Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Could Biogenesis ruin Alex Rodriguez financially? | SportsonEarth.com

Arod, wannabe tycoon.

Jim Furtado Posted: November 20, 2013 at 07:35 AM | 86 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: alex rodriguez

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 20, 2013 at 08:14 AM (#4602875)
the article was written by selena Roberts

that individual wouldn't know a fact from a hedgehog
   2. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 20, 2013 at 08:35 AM (#4602879)
The fact is the one that builds a nest out of leaves, right?
   3. AROM Posted: November 20, 2013 at 10:01 AM (#4602907)
The most famous of one of those groups is Sonic.

Sonic the fact.
   4. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 20, 2013 at 10:40 AM (#4602922)
Ron Jeremy's nickname was "The Fact".
   5. Craig Calcaterra Posted: November 20, 2013 at 10:41 AM (#4602923)
She links a post I did as evidence that "A-Rod has been called a slum lord in headlines." That post specifically calls Roberts out for hatchet-jobs on A-Rod-the-slum lord and other things going back to 2007.

For her next trick, Roberts will invent a perpetual motion machine that simultaneously deletes all of her shitty, misguided journalism of the past decade or two.
   6. Mark S. is bored Posted: November 20, 2013 at 10:44 AM (#4602924)
I feel dumber for having read this article. It's a bunch of stuff thrown together with an underlying what if question. It doesn't tie anything together. It doesn't do any analysis. It's just a badly written article.
   7. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: November 20, 2013 at 10:46 AM (#4602927)
ARod could spent $25M in legal fees, have the rest of his contract nullifed, and have his real estate holdings go belly up, and I'm sure he'd still have tens of millions in the bank. He might be an aggressive investor, but he's not an idiot.
   8. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 20, 2013 at 10:48 AM (#4602928)
The only thing more disappointing than the article is that the post failed to sue the Centaurs link. And now of course we need a Hedgehog tag.
   9. tfbg9 Posted: November 20, 2013 at 10:49 AM (#4602930)
Selena Roberts, of the NY Times, Ladies and Gentlemen, The New York Times.
   10. Yastrzemski in left. Posted: November 20, 2013 at 11:38 AM (#4602968)
Selena Roberts, who has been right about A-Rod all along.
   11. tfbg9 Posted: November 20, 2013 at 11:59 AM (#4602983)
Selena Roberts, who has been right about A-Rod all along.



WADR...bullsh1t. I can't stand Arod, but what she pulled on him is beyond the pale. He should hire detectives to follow her around and then give it to The Smoking Gun or whatever.

And she did a great job on the Duke thing. She's a freaking disgrace.
   12. bob gee Posted: November 20, 2013 at 12:25 PM (#4603004)
a-rod money made in baseball > a-rod money spent on legal stuff > money made by selena roberts in her lifetime, much of which has come from a-rod > 0 > selena roberts' credibility
   13. villageidiom Posted: November 20, 2013 at 12:31 PM (#4603007)
She links a post I did as evidence that "A-Rod has been called a slum lord in headlines." That post specifically calls Roberts out for hatchet-jobs on A-Rod-the-slum lord and other things going back to 2007.
You can't make this stuff up.

But in the same vein... If any other journalists want to be able to say "Some have written about 'making stuff up' when discussing the journalism of Selena Roberts" they can now cite this very post. You're welcome.
   14. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: November 20, 2013 at 01:07 PM (#4603036)
The fact is the sweetest dream that labor knows.
   15. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: November 20, 2013 at 01:20 PM (#4603051)
Selena Roberts, of the NY Times, Ladies and Gentlemen, The New York Times.


From my Google search, I don't believe she has written for them since about 2007 or so.
   16. Lassus Posted: November 20, 2013 at 01:30 PM (#4603055)
From my Google search, I don't believe she has written for them since about 2007 or so.

You totally missed his ironic commentary of making things up to make fun of people for making things up.
   17. Joey B.: posting for the kids of northeast Ohio Posted: November 20, 2013 at 01:42 PM (#4603067)
Doesn't sound like A-Roid's arbitration hearing is going so well. He slammed his fist down on the table, cursed at Rob Manfred, yelled at the arbitrator Frederic Horowitz, walked out of the hearing, and later issued a statement through his spokesperson saying "I am disgusted with this abusive process, designed to ensure that the player fails."

He's a real f***ing genius, that A-Roid. Good luck buddy, I think you're seriously going to need it.
   18. Danny Posted: November 20, 2013 at 01:43 PM (#4603068)
Two wealth advisers with knowledge of Rodriguez's portfolio describe him as a savvy investor who has had solid holdings in gold and stock, but who also enjoys risk....As one adviser explained, Rodriguez is not an athlete "who is content with conservative options and the wealth from his player contracts. He has a big-score mentality." Neither adviser is suggesting Rodriguez is in financial straits, but A-Rod's aspiration has always been to walk among the billionaires he admires. He revels in hedging.

I don't think she understands what hedging is.
   19. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: November 20, 2013 at 01:44 PM (#4603070)
I literally can't think of a single journalist who I believe has such a lack of credibility. I've actually turned off the TV when she showed up.
   20. Srul Itza Posted: November 20, 2013 at 01:52 PM (#4603075)
It's just a badly written article


is kind of redundant after

the article was written by selena Roberts
   21. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 20, 2013 at 01:54 PM (#4603076)
“I am disgusted with this abusive process designed to ensure that the player fails. I have sat through 10 days of testimony by felons and liars, sitting quietly through every minute, trying to respect the league and the process. This morning, after Bud Selig refused to come in and testify about his rationale for the unprecedented and totally baseless punishment he hit me with, the arbitrator selected by MLB and the Players Association refused to order Selig to come in and face me. The absurdity and injustice just became too much. I walked out and will not participate any further in this farce.”


Who does this peon think he is, asking to view the Supreme Selig?
   22. Joey B.: posting for the kids of northeast Ohio Posted: November 20, 2013 at 01:56 PM (#4603077)
I don't know who he thinks he is, but I do know that he's about as sharp as a wooden spoon issuing public comments like that in the middle of his arbitration hearing.
   23. Publius Publicola Posted: November 20, 2013 at 02:01 PM (#4603082)
I don't think she understands what hedging is.


It means A-Rod's a hog.
   24. Publius Publicola Posted: November 20, 2013 at 02:09 PM (#4603087)
I have sat through 10 days of testimony by liars and felons.


And yet, not so disgusted to not have done business with them.
   25. Gonfalon B. Posted: November 20, 2013 at 02:15 PM (#4603089)
Why couldn't A-Rod have leaked those complaints, the way credible people do?
   26. tfbg9 Posted: November 20, 2013 at 02:27 PM (#4603099)
Selena Roberts, of the NY Times, Ladies and Gentlemen, The New York Times.


From my Google search, I don't believe she has written for them since about 2007 or so.


You totally missed his ironic commentary of making things up to make fun of people for making things up.


It was their judgement to hire her, and give her a very important role in their sports coverage. The Duke case was 2006, and her fabulous reportage, and commentary of the case was for the NYT. I made nothing up. I was merely reminding people where she made her bones, the same way I do with Murray Chase.
   27. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: November 20, 2013 at 02:30 PM (#4603101)
The Duke case was 2006, and her fabulous reportage of it was for the NYT.


Right after which she left the company. Her next employer, Sports Illustrated, is frankly more to blame for her, IMO. They knew what they were getting.
   28. tfbg9 Posted: November 20, 2013 at 02:56 PM (#4603126)
Right after which she left the company. Her next employer, Sports Illustrated, is frankly more to blame for her, IMO. They knew what they were getting.


Nothing she will ever do can top the Duke stuff for the NYT in terms of sh1tty journalsim. IMO. And the NY Times ran all those pieces.
   29. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: November 20, 2013 at 03:28 PM (#4603170)
I agree with that. But I have sympathy for the NYT in this instance. Whether they fired her or just didn't renew her contract, they let her go. And I don't think that in non-retrospect, they should have spiked her stories - the facts were murky at that time and it wasn't really obvious how incredibly wrong she was. They plucked her from obscurity, gave her a megaphone, and she didn't make the paper proud. It happens.
   30. tfbg9 Posted: November 20, 2013 at 03:31 PM (#4603175)
And I don't think that in non-retrospect, they should have spiked her stories - the facts were murky at that time and it wasn't really obvious how incredibly wrong she was.


Not my view at all, but whatever. I don't wanna spend any more time on her.
   31. bigglou115 Posted: November 20, 2013 at 03:32 PM (#4603178)
Nothing she will ever do can top the Duke stuff for the NYT in terms of sh1tty journalsim. IMO. And the NY Times ran all those pieces.


I intentionally ignored the vast majority of the Duke coverage, because frankly either way it was going to be a story that doesn't exactly bring about warm feelings, but was she really worse than some others? Was she Nancy Grace-like?
   32. tfbg9 Posted: November 20, 2013 at 03:36 PM (#4603182)
31-Yes.
   33. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: November 20, 2013 at 04:34 PM (#4603230)
TFBG9 is ideologically bound to hate the New York Times even if Selena Roberts had never existed, no matter how reasonably you try to argue with him, everyone.
   34. Yastrzemski in left. Posted: November 20, 2013 at 06:20 PM (#4603327)

"WADR...bullsh1t. I can't stand Arod, but what she pulled on him is beyond the pale. He should hire detectives to follow her around and then give it to The Smoking Gun or whatever."

What was she wrong about exactly?

"And she did a great job on the Duke thing. She's a freaking disgrace."

I'm not talking about "the Duke thing". I'm talking about the disgrace that is A-Rod.
   35. tfbg9 Posted: November 20, 2013 at 07:04 PM (#4603365)
What was she wrong about exactly? I'm not talking about "the Duke thing". I'm talking about the disgrace that is A-Rod.


For starters Yaz, Roberts smeared Arod with accusations of asking other players to tell him what kind of pitch was coming in blowouts to pad his stats.
She of course does not name any of these players. That's off the top of my head.

I have 100's of reason to hate the NYT. I won't bore you with too many of them. Here's just one, a random one, for the hell of it:

They don't publish point spreads. What kind of serious Sports Section doesn't publish lines on games? Answer: none.

   36. Yastrzemski in left. Posted: November 20, 2013 at 08:12 PM (#4603410)
Laughter. It is so true a sucker is born every minute. A degenerate gambling sucker. Rage on, son.
   37. tfbg9 Posted: November 20, 2013 at 08:28 PM (#4603422)
36-what are you taking about? Your comment makes no sense. The betting line on a game is news. Its important pre-game, and post game news.

And I am not a gambler.
   38. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 20, 2013 at 09:10 PM (#4603451)

I don't think she understands what hedging is.

I think that sentence is supposed to say "He reviles hedging." The sentences that follow make somewhat more sense in that context.
   39. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 20, 2013 at 09:53 PM (#4603506)
The betting line on a game is news. Its important pre-game, and post game news.


Only for gamblers.
I watch baseball all the time, read about baseball online, talk about baseball, and I can't think of a single time where I knew what the betting line was on a baseball game.

There is nothing about the betting line for a sporting event that is relevant to the sport except for gamblers.
   40. madvillain Posted: November 20, 2013 at 10:13 PM (#4603530)
@ 18, I seriously cannot believe that there are people that talk like that post 2008 crash. I mean, IT'S A ####### CASINO! Nassim Taleb has written quite eloquently about the financial system and risk, and the many problems the financial system has assessing it if anyone is interested.


There is nothing about the betting line for a sporting event that is relevant to the sport except for gamblers.


Not true at all, the betting line is a great piece of info that tells you what Vegas, with their multitudes of data, thinks about the game and who is likely to win it. It's especially helpful in football when the line moves during the week in response to the betting action. I don't bet on sports often but I always look at the lines for Michigan games for example just to see what Vegas thinks their chances are. This year they have been awful, and Vegas has been mostly right about the lines.
   41. tfbg9 Posted: November 20, 2013 at 10:13 PM (#4603532)
Only for gamblers.


This is silly. It gives you an idea of what the chances of your team winning are. Actually, the best estimate available. Like I said, I am not a
gambler, and I always look at the line for the Sox game.

   42. silhouetted by the sea Posted: November 20, 2013 at 10:45 PM (#4603564)
Isn't the gambling line basically a poll of which team gamblers think will win?
   43. Dan The Mediocre Posted: November 20, 2013 at 11:20 PM (#4603590)
Isn't the gambling line basically a poll of which team gamblers think will win?


That's how it used to be. Now you find betting lines to be somewhere between what the median is for gamblers and what Vegas's numbers say they should be. If the numbers say that the Miami Heat are +5 over the Bulls, but the gamblers think on average that they're +2, you want to go +3 or +4 to get as many people on the wrong side as possible. If Vegas gets it right 53% of the time, they stand to take in a lot of money.
   44. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: November 20, 2013 at 11:45 PM (#4603604)
If Vegas gets it right 53% of the time, they stand to take in a lot of money.


No, if Vegas gets it right 50.1% of the time, in a multi-billion dollar industy, they stand to take in a lot of money.
   45. Kurt Posted: November 20, 2013 at 11:45 PM (#4603606)
Not true at all, the betting line is a great piece of info that tells you what Vegas, with their multitudes of data, thinks about the game and who is likely to win it.


Agreed. I've never bet on a NFL game in my life, but a friend and I occasionally chat on the phone and try to guess the lines, the same way Bill Simmons and Cousin Sal do. I think the lines are fascinating.
   46. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: November 21, 2013 at 12:06 AM (#4603621)
In the NFL at least, point spreads are usually juiced at -110 both ways, so if a book can get betting to come in at 50% on each team they are guaranteed profit (unless the game chops, in which case it's just a zero.)
   47. Yastrzemski in left. Posted: November 21, 2013 at 12:08 AM (#4603625)
tfbg9 - I mean Mr. Palmeiro - way to double down.
   48. Dan The Mediocre Posted: November 21, 2013 at 12:12 AM (#4603632)
No, if Vegas gets it right 50.1% of the time, in a multi-billion dollar industy, they stand to take in a lot of money.


That doesn't translate to all that much, actually. Vegas sports-related gambling was worth about $3.2 billion in 2011. Take out preseason betting for things like awards, who will win the championship, etc., and you might find that being on the right side of the betting line 50.1% of the time only translates to a couple million dollars for the industry.
   49. madvillain Posted: November 21, 2013 at 12:30 AM (#4603640)
right @48 -- Vegas lives off the vig, they win regardless, the game is rigged so to speak. I dunno, I'm hardly an expert on how Vegas works but I do know that.
   50. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 21, 2013 at 12:40 AM (#4603645)
They don't publish point spreads. What kind of serious Sports Section doesn't publish lines on games? Answer: none.

I hate to break it to you, but the Sunday New York Times has a full page preview of all the NFL games, with the respective betting lines printed at the top of each game as plain as day. But perhaps Fox News hasn't gotten around to making note of this not all that recent development, so I guess I shouldn't come down too hard on your oversight.

   51. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 21, 2013 at 12:48 AM (#4603650)
right @48 -- Vegas lives off the vig, they win regardless, the game is rigged so to speak. I dunno, I'm hardly an expert on how Vegas works but I do know that.

Not always. Not if the money comes down topheavy on the winning side to the extent that adjusting the point spread couldn't even out the betting action sufficiently. Vegas always wins in the long run, but not on every game, and not even always on any given week.
   52. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 21, 2013 at 01:00 AM (#4603657)
I wonder how many crickets will chirp before the not exactly Breaking News in #50 is acknowledged with the same degree of enthusiasm as the original false charge was made.
   53. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: November 21, 2013 at 01:21 AM (#4603665)
I'm not a Vegas regular or anything, but with my own eyes, it hasn't been until relatively recently where I've noticed more prominent and quality space being dedicated by the Casinos to the sports book. It's always been a lower margin operation, and frankly not the most desired element for the general populace to 'see' upon entry into a casino. * I wouldn't even suggest that one 'book' is superior to any other. I used to like the Hilton's book, mostly because it was cast off w/ penny slots and had lots of comfy chairs, and fairly regular drink service. Most of them are total afterthoughts.

* I say this as someone who doesn't play any slots, table games, or other traditional casino games. I spend 90+% of my gaming time if in Vegas in these sports books. Small rides on obscure college games, and even some action on NBA Iwhich I know very little about). It's fun.
   54. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 21, 2013 at 08:54 AM (#4603705)
I haven't bet on sports in 35 years, but from my experience the only way to have a prayer of coming out ahead in the long run is to have the discipline to restrict your plays to only a very small handful a year. I've often played around with that for funsies, using the lines in the paper or on the USA Today site, and I've noticed that the only time I've consistently come out "ahead" is when I've just looked at the schedule and made a game jump out at me, rather than looking at each game and trying to balance the scales on all (or even any) of them. Of course with real money on the line all of this probably would go up in smoke, but it's sure as hell better than trying to use one of those "systems" that work in hindsight a lot better than they do going forward.
   55. tfbg9 Posted: November 21, 2013 at 09:28 AM (#4603722)
50-I didn't know that. How long has that been the case? Progress.

And of course, there are thousands and thousands of games in the 5 other major sports that are apparently not "fit to print" every year.

But Pinch knows what's good for his readers.

What's the deal with YiL? He seems to need to believe I'm another Charlie Hustle.
   56. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 21, 2013 at 09:56 AM (#4603738)
This is silly. It gives you an idea of what the chances of your team winning are. Actually, the best estimate available. Like I said, I am not a
gambler, and I always look at the line for the Sox game.


No, the spread doesn't give you the odds for your team to win.
It's the line set up by the gamblers to induce betting on both teams.

The people who set the lines for Las Vegas don't care who is going to win the game. As mentioned above, they just want as much action as they can get on the game because they'll make money on either side. It's in their best interest to equalize the betting on both sides.

Therefore, they set out lines/spread to convince fans/gamblers to bet almost equally on both teams.
When there is heavy betting on one side of a game, the betting line will change to reflect that because the line-setters want to convince more people to start betting on the other side to even things out.

By your theory, because lots of people started betting on a team and the line changed, then each team's chances of winning have changed because the line changed.
And that's obviously not the case at all.

   57. tfbg9 Posted: November 21, 2013 at 10:01 AM (#4603741)
I see edit is broken again.
   58. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 21, 2013 at 10:03 AM (#4603742)
By your theory, because lots of people started betting on a team and the line changed, then each team's chances of winning have changed because the line changed.
And that's obviously not the case at all.


You are correct in the mechanics, but a more charitable spin on his theory is that in aggregate bettors all want to win and there is a "wisdom of the crowds" thing going on, so even though the bookie doesn't care the actual odds and is just reacting to the money, the money flows will be such as to present an accurate picture of the "true" odds for the game.

Over the long haul I suspect betting lines do a fairly good job of reflecting reality, though in hindsight errors can be seen when people let emotions or past truth (that may not longer be true) influence their betting. Mostly those errors happen on both sides and over time net to zero though I suspect.
   59. tfbg9 Posted: November 21, 2013 at 10:08 AM (#4603745)
56-99 percent of the time it is the same thing. You dont know what you're talking about. I am not a gambler, but haved with/for pro gamblers for decades.

The line is essentially the odds on who is gonna win. I understand your point that the aim is to attract equal action on both sides, but it virtually always works out to the same thing with a different name.
   60. tfbg9 Posted: November 21, 2013 at 10:11 AM (#4603746)
Lines move. I understand this. But for all intents and purposes, my point stands. Do the math.
   61. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: November 21, 2013 at 10:24 AM (#4603750)
Whether or not the NYT publishes betting lines if that's your best example of a reason to hate them that's a pretty minor flaw.
   62. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 21, 2013 at 10:44 AM (#4603759)
I hate to break it to you, but the Sunday New York Times has a full page preview of all the NFL games, with the respective betting lines printed at the top of each game as plain as day.

50-I didn't know that. How long has that been the case? Progress.


If I had to guess, I'd say at least 3 or 4 years, with the expansion of their Sunday NFL previews.

And of course, there are thousands and thousands of games in the 5 other major sports that are apparently not "fit to print" every year.

True, but now you're talking about a case where the Times' policy is much more the rule than the exception. How many newspapers do you know of outside USA Today and the two major New York City tabloids that publish Vegas lines on any sports outside of pro football? The Washington Post used to run the NBA lines back in the 20th century, but not since then, and outside the three papers I mentioned above I've never seen any baseball** or hockey lines, let alone college football or basketball. Maybe the two Boston papers carry non-NFL betting odds, but it's been a long time since I've read either of them.

BTW I'm not disagreeing that it'd be nice to have such info in the papers, but in truth I'd rather see the Times add a few comics pages and drop that embarrassing panel strip in their Sunday Review section.

**With the exception of the World Series, where the Times and many other papers will mention the odds in the course of some of its news stories.
   63. tfbg9 Posted: November 21, 2013 at 10:58 AM (#4603765)
I dislike the Times for many reasons, the chief being their insistence that their news coverage is down the middle, and a general air of elitist snobbery.

Pinch is freakin' piece of work as well. Daddy's Little Newsman. May another bike messenger blacken his other eye.
   64. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 21, 2013 at 11:03 AM (#4603769)
Lines move. I understand this. But for all intents and purposes, my point stands. Do the math.


Do the math?

If you want to believe that the Las Vegas odds makers are doing anything other than setting lines that maximize the betting (and profit) on the game, then you might want to remain a non-gambler for your own safety. It's like believing that those progressive betting options on games like Caribbean Stud Poker are there so the player "has more chances to win big", instead of "more chances for the casino to make money".

Anything and everything the casino does involving gambling is not to provide a service for the gambler, but a way to make it easier for them to make money off those same gamblers.



   65. Kurt Posted: November 21, 2013 at 11:20 AM (#4603784)
Over the long haul I suspect betting lines do a fairly good job of reflecting reality, though in hindsight errors can be seen when people let emotions or past truth (that may not longer be true) influence their betting.


I was wondering about that. I remember hearing when I was a kid that lines on certain teams (Dallas, Notre Dame) were skewed because of the fan bases. I can't believe that's still true, and am skeptical that it ever was.
   66. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 21, 2013 at 11:20 AM (#4603785)
I dislike the Times for many reasons, the chief being their insistence that their news coverage is down the middle, and a general air of elitist snobbery.

Their readership has the highest average income of any paper other than the Wall Street Journal. This gets reflected in their Style, Home and Travel sections, as well as in the ads in the Sunday magazine, which disgust me as much as they probably disgust you.

Their readership also centers in the major metro areas, which also is bound to influence their coverage of issues such as gay marriage.

But anyone who still complains of the Times's "liberal bias" after reading one major story after another about the breakdown of the ACA needs a serious reality check. Every last anti-Obamacare talking point could be lifted almost verbatim from many of those articles. That's because unlike the case with most media outlets, their coverage reflects underlying conditions. People who keep complaining about the Times's "bias" are doing little more than cherry picking articles that allegedly reinforce their talking points, while ignoring the articles that don't.
   67. Greg K Posted: November 21, 2013 at 11:21 AM (#4603786)
And of course, there are thousands and thousands of games in the 5 other major sports that are apparently not "fit to print" every year.

Baseball, hockey, basketball...Canadian football and cricket?
   68. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: November 21, 2013 at 11:28 AM (#4603790)
I was wondering about that. I remember hearing when I was a kid that lines on certain teams (Dallas, Notre Dame) were skewed because of the fan bases. I can't believe that's still true, and am skeptical that it ever was.


If that were true then you would expect to see those teams consistently underperforming against the spread. There is no such pattern.
   69. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 21, 2013 at 11:29 AM (#4603792)
I remember hearing when I was a kid that lines on certain teams (Dallas, Notre Dame) were skewed because of the fan bases. I can't believe that's still true, and am skeptical that it ever was.

If the 2013 Yankees (79-83 Pythagorean) had somehow made the second wild card and lucked their way into the ALCS against the Tigers (99-63) or the A's (96-66), you better believe that the betting odds wouldn't accurately reflect the underlying strengths and weaknesses of the teams. It would've taken an equally "national" team such as the Red Sox opposing them to bring the odds more down to Earth.
   70. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 21, 2013 at 11:39 AM (#4603803)
Baseball, hockey, basketball...Canadian football and cricket?


MMA and golf? Tennis and soccer? Pro-wrestling and boxing?
   71. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 21, 2013 at 12:20 PM (#4603853)
In championship pool tournaments the players and fans all get together and determine the effective betting odds by conducting a "Calcutta" auction, where the highest bidder gets the 1st place payoff from the total cash pool if his choice wins the tournament. After that bid, the other players then get bid on one by one, with the best players commanding the highest prices. Players can and often do bet on themselves.
   72. The Polish Sausage Racer Posted: November 21, 2013 at 01:17 PM (#4603915)
The NYT also hired Judith "Kneepads" Miller, one of the biggest disgraces to journalism in my lifetime, and let her steer the Times onto the rocks of Iraq War jingoism and concealing the NSA spying before the 1996 election "to be fair."
   73. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 21, 2013 at 01:24 PM (#4603919)
The NYT also hired Judith "Kneepads" Miller, one of the biggest disgraces to journalism in my lifetime, and let her steer the Times onto the rocks of Iraq War jingoism and concealing the NSA spying before the 1996 election "to be fair."

Further proof of their Liberal Bias©.
   74. tfbg9 Posted: November 21, 2013 at 01:37 PM (#4603934)
Your anecdotal "examples" aside, the only people who dont see the NYT as liberal are liberals.

The idea that you can make money betting against the so-called national teams is a myth. Betting lines, in virtually every instance, serve as the actual odds on the contest. Exceptions happen. They are rare.
   75. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 21, 2013 at 01:51 PM (#4603948)
Your anecdotal "examples" aside, the only people who dont see the NYT as liberal are liberals.

The editorial page is liberal and the op-ed pages mostly so, though nowhere near as lopsidedly so as its counterpart at the WSJ. Of course if you see Brooks and Douthat as RINOs and Krugman as some sort of a Marxist, I can see why you might think otherwise.

The news coverage is "liberal" only if you think that covering issues such as the widening income gap and the increasing effects of climate change are "liberal", and should be relegated to the back pages instead, to be replaced by exposes of voter fraud by New Black Panthers and photographs of welfare clients shamelessly flaunting their cellphones.

The idea that you can make money betting against the so-called national teams is a myth. Betting lines, in virtually every instance, serve as the actual odds on the contest. Exceptions happen. They are rare.

You're right about that, though there are occasionally cases in the postseason when such opportunities will arise, as the one I mentioned in #69.
   76. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: November 21, 2013 at 02:04 PM (#4603954)
By your theory, because lots of people started betting on a team and the line changed, then each team's chances of winning have changed because the line changed.
And that's obviously not the case at all.


You are correct in the mechanics, but a more charitable spin on his theory is that in aggregate bettors all want to win and there is a "wisdom of the crowds" thing going on, so even though the bookie doesn't care the actual odds and is just reacting to the money, the money flows will be such as to present an accurate picture of the "true" odds for the game.


that goes against the truism from the sharps, which is: "fade the public". i.e. if a line moves severely in favor of one team, bet the other.
   77. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 21, 2013 at 02:18 PM (#4603965)
Your anecdotal "examples" aside, the only people who dont see the NYT as liberal are liberals.


I don't object to calling the NYT liberal. It is, all things considered, left of center. I do object it being held up as the ultimate expression of progressivism, the arbiter or liberalism, or anything close to that. It is very "establishment liberal" with some neocon and pro-finance leanings. Which is fine, I am not hating on them or anything, but let's not pretend it is Pravda or anything.
   78. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 21, 2013 at 02:28 PM (#4603971)
The news coverage is "liberal" only if you think that covering issues such as the widening income gap and the increasing effects of climate change are "liberal", and should be relegated to the back pages instead, to be replaced by exposes of voter fraud by New Black Panthers and photographs of welfare clients shamelessly flaunting their cellphones.


I notice they don't give much space to the thoroughly mainstream conservative notions of Creationism or the widespread left-wing scientific conspiracy to fabricate evidence of climate change. Is it wrong to speculate?
   79. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 21, 2013 at 02:45 PM (#4603980)
that goes against the truism from the sharps, which is: "fade the public". i.e. if a line moves severely in favor of one team, bet the other.

That may not be the worst advice, but OTOH how many of these sharps actually make a decent living putting down money on their own theories of sports betting? Maybe a few hundred in the entire country at most, I'd say.
   80. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 21, 2013 at 03:26 PM (#4604009)
I notice they don't give much space to the thoroughly mainstream conservative notions of Creationism


Isn't it covered in their weekend "Fiction" section?
   81. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 21, 2013 at 03:38 PM (#4604016)
Costco heathen!
   82. AROM Posted: November 21, 2013 at 03:50 PM (#4604019)
That may not be the worst advice, but OTOH how many of these sharps actually make a decent living putting down money on their own theories of sports betting? Maybe a few hundred in the entire country at most, I'd say.


If they are selling you picks and strategy, then that's how they make their money. If they actually make money by betting on the games themselves, they probably aren't going to tell how they do it.
   83. tfbg9 Posted: November 21, 2013 at 03:51 PM (#4604020)
77-fair enough.
   84. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: November 21, 2013 at 03:59 PM (#4604025)
I dislike the Times for many reasons, the chief being their insistence that their news coverage is down the middle
Thank goodness the NYT is the only news outlet that insists they are fair and balanced.
   85. tfbg9 Posted: November 21, 2013 at 04:03 PM (#4604028)
There are a few guys I have known/been acquainted with over the years who have been able to make a living betting. You basically have to dedicate your life to it, and love the game of it.

You can break even with a lesser amount of the above, but you need to pick your spots, not be addicted to the action.
   86. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: November 21, 2013 at 07:44 PM (#4604183)
That may not be the worst advice, but OTOH how many of these sharps actually make a decent living putting down money on their own theories of sports betting? Maybe a few hundred in the entire country at most, I'd say.

If they are selling you picks and strategy, then that's how they make their money. If they actually make money by betting on the games themselves, they probably aren't going to tell how they do it.


Those may be the two truest sentences ever written on BTF.

--------------------------------------------------------------

There are a few guys I have known/been acquainted with over the years who have been able to make a living betting. You basically have to dedicate your life to it, and love the game of it.

I knew a guy who made a living on sports betting, and did it until the day he died at the age of 89. He put four kids through college and bought a big house in one of the better parts of Silver Spring, MD. He wasn't giving away any of his secrets, either.

Oh, but I guess I should probably mention at this point that he was on the right end of that 52.7% for all those years, not on the wrong end of it. It's amazing what that little 2.7% can accomplish.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Ray (RDP)
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(3199 - 9:10pm, Jul 25)
Last: robinred

Newsblog7-25-14 OMNICHATTER
(34 - 9:06pm, Jul 25)
Last: Joey B.: posting for the kids of northeast Ohio

NewsblogRe/code: Major League Baseball Cries Foul on Net Neutrality Proposal
(2 - 9:02pm, Jul 25)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight

NewsblogHurdles remain in Mets-Rockies deal for Tulowitzki, Gonzalez
(28 - 8:53pm, Jul 25)
Last: Banta

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(414 - 8:38pm, Jul 25)
Last: J. Sosa

NewsblogThe Inventor of the High Five
(30 - 8:32pm, Jul 25)
Last: Willie Mayspedes

NewsblogSoE: AN IDIOT IN EXILE
(4 - 8:24pm, Jul 25)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogNoble: Tom Seaver expects Derek Jeter to become first unanimous Hall of Fame inductee
(88 - 7:50pm, Jul 25)
Last: Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick.

NewsblogESPN : GM Offers To Get Prostate Exam During Game
(17 - 7:48pm, Jul 25)
Last: mos def panel

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-25-2014
(8 - 7:27pm, Jul 25)
Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants to

NewsblogWisch: Cooperstown Shouldn’t Close Out Lee Smith
(10 - 7:22pm, Jul 25)
Last: Moeball

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(941 - 6:52pm, Jul 25)
Last: NJ in DC (Now unemployed!)

NewsblogBA Report: MLBPA Files Grievance Against Astros Over Aiken, Nix, Marshall
(4 - 6:02pm, Jul 25)
Last: Boxkutter

NewsblogCSN: Enough is enough — time to move on from Ryan Howard
(112 - 5:39pm, Jul 25)
Last: PreservedFish

SABR - BBTF ChapterWho's going to SABR??
(97 - 4:52pm, Jul 25)
Last: Der-K thinks the Essex Green were a good band.

Page rendered in 0.4255 seconds
52 querie(s) executed