sports gambling question

[Schmed]

With the Rose "revelation" that he bet on The Reds I have a question for those in the know. One of the arguments that I keep hearing about why this is the end of the world as we know it is when Rose didn't bet on his team it was like betting against them. The bookie will have more information and will adjust the lines such.

I guess this is true but my understanding about how lines are made is they are based on the action. They start someplace and they adjust to keep the action on both sides so they can get the max amount of juice.

What would be the affect of knowing his bets.

[Wildbill]

Zero, the guy was a loser. I am sure he wasn't even that successful betting on the Reds. I mean he might have some small little insights, but unless it was major injury information or clubhouse dissension how much better could he have been than any ordinary bettor that closely followed the team. His best spots almost certainly would have been betting against the Reds, but I don't think he would ever even fathom doing that.

[Big Al]

My understanding is he was a big loser on football and basketball and a big winner on baseball. Anyway, I dont have any sympathy for the guy. He has no class. Lies on his taxes, lies for 14 years about betting on baseball, times his book release right when the Hall of Fame vote takes place (I know Eck didnt really appreciate that). Bottom line, he absolutly knew that betting on baseball, on a team he was managing, is verbotten. He knew, more than anyone, being a pro baseball player and manager, that if you do this, you are banished from the game. It cracks me up that our society has de-evolved into a place where someone can knowingly flaunt and violate a law, the penalty is clearly spelled out and the person knows it, yet he we are suppose to make an exception or just ignore that we had these rules or laws in the first place. If Pete Rose was such a stand up guy, then instead of feeling sorry for himself and trying to get others to feel sorry for him ("I've been in a prison without walls for 14 years"...give me a friggen break) he would say, "you know what, I f-ed up, I knew the rules and the consequences, I deserve what I got" then I would have some respect for him.--Big Al--

[Beerfund]

The guy was a loser?!? /images/graemlins/confused.gif he had 4256 career hits and about 20 other MLB records! and if you think he's the only guy to bet on the sport that he plays you're crazy.

[anatta]

I have read that sports books don't just try to even out the line to max out the juice. If they have "inside" info, they will use this. In other words, they take informed risks.


Lets say a book knows the Reds aren't looking good. The will set the line more in favor of the Reds to attract action on the Reds. They aren't concerned with the imbalance since they have an edge.

[Big Al]

Did you even read my post?? I said he was a loser when betting hoops and football. As for the records and others betting, that wasnt the point or focus of my arguement. Read it again and address the points I made, if you can.

[Beerfund]

i wasnt even replying to your post, i was replying to wildbill's. and to address your post, yea the guy was a schmuck for lying about it for so long and i sure as hell dont pity him but he's a freakin legend and doesnt deserve to be persecuted for the rest of his life.

[shemp]

Add another echo to the chamber: from the minor leagues on they are warned several times a year about gambling and associating with gamblers. There are undoubtedly people in the Hall who got away with it, but it seems besides the point to me that baseball reasonably takes an extreme stand in dealing with the people who are caught given that it is well known one of its championships was fixed.

[WarDekar]

He wasn't gambling for the money, he was gambling for the thrill - we of all people should know this, I know I got started betting because of the thrill and only recently have become more serious about it. Whether he won or not was irrelevant to him, he just loved the action like most compulsive gamblers.

I may be a bit biased since I'm a Cincinnati native (but I'm far too young to witness him actually play or have any idea of all this happening as it happened), but there is absolutely NO reason he should not be in the Hall - gambling, lying, cheating, stealin' or whatever shouldn't really matter. He didn't put the integrity of the game or team in the balance (as far as I know from reading various things about it) because he only bet ON the Reds. It's not like he purposely lost, if he wanted the money he could've easily gotten it. I personally don't really have much of an opinion as to whether he should be able to manage again, although my instincts say no just because of the idiocy we've put up with for the past 14 years and that he sets a horrible example for any current players. But the Hall and the MLB should be ASHAMED if he isn't allowed in the Hall, that's ridiculous - this shouldn't even be a topic for discussion as far as I'm concerned (and I know you guys didn't bring up the Hall, I just mean in the media).

As for the books, yeah, they NORMALLY try to get action equal on both sides. But they're essentially gambling, too, just they have the advantage because of the vig, so if they know inside info they may try and set a "trap" for bettors.

[Wildbill]

This is true indeed. One time I was playing poker at Mandalay and a pitcher for the Las Vegas Stars was playing with us sitting next to me. In between hands I was reading the form sheet for the next days games and he asked if I didn't have that in front of him, he was afraid of getting in trouble. Mind you I was reading about the majors and this guy was in AAA, but he said he recognized three names that he played against starting the next day. There were no betting lines on the sheet, but out of courtesy I put the sheet away. That is how tough they are on those kids, even in the minors where there is generally no betting they still tell them they will get in trouble for something like that.

As for loser, I was completely referring to his betting. They said he was a big loser at the sports betting, they had a list of his plays. And I argue strongly against the concept of not causing any effect on the game if you bet on a team. Key thing was his bet amounts were so small you would hope they didn't enter his mind, but a manager can make a difference to the integrity of the game. Sometimes in mid-season a manager has to know when to give up a game, maybe his pen is tired and he needs to use them lightly and go with guys he doesn't trust much. Maybe he needs to rest his catcher and another player. If he bet on the game and it mattered to him, he might not do those things. He might leave his starter in an extra inning for this as well. Bottom line is you really don't know, but it has definite potential to change the integrity of the games in question as well as future games he doesn't bet on.

[Roy Munson]

Even if it is true that he only bet on the Reds, by not betting on them every game, Mr. Rose puts himself in a sticky situation. If the Reds lose games in which he does not bet and then win a game in which he does, he likely will win more money based on inflated odds as a result of prior Reds losses.

Also, before he began to bet baseball, he accumulated a significant amount of debt on losing football and basketball bets. It would not be the first time that an "influential and persuasive" bookie wielded influence over a player or coach indebted to him.

Don't get me wrong, I could not care less whether Rose bet on the Reds, against the Reds or even if every game were as scripted and predetermined as a professional wrestling match.

Major League Baseball, however, does have a right to set rules regarding gambling in an interest to protect the integrity of its contests. Anyone running afoul of said rules then must be prepared to live by the consequences.