They may have had friends and associates who were in on it and making large bets themselves. The unusual betting patterns may have been one of the tip offs.
I recall the major sports leagues being very against online gambling and paid a lot of money to the legal funds of the anti side. At the same time they had deals already in place should the Courts find for the gambling operations. Now a huge amount of the commentary is about over/unders and prop bets. This is going to be increasingly incredibly destructive to society.
What I don’t get, as claimed by a some poster on X quoted in that article, is how the betting sites can be in on it, or even why they would want to be. My understating is that a book maker makes their money on the vig, that is the extra $10 on a $110 bet to win $100. If Guido places a 500K bet at FanDuel or whatever sportsbook for, say, Rozier to miss his first shot attempt of the game, and Rozier is in on it and misses on purpose, then the book is out that money. Whatever else you might say about them, a sports book isn’t in the business of purposely losing money. So how would they benefit from being in on some scheme to cheat?
People who run these schemes TARGET rich people, for obvious reasons.
I just heard on CNN that the Mafia was heavily involved! I thought they pretty much dried up and blew away in the 1990s, but this is proof that they never really went away.
I have long heard that the popularity of televised jai-alai in some regions, and marathon running in Japan, are exactly for these reasons.
(My mother asked me a few years ago why women’s beach volleyball was so popular. I told her, “Have you seen what they wear, or rather, what they don’t wear?)
There is much more dough in understanding basic math. The sure thing is winning on the vig. A small operation might need to seek out a better advantage. A large corporation only needs math and time.
Well, people have been bitching since at least the 70s that the NBA was rigged (and for certain games (and refs) it was proved to be true), and now the fan base is even larger, so…yes.
(The Portland Jail Blazers legacy lives on).
Check out the film Molly’s Game and Toby Maguire’s poker career.
There’s more to win if you’re the one making the bets. I don’t see how there’s more to win if you’re the book maker. Let’s take that market on Terry Rozier’s over / under for one of the games he threw as an example. My guess is that there was probably a bunch of small time, legitimate bettors who ended up betting roughly even amounts on both sides. Let’s say 11,000 on the over 11,000 on the under. Regardless of whether or not Rozier underperforms on purpose, the bookmaker will make 1,000. Now let’s say that in addition to to those 22,000 made by small time legitimate bettors, Tony Soprano comes in and bets 220,000 on the under. Now the book maker is going to be out 200K because the fix is in. Even if we were to grant that the book maker knew in advance that the fix was in, how do they benefit? The answer is that they don’t.
We had an employee whose annual salary was close to $70k and we fired her for embezzling about $1,500. This was a long term employee who was only a few years away from retirement and she lost everything. I still wonder what drove her to make her decision. Sometimes a person is simply unable to assess risk and are willing to risk it all for very little gain. For some people the risk might be the point.
I’d guess that has to be a big part of it. Why else would someone place their bets with a mafioso when they could just as easily bet with Caesers Palace or MGM Grand or DraftKings? Just so they can get a thrill out of having played poker with Chauncy Billups?
I’m talking about things like the Chauncey Billips situation, or frankly any situation where the fix is in. I’m not sure why this is a topic for debate. If I know the outcome, I can make a lot of risk-free money. If I’m also a bookmaker accepting bets, I may also enjoy the vig (depending on the nature of the fix).
But there’s a huge benefit in putting money behind a sure thing—i.e., I’m limited only by the amount that various houses will accept. The vig is nice. Ten million in bets scattered around the country on a sure thing is an even better day.
Because if you’re making risk-free money, that means someone else is losing that money. If that person (the book maker) knows the outcome in advance, why would they put themselves in a position where they are guaranteed to lose money? The book maker can’t just magically conjure up a bunch of suckers to balance the books by taking the opposite side of the bet. Instead they’re going to be paying out of their own reserves.
Well, I will continue to take the controversial position that someone who knows the fix is in can make a ton of money. Whether or not that creates complications for bookmakers doesn’t change that fact.
Sure, but that money has to come from somewhere. If it’s some chump who doesn’t know any better and is happy to say “I lost my money to Famous Player X and that’s good enough for me” then there probably won’t be an issue. But if that money is coming from the accounts of DrafKings or MGM Grand, there’s going to be problems.