April 10, 2007
Proof of Toledo points shaving?
RJ Bell, President of Pregame.com and Sports Gambling Guide at About.com, has published what he says is proof of the Toledo points shaving scandal.
While the NCAA, FBI, and others are still investigating the who, what, when, where, and how, Bell offers up the following points as evidence that something squirrely was going on with the Rockets games.
Movements in the betting line are responses to disproportionate amounts of money bet a certain way. During the 2005 Toledo football regular season, lines on their team's games moved two points or more on 7 occasions - and ALL 7 TIMES the way the bettors were betting won against the opening line.The odds of this happening randomly are 128 to 1. It can be stated, with greater than 99% mathematical certainty, that the outcomes of those games were affected by OUTSIDE factors!
From my standpoint, that's pretty damning, if it's accurate. Bell doesn't offer up the data for those lines (or even cite which lines he's referencing), so the "proof" isn't irrefutably just yet. Bell also cites an NCAA survey (again, without reference) stating that "1.3% of Division I players admitted taking money from a gambler to play poorly."
It'll be interesting to see what more comes out about the Toledo scandal. I'd love to see Bell's backup, too, because it sounds like he might be on to something.
Comments:
posted on April 10, 2007 10:48 AM — link — abuse?Kevin Donahue said:
Yeah, I want to see where he's getting the data because -- if it is true (and I think it probably is with Bell's reputation) -- it's pretty damning.
So Cal Athlete said:
posted on April 10, 2007 7:01 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
RJ Bell
This doesnt offer anything that revealing. Nothing new.
That data could be a bit misleading (its not the smoking gun, anyway).
Ask RJ Bell what the likely hood is for a team to Cover the Spread 12 Straight Times... Ohio State did it over
RJ Bell said:
posted on April 11, 2007 1:26 AM — 70.170.36.38 — link — abuse?
List of all big line movement games:
L 9/17/05 at Temple: side opened Toledo -28; closed -26; underdog covered.
9/27/05 at Fresno: total opened 64; closed 61; under covered.
W 10/08/05 vs. E. Michigan: side opened -20.5; closed -25.5; favorite covered.
W 10/15/05 at Ball St: side opened -19.5; closed -22; favorite covered open.
L 10/29/05 at C. Michigan; side opened -10; closed -7.5; underdog covered.
10/29/05 at C. Michigan: total opened 55.5; closed 52; under covered.
11/16/05 vs. N. Illinois; total opened 55; closed 52; under covered open.RJ Bell said:
posted on April 11, 2007 1:35 AM — 70.170.36.38 — link — abuse?
Link to NCAA study cited:
http://www.ncaa.org/library/research/sports_wagering/2003/2003_sports_wagering_study.pdfThe odds of 12 straight covers is: 4096 to 1 . . . but the key is not uncovering random events, but rather correlated events; the correlation in this case is an arrest for game-fixing, major line moves driven by lopsided betting action, and then 7 straight wins.
posted on April 11, 2007 9:11 AM — link — abuse?
Wow. Thanks, RJ. Like I said, your rep is too good not to believe it... but with this backup - that's pretty damning.
Jeff said:
posted on April 11, 2007 10:13 AM — 24.1.106.37 — link — abuse?
Since RJ is using both outcome and over/under bets, that means out of 24 betting lines, 7 of them moved 2 points and were "predicted" well by bettors. This doesn't seem that significant.
To use this as evidence, I'd really love to see data from other teams. How often does the line move 2 points or more (seems like it should be frequent). How often does the line move in the winning way?
Jeff said:
posted on April 11, 2007 10:17 AM — 24.1.106.37 — link — abuse?
I take exception to the 99% number, but more importantly all it would prove is that the bets were influenced by knowledge of the game. Which could mean anything from bettors realizing that Central Mich was a much better team than Toledo, to knowing inside information that they shouldn't have known, to paying players to do poorly.
Also, how did they pay players to cover a larger spread against Eastern and Ball St? Those don't seem like they are evidence.
john said:
posted on April 11, 2007 3:38 PM — 67.184.213.137 — link — abuse?
If you think bettors are fixing games on college football totals RJ, you obviously are clueless to the situation and sports betting in general. Since you are this big time handicapping champion (would love to see the proof), one would think you make large wagers on football games to support yourself. I know the answer is your not and likely don't even bet, but to amuse the board, my question is a simple one. How much of a bet would it take to move a total from 55.5 to 52, nevermind the fact that the 10/29 game total never closed at 52 at any of the large books where you can get a decent bet down. We will get to that later.
RJ Bell said:
posted on April 11, 2007 7:46 PM — 24.234.147.134 — link — abuse?
Consider if a sports bettor had a number of offensive players “fixing” a game. On offense, the “fix” would be playing poorly, which would in general lead to less points. I agree that only betting the total on a fixed game would be unlikely, but not betting the “under” when you are “fixing” the offense would be missing a huge opportunity. The sides on those games could very well have been fixed also, but if the public was betting the other way, the side line could have easily not moved the two points. Isn’t it curious though that all 3 total moves were toward the “under” – the expected result from fixing the offense.
My handicapping championships are well documented at TheSportsMonitor.com. Though I am far from perfect, my sports betting expertise credentials are quite strong: About.com's Sports Gambling Guide; featured on ABC News, CNN, ESPN Radio. He's been profiled in dozens of publications, including The Washington Post and Maxim Magazine - and has even been quoted as an authority by H&R Block; the only sports bettor on Forbes' recent list of Gambling Gurus.
So Cal Clipper NATION said:
posted on April 11, 2007 9:45 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
RJ Bell, Scooter McDougle, I believe, only played in two game in the 2005 season! (Temple & WMich)So how many other players might be implicated here?
I didnt know the funny business was going on with "Totals" too.
You have any information on the 2004 season:
Toledo was favored by 24 vs C Michigan, only won by 5. In the MAC Title game vs Miami-OH, McDougle had a huge play/run/1st-down, critical in sealing the Win.So Cal Clipper NATION said:
posted on April 11, 2007 10:20 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
... based on the line moves that "RJ Bell" claims, the Ball State game LOST against The Move.
The E Michigan game/result & line move would mean Toledo wasnt "Shaving" points."RJ Bell" tell Kenny White to blog-on-over here... Id rather get it from the horse's mouth, no offense.
john said:
posted on April 12, 2007 3:06 AM — 67.184.213.137 — link — abuse?
You didn't answer the question, how much money would it take to get down to make that move from 55.5 to 52. What type of movement on a total could one expect if the total was fixed?
Also just checked out the sports monitor, what sport and year did you win your 3 championships?
College Pigskin Fan said:
posted on April 12, 2007 3:35 PM — 63.19.124.0 — link — abuse?
RJ,
Some points you missed;
First, how do you know what line the bettor bet on? Did they use the number lines from MGM, Ceasers, Stations, Golden Nugget, or could they used an offshore line?
No one would have this information, therefore, you wouldn't know what numbers the bettor used, yet you quote numbers.
Next, since the bets were made with a bookie(s), how do you know what numbers the bookie(s) gave? Isn't it true that a bookie(s) can manipulate the line on one team that someone is betting heavily on?
Finally, as we learned from the Duke Lacrosse case, it's not wise to rush to judgement and hold a trail by media.
So Cal Clipper NATION said:
posted on April 12, 2007 5:40 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
What do "we" make of these rules now ?
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2835266
One of the rule changes is Kicking-off from the 30 insted of the 35. Some speculate that "more returns and shorter stoppages" will end-up increasing scoring.
I hate the impact that some special-teams plays could have on games... which is why I like Frank Beamer as a Coach so much.As long as they keep the "one-foot inbounds = possesion" and the "clock stops on 1st Downs", Im good (the NFL has it backwards).
RJ Bell said:
posted on April 12, 2007 8:25 PM — 24.234.147.134 — link — abuse?
LVSC releases a recommended opening line . . . that is the product they sell. They never change their number of that. (The rare exception being if a game is taken off the board due to injury, they will release an adjusted opening number for the game to be put back on the board).
RJ Bell said:
posted on April 12, 2007 8:26 PM — 24.234.147.134 — link — abuse?
Toledo won ATS a number of the major side move games, which makes perfect sense if you think about it. If you are “fixing” games throughout the year, wouldn’t it make sense not to pay the dirty players some games (thus freeing them to play 100%). Why? 1) It costs less money not to pay every game. 2) You have a certain strong bet playing on Toledo, since they have been playing below standard on purpose they would certainly be underrated [like a pool hustler playing poorly some games]; 3) It would be much more difficult to be spotted if it does not happen every game; 4) Toledo would be more highly regarded for the games that were “fixed” since they played at full effort some games, thus lessening the poor play required for the desired result.
RJ Bell said:
posted on April 12, 2007 8:26 PM — 24.234.147.134 — link — abuse?
In a vacuum, a line moves a ½ point for every limit bet received, but many factors complicate that equation. On one hand sportsbooks are much more apprehensive about getting “steamed” on totals, and thus are quicker to move the line (thus the wild swings sometimes seen with totals). On the other hand, if a sharp book feels strongly about their number they will accept huge action without moving the line. Also complicating the discussion is the fact that action does not happen in a vacuum, and thus it is possible that for every dollar bet on the under, the public is betting an equal amount on the over. To use simple numbers, imagine if the fixers bet $100k on the under . . . but the rest of the public is 100k disproportionate on the over – the net result would be even action, and thus no line move. Also, most sportsbooks book “faces” – meaning they react to the same amount of money differently according to who is doing the betting. Lastly, sophisticated syndicates have large networks of “outs” in which to make their bets, and they do so in consort, meaning they sometimes hit all outs at once with the same action, which allows them to get down large amounts at the best number. So a sharp bettor betting 10k at a sharp books (like Pinnacle) can cause the same line move as a syndicate betting 200k all at once, since the non-sharp books, and barroom bookies, move their line “on air” (i.e., without receiving a bet) if Pinnacle moves their line.
RJ Bell said:
posted on April 12, 2007 8:28 PM — 24.234.147.134 — link — abuse?
3 Championship at The Sports Monitor:
2004 NFL Playoffs: VegasSteam: 4-0 100%
2003 CFB Reg Season: Service Insider: 27-13 67%
2002 CFB Bowls: Service Insider 5-0 100%
Page that lists handicapper of record for all services:
http://thesportsmonitor.com/handi.htmlIf you want to research more on my background, here is my bio as sports gambling guide at About.com (owned by the NY Times):
http://sportsgambling.about.com/mbiopage.htmAlso, you can read more of my writings at Sportsbook.com – the world’s largest sportsbook . . . my articles anchor their “Betting Strategies” section.
Speaking for the first and last time directly to “John” and “Fred” . . . I’d be interested to meet the intellects who believe they know better than the NY Times, Sportsbook.com, John Kincade (ESPN radio nationwide, 4 appearances), Doug Gottlieb (ESPN radio nationwide, one appearance), the Washington Post, and over 100 other radio, TV, and print publications which have called upon my expertise. Where does your writing appear so I can better understand your unique intellect and sports betting insight?
That said, I respect the equalitarian nature of blogs (and especially like Kevin Donahue), so feel free to keep trying to trip me up here . . . I just wonder how many of your questions I’d have to successfully answer before you’d concede my expertise . . .
First, you said you’d love to see the proof of my handicapping championships, well, now you’ve got it . . . Do I get an apology?
Then, you called me “clueless” about why totals would be fixed, but did not rebuke a single assertion of my reply . . . Do I yet get an apology?
Now I have answered every other question of yours . . . Don’t worry “John” about and concession . . . You don’t really seem like the type that learns from his mistakes.
RJ Bell said:
posted on April 13, 2007 2:09 AM — 70.170.36.38 — link — abuse?
An estimated 96% of sports betting is outside of Nevada, so it'd be logical to assume a vast majority of a midwest bettors action would NOT be in Nevada.
Not only don't I know what numbers "the bettors" used, I have no idea if the games were fixed . . . what I do know is that if a smart bettor were fixing a game, he'd get down as much as possible early in the week, because once a game is "hot" the line typically keeps moving because there is a whole sub-set of bettors who follow big line moves - which further moves the line (called "steam")
What I know also is that people in sum who bet enough to move the line won 7 of 7 times against the toledo opening number . . . Proof of a fix? Far from it - but it is something that happens only 1 in 128 times randomly.
Clipper NATION said:
posted on April 13, 2007 6:23 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
RJ Bell -
I would want to know what/when it was more specifically, that alerted Kenny White in the first place... and also, what other instances of such an random occurances (1 in 128) have there been involving similar line-moves. (I need a reference point)RJ Bell said:
posted on April 13, 2007 7:43 PM — 24.234.147.134 — link — abuse?
I can't speak for Kenny White, but my guess would be the feedback he heard from his Nevada clients (i.e., sportsbooks) in regards to the action on Toledo games.
Line moves are NOT typically correlated to an increased win percentage . . . so if the odds of a line move winning is 50/50 (which it is historically), then the odds on past (and future) line moves winning 7 of 7 times is the same as flipping 7 straight heads (128 to 1) . . . the only difference would be if line moves won more than 50% of the time, but they do not.
Please note that all comments are subject to the Fanblogs Comment Policy.
gatorhippy said:
posted on April 10, 2007 10:36 AM — 209.16.115.5 — link — abuse?So if this guy noticed what he is saying he did then why didn't he bring it up at that point?
He could have helped get control of this situation (mid you if there is one) from the get go...