< The "Carly-got-overpaid" lawsuit | Main | Breakfast of Champions? >
March 9, 2006
Eliot Spitzer's next investigation?
While the Lord of Regulation engages in one of his more dubious forms of business regulation, this NY Times article reports on a study that could really get people's attention as the NCAA Basketball Tournament cranks up next week:
College basketball is a big business today, and betting on it is not merely a sideline for mobsters. It is a national pastime.One thing about the sport, however, has not really changed since Henry Hill's day. Of all the major forms of betting — lotteries, poker, craps, slots, football — college basketball is almost certainly the easiest to fix.
It is played by young men who don't usually have a lot of money. With just five players on the court, one person can determine the outcome. And the point-spread system, in which bets are based on the margin of victory rather than wins and losses, allows players to fix a game without losing it.
"There's every reason to think this is as bad as it gets," Justin Wolfers, an economist at the University of Pennsylvania, said.
Mr. Wolfers, a blond pony-tailed Australian, calls himself part of a new generation of forensic economists — researchers who sift through data to look for patterns of cheating that otherwise go unnoticed. . .
You can probably guess where this is going. Mr. Wolfers has collected the results of nearly every college basketball game over the last 16 years. In a surprisingly large number of them, it turns out that heavy favorites just miss covering the spread. He considered a number of other explanations, but he thinks there is only one that can explain the pattern. Point shaving appears to be occurring in about 5 percent of all games with large spreads. . .
Read the entire article. The bottom line -- be careful in betting the favorite in games with big point spreads.
Posted by Tom at March 9, 2006 5:11 AM
Comments
I do love conspiracy theorists. Bench-clearing to give the pine-sitters some playing time couldn't possibly explain why predicted blowouts turn into slightly lesser blowouts...
Posted by: Bill at March 10, 2006 1:48 PM
But, Bill, wouldn't an efficient betting market factor in the pine-sitter factor into the betting line?
Posted by: Tom K at March 10, 2006 1:52 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)