that right there – again, this is for you folks at home - is what is called a spurious argument in the arguin’ bidness. It’s quite similar to providing evidence of saying something is possible and then claiming the evidence backs a specific way of doing that something. It’s a good way to deflect in an argument and keep it going – perhaps give you some time to scour the world for something to help your next response. It’s used a lot when someone rebuts an assertion that has been pulled out of an ass.

Keeping the ball rolling on this, it gets even worse for you Nut.
You now seem to be using that crappy argument to try and bolster your attempt to shoehorn some data into a pattern you want – something you warned VP about back in post 69.

You also even seem to have a pretty good handle on how terribly confusing terms like “influence” might be used in discussing the issue in post 69 too. That word had you confused as hell in post 88. Enough to where you were asking me to explain its use to you, anyway.


The wheels on the bus go round and round. You should probably stop in here now. But I’ll bet you can’t.

 

I'd bet neither one of you can stop, with your intimate knowledge of gambling

 

you should go back to post #41:

post #42:

post #41 posits that identifying high scoring games and trying to make them come under would be better than trying to make them go over. collin insists that a ref has no ability to influence scores down. he characterized his argument as being what everybody else here is saying and there was no argument from anybody on that point, so i assumed he was expressing the prevailing thought of the thread.

so you're saying that a ref CAN influence a score down only it wouldn't be a good bet because it's easier to influence the score up. i think that's not right. i think some games would be better to influence down. but it's clear we have different orientations on how we'd approach gambling.