Re: Can anyone say Pro Sports really isnt fixed?
posted at 11/15/2009 11:14 AM EST
In Response to Re: Can anyone say Pro Sports really isnt fixed?
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Can anyone say Pro Sports really isnt fixed? : I definitely think some NFL games are fixed, and it's all driven by the amount of money wagered on a game. Anyone from the ownership of a large Vegas sportsbook, to a politician for the state of Nevada, to an NFL franchise owner, to the NFL commissioner himself (why are injury reports provided, with particular rules and repercussions for breaking those rules?), to wealthy individual gamblers, have motive and an interest in the outcome of any given game. Thank about it. It is very easy for any of us to get the name, address, profession, etc. of any NFL referee. I believe the amount wagered on an NFL game is directly proportional to the likelihood of a fix, perpetrated by any of the wealthy parties mentioned above "getting to" one or more referees before the game. Much is made of the NFL grading the referees after each game, as if that is proof games are not fixed by the refs. Well, that just proves the NFL office is complicit. Others suggest players and coaches may be involved, but that's unlikely. Too many undisciplined mouths there. You can totally control the game just with the refs. I offer up the 3 games I am most confident were fixed: (1) 1976 - Pats Raiders playoff game. Pats killed them in the regular season, outplayed them in this game, and a combination of calls (Sugar roughing the passer) and non-calls (Villapiano beating up Russ Francis) led to Raiders "winning" (2) Year - I dont recall, but it was when the 49er dynasty was dying, Young or Garcia was the QB, and the Colts under Peyton Manning were arriving. The gamblers didn't realize how far SF had fallen and how far Indy had progressed, so call after call went against Indy as the Colts were constantly held back from scoring. The Colts completely outplayed SF. (3) Steelers - Seahawks Super Bowl - how about that 3rd Qtr call when Hasselback completed that deep pass well into Steeler territory? Up to that point, I was 99% sure the game was fixed, as the refs were clearly compensating for the fact that Roethlisburger SUCKED that day. As soon as Hasselback completed that pass, I said to my wife, "they're going to call this back, and if they do, I am turning off the TV - this game is fixed." Immediately thereafter, they announced a flag had been thrown - holding on the offensive line, bring the ball back. So I turned off the TV. What a joke that Super Bowl was. As far as the Pats-Giants Super Bowl, I always thought it was the game plan/coaching (overconfidence in the passing game, for example no 3rd TE dressed) and poor offensive line play that doomed the Pats. I comforted myself by saying the blatant Giants offensive holding (on several players) that was not called on the helmet-catch play was surely offset by Pats holding that was not called at other times in the game (though I hadn't seen anything this obvious). But, when we have another "poster" sharing Matt Light's comments...perhaps I am wrong and that one was fixed as well...
Posted by fredwester[/QUOTE]
I am not a gambler, but I do know that the spread is based on getting the same amount of money to be bet on each side. The house doesn't care who wins or loses, they make their profit from the losers paying an extra 10% or so on their bets. So if the house has set up the spread correctly (which they will adjust if they see a lot of more action on one side or the other) they will have, for example, $100,000 on the favorite and $100,000 on the underdog. Regardless of who wins, they will payout $100,000 to the winning bettors and take in $100,000 plus an extra $10,000 from the losers.
In light of how the spread works, I don't understand how one could think the amount wagered or (in the case of the poster who said his friend said that Matt Light said a big spread would mean the Pats lose.) the actual spread would have any bearing over who would win.
The injury report was put in place theoretically as a deterrent to inside information on gambling.