Should these 3 players be in the HOF

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Snowman

How could betting on your team to win possibly ever compromise the integrity of a game?

If you bet on your team to win one game but do not bet on your team to win a different game, you have an incentive, if not a plan, to try harder to win your bet. As manager, he had sole discretion how to utilize his assets to accomplish his goals.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Mark17

If you bet on your team to win one game but do not bet on your team to win a different game, you have an incentive, if not a plan, to try harder to win your bet. As manager, he had sole discretion how to utilize his assets to accomplish his goals.

You're talking about trying to win games though. This is how all good managers manage games. If you're down 9-0, you don't put your closer on the mound that night. Pete Rose tried to win every game he bet on. It does not logically follow that he tried to lose the games which he did not bet on. There is no evidence whatsoever that he threw games. None.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Snowman

You're talking about trying to win games though. This is how all good managers manage games. If you're down 9-0, you don't put your closer on the mound that night. Pete Rose tried to win every game he bet on. It does not logically follow that he tried to lose the games which he did not bet on. There is no evidence whatsoever that he threw games. None.

I think you are intentionally trying to be obtuse. Nobody is suggesting Rose threw games. Clearly you don't understand the simple fact that if he bets on his team to win one game, but not another, he has greater incentive to win the game he's betting on.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I think you are intentionally trying to be obtuse. Nobody is suggesting Rose threw games. Clearly you don't understand the simple fact that if he bets on his team to win one game, but not another, he has greater incentive to win the game he's betting on.

So what? LOL. He has more incentive to win if he bets on his team to win? No shit Sherlock. What I'm saying is that there is nothing wrong with that. Put it all on the line. Put everything on the line. Who cares? He's trying to win. The MLB is not trying to prevent teams from trying to win games.

You're saying nothing. Literally nothing.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Mark17

You just don't get it.

No, YOU don't get it. Not one person in here has provided one valid reason for why betting on oneself or one's team to win a game/match might compromise the integrity of that game/match in any way. And no, saying, "but what about the next game that he didn't bet on?" is not an answer.

Originally Posted by bmattioli

Bookies care about one thing. MONEY. You want to bet on something.. no problem to them..

I've been a professional gambler for half of my life. Both sports betting and poker. I'm actually in Vegas right now, typing from my hotel room. I know how this industry works quite well. There is ZERO chance that any bookie is going to knowingly accept a wager on a team to lose from the coach or manager of that team.

If you want to claim that he had some other secret channel through which he bet against the Reds, or had someone bet for him, then that is a separate claim. But there is zero evidence of that claim, and it would be on you to prove that it happened.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I've been a professional gambler for half of my life. Both sports betting and poker. I'm actually in Vegas right now, typing from my hotel room.

Any everybody else is aware of the incredibly obvious - that Rose broke rule #1 which was well-defined and known to him. Whether he should be excused and forgiven for it after so long is a reasonable debate, but your love of gambling is irrelevant.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by G1911

Any everybody else is aware of the incredibly obvious - that Rose broke rule #1 which was well-defined and known to him. Whether he should be excused and forgiven for it after so long is a reasonable debate, but your love of gambling is irrelevant.

Yes, we all know that the rule was well-defined and that he broke the (stupid) rule.

All of us have pulled up to an intersection that has a sign which reads, "No turn on red" when wanting to make a right turn at a red light. When there is traffic, most of us likely obey the sign. But if it's the middle of the night with no other cars in sight, only an idiot sits there and waits for the light to turn green so he can make his right turn.

Pete Rose was sitting at a red light in the middle of the night with no traffic, wanting to make a right turn.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Yes, we all know that the rule was well-defined and that he broke the (stupid) rule.

All of us have pulled up to an intersection that has a sign which reads, "No turn on red" when wanting to make a right turn at a red light. When there is traffic, most of us likely obey the sign. But if it's the middle of the night with no other cars in sight, only an idiot sits there and waits for the light to turn green so he can make his right turn.

Pete Rose was sitting at the red light in the middle of the night with no traffic.

This was the #1 rule in baseball. He did not violate a clubhouse rule against not cleaning up after lunch. He didn't come to a rolling stop in the Reds parking lot. He didn't make a right on red in training camp. Pete Rose broke the #1 rule in all of baseball. The rule in every clubhouse, with prior lifetime bans given for it, and the stakes very well known. It was literally the biggest no no in baseball.

[rand1com]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Yes, we all know that the rule was well-defined and that he broke the (stupid) rule.

All of us have pulled up to an intersection that has a sign which reads, "No turn on red" when wanting to make a right turn at a red light. When there is traffic, most of us likely obey the sign. But if it's the middle of the night with no other cars in sight, only an idiot sits there and waits for the light to turn green so he can make his right turn.

Pete Rose was sitting at a red light in the middle of the night with no traffic, wanting to make a right turn.

Good analogy. However, if a policeman is hidden in the dark of night and sees you make the turn, he will give you a ticket. You can bet on it. Rose got caught breaking a clear MLB rule. Whether you like the rule or not is irrelevant. If it said you cannot bet against your team, he would not have broken it. However, it did not say that. It said you could not gamble and that he did. The banishment is warranted. He was one of the best to ever play the game. He gave his heart and soul to the game. But, he could not control his gambling addiction and deserves the punishment he received.

[The Detroit Collector]

Originally Posted by rand1com

Good analogy. However, if a policeman is hidden in the dark of night and sees you make the turn, he will give you a ticket. You can bet on it. Rose got caught breaking a clear MLB rule. Whether you like the rule or not is irrelevant. If it said you cannot bet against your team, he would not have broken it. However, it did not say that. It said you could not gamble and that he did. The banishment is warranted. He was one of the best to ever play the game. He gave his heart and soul to the game. But, he could not control his gambling addiction and deserves the punishment he received.

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

As an attorney, there are lots of rules and laws on the books that I don't agree with. But, I don't get to decide whether a given law/rule is stupid or not, nor do I get to decide when its okay to violate it. If I violate a law/rule that I think is stupid and get caught, the penalty is the same as if I had violated a "good" law. That's just the way it is.

This seems pretty simple to me. Rose knew what the rule was. He chose to violate it. He got caught and got the prescribed penalty for that violation. He viewed himself as above the rules and, as a result, he screwed himself. That's the way it works, regardless of what his apologists might wish. End of story.

+1

[Kenny Cole]

As an attorney, there are lots of rules and laws on the books that I don't agree with. But, I don't get to decide whether a given law/rule is stupid or not, nor do I get to decide when its okay to violate it. If I violate a law/rule that I think is stupid and get caught, the penalty is the same as if I had violated a "good" law. That's just the way it is.

This seems pretty simple to me. Rose knew what the rule was. He chose to violate it. He got caught and got the prescribed penalty for that violation. He viewed himself as above the rules and, as a result, he screwed himself. That's the way it works, regardless of what his apologists might wish. End of story.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Snowman

No, YOU don't get it. Not one person in here has provided one valid reason for why betting on oneself or one's team to win a game/match might compromise the integrity of that game/match in any way. And no, saying, "but what about the next game that he didn't bet on?" is not an answer.



I've been a professional gambler for half of my life. Both sports betting and poker. I'm actually in Vegas right now, typing from my hotel room. I know how this industry works quite well. There is ZERO chance that any bookie is going to knowingly accept a wager on a team to lose from the coach or manager of that team.

If you want to claim that he had some other secret channel through which he bet against the Reds, or had someone bet for him, then that is a separate claim. But there is zero evidence of that claim, and it would be on you to prove that it happened.

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?

[Snowman]

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.