Yes, of course; but that’s hardly the same as “Are professional sports results predetermined?”
Out of interest, what do you mean by “points shaving”? It isn’t a term I have come across in the UK and I have a sneaky suspicion that some of the disagreements here are due to us using different terms for the same thing.
Point shaving, as applied to American sports, is when an active participant(s) (a player[s]) in a sport try to allow the team they’re playing to “cover the spread,” usually by under performing.
Maybe some of the former, but definitely more of the latter. I even explained, that if sports are as scripted as he claimed, a player doing something like hitting a hole in one is still “real”.
Points shaving only really works in sports where there’s going to be a fairly large number of points scored (American football, basketball, etc).
Even at the professional levels in these sports, it’s not difficult to determine with better than 50% accuracy who will win. So, win/loss bets are not particularly good for betting.
But determining the margin of victory can be difficult. A more typical bet is whether a team will cover the point spread. For example, Basketball Team A may be favored by 20 points against Basketball Team B. So, the bet (which is usually an even money bet plus or minus a vig or fee or something) is whether or not Team A beats Team B by 20 or more. If they win by less than 20 or outright lose, then Team B is said to have beat the spread. If they win by more than 20, Team A is said to have covered the spread. How the spread gets set by bookmakers is irrelevant to the discussion.
Further, there are bookmakers who will allow for bets that are not even money if you are willing to take a bigger spread (Team A to win by 30 or more at 3:2 odds, for example).
It is possible for individual players or a group of players working in tandem to adjust the margin of victory by themselves. So, they may keep a game close so that they still win but the other team still beats the spread (“shaving” points from the margin of victory). Naturally, this works best when the disparity in skill and ability is great. When you have two very good teams compete, the spread is small, and it’s almost impossible to shave points while still trying to win a game.
Apparently, it also happens in soccer, but it’s much more rare as a single player is rarely in position to make this kind of impact while an entire team can rarely be trusted to keep this kind of secret.
It was actually soccer (my sport or choice) that got me to put any further thought into the conversation I mentioned at the top. I’m talking about the recent Champions League result where French club Lyon scored just about enough goals in a short amount of time to be able to qualify to the next round, when it seemed unlikely they would at the start of the game. Though, there are many reasonable arguments explaining why it may not have been fixed (including Lyon’s team selection).
It’s primarily in basketball, however; the first point shaving scandal was in the 1950s. That’s because one basketball player has far more control over things than any one (or two) football players. If you miss a couple of baskets that keeps your team from beating the spread, it will probably not be noticed, and you can still win the game by 18 points instead of 20.
What sparked controversy in particular was that one of the Dynamo Zagreb players was caught on camera winkingat an Olympique Lyon player after one of the goals. :dubious: Still, I don’t really buy that something untoward happened, as it would just involve too many players with a great incentive to blow the lid of the entire deal and a great incentive not to ruin their careers by engaging in a deal like this. In addition, the Dynamo Zagreb trainer, who had apparently been with the club for a very long time and who would presumably have been instrumental, got sacked after the game. Also, for Olympique Lyon to go further required not only that they win but also that Ajax lose against Real Madrid. Now if Ajax play 10 games against Real Madrid, they’re going to lose probably 11, but still, Lyon did not have the outcome in its own hands.
As others have said, I could see it happening in the 50s or with the Black Sox because those guys made peanuts.
But how much would you have to pay a multi-millionaire to risk his financial future to throw a game? That sum alone would make it not worthwhile.
Shaving point is not too difficult in American football. A QB can overthrow or underthrow a wide open receiver. He can let himself get sacked. A running back can fumble at a very inopportune time. A receiver can drop an easy pass in the end zone. Fixing a game is another matter.
However, I do remember a Rose Bowl game that is highly suspect. An All-American running back from the state of New Jersey was playing for a midwestern team. He had fumbled twice all season. In the first half of the Rose Bowl he fumbled four times and dropped an easy pass when he was wide open in the end zone. A couple of the fumbles were deep in his own territory and resulted in touchdowns for the other team. Needless to say, suspicions were high that some gamblers had gotten to him.
Chefers for the shaving explanations, guys. It really wasn’t something I had heard of before.
I haven’t seen any evidence of widespread fixing, but there does seem to be an inclination on the part of the refs to keep games close until the end of the game, perhaps to maximize television viewer ratings. This seems particularly true for NBA basketball because the rules of basketball are such that refs have more of a grey area within which to interpret what is or isn’t a foul. It’s unreal how many games wind up being decided by a point or two at the buzzer. That’s partly why I don’t watch NBA basketball any more.
I agree that widespread game fixing or even point shaving is very rare for many reasons, including the financial aspects.
However, there are many *many *instances of players sabotaging careers for stupid reasons. “All you have to do to cash your $5,000,000 salary this year is don’t smoke dope. That’s it. Don’t smoke dope and the $5,000,000 is yours.”
What does the player do? Smoke dope.
Etc.
True, but the difference is that, you have more than enough money. The risk is too great, and you don’t have an addiction that clouds your judgment.
Getting caught means the money ends; smoking dope means you can smoke it again after you get out of jail.