Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
    ...because both Sacramento and the LA Lakers were having trouble selling playoff tickets in 2002...

    If only Donaghy hadn't deliberately left Robert Horry open at the end of game 4. Worst call in playoff history.


    I'm loving this thread.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

      Originally posted by pacertom View Post
      Boston wins big: the fix WAS in, but people got wise to the plan, so a devious reverse fix was put in, to throw everyone except me off target.

      Boston wins a squeaker: the fix is in-- down 3-1, it's set up for Kobe to emerge as the star and media darling, with all the pressure on him to deliver the goods in games 5 and 6 so the NBA can finally have the marketing successor to Jordan.


      Ya gotta love a situation when you can spin every possible outcome as a validation of your "theory"




      LOL - very funny.


      On a slightly different topic, and yet related. You know when the announcers jinx a free throw shooter. The announcer will say, Granger is shooting 85% and has made 45 FTs in a row. He misses the free throw and it will be the announcers fault, he jinxed it. But what about what the other 3 sets of announcers that are calling the same game, to really prove this beyond any doubt we would have to see what each set of announcers said and then and only then can the ft jinx theory finally be proven - now I realize that most people are just joking around - but then again, I always figured that people were joking around about the fixing of NBA games.

      This thread should be nominated for thread of the year and Kstat should be nominated for the "best performance in a thread in a solo role"
      Last edited by Unclebuck; 06-11-2008, 01:52 PM.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

        Not saying that Donaghy is telling the truth, but those who are just dismissing his comments because of his character and history should maybe give what he's saying a 2nd thought.

        Yeah his sentencing is coming up, but you still have to look at the argument from both sides of the coin.

        For one, he obviously knew something, b/c while he was getting away with gambling... he did pretty well for himself.

        Now the results of the games may vary win it comes to the final outcome, b/c players still have to make plays in end, but there's a lot of things that can happen to lead up to the moment.

        Fouls and Free Throws are definitely one of them. It's not hard for an NBA official to keep a game within reach if they truly wanted to. Basketball officiating is never consistent, which is why you have times when it seems like they're letting players play, and other times where it appears they're calling touch fouls.

        This is definitely a serious matter, and just b/c the guy relaying the info is in legal trouble, doesn't mean he's lying or making things up.

        There's plenty of everyday cases in the courts where someone seems loyal, or doesn't want to "snitch" then when the pressure is on to save their own tail... all of a sudden they remember more of the incident.

        To use another sporting example... look at the Michael Vick situation. When the story first broke, a lot of his friends and family were trying to protect him, but as the pressure came down on them, they started to admit more of his wrongdoing. So does that mean they're liars?

        It's natural for some to remain quiet on situations thinking and hoping they'll be looked out for, and then when the tables turn, they have a lot more to say.

        It's not up to me to call the guys bluff or not, it's up to the legal system, and there's times where innocent people are locked up, and other times where the guilty are let off the hook.

        It really just depends on which side is more convincing, or has a better argument. Still doesn't mean that side is right.....

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

          Originally posted by pwee31 View Post

          To use another sporting example... look at the Michael Vick situation. When the story first broke, a lot of his friends and family were trying to protect him, but as the pressure came down on them, they started to admit more of his wrongdoing. So does that mean they're liars?
          The best part about the "benefit of the doubt" people is that they keep referencing other cases where guys ratted someone else out, which conveniently forgetting the fact they all had corroborating evidence, while Donaghy has no evidence at all.

          It's not up to me to call the guys bluff or not, it's up to the legal system
          The FBI found nothing, but apparently that's not good enough...
          Last edited by Kstat; 06-11-2008, 01:58 PM.

          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

            Originally posted by Bball View Post
            Could someone address what a man in Donaghy's position stands to gain by lying at this point? Once he is sentenced I can understand it, but I'm having a hard time understanding the risk vs reward scenario of making this stuff up right now.

            -Bball
            One theory, the NBA is trying to recover $1M from Donaghy, he might be using these allegations as a way to get the NBA to drop their claim. More than likely though he is just being vindictive. Has he presented any evidence.

            If I walk into a police station and I say that someone told me my neighbor killed someone. First they would ask if I saw it, if I say no, they would want to talk to the person who told me this info, judge their credibility. then they would investigate, look for a murder weapon, look for a body and so forth. They would not just go arrest the guy based upon my flimsy second hand account. And all this is, is Donaghy's flimsy second hand account of things. He seems like he's been listening to too many sports talk shows from Sacramento.
            Last edited by Unclebuck; 06-11-2008, 02:35 PM.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
              The best part about the "benefit of the doubt" people is that they keep referencing other cases where guys ratted someone else out, which conveniently forgetting the fact they all had corroborating evidence, while Donaghy has no evidence at all.



              The FBI found nothing, but apparently that's not good enough....
              I understand the evidence argument, and that speaks for itself... but in fairness, there's been times where evidence was involved and they still may have gotten the case wrong.

              Just because there's no evidence, doesn't mean that it's false. Which goes back to what I said earlier. It all comes down to the better argument, evidence.

              Another example would be a story awhile back where a guy was falsely accused of crime, and sentenced, until more evidence came forward from a tv show

              http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/07/la...vid/index.html

              Which helps me prove my point.

              Once again I don't know if Donaghy is lying or not, but I do know that I'm not just going to throw his claim aside until everything is said and done.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                e.

                If I walk into a police station and I say that someone told me my neighbor killed someone. First they would ask if I saw it, if I say no, they would want to talk to the person who told me this info, judge their credibility. then they would investigate, look for a murder weapon, look for a body and so forth. They would just go arrest the guy badsed upon my flimsy second hand account.
                It's even less credible than that, UB.

                Unsupported testimony from a conspirator involved in the same criminal transaction isn't even admissible in court. They couldn't even put Donaghy on the stand or file a prosecution without actual evidence.

                Just because there's no evidence, doesn't mean that it's false.
                actually, it kinda does.

                Another example would be a story awhile back where a guy was falsely accused of crime, and sentenced, until more evidence came forward from a tv show
                Are you just randomly searching bad convictions, or is there some actual relevance here?

                There were innocent bystanders that testified against him. They were obviously poor witnesses, but that is still way more credible than Donaghy has.

                If Donaghy was innocent of any wrongdoing, it would be more credible. The fact he's involved in fixing games means his statements are meaningless without proof.
                Last edited by Kstat; 06-11-2008, 02:12 PM.

                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

                  OK, I'll take a turn.

                  Donaghy is a liar and cheater whose word cannot be believed and whose motives are suspect, right? That's KStat's contention and I believe it. But this same guy was a licensed NBA referee. Doesn't that right there sort of cast a blot on the reputation of the NBA's referee corps?

                  I don't stand with those who claim to know David Stern's inner motives or who point to a particular game outcome and claim it as proof of a fix. But I do think that the worse Tim Donaghy is made to look, the worse it is for the NBA, too.

                  At the very least, why didn't the league catch him sooner? And why is the game not organized so that it will be crystal clear that a ref is or isn't fairly enforcing the rules at every moment of every game. That is a tall order, I know. And other games have their issues with calling the strike zone, breaking the plane of the end zone, leg-before-wicket, and so on. But I think the NBA needs to fix its face as regards allowable contact (if any contact at all should be allowed). Maybe the worst aspect of Tim Donaghy is that it will focus attention on people, when the more serious problem is the rules.
                  Last edited by Putnam; 06-11-2008, 02:11 PM.
                  And I won't be here to see the day
                  It all dries up and blows away
                  I'd hang around just to see
                  But they never had much use for me
                  In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    The only thing I want to say is this. Lets assume the allegations are true, the NBA fixes games (however you want to define that) then I must say the NBA has without exceptions done a horrible job. Only 1 NBA Finals series has gone 7 games since 1994. How in the world have the Spurs won so often, they get terrible ratings, I mean if all this fixing hadn't been going on every series would be a 4 games sweep.

                    BINGO! If they fix games, they're terrible at it.

                    It's almost like some equate bad officiating in any given game with a purposely contrived scheme from the commissioner. Some don't want to believe that bad officiating can only be bad officiating. There has to be more to it!

                    There were a ton of blown calls in that Lakers vs. Kings game 6 but the refs didn't make the Kings miss all those free throws or cause Doug Christie and Peja to miss multiple wide open shots. Refs don't put the ball in the basket.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

                      But this same guy was a licensed NBA referee. Doesn't that right there sort of cast a blot on the reputation of the NBA's referee corps?
                      Does that mean if someone you worked with is convicted of fraud, then you yourself should be under suspicion, regardless of any actual proof?

                      I don't stand with those who claim to know David Stern's inner motives or who point to a particular game outcome and claim it as proof of a fix. But I do think that the worse Tim Donaghy is made to look, the worse it is for the NBA, too.
                      ..and Donaghy is making every effort to make it appear that way. That's all people without factual evidence can focus on: appearances.

                      At the very least, why didn't the league catch him sooner?
                      Were they supposed to wire tap his phone lines? Do you think he was actually doing his business out on the open?

                      And why is the game not organized so that it will be crystal clear that a ref is or isn't fairly enforcing the rules at every moment of every game.
                      Mind reading technology hasn't been invented yet?

                      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

                        Does that mean if someone you worked with is convicted of fraud, then you yourself should be under suspicion, regardless of any actual proof?
                        No, but it might mean that my employer had not been diligent in hiring honest men.

                        Mind reading technology hasn't been invented yet?


                        I'm asking not so much about conversations with gamblers as with bad calls on the floor.

                        Gladiatorial combat was never screwed up by the rules or the officials and there was never any doubt that it would be or could be. The bout lasted until one guy was dead. Then the guy who wasn't dead was declared the winner.

                        I admit no sport since then has been as clear-cut. But I think NBA basketball is particularly bad. What constitutes a foul, and what constitutes traveling are two questions that are very confusing. It makes it possible for a crook like Donaghy to affect the outcome of a game without his action being subject to proof. What's more, well-intentioned referees can make the same kind of mistakes that Doneghy did (albeit more randomly), thus affecting the outcomes of games.
                        And I won't be here to see the day
                        It all dries up and blows away
                        I'd hang around just to see
                        But they never had much use for me
                        In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

                          Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                          What is "vig?"
                          The "vig" is the fee it costs to make a bet with a bookie or a more formal sports book. Generally, it is 10% of the wager although 5% is used commonly on occassion (mostly to promote betting action and increase the volume of money being wagered).

                          For instance, anyone who bet on Boston last night at +9.5 pts likely paid $110 to make $100. When Boston covered, they got a total payoff of $200 ($200 = $110 original wager + $100 profit - $10 vig). Similarly, it would have taken $2,200 to make $2,000.

                          The real answer is that the "vig" is how bookies and sports books make their money.

                          The goal is to never "pick a side." Vegas could care less what the outcome of any game is as a rule. They just want high volume.

                          A perfectly set line would get 50% of all the money wagered on Celtics and 50% of all the money wagered on the Lakers. Then the book pays out the winning side with the money it took in from the losing side. And it keeps the 10% vig from the winning side.

                          So let's say $18 million was bet on LA last night and $18 million was bet on Boston. Boston covered the spread so those who picked Boston win and get paid back $16.2 million ($18 million - 10% vig). But, meanwhile, the book took in $18 million from the LA-backing losers. So they just cleared $1.8 million. And they would have made the exact same $1.8 million if Boston hadn't covered the spread from the reverse direction.

                          If whoever claimed 83% of the money was ever on the Celtics to cover (which Boston did) was correct (which they couldn't have been) then Vegas would have been out tens of millions of dollars. There's no way they would have let that happen. The oddsmakers are incredibly skilled at setting a line that will cause the public to bet equally on each side and when they do miss the mark, the line moves during the week to promote action on the side with less than 50% of the betting volume.

                          On a regular season Toronto vs. Memphis game the line may be skewed with 60% action on Toronto and they'll let it slide without moving the line too much. But in a high-profile event like the NBA Finals -- where less-seasoned gamblers make an incredible amout of wagers compared to random regular season games -- the betting volume goes through the roof. So they would never allow themselves to be so greatly exposed for losses as they would be with "83%" volume on any one side. To do that would mean Vegas themselves was "gambling" which they are ironically not in the business of doing. They are in the process of taking a fee to process other people's wagers.

                          This whole thing explains the giant misnomer most people believe about the point spread. The line is in no way Vegas' "prediction" of what the games outcome will be. It's a prediction of what spread will lead to in indecisive public whose collective opinion on the outcome will be split evenly.
                          Last edited by JayRedd; 06-11-2008, 02:50 PM.
                          Read my Pacers blog:
                          8points9seconds.com

                          Follow my twitter:

                          @8pts9secs

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

                            Thanks, JayRedd.

                            Eighty percent of the time I can never tell what you are talking about. But that explanation was perfectly clear and thorough.
                            And I won't be here to see the day
                            It all dries up and blows away
                            I'd hang around just to see
                            But they never had much use for me
                            In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

                              Originally posted by naptownmenace View Post
                              There were a ton of blown calls in that Lakers vs. Kings game 6 but the refs didn't make the Kings miss all those free throws or cause Doug Christie and Peja to miss multiple wide open shots. Refs don't put the ball in the basket.
                              No, I can't prove that the NBA is fixing games, but the theory that they blow calls in hopes of sending a series to game seven so there's another game that refs can get paid for doesn't seem all that out of the realm of possibility to me. Had the refs made the calls they should have maybe those free throws would have been made and other shots would have fallen. Or maybe the Lakers would have gotten so ticked off about fouls being called they would have decided if a foul is going to be called they might as well foul Doug Christie hard and make it worth their while. And then Jackie Christie goes berserk and comes down out of the stands and starts a brawl...cups and punches fly...a dust pan emerges...suspensions are handed out...security is increased league wide which means the Pacers/Pistons brawl never happens...the Pacers make it to the NBA finals against the Lakers...the referees know Pacers fans still remember the fact that Shaq's 6th foul wasn't called until he'd committed at least ten fouls so they decide they better call a clean game...and Reggie gets to retire with a ring.
                              Last edited by grace; 06-11-2008, 06:54 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

                                Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                                Thanks, JayRedd.

                                Eighty percent of the time I can never tell what you are talking about. But that explanation was perfectly clear and thorough.
                                Don't tell UB.
                                Read my Pacers blog:
                                8points9seconds.com

                                Follow my twitter:

                                @8pts9secs

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X