Huh? So two boxers fixing a fight (or even a single boxer) don't control the dumping? How many millions are bet on boxers?
People line up to buy boxing on PPV. Only us diehards do for pool. That's the difference. Not how likely one is to dump.
Getting casino betting back and new sponsorships
- Thread starter patmoran
- Start date
People line up to buy boxing on PPV. Only us diehards do for pool. That's the difference. Not how likely one is to dump.
How many boxing movies have been made about dumping, or where dumping was shown in it. Probably all of them.
Boxing is still as popular as ever because people like watching fights.
People don’t like watching pool. It’s boring.
That’s it. That’s the root of the entire “no money in pool”.
Boxing is still as popular as ever because people like watching fights.
People don’t like watching pool. It’s boring.
That’s it. That’s the root of the entire “no money in pool”.
Right. As long as the handle is big enough, the book makes money. And right now I can go to DraftKings and bet on darts*; which must be even easier to fix a match in w/out raising suspicion. I guess a lot of people watch (and bet) on darts.
These are the dart leagues DraftKings has lines on at the moment - European Tour, Modus Super Series, PDC World Champ, Premier League. I believe at least one of those is Matchroom.
* and hot dog eating too
No the boxers do NOT control the dumping. They have controllers that tell them to dump. Those people are also the people controlling the book.
Ah, I gotcha now.
I suppose it could be either way though. If the book is the Mob, it's probably the way you are saying. If the book is a big corporation, its probably the players/boxers themselves, having their friends make the bets.
If you're talking la cosa nostra, I don't know. If you're talking the mob as in organized crime, absolutely. As far as big corporation, then that's a distinction without a difference.
There was NEVER any proof of a dump. Never…just speculation and stupid speculation at that from people that should know better.
The casino held and booked the matches for a couple of years after 1991.
Weird huh?
A good way you Might control the side betting situation is this.
Last 30 minutes is Only Time.... You can place a bet... then play starts.
Minimum and Max bets allowed.
Lets say $100 max min $20.
Sweaters paradise.
And No ones on the take.
Make the side bets max out at a certain dollar amount to eliminate the DUMP. Stir....
The $20 to $100 spread is actually a solid sweet spot—keeps the low-stakes noise out while stopping big spenders from flexing and distorting the game. That 30-minute lock-in rule would take a lot of discipline to enforce, but if you can run a tight ship like that, it definitely turns into a sweater’s paradise!
Last edited:
'eliminate the dump' now that's funny. you do remember its pool players we're talking about, right?
there was always dumping or something fixed and still is when betting is allowed. bookies would limit your bets to a pittance on that side when they suspected it or when the action went too far in one direction. or certain betters bet big.
so in effect they made more money because they still took more money in on the losing side from those not knowing.
what you see in the movies of someone coming in to a bookie and making a giant bet on a fixed race or game. never happens as they dont take giant bets from an unknown as it sets off their bell in their head. or any unusual bet from a regular they had any doubts about.
unless its something like the super bowl. even then if betting goes too far in one direction they have moved the line a great deal and will or may stop taking action on one side if it gets too heavy for them.
so in effect they made more money because they still took more money in on the losing side from those not knowing.
what you see in the movies of someone coming in to a bookie and making a giant bet on a fixed race or game. never happens as they dont take giant bets from an unknown as it sets off their bell in their head. or any unusual bet from a regular they had any doubts about.
unless its something like the super bowl. even then if betting goes too far in one direction they have moved the line a great deal and will or may stop taking action on one side if it gets too heavy for them.
it's computerized these days. a bookie today doesn't have to be shrewd
Here is the perfect sponsor for pool tournaments
No, not weird. Yes, the Mirage booked the event while the event remained there, but when the contract was up in 1994, the Mirage spent about five seconds on the decision to not renew,
The speculation concerning the dump was by incredibly well-informed people who know what a dump looks like, including Jay Helfert, who was the presiding referee. Anyone who did not as much as suspect a dump was not paying much attention.
Why would proof be needed? Most onlookers went where the evidence led, seeing no reason to launch an investigation.
The held the event AND kept booking matches.
Weird. They didn’t have to book the matches after 1991 but they did.
I suppose shitty attendance and viewers wouldn’t have much to do with it not continuing though.
There’s just not much interest to televise pool.
Yah, I guess you’re right Stu, we really don’t need proof of any type of allegation as long as it sounds good.
Dogging it and dumping look the same.
If a HOF’er caught a dump would it be the same as pitching a dump?
The reason I ask is there is more than speculation about more than a few.
I saw Efren miss with ball in hand and also hook himself after an easy shot.
I’ve also had “pool detectives” tell me “so and so” dumped me when they thought I was staking “so and so” and I was actually staking the other guy.
@mr3cushion what do you think of my assessment here?
Last edited:
Exactly. The court of public opinion tends to decide most cases in the world in which we live. Public opinion is, of course, not infallible, but it tends to be right. Not every matter of opinion needs to be adjudicated in the American legal system.
No, they do not. If a pro misses several easy shots, it does not mean it is a dump, but if a legend of the game jumps up over on their shot, that's different. There are players that don't jump up more than a handful of times in a year, and if they have a breakdown in their fundamental several times in one rack, it is very suspicious.
Agree with you that it is not proof but, as I said, before, anyone watching this that did not at least suspect a dump wasn't watching very closely. If this was not a dump, let's at least credit the participants for doing everything possible to make it look like a dump. Of course, given the improbable and disproportionate amount of betting on the longshot Mike LeBron, it looked even worse.
Just as in a court of law, a motive is generally needed in the court of public opinion, and the motive was right there in front of everyone to see.
Yours is an opinion I greatly respect, Steve, but we'll have to agree to disagree on this occasion.
I just re-watched the BH-ML match and that combo was far from a hanger. So much mis-information on this whole deal. The fact the event kept going, with a line on it, tells me whatever happened the casino wasn't too upset. The M. Sigel description on that FB video is probably pretty close to what happened. Promoter Bob Halloran told Mike they lost 12GH's on the deal. If true that's less than chicken feed to a casino.
Last edited: