Quote:
Originally Posted by jayshum
As a professional gambler, if you knew Rose bet on the Reds to win 4 games in a row then didn't bet on the 5th game, would that make you more likely to bet against the Reds in that 5th game since it seems like Rose doesn't have a good feeling about the game?
|
I couldn't possibly know this. Nor could anyone else placing bets. The only people who would know are whoever his bookie was, or anyone he may have told to bet against them. But his bookie isn't placing bets, he's taking them. Bookmakers don't want to gamble. They want the same amount of money bet on both sides so they can take the "juice" in the middle. But even just knowing that Pete didn't place a bet is not in itself enough information for it to be profitable to act upon. The fact that Pete bet on the Reds to win every game just tells me that he's competitive and a degenerate gambler. It doesn't tell me he's a sharp bettor whose opinion is worth caring about. It also doesn't inform me of why he's not betting a particular game. Is it because he's broke? Running bad? Needs to move funds from account A to account B? Is it because he walked under a ladder that morning and believes in superstitions, as most gamblers do, so he laid off the bet that day? Or is it something actually meaningful like his starting pitcher experiencing shoulder pain? I would have no way of knowing unless he informed me.
Which brings us back to the question of whether or not he actually bet against his team. Or had someone else do that for him. There is no evidence that this occurred.