[fearless]

What's the difference between a current player betting on his team (say Kobe taking the Lakers -3.5 yesterday) and a publicly traded company buying its own stock? Pete Rose's story tells that most of the world considers there to be a big difference between these two things but I don't get it. Please explain...

[tonyt]

What's the difference between that and a publicly traded company buying its own stock? Pete Rose's story tells that most of the world considers there to be a big difference between these two things but I don't get it. Please explain...

As long as you are disciplined and don't let your love of the team interfere with your handicapping you'd be a fool to not bet on your team if it's something you perceive as good value.

People say "Don't bet on your own team" because they view it was "unlucky" or "undisciplined betting".

I think it is OK.

Plus, how many 'real' gamblers have favorite teams they really care about? I don't.

[fearless]

As long as you are disciplined and don't let your love of the team interfere with your handicapping you'd be a fool to not bet on your team if it's something you perceive as good value.

People say "Don't bet on your own team" because they view it was "unlucky" or "undisciplined betting".

I think it is OK.

Plus, how many 'real' gamblers have favorite teams they really care about? I don't.

If there's nothing wrong with it, why is Pete Rose being kept out of the hall of fame?

[Wheell]

1. Pete Rose also bet against his team.
2. If you only bet on your team on certain nights you can take actions that help you in the short term but hurt you overall. Think of a team with a couple of good relievers and a bunch of crap.

There is a lot more too it but I hope he NEVER makes it into the HOF.

[tonyt]

I misunderstood your question/point. I thought you were referring to a bettor playing his "favorite" team.

Pete Rose is banned from the HOF because he gambled on baseball and that is against MLB rules. If all the players were gambling there would be a lot of match fixing...

[rm18]

plus you can also play to cover the spread rather than to win, like Air Force did today. Kobe can shoot compromise the chances of winning straight up trying to cover.

[dizzyd]

I think one main reason is because if you are betting on your own team and losing and fall in debt then the next step is you will bet against your team and throw the game

[SBR Lou]

I wish the Patriots would have continued betting on themselves after making back BB's $500k fine, because they really left me out to dry the last couple of weeks.

[Santo]

Betting the way you phrased the question would be problematic anyway, as you may be more concerned with the spread than result, so up 1 late try to hit a 3 to cover rather than taking an easy 2 etc...

Moneyline betting on your own team it's hard to see a real problem with, other than what it may lead to in the future, but enforcement is easier with a blanket ban I imagine.

[fearless]

Betting the way you phrased the question would be problematic anyway, as you may be more concerned with the spread than result, so up 1 late try to hit a 3 to cover rather than taking an easy 2 etc...

Moneyline betting on your own team it's hard to see a real problem with, other than what it may lead to in the future, but enforcement is easier with a blanket ban I imagine.

It's interesting but stock options work the same way as a point spread. The stock has to raise to a certain value for the options to be worth anything, just like how the Lakers had to win by at least 4 for the Lakers -3.5 to pay off... that gives all kinds of incentives for companies and employees to try to cheat to get over the strike price on options that will expire worthless otherwise. The more I think about it:

a company and/or a company employees buying their own stock = Kobe betting ML on the Lakers to win

a company giving employees stock options = The Lakers handing Kobe betting tickets for the Lakers -3.5 over the Celtics

I know there's a difference in terms of time with stocks and stock options, so let's put it another way:

a company and/or a company employees buying their own stock = Kobe betting on the Lakers to win over their O/U win total for the season

a company giving employees stock options = The Lakers handing Kobe betting tickets for the Lakers to win over their O/U win total for the season

I think this is a good analogy. How's my thinking faulty here?

[SBR Lou]

If I am making millions of dollars as a pro athlete or coach there's no way in hell I'm gambling on any team, much less my own. I would make sure to lead a squeaky clean life, instead of gambling on point spreads I'd donate that amount to charity and make sure some news outlets picked it up too. I'd do whatever I could to milk my name and receive an endorsement from some company.

Then, when I've had my time under the sun and I'm no longer capable of coaching or playing and I'm done with participating in sports, and am relegated to my couch with the rest of the world , then and only then will I start gambling on games.

[fearless]

I've got it, it's so obvious. Bonuses in contracts for making the playoffs, reaching the finals, scoring a certain number of points, those are really the same as stock options. Stock options are gambling. So there you, players actually are betting on their teams and themselves, only it's legal because it's written into their contracts. Got it.

[Doc JS]

If I am making millions of dollars as a pro athlete or coach there's no way in hell I'm gambling on any team, much less my own.

crazyl,
Exactly right.

And that's the reason most of these point shaving/game fixing scandals involve college sports. College kids don't have millions of dollars.

The bad guys who are looking to do the fixing don't have enough money to make it attractive to someone who has signed for the max NBA salary to fix games (although it could be argued that the Isiah's Knicks could be coming close to fixing games or maybe they are just that bad!).

Doc