Gambling on a sport/event you cover

This.

 

I know at least 2 writers who gambled regularly on the team they cover. Mostly, they were frequent gamblers who were losing and thought they could cut their losses on the team they knew the most about.

Didn't really work. But I didn't think they really let it influence their job, either.

Here's another question: When I was on a beat, I was CONSTANTLY asked by friends who I would take in the upcoming game I was covering. I rarely had a strong opinion about the line and would usually tell them to stay away. If I thought the line was ridiculous I would be honest with them. Is that wrong?

Even knowing as much about a team as anybody, I wouldn't have gotten rich betting big on my beat's team. Not even close. The lines were too good, and anything can happen when you've got a bunch of knuckleheads playing on the field in front of you.

 

Maybe I covered an easier team than you, but I always felt I could comfortably make a killing off of my team.

 

Guy calls his bookie.

"Man, I'm getting killed on baseball!"

Bookie tells him to try some football betting.

After a couple weeks it's not working out too well for the gambler.

"Man, I'm getting killed on football!"

Bookie tells him to try some basketball.

After a couple weeks it's not working out. He complains to the bookie again.

"Man, I'm getting killed on basketball!"

Bookie suggest the gambler try some hockey bets.

"Hockey?? I don't know anything about hockey!"

 

I'd fire any one of my writers on the spot if it was proven he was gambling on sports of any kind. No place for that in our shop.

 

There's a place for it legally in Las Vegas.

 

Hejira, that sure makes you sound like a miserable boss, which I'll bet you're not, if that's OK.

 

This is a tricky topic, in large part, because successful handicapping of certain sports against the line (ESPECIALLY regular-season NFL) is frequently counterintuitive.

So is horse racing, frequently -- though there's broad logic to it, based on analyzing individual performances within a framework of long-term form cycles which can be devastatingly-effective, if you're patient enough to wait for good setups offering VERY long prices (25-1 and above) . . .

The sports which respond best to wholly-logical analysis, I've found, are college basketball and baseball. Many smart people who know these sports well still lose, because they wind up on too many favorites and are done in by the odds.

Hockey's sheer randomness has driven many crazy, and figures to continue to do so.

 

Lame.

 

Not to mention a gross infringement upon personal liberties (street booking may be illegal, but betting isn't), unless somebody's clearly around the bend with a gambling jones in terms of facing life ruination and/or is letting the gambling distraction affect his work, at which point human intervention is preferable to drawing a line in the sand.

 

Agreed. Even if you know about an injury or suspension first, if you're covering an event that shows up on the Vegas line, the news is going to out sooner rather than later. There's no way you're going to keep the line from moving on your own.

Now if you had a definite scratch ahead of the pack, one you know will move the line a few points, you could make your bet before the news breaks. But unless it's something clear out of the blue, either a) that player isn't big enough to make more than a 1/2-point difference, or b) that player will make the needle move, but if he's definitely out, chances are he was questionable to begin with, and Vegas may have pulled the game pending further information.

 

I'll note another possible exception -- the UFC. Know one guy who knew it cold, was wired for sound, cleaned house (you wouldn't believe the market, on this stuff), and wound up working for a major offshore book.