Why was Pete Rose not allowed to bet on games but Jordan was?

[Wardell Curry]

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5Ndel62adPI

[Baller234]

I'm totally cool with Pete Rose betting on games, IF he bet on his own team. If you're betting on yourself, I see zero harm in that and in no way does it's ruin the integrity of the game.

That's what Pete said he did but unfortunately there's just no way to prove that.

[FKAri]

I'm totally cool with Pete Rose betting on games, IF he bet on his own team. If you're betting on yourself, I see zero harm in that and in no way does it's ruin the integrity of the game.

That's what Pete said he did but unfortunately there's just no way to prove that.

And if you're betting on a big scoring number and start chucking to the detriment of the team? Even if you're just betting on the team winning and your team is ramping up for the playoffs while you go out there playing 48 minutes to win your bet and wear yourself out, that's absolutely hurting the integrity of the game.

[warriorfan]

NBA needed MJ more than MLB needed Rose.

[Nowoco]

I'm totally cool with Pete Rose betting on games, IF he bet on his own team. If you're betting on yourself, I see zero harm in that and in no way does it's ruin the integrity of the game.

That's what Pete said he did but unfortunately there's just no way to prove that.

Absolute nonsense.

[tpols]

I'm totally cool with Pete Rose betting on games, IF he bet on his own team. If you're betting on yourself, I see zero harm in that and in no way does it's ruin the integrity of the game.

That's what Pete said he did but unfortunately there's just no way to prove that.

Bro its the opposite. :lol Betting on yourself allows for maximum manipulation. You could throw the game or point shave at the end to cover a spread.

[Baller234]

Bro its the opposite. :lol Betting on yourself allows for maximum manipulation. You could throw the game or point shave at the end to cover a spread.

Why would Pete Rose throw the game if he bet on his own team?

I'm not talking about player props. Obviously if you bet on your own player prop there's cause for manipulation. But if you're betting simply on your team to win the game, I see no harm in that. Because your interests and the team's interests would be aligned.

Please explain to me how they wouldn't be because I just don't see it.

[gengiskhan]

Because GOAT betted on wins to push himself further and to motivate himself. so he is allowed.

Rose bet on throwing the world series, and to loose. thats the difference.

[Baller234]

Even betting on yourself winning you can point shave at the end. Take foot off the gas to decrease the lead at the end and cover the spread.

Pete Rose was betting in the 70's so I don't even think runlines were available back then. You had to bet the game straight up.

So again I ask, theoretically speaking of course, if you can prove that Pete Rose only ever betted on his team to win... what's the problem? How is that a conflict of interest?

[tpols]

In the context of sports, "point shaving" refers to a form of match-fixing where players collude with gamblers to prevent a team from covering the published point spread. This means a favored team will purposefully win by fewer points than the bookmakers predict, or a team expected to lose will win by fewer points than the spread.


That's how.

[Baller234]

That's how.

Hey genius, when Rose played there was NO way to bet on a spread when it came to betting on baseball.

[Nowoco]

Please explain to me how they wouldn't be because I just don't see it.

Players betting on a game they're involved in is fraught with danger. The player could do things he wouldn't normally do to try and win. Take bad shots, try to injure someone, ignore coach calls etc. People can get crazy when money is involved. If they're betting on their own team, they're almost certainly degenerates already.

Worse than that, you're trusting degenerate gamblers to have some discipline. It may start with just betting on their own team, then it could lead to point spreads, prop bets and who knows what else. People can't be trusted. It's much easier to blanket ban any betting on the sport you play. No ifs, no buts, no excuses.

If you cant see why there's a conflict of interest and the integrity of the game is compromised by this then I don't know what to say to you. You're either lying or you're a fool.

[Neal Romer]

Why would Pete Rose throw the game if he bet on his own team?

I'm not talking about player props. Obviously if you bet on your own player prop there's cause for manipulation. But if you're betting simply on your team to win the game, I see no harm in that. Because your interests and the team's interests would be aligned.

Please explain to me how they wouldn't be because I just don't see it.


Sounds reasonable in theory but what if Pete gets himself in a financial hole, bets big on his own team and then they start to fall behind, it could be very easy for him to quietly offer a select opponent a little piece of the action to throw a wild pitch or go down looking, whatever the case maybe.

It becomes a slippery slope very quickly. Once you have any outcome tied to someones gambling interests, youre compromising the game.

Pro athletes make enough money, there is no need to EVER involve themselves in betting on their own sport, let alone their own games. Theres so many other things to bet on if youre really that intent on gambling. If youre betting on your own games you got a real problem IMO.

[Baller234]

Players betting on a game they're involved in is fraught with danger. The player could do things he wouldn't normally do to try and win. Take bad shots, try to injure someone, ignore coach calls etc. People can get crazy when money is involved. If they're betting on their own team, they're almost certainly degenerates already.

Worse than that, you're trusting degenerate gamblers to have some discipline. It may start with just betting on their own team, then it could lead to point spreads, prop bets and who knows what else. People can't be trusted. It's much easier to blanket ban any betting on the sport you play. No ifs, no buts, no excuses.

If you cant see why there's a conflict of interest and the integrity of the game is compromised by this then I don't know what to say to you. You're either lying or you're a fool.

In theory of course I am against players being able to gamble on their own games, and I said I'm even okay with holding it against Pete Rose because there's no way to prove what he was betting on. Having said that runlines and prop bets didn't exist back then so those are moot points.

I will say in baseball it's a lot harder for any one player to dictate the outcome of the game, so Pete betting on his teams to win the game straight up wouldn't be so egregious to me. I mean if you really want to get technical, everyone on the team already has some vested interest in their team winning. It would just mean Pete had "more" of a vested interest. If he were to injure another player or ignore his manager, that's an entirely different discussion altogether. That happens already whether or not players gamble.

So yea I guess there's a small ick factor here, and if I were the god of sports I probably wouldn't allow it, but a player betting on his own team to win straight up isn't some irredeemable sin to me.

[Baller234]

Wow, amazing timing with this thread:

https://x.com/JeffPassan/status/1922381520280449461

Looks like Pete Rose might be headed to the HOF after all.

[GOBB]

Wait til he dies to reinstate him and make him eligible for the HOF. If I’m Pete I find a way to say no thanks in spirit.

[Wardell Curry]

Wow, amazing timing with this thread:

https://x.com/JeffPassan/status/1922381520280449461

Looks like Pete Rose might be headed to the HOF after all.

:applause:

[Duffy Pratt]

Rose did not bet on Reds games as a player.

He did it as manager. He always bet on the Reds, but it’s still a problem (unless he bet on every game and always the same amount). Suppose you have a touch and go situation about whether to bring back an injured starter. He could go on Monday against a good team, or you can hold him for Wednesday against a weaker team. You decide not to bet on the Monday game and to hold the starter out until Wednesday, making your bet safer. But that’s not obviously in the best interest of the team.

[tpols]

Rose did not bet on Reds games as a player.

He did it as manager. He always bet on the Reds, but it’s still a problem (unless he bet on every game and always the same amount). Suppose you have a touch and go situation about whether to bring back an injured starter. He could go on Monday against a good team, or you can hold him for Wednesday against a weaker team. You decide not to bet on the Monday game and to hold the starter out until Wednesday, making your bet safer. But that’s not obviously in the best interest of the team.

Baller doesn't understand the nuances of gambling addiction. He cant comprehend the lengths a degenerate gambler will go to win and all the little tricks that can be made.

It's basically insider trading.

[Baller234]

Rose did not bet on Reds games as a player.

He did it as manager. He always bet on the Reds, but it’s still a problem (unless he bet on every game and always the same amount). Suppose you have a touch and go situation about whether to bring back an injured starter. He could go on Monday against a good team, or you can hold him for Wednesday against a weaker team. You decide not to bet on the Monday game and to hold the starter out until Wednesday, making your bet safer. But that’s not obviously in the best interest of the team.

Wow I didn't know he only bet as a manager. If anything that makes his exclusion from the hall more egregious. I wouldn't hold what he did as a manager against his career and accolades as a player. It's not like he murdered anyone.

But now that I know this, yes I acknowledge there's a conflict of interest. I said earlier that a single player wouldn't be able to have that kind of influence over the game but a manager definitely could.

[FKAri]

Wow I didn't know he only bet as a manager. If anything that makes his exclusion from the hall more egregious. I wouldn't hold what he did as a manager against his career and accolades as a player. It's not like he murdered anyone.

He did, in his own words admit to sexual relations with a 14 year old though

[RRR3]

He did, in his own words admit to sexual relations with a 14 year old though
That's a positive in bawler's book though considering his hero is Trump.

[Meticode]

I'm totally cool with Pete Rose betting on games, IF he bet on his own team. If you're betting on yourself, I see zero harm in that and in no way does it's ruin the integrity of the game.

That's what Pete said he did but unfortunately there's just no way to prove that.

Bad take. You don't understand the details and negative effects of betting even if it is for your own team to win.

[JBSptfn]

Rose did not bet on Reds games as a player.

I heard something about how they were investigating him when he was playing, though (I think it was around 1969-70). They didn't find anything, though (or they didn't look hard enough).