Do you ever let conspiracy theories affect your betting?

[cleaveland]

I've read a theory that the Celtics want to lose intentionally to the Bucks today so they can play them in the first round. That makes sense to me but it's just an unfounded conspiracy theory really. I took the Bucks but not because of the conspiracy theory.

But, a couple of years ago there was a 49ers-Texans game where I bet on the conspiracy theory that the 49ers wanted to lose the game to get the top pick and they did lose the game. I consider the theories if they make good sense.

Do you ever let conspiracy theories affect your betting?

[2daBank]

yes from time to time (love me a good conspiracy theory, when it sounds valid enough in my mind) however at this point i cant see Bos wanting to play anyone in the 1st round and if they lose today it probably got more to do with the fact they seem pretty incapable of winning a game

[stealthyburrito]

see: Tha_Diesel

[2daBank]

see: Tha_Diesel

he only creates the conspiracy after the game has went against him, a little late at that point, not to mention what he says is just idiotic, far from good conspiracy stuff......

Pauly Poker is SBR's reining conspiracy theorist, good dude but he turns every game into the fukkin JFK assassination

[pat venditto]

Good conspiracy theory game

Cincy @ Jets last week of last season. Cincy didn't even score a point. Was tanking so hard because they thought the jets would be easy work.Little did they know.

[THE PROFIT]

I dont consider those conspiracy theories really. Usually a conspiracy is not out in the open as public knowledge. Coaches usually let the public know they're gonna tank by resting starters, putting people on injury list for hangnails, or just flat out telling the media

[MadTiger]

I dont consider those conspiracy theories really. Usually a conspiracy is not out in the open as public knowledge. Coaches usually let the public know they're gonna tank by resting starters, putting people on injury list for hangnails, or just flat out telling the media

Have to cosign this. When I see "conspiracy theory" I am thinking more along the lines of lottery picks in the draft, etc.

[Domestic]

I think "Conspiracy Theory" is too stronger term for the scenario you mentioned. I think at this time of the year you back teams like the Lakers/Cavs/Boston at your own peril anyway.

[cleaveland]

Here's another conspiracy theory about the Celtics-Bucks:

At this point, the Bucks pretty much control who their 1st round opponent will be. If they want to face the Celtics, all they have to do is sweep this home-and-home against Boston (and preferably, drop the game against Atlanta). And vice versa, if they want to face the Hawks.

Considering both theories:

Could BOTH TEAMS be trying to lose the same game?

There's the ultimate conspiracy theory. lol

[pat venditto]

I think the bucks rather play the celtics.

[2daBank]

I think the bucks rather play the celtics.

who wouldnt?

[DrStale]

The Bucks do not play well against the Hawks, I think they'd rather play Boston as well.

[bruceBRUCEbruce]

I think "Conspiracy Theory" is too stronger term for the scenario you mentioned.

yeah, too strong of a term.

[cleaveland]

yeah, too strong of a term.

"A conspiracy theory is a belief that a group of people are secretly trying to harm someone or achieve something. You usually use this term to suggest that you think this is unlikely."

http://www.google.com.hk/dictionary?aq=f&langpair=en|en&hl=en&q=conspiracy%20theory

The way I used the term is it's exact definition.

[DaHoss]

i subscribe to nthe television ratings comspiracy theory. In marquee mathups or big events , especially in sports needing some drama , i tend to go with the underdog getting points as a lot of games tend to sway in the balance even if there is a perceived large difference in talent bt the two teams just cuz the powers that be dont want an empty audience changing the channel

[cleaveland]

i subscribe to nthe television ratings comspiracy theory. In marquee mathups or big events , especially in sports needing some drama , i tend to go with the underdog getting points as a lot of games tend to sway in the balance even if there is a perceived large difference in talent bt the two teams just cuz the powers that be dont want an empty audience changing the channel

You'll enjoy this article:

http://www.orangepower.com/showthread.php?t=24271

Quoting the article:

I ran across a recent quote:

"I've always thought the most likely targets of gamblers would be the referees. They make peanuts, they're highly abused both by the fans and players, and they have more control over a game than anyone else. Moreover, the normal incompetence of NBA referees would be a perfect disguise for a corrupt one. It seems to me that the NBA has gone out of its way to keep its referees poor and incompetent - and I mean clear around-the-barn-out-of-the-way."

Now, I know what you might be saying, "Insane ramblings from another conspiracy theorist. Why don't those people get a life?" Who wrote these silly words: Jim Rome? www.nba-is-fixed.com? Yours truly? How about some bitter Kings' fan who hates the Lakers? No, the quote above is from Bill Russell and it was from his book Second Wind published in 1979. Russell did not have to be bitter and blame officials for losses because the man rarely lost. He won 8 championships in a row and 11 in 13 years. The context of his quote pertained to his being approached by a gambler during his playing days. He points out that high player salaries are a great buffer against gamblers, since only an idiot would take the chump change of gamblers compared to that of their contracts - and remember, this is 1979!