Friends and co-workers had a ball betting on Sunday's games through the Oregon Lotto's limited offerings (Total points; outcomes, etc). We found it enhanced our interest on otherwise meaningless games. Sold a lot of beer on Sundays down at Jake's Tavern, to boot. It could get loud. Boisterous. Single guys were up for that on Sundays. If it caused problems, nobody heard about it, but then nobody was betting large amounts. In order to get the League to take an interest in an expansion Team in Portland someday, the State pulled the practice. Back then, the question was why didn't Portland have a Team? Because then Seattle would want one...
Betting on your own team to win opens up a can of worms. First off, it incentivizes the player to make decisions that may not be his to make. If it’s a consequential bet for the player - might he over-ride coaches’ instructions and exercise his own judgment? Would he take a chance on a penalty, hoping it doesn’t get called, again ignoring coaching? If he’s in over his head with the gambling, might he even attempt to injure a key opposing player? Maybe he just goes into the game with a level of extra stress and distraction that doesn’t allow him to play the way he’s been coached to play.
He may gamble in the game just like he’s gambling with his money - bet with bad odds on the chance he can win. Are those judgements that coaches want their players to make?
Obviously, prop bets exacerbate the problem. Sheez, NBA broadcasters even promote them during games. How does MM’s defensive scheme work if an Edge guy has a bet on how many sacks he’ll have that game? Sacks aren’t always the goal, but they’ll be his goal. And even where MM gives the player options within the scheme in certain scenarios, the player’s judgment is influenced by prop bet. Spoon has an option to blitz, goes for it, slot gets open and makes a catch.
There are other pressures that affect players’ judgments, for sure. Being in a free agent year, having a bad game last game, fighting for a starting job, coming off an injury as an aging player, etc. But these are baked into the game, teams largely know when those pressures exist, and can manage them. Not the same with outside bets.
Because a player that is involved in the game is betting on the outcome of the game. That bet can influence decisions the player makes, how he interacts with his teammates and coaches, and how he interacts with his opponents.
We have a habit of personalizing these questions, and thinking in terms of "If it was me betting...", but most of us are not wealthy enough to think like someone who just signed a contract for $100M+ at age 24. The question doesn't specify the size of the bet, so we can provide our own parameters. If the player betting $2M, are you comfortable with that bet not influencing his mindset? What if it's "only" $1M? $500K?
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go and make sure that my Lamborghini has been properly detailed. 😉
I think it's important to answer the question as it was asked. Bet to win? I sure don't care. But I can see that if it's a point spread thing or betting to lose then that's a different matter.
But why are we limiting this to players only? Wives, girlfriends, friends, team employees, coaches, executives... shouldn't they matter too?
If it's just that one question in a vacuum, it's hard to see who could get hurt from that bet except for the player if the team loses. I guess people are more worried about what else that bet could imply.
And we have Rams OT arrested for, allegedly, DV. A felony. Sorry but rules need to exist. Especially for things like sports gambling. Based on the judges ruling, I see it as wrong (said had no other recourse which was false as multiple NFL teams were looking at him). Hopefully the judge gets overturned. Certain things should be considered sacred. Bet on NBA or your own poker cards. Fine with that. No outcomes of Games you’re playing in.
Is it inevitable that a player who bets on his team to win, will eventually bet on his team to lose?
I would be shocked if history doesn't have players betting millions on their teams to lose, but they placed the bets through other people. Because it's a lot easier to tell when you're going to lose than when you're going to win.
If an NFL football player wants to gamble on a sporting event, he should be allowed to bet on any basketball, baseball, soccer, etc. event he'd like, as long as it's not NFL-related. When he is no longer drawing any income from any NFL-related occupation, including playing, coaching, scouting, announcing, evaluating, hiring, representing, advertising, and anything else you can think of, then he should be free to donate any and all of his hard-earned millions to the gambling syndicate of his choice.
It's interesting that Jameson and those other players were suspended for where they were literally hanging out when they placed those bets. I guess I'm just not clear why it mattered that they made the bets from the stadium if it wasn't on NFL games.
One problem i see is if their was a way to follow how or when that player is betting on the Team at a certain + or minus, when the player did not bet on his team that would be a tell.
I don't really understand why anyone wouldn't think a player betting on the sport they play isn't the worst possible thing for the sport. I don't care if it's easy, or you're great, or you have a lot of money. The only reason I watch sports is because they're not a "play" or an "act" like Joe's Pulp Fiction reference, but rather they're truly a "game" - I do not have a preconceived notion of how it'll turn out and don't think anyone playing the game has any reason to affect the game's result for money. They're playing for money, lots of money, and that's fine. And they may be assholes that don't try hard enough, or are great guys just having a bad day, or any other athlete trope. But they're not gambling on the game and adjusting their effort accordingly. If I thought it was possible that a result of the game isn't on the level, it's all over for sports.
I'm not anti-gambling even though I'm very opposed to the floodgates that opened between gambling interests and sports. Gambling is fun, I understand that. But not throwing the book at anyone, no matter who, that gambles on their sport while playing, is a grave mistake. I voted for lifetime ban on both polls.
In isolation good or bad player I don't oppose them betting for their own team to win solely because that shouldn't impact their performance in the game or impact the performance of the team.
However, I don't see that actually being executed without corruption finding a way to sink it's fingers into the games. Like the whole team not betting on themselves for a week to throw a game.
Really? Team sport. How can I trust you to give your all when you bet on your team or your contributions to it? How many TDs is he throwing today??? Or QB runs? Or turnovers? Sorry but as a teammate, you’ve lost trust if not sure what your motivation is today.
We KNOW how this ends when athletes can gamble on the games they play. Corruption seeps in and you don’t get honest results. We know this from history. The current bans didn’t come from nowhere.
It all depends on the bet itself. If it's "Seahawks to win the SB" before the season vs "QB to throw over 2.5 TD" in a specific game, those are two VERY different bets. It's hard to draw the line so I feel everything should be banned.
We can place casino bets, but it is a pain in the ass to go in and wade through the traffic and crowds. My brothers and I still bet on our Division and Championship games. May even take them for the Super Bowl this year.
Bets aren't limited to "win" or "lose." They can include "win, but by less than the spread." They can include no bet on outcome at all, but only on points scored, for example. Players have no business making bets like that, for very obvious reasons.
I have a very strong anti-gambling bias. Growing up I saw the impact it had on my family. (Why the hell are we having PBJ sandwiches for dinner three nights in a row?) On the one hand an adult should be allowed to do whatever they want. But once upon a time they banned cigarette advertisements, and it should happen again with gambling. I would love to ban advertising for gambling at the very least. It will never happen because the politicians are getting paid to vote in favor of gambling interests. If I had my way I’d outlaw gambling.
I thought I liked gambling, but I actually liked playing poker. I'm a big fan of the strategy and psychological/sociological aspects to playing a "fair" card game.
Of course, gambling is never fair. Those websites will shut down your account if you win too much and ban you for life. It's more of a scam, than a gam.
Exactly, sports gambling is a no lose proposition. They always take a chunk out of the pot. If they paid out every dollar they took in, that would be awesome! The amount won would equal the amount lost. In college, this fraternity ran a Mach Madness game. You could buy shares for 10 cents a share in any team. Until the games started. After that the market was closed but you could trade shares in any team for any price . If an underdog made it to the final four the payout could be huge gives so few shares were issued for that team. People might offer you $10 for your 10 cent share, because the entire pot was split by the winning shares in equal amounts. The house did all the work for no cost. Crazy college kids with too much time on their hands
Many people think that the spread on a sports game represents a projection of how much the house believes team A will win by against Team B. They are wrong; the line represents how many points the house needs to give with one of the teams in order to produce the same amount of money bet on each team. The house always takes its cut, so when the money is equal on both teams, the house cleans up.
Regarding athletes betting, betting on their own team to win is pretty much the only “benign” bet. They are trying to win regardless. But every other bet is motivation to manipulate the outcome. Given that, we need zero tolerance for athletes betting.
There’s still risk. Have we not seen film noir boxing films? A big shot makes a bet. His thugs tell the boxer to lose the match. They offer him money. If he doesn’t take it, he and his family might see consequences. These are Hollywood films without happy endings.
Some argue that bringing gambling into the sunlight fixes things. It doesn’t. It just means more money and higher stakes. It doesn’t bring extortion into the sunlight.
Yeah, but it’s here to stay and only will grow bigger and bigger. I could fix so much if I could just be dictator of the world for one day ;) I took a class in college on forms of government, and one of the assignments was to write an essay on the best form of government and why. Of course everyone was behind “democracy,” but one guy in the class proposed the idea of benevolent disctator. I guy who only makes decisions that benefit the masses and has no interest in personal gain. He said the problem with true democracy is the majority of the population has no idea what’s best for them. A dictator only concerned with helping others would make better decisions for the masses.
The challenge is the benevolent part. Our founders were wary of the mob, so voting was restricted, and senators were not elected directly. The founders wrote about virtue, rights, and that slavery was a moral abomination, yet they constructed a system that favored the enslavers time and time again.
Talking and writing about benevolence is easy enough. Taking benevolent action when money and power oppose it? That’s the hard part.
Friends and co-workers had a ball betting on Sunday's games through the Oregon Lotto's limited offerings (Total points; outcomes, etc). We found it enhanced our interest on otherwise meaningless games. Sold a lot of beer on Sundays down at Jake's Tavern, to boot. It could get loud. Boisterous. Single guys were up for that on Sundays. If it caused problems, nobody heard about it, but then nobody was betting large amounts. In order to get the League to take an interest in an expansion Team in Portland someday, the State pulled the practice. Back then, the question was why didn't Portland have a Team? Because then Seattle would want one...
Betting on your own team to win opens up a can of worms. First off, it incentivizes the player to make decisions that may not be his to make. If it’s a consequential bet for the player - might he over-ride coaches’ instructions and exercise his own judgment? Would he take a chance on a penalty, hoping it doesn’t get called, again ignoring coaching? If he’s in over his head with the gambling, might he even attempt to injure a key opposing player? Maybe he just goes into the game with a level of extra stress and distraction that doesn’t allow him to play the way he’s been coached to play.
He may gamble in the game just like he’s gambling with his money - bet with bad odds on the chance he can win. Are those judgements that coaches want their players to make?
Obviously, prop bets exacerbate the problem. Sheez, NBA broadcasters even promote them during games. How does MM’s defensive scheme work if an Edge guy has a bet on how many sacks he’ll have that game? Sacks aren’t always the goal, but they’ll be his goal. And even where MM gives the player options within the scheme in certain scenarios, the player’s judgment is influenced by prop bet. Spoon has an option to blitz, goes for it, slot gets open and makes a catch.
There are other pressures that affect players’ judgments, for sure. Being in a free agent year, having a bad game last game, fighting for a starting job, coming off an injury as an aging player, etc. But these are baked into the game, teams largely know when those pressures exist, and can manage them. Not the same with outside bets.
“Say it ain’t so Joe!”
It ain't so!
The question was "If a Seahawks player was caught betting on the Seahawks to win, what punishment do you think he should face, if any?"
If they're only betting to win then why should anyone be upset?
Because a player that is involved in the game is betting on the outcome of the game. That bet can influence decisions the player makes, how he interacts with his teammates and coaches, and how he interacts with his opponents.
We have a habit of personalizing these questions, and thinking in terms of "If it was me betting...", but most of us are not wealthy enough to think like someone who just signed a contract for $100M+ at age 24. The question doesn't specify the size of the bet, so we can provide our own parameters. If the player betting $2M, are you comfortable with that bet not influencing his mindset? What if it's "only" $1M? $500K?
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go and make sure that my Lamborghini has been properly detailed. 😉
Influencing his mindset? Wanting to win w/o even betting influences his mindset.
See Bob at Sonic Heights answer…I think this is just a can of worms left closed, i.e. punished prohibitively.
I think it's important to answer the question as it was asked. Bet to win? I sure don't care. But I can see that if it's a point spread thing or betting to lose then that's a different matter.
But why are we limiting this to players only? Wives, girlfriends, friends, team employees, coaches, executives... shouldn't they matter too?
If it's just that one question in a vacuum, it's hard to see who could get hurt from that bet except for the player if the team loses. I guess people are more worried about what else that bet could imply.
I recall people speculating on what Woolen was up to with his antics in our game 2 with the Rams.
Or was it the Championship game?
And we have Rams OT arrested for, allegedly, DV. A felony. Sorry but rules need to exist. Especially for things like sports gambling. Based on the judges ruling, I see it as wrong (said had no other recourse which was false as multiple NFL teams were looking at him). Hopefully the judge gets overturned. Certain things should be considered sacred. Bet on NBA or your own poker cards. Fine with that. No outcomes of Games you’re playing in.
As a teammate how can I trust you???
I have the image of mind of characters in Sopranos who had gambling problems. They eventually start making the worst choices possible.
I see nothing wrong with betting on your own team! Shows confidence.
Is it inevitable that a player who bets on his team to win, will eventually bet on his team to lose?
I would be shocked if history doesn't have players betting millions on their teams to lose, but they placed the bets through other people. Because it's a lot easier to tell when you're going to lose than when you're going to win.
If an NFL football player wants to gamble on a sporting event, he should be allowed to bet on any basketball, baseball, soccer, etc. event he'd like, as long as it's not NFL-related. When he is no longer drawing any income from any NFL-related occupation, including playing, coaching, scouting, announcing, evaluating, hiring, representing, advertising, and anything else you can think of, then he should be free to donate any and all of his hard-earned millions to the gambling syndicate of his choice.
My vote did not change: 1-year suspension
It's interesting that Jameson and those other players were suspended for where they were literally hanging out when they placed those bets. I guess I'm just not clear why it mattered that they made the bets from the stadium if it wasn't on NFL games.
Oh, and there is absolutely no way that Sorsby should be allowed to play NCAA sports of any kind, ever again.
One problem i see is if their was a way to follow how or when that player is betting on the Team at a certain + or minus, when the player did not bet on his team that would be a tell.
Exactly.
Sort of like the Pelosi stock market watch….
I don't really understand why anyone wouldn't think a player betting on the sport they play isn't the worst possible thing for the sport. I don't care if it's easy, or you're great, or you have a lot of money. The only reason I watch sports is because they're not a "play" or an "act" like Joe's Pulp Fiction reference, but rather they're truly a "game" - I do not have a preconceived notion of how it'll turn out and don't think anyone playing the game has any reason to affect the game's result for money. They're playing for money, lots of money, and that's fine. And they may be assholes that don't try hard enough, or are great guys just having a bad day, or any other athlete trope. But they're not gambling on the game and adjusting their effort accordingly. If I thought it was possible that a result of the game isn't on the level, it's all over for sports.
I'm not anti-gambling even though I'm very opposed to the floodgates that opened between gambling interests and sports. Gambling is fun, I understand that. But not throwing the book at anyone, no matter who, that gambles on their sport while playing, is a grave mistake. I voted for lifetime ban on both polls.
Exactly. That's what separates professional wrestling from professional sports.
Love the pre - post vote differential!
Yeah, very interesting early results
In isolation good or bad player I don't oppose them betting for their own team to win solely because that shouldn't impact their performance in the game or impact the performance of the team.
However, I don't see that actually being executed without corruption finding a way to sink it's fingers into the games. Like the whole team not betting on themselves for a week to throw a game.
It's a slippery slope
Really? Team sport. How can I trust you to give your all when you bet on your team or your contributions to it? How many TDs is he throwing today??? Or QB runs? Or turnovers? Sorry but as a teammate, you’ve lost trust if not sure what your motivation is today.
We KNOW how this ends when athletes can gamble on the games they play. Corruption seeps in and you don’t get honest results. We know this from history. The current bans didn’t come from nowhere.
True
It all depends on the bet itself. If it's "Seahawks to win the SB" before the season vs "QB to throw over 2.5 TD" in a specific game, those are two VERY different bets. It's hard to draw the line so I feel everything should be banned.
We can place casino bets, but it is a pain in the ass to go in and wade through the traffic and crowds. My brothers and I still bet on our Division and Championship games. May even take them for the Super Bowl this year.
Yes, those are very different bets.
What's also interesting is that if a player bets on his team to win, it's almost meaningless. "Well, I am already trying to win anyway".
However, what if that player is down $5 million? what's the easiest way to get that money back?
Bet on his team to lose. That's far easier to control.
Bets aren't limited to "win" or "lose." They can include "win, but by less than the spread." They can include no bet on outcome at all, but only on points scored, for example. Players have no business making bets like that, for very obvious reasons.
100%
I have a very strong anti-gambling bias. Growing up I saw the impact it had on my family. (Why the hell are we having PBJ sandwiches for dinner three nights in a row?) On the one hand an adult should be allowed to do whatever they want. But once upon a time they banned cigarette advertisements, and it should happen again with gambling. I would love to ban advertising for gambling at the very least. It will never happen because the politicians are getting paid to vote in favor of gambling interests. If I had my way I’d outlaw gambling.
I thought I liked gambling, but I actually liked playing poker. I'm a big fan of the strategy and psychological/sociological aspects to playing a "fair" card game.
Of course, gambling is never fair. Those websites will shut down your account if you win too much and ban you for life. It's more of a scam, than a gam.
Exactly, sports gambling is a no lose proposition. They always take a chunk out of the pot. If they paid out every dollar they took in, that would be awesome! The amount won would equal the amount lost. In college, this fraternity ran a Mach Madness game. You could buy shares for 10 cents a share in any team. Until the games started. After that the market was closed but you could trade shares in any team for any price . If an underdog made it to the final four the payout could be huge gives so few shares were issued for that team. People might offer you $10 for your 10 cent share, because the entire pot was split by the winning shares in equal amounts. The house did all the work for no cost. Crazy college kids with too much time on their hands
Many people think that the spread on a sports game represents a projection of how much the house believes team A will win by against Team B. They are wrong; the line represents how many points the house needs to give with one of the teams in order to produce the same amount of money bet on each team. The house always takes its cut, so when the money is equal on both teams, the house cleans up.
I’m 100% with you.
Regarding athletes betting, betting on their own team to win is pretty much the only “benign” bet. They are trying to win regardless. But every other bet is motivation to manipulate the outcome. Given that, we need zero tolerance for athletes betting.
There’s still risk. Have we not seen film noir boxing films? A big shot makes a bet. His thugs tell the boxer to lose the match. They offer him money. If he doesn’t take it, he and his family might see consequences. These are Hollywood films without happy endings.
Some argue that bringing gambling into the sunlight fixes things. It doesn’t. It just means more money and higher stakes. It doesn’t bring extortion into the sunlight.
It’s a dirty business on many levels.
Yeah, but it’s here to stay and only will grow bigger and bigger. I could fix so much if I could just be dictator of the world for one day ;) I took a class in college on forms of government, and one of the assignments was to write an essay on the best form of government and why. Of course everyone was behind “democracy,” but one guy in the class proposed the idea of benevolent disctator. I guy who only makes decisions that benefit the masses and has no interest in personal gain. He said the problem with true democracy is the majority of the population has no idea what’s best for them. A dictator only concerned with helping others would make better decisions for the masses.
The challenge is the benevolent part. Our founders were wary of the mob, so voting was restricted, and senators were not elected directly. The founders wrote about virtue, rights, and that slavery was a moral abomination, yet they constructed a system that favored the enslavers time and time again.
Talking and writing about benevolence is easy enough. Taking benevolent action when money and power oppose it? That’s the hard part.
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."