Winston back in the news...

From the story: "Some of the reports have come from less-than-viable sources".

georgia tech swagger posted this earlier on the ACC board. His post said that the bet in question was a bet on who would win the first half only of the FSU-Louisville game, not the final outcome. Frankly, any bookie stupid enough to accept a bet like that deserves to get cheated. I am highly skeptical of this story.

Winston is a good ball player and a less than reputable person but at this point if the kid farts when he sneezes the media will be on top of him.

(11-11-2014 08:44 AM)ken d Wrote:  From the story: "Some of the reports have come from less-than-viable sources".

georgia tech swagger posted this earlier on the ACC board. His post said that the bet in question was a bet on who would win the first half only of the FSU-Louisville game, not the final outcome. Frankly, any bookie stupid enough to accept a bet like that deserves to get cheated. I am highly skeptical of this story.

Why? Have you ever seen the list of bets you can lay on a game? I can think of at least a dozen just off the top of my head. On an other note, who do you think would be the early source on a point shaving scandal besides degenerates and other gamblers?

(11-11-2014 10:02 AM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 08:44 AM)ken d Wrote:  From the story: "Some of the reports have come from less-than-viable sources".

georgia tech swagger posted this earlier on the ACC board. His post said that the bet in question was a bet on who would win the first half only of the FSU-Louisville game, not the final outcome. Frankly, any bookie stupid enough to accept a bet like that deserves to get cheated. I am highly skeptical of this story.

Why? Have you ever seen the list of bets you can lay on a game? I can think of at least a dozen just off the top of my head. On an other note, who do you think would be the early source on a point shaving scandal besides degenerates and other gamblers?

Why do I think a bookie is stupid to take such a bet, or why am I skeptical?

I should qualify the first one. A bookie would be stupid to take such a bet if he plans to pay off if he loses. If he plans to refuse to pay, then the bettor is the stupid one. There is a strong disincentive for a football player to throw a game, because of the penalty to his team (and thus his teammates). There is very little disincentive to deliberately tank in the first half against a team you know you can come back against easily to win the game. Such a bet is prime fodder for cheating, and a bookie would know that. Unless he has a long standing history of dealing with someone trying to place such a bet, I believe he passes.

Now, if the bookie somehow manages to lay off that bet, so he doesn't have any of his own money at risk, then he doesn't really care if the game was rigged. But bets like that are much harder to lay off.

As for my skepticism, my experience has always been that bookies prefer to operate in the shadows, and the less light shining on what they do the better. The last thing they would want is to instill doubt in bettors' minds about point shaving. It's bad for business. So, who is motivated to publicize something like this? And why?

(11-11-2014 10:35 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 10:02 AM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 08:44 AM)ken d Wrote:  From the story: "Some of the reports have come from less-than-viable sources".

georgia tech swagger posted this earlier on the ACC board. His post said that the bet in question was a bet on who would win the first half only of the FSU-Louisville game, not the final outcome. Frankly, any bookie stupid enough to accept a bet like that deserves to get cheated. I am highly skeptical of this story.

Why? Have you ever seen the list of bets you can lay on a game? I can think of at least a dozen just off the top of my head. On an other note, who do you think would be the early source on a point shaving scandal besides degenerates and other gamblers?

Why do I think a bookie is stupid to take such a bet, or why am I skeptical?

I should qualify the first one. A bookie would be stupid to take such a bet if he plans to pay off if he loses. If he plans to refuse to pay, then the bettor is the stupid one. There is a strong disincentive for a football player to throw a game, because of the penalty to his team (and thus his teammates). There is very little disincentive to deliberately tank in the first half against a team you know you can come back against easily to win the game. Such a bet is prime fodder for cheating, and a bookie would know that. Unless he has a long standing history of dealing with someone trying to place such a bet, I believe he passes.

Now, if the bookie somehow manages to lay off that bet, so he doesn't have any of his own money at risk, then he doesn't really care if the game was rigged. But bets like that are much harder to lay off.

As for my skepticism, my experience has always been that bookies prefer to operate in the shadows, and the less light shining on what they do the better. The last thing they would want is to instill doubt in bettors' minds about point shaving. It's bad for business. So, who is motivated to publicize something like this? And why?

The word about this came out through a UAB football player.

(11-11-2014 10:38 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 10:35 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 10:02 AM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 08:44 AM)ken d Wrote:  From the story: "Some of the reports have come from less-than-viable sources".

georgia tech swagger posted this earlier on the ACC board. His post said that the bet in question was a bet on who would win the first half only of the FSU-Louisville game, not the final outcome. Frankly, any bookie stupid enough to accept a bet like that deserves to get cheated. I am highly skeptical of this story.

Why? Have you ever seen the list of bets you can lay on a game? I can think of at least a dozen just off the top of my head. On an other note, who do you think would be the early source on a point shaving scandal besides degenerates and other gamblers?

Why do I think a bookie is stupid to take such a bet, or why am I skeptical?

I should qualify the first one. A bookie would be stupid to take such a bet if he plans to pay off if he loses. If he plans to refuse to pay, then the bettor is the stupid one. There is a strong disincentive for a football player to throw a game, because of the penalty to his team (and thus his teammates). There is very little disincentive to deliberately tank in the first half against a team you know you can come back against easily to win the game. Such a bet is prime fodder for cheating, and a bookie would know that. Unless he has a long standing history of dealing with someone trying to place such a bet, I believe he passes.

Now, if the bookie somehow manages to lay off that bet, so he doesn't have any of his own money at risk, then he doesn't really care if the game was rigged. But bets like that are much harder to lay off.

As for my skepticism, my experience has always been that bookies prefer to operate in the shadows, and the less light shining on what they do the better. The last thing they would want is to instill doubt in bettors' minds about point shaving. It's bad for business. So, who is motivated to publicize something like this? And why?

The word about this came out through a UAB football player.

This came from a story by "incarcerated bob" posted on the website for an off brand bookmaking operation. I have not seen anything to indicate that it came from the player himself. "For a few days, IBN has been in contact with a bookmaker, based in Alabama, who gave us some intriguing information concerning Winston's former high school teammate Chris Rabb"
- See more at: http://www.ibnsportswrap.com/article.php...lUZwE.dpuf

Maybe that Alabama bookie is just planning to get out of the business and wants to get it all off his chest. Otherwise, why would he publicize that he refused to pay off on a bet? That would be an interesting marketing strategy for his business: "If you lose and you don't pay up, expect a visit from Bruno. If you win and I don't pay up, tell it to Bruno".

(11-11-2014 11:18 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 10:38 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 10:35 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 10:02 AM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 08:44 AM)ken d Wrote:  From the story: "Some of the reports have come from less-than-viable sources".

georgia tech swagger posted this earlier on the ACC board. His post said that the bet in question was a bet on who would win the first half only of the FSU-Louisville game, not the final outcome. Frankly, any bookie stupid enough to accept a bet like that deserves to get cheated. I am highly skeptical of this story.

Why? Have you ever seen the list of bets you can lay on a game? I can think of at least a dozen just off the top of my head. On an other note, who do you think would be the early source on a point shaving scandal besides degenerates and other gamblers?

Why do I think a bookie is stupid to take such a bet, or why am I skeptical?

I should qualify the first one. A bookie would be stupid to take such a bet if he plans to pay off if he loses. If he plans to refuse to pay, then the bettor is the stupid one. There is a strong disincentive for a football player to throw a game, because of the penalty to his team (and thus his teammates). There is very little disincentive to deliberately tank in the first half against a team you know you can come back against easily to win the game. Such a bet is prime fodder for cheating, and a bookie would know that. Unless he has a long standing history of dealing with someone trying to place such a bet, I believe he passes.

Now, if the bookie somehow manages to lay off that bet, so he doesn't have any of his own money at risk, then he doesn't really care if the game was rigged. But bets like that are much harder to lay off.

As for my skepticism, my experience has always been that bookies prefer to operate in the shadows, and the less light shining on what they do the better. The last thing they would want is to instill doubt in bettors' minds about point shaving. It's bad for business. So, who is motivated to publicize something like this? And why?

The word about this came out through a UAB football player.

This came from a story by "incarcerated bob" posted on the website for an off brand bookmaking operation. I have not seen anything to indicate that it came from the player himself. "For a few days, IBN has been in contact with a bookmaker, based in Alabama, who gave us some intriguing information concerning Winston's former high school teammate Chris Rabb"
- See more at: http://www.ibnsportswrap.com/article.php...lUZwE.dpuf

Maybe that Alabama bookie is just planning to get out of the business and wants to get it all off his chest. Otherwise, why would he publicize that he refused to pay off on a bet? That would be an interesting marketing strategy for his business: "If you lose and you don't pay up, expect a visit from Bruno. If you win and I don't pay up, tell it to Bruno".

It's a mess. If there is any truth to it than this will be a real mess.

Bookies will take bets on most anything. If a game is big enough you can bet how first points are scored, first player to score, over under by quarter and point spread first half.

Yeah a first half spread is easier to throw but few players can do it and few games draw enough action for such a bet to be profitable enough to pay off a player without the spike being noticed.

This guy is the next Hernandez. NFL better get the shrinks out to determine what he is capable of after all this enabling