[cleaveland]

I've been running this scenario through my head for a while:

Let's say we've got a college game which is truly a PICK, both teams have a 50% chance.

Some rich person manages to bet $100,000 on one of the teams through several books.

This rich person goes to the team he bet on and offers say the top 7 players $10,000 each only if they win the game.

Thus, the rich person would pocket about a $20,000 profit if they win. In a truly 50/50 match the extra motivation of the payoff could turn it into 70/30 odds at least imho.

How in the world would this type of "fixing" be illegal? In essence, the rich person is offering a GIFT if a certain thing happens. People are allowed to give gifts for any reason in most cases. Would this be illegal?

[sweep]

I've been running this scenario through my head for a while:

Let's say we've got a college game which is truly a PICK, both teams have a 50% chance.

Some rich person manages to bet $100,000 on one of the teams through several books.

This rich person goes to the team and offers say the top 7 players $10,000 each only if they win the game.

Thus, the rich person would pocket about a $20,000 profit if they win. In a truly 50/50 match the extra motivation of the payoff could turn it into 70/30 odds at least imho.

How in the world would this type of "fixing" be illegal? In essence, the rich person is offering a GIFT if a certain thing happens. People are allowed to give gifts for any reason in most cases. Would this be illegal?

Dumb ass

[cleaveland]

Dumb ass

Is it illegal? Yes or no?

Gifts aren't illegal.

[sweep]

Is it illegal? Yes or no?

Gifts aren't illegal.

Your example is not match fixing...Match fixing is when a player(s) take a fukkin dive, not play harder.

[hydrosmak]

College players aren't allowed to take any gift of any kind. So yes this is at the very least against the schools policy.

[cleaveland]

Your example is not match fixing...Match fixing is when a player(s) take a fukkin dive, not play harder.

Please read the title. It says "attempted match fixing". Do you not agree that what I described is ATTEMPTED match fixing? Of course, this hypothetical person is attempting to fix the match. The difference between what you said and what I said is that with throwing a match you're ALMOST assured success. I say almost because it's possible that both teams/contestants could try to throw the same match, then what happens?

[k13]

You can offer teams/players unlimited money and they will still lose......

[cleaveland]

College players aren't allowed to take any gift of any kind. So yes this is at the very least against the schools policy.

Thank you. I remember the OJ Mayo situation:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan...all4-2010jan04

There was nothing criminal about it, just a penalty from the NCAA. Thread solved, thanks.

[cleaveland]

You can offer teams/players unlimited money and they will still lose......

I've never been a great athlete but any kind of extra motivation almost always helps me to do better (sometimes a lot better) in most competitive areas. I can't speak for others though.

[k13]

I've never been a great athlete but any kind of extra motivation almost always helps me to do better (sometimes a lot better) in most competitive areas. I can't speak for others though.

I offer you a trillion dollars to beat Federer in tennis.

gl with your extra motivation.

[sweep]

I offer you a trillion dollars to beat Federer in tennis.

gl with your extra motivation.

Guys a hamburger, Im out of this thread...

[hydrosmak]

I offer you a trillion dollars to beat Federer in tennis.

gl with your extra motivation.

In all fairness he was talking about a coin flip game in his original example. The extra motivation the college players would get could push the odds towards that team. However the guy isn't guaranteeing himself a win just an edge.

In the end though it is still -EV.

[cleaveland]

In all fairness he was talking about a coin flip game in his original example. The extra motivation the college players would get could push the odds towards that team. However the guy isn't guaranteeing himself a win just an edge.

In the end though it is still -EV.

In an optimal situation that's not necessarily true. For example, take North Carolina -2 at Duke from the last basketball season. North Carolina's team is expected to have 6 future NBA players and the 2012 Duke team will have a lot less than that.

NBA talent can have extreme deviations in level of play based on motivation, everyone who follows the NBA knows that. Therefore, if you're paying 6 NBA-level players to all "bring their A game" against a team like Duke even at Duke... although the market is saying it's basically a PICK with the extra motivation you're gaining a huge advantage.

Just because the market says North Carolina is only a 2 point favorite doesn't mean that's the case to begin with. Duke's home court could be worth a couple of extra (beyond the norm) points at least (and it almost surely was) a lot of people were taking Duke because Duke at + money was considered a big-time value play by many.

When you add the big difference in talent to begin with with the amount that NBA players can raise their level of play by "bringing their A game", this method I'm talking about could give you a huge advantage especially when public perception is far from reality like with North Carolina at Duke in the last season.

[wtt0315]

That would be a losing situation for the rich guy. Could you imagine telling nyger morgan and some other shitty players i will give you 10 k to win. He would go out there and still hit 100 and 1 rbi in 300 ab's