Liar, liar

Who knew?

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-dowd031407&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

By Jeff Passan, Yahoo! Sports
March 14, 2007

Jeff Passan
Yahoo! Sports
The truth with Pete Rose never really has been the truth. It's more a malleable set of claims to further a self-serving agenda.

So when investigator John M. Dowd, the man who brought down Rose with the damning 1989 report that proved he did bet on baseball, heard Rose claiming Wednesday on ESPN Radio that he bet "every night" on the Cincinnati Reds teams he managed, one thought crept forward.

It's just another lie.

"He did not always bet to win," Dowd said from his Virginia home. "And when he didn't bet on the Reds, he sent a signal to the bookmakers to bet to lose.

"And when he didn't bet on the Reds, he sent a signal to the bookmakers to bet to lose."

That's simply rank ignorance. The reason bookmakers take bets is they don't believe you can pick winners, not consistently enough to overcome the vigorish. I can just imagine a bookmaker saying, "hey, Pete didn't bet on the Reds tonight. Let's put a bundle on the other side!"

Actually it's very typical of writers and broadcasters who do reports that focus on gambling. Invariably they botch major aspects, simply because they have no background and guess wrong.

Baseball in particular is very difficult to forecast. A big favorite is 2/1, which is the equivalent of a 4 point favorite in a football game. The edges are slight and one swing or error can change the outcome in a flash, so no bookie is going to be overly impressed who you bet on or against, even if it's a big league manager who theoretically can maneuver to impact the outcome.

Rose's statement indicates he's a fool or a liar or both. I've been around baseball bettors for more than 20 years and no one bets the same team every day, not unless they are on a winning streak. It's a zig zag sport, with sharp bettors supporting then opposing a given team depending on pitching matchups and situational influence. Why should Rose, who knew gambling, be any different? For one thing, in baseball betting there's no pointspread to bail you out. It's strictly winner and loser and the best teams lose 60 or more times. Betting on your team every game makes zero sense.

I was in Las Vegas sportsbooks today, looking at the NCAA tournament lines. The sportsbook personnel and bettors in the books were ridiculing Rose today after hearing of his remarks, realizing it had no hint of logic or truth.

that there's no reason to believe one word he says.

Let's say he bet on his Reds every night and found himself down 1000's of dollars.... BUT---he knew that with one big bet he could regain most of it....SO--- he fashions a lineup that will increase his odds of winning his bet.

A change in the batting order--- a pitcher with a sore arm--- leaving that pitcher in when he's getting racked.... It's far easier to lose a game than win one, so hearing Rose say that he only bets to win????? I simply don't believe it.....

AND that is why betting on the team that you are coaching should be a lifetime banishment.

Pete saying that he'd love to coach again? Maybe Little League Pete, maybe Little League.