Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
The difference is that the attitude of the fans used to be along the lines of "well that is part of the risk that these bookmaker customers (and bookmakers) take". But if pointspread betting becomes nationally accepted, iffy decisions will become more controversial.
Example: A football team is winning but not covering (unless they score again) and has a first and goal in a situation where they could take knees and run out the clock. Perhaps there should now be a rule that forces them to do it.
Mr. Sklansky, with all due respect, for such an accomplished gambler and intelligent person, I am a little surprised at what I perceive to be a lack of understanding of the way coaches and teams operate, strategically.
99% of coaches take the knee, bc all NCAA D1/NFL coaches care about is winning the game. They may know the spread, but it doesn't factor into their pre-game or in-game decisions in the slightest. The 1% that runs it up does so bc it's part of their team's ethos as a "buttkicker" - such as the Chip Kelly-coached Oregon Ducks going for 2 after their first TD (to intimidate the other teams) and other teams throwing until the end of a blowout to boost the chances of their QB winning the Heisman or to please pollsters.
What is the upside for a team up by 6 to score another td, when all they have to do is go V Formation and guarantee the win? If a coach did try to score in that spot, it would be extremely unorthodox. But they never do. This is not an iffy situation.
As always, the first and foremost concern in the 'game integrity' dept is that no D1 football and bball players or officials in any event that is bet on can be corrupted. D1 football and bball players bc those are the only college sports bet on that I'm aware of and bc those are the players most vulnerable to corruption. They may never have a chance to play professionally, so their chance to make money is in college, by accepting money to throw a game. Pro players make too much for a syndicate to approach them w worthwhile money for both parties to make (though having more outs to place action w a national betting make throwing a game command a higher price than if your outs are limited to Vegas and off shore).
wrt officials, just look at the Tim Donaghy situation and any variation of that could occur. Every now and then, there may be a Pete Rose type of situation w a pro manager/coach. Individual sports where middle and lower tier pros don't make much, like MMA, boxing, and tennis, have always been susceptible.
Nothing will really change in terms of the logistics of dealing w game integrity and gambling. The stakes will just be higher, as more and more places allow legalized sports betting.
This has been a long time coming and I hope it has a positive impact on US poker regulation. But there's just so much more revenue generated by sports betting than there could ever be from poker rake and that's why sports betting got unbanned imo, while states will continue to ring-fence US regulated poker for another 5-10 years until it gets federally regulated.