LOL...NBA

“But manipulating the total you can control from the very tip. If you need an over, a referee can dictate a high or low scoring game just how he’s calling it.” -- brandon lang


http://www.covers.com/articles/articles.aspx?theArt=145218

basically, there are experts opining about how it might go down and -- guess what -- they don't all agree. i guess all but one of them are totally fucking clueless and have no idea about how gambling works.

this might be a shock to you, but nba players miss shots. a lot of them. you don't need to make them miss -- they do it all the time. if you swallow your whistle you give the defense an advantage, they'll tend to miss more. nba players know that each game is different and they adapt. if a crew is letting them get away with something, they'll expoit it.

[/quote]
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.[/quote]

there is no way... wait. maybe there is. if more whistles means more points because you're putting players on the line, how on earth can fewer whistles not mean anything? lebron james gets to the line like 10 times a game. it's a given. it's just part of his game and everybody knows that. if he goes to the line 2 times in a game, how could you not expect that to effect his point totals?

of course there are more that just simple linear relations -- i'm not saying fixing a game is as simple as blowing the whistle more and you automatically get more points from it. i'm the one talking about trends and having to defend that position.



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).[/quote]

 

Used to be one. But my bookie got busted

 

“I think the easiest thing for him to influence is the total,” Covers Expert Scott Rickenbach says. “He could simply call a lot of fouls on both teams. That gets players to the line and it allows them to get points on the board plus it stops the clock.

Same article.

We're not looking for possible ways to fix games, Nut. We're looking for the best way. You're doing great handicapping the games as if you were betting them - not so good if you were fixing them.

I'll bet they are glad you weren't in charge of this operation. So far you've suggested exposing everyone to massive risk in return for slim margins that can't be maintained. And you plan on achieving these margins using the hardest of the two methods available.

 

Serious question, Nut - have you ever wagered on sports?

 

the risk is only great if you go nuts. if you fly under the radar and create a scenario where you've got 60% on your side, you don't need to do anything but stay in the game for as long as possible. you'll come out ahead. if you play 5 games a season, you might end up with a few game swhere nobody can hit anything, your fellow refs end up charging a key player with early fouls, somebody gets injured or ejected, etc. i'd opt for slow and steady over quick big scores.

so if blow-outs tend to up the score, wouldn't a ref keeping giving the benefit of calls to a team down by 10-15 keep garbage time at bay? or does vegas not consider garbage time potential when coming up with o/us?

yeah, i agree -- that would certainly get attention if somebody felt like looking. you could probably find a few other refs who might look funny by doing these kinds of examinations.

 

yes, and the same article quotes another guy saying that it would be really hard to fix a game. so basically, we've got experts all saying different things to one degree or another: you could fix it up, you could fix it both ways, you could fix anything, you couldn't really fix much. i posted that article because collin was saying experts know how it all works and i don't.

actually, i'm suggesting exposing people to less risk by not sticking out. i guess it depends on what you like best a quick few big scores or a long list of moderate scores.

back to card counting, you get tossed out if you vary your bet too much. you can't go crazy with your bets or it'll be really obvious what you're doing.

 

no. nor have i ever reffed an nba game, nor fixed one. my dad was, however, a compulsive gambler, but his habit was the ponies.

i do watch a lot of nba. like easily a hundred games a year. been following the nba for 20 years at least in one form or another. i know the sport.

 

S_Nut is still arguing this? Good lord. Even when obviously clueless, the man won't shut up.

 

I certainly wouldn't ask him to join a criminal conspiracy. Yikes.

 

just so we're clear here, do you consider the other people quoted in the article equally clueless?