Wednesday, August 1st, 2007...12:01 am
Freakonomics Author Discusses NY Times Piece on NBA Point Shaving Scandal
I found this interesting post by the author of the best-selling book Freakonomics
It seems that one of the reason that sports betting can easily be fixed is due to the lack of regulation. Increase regulation (presumably by legalizing it) and you reduce the ability of corrupt referees to alter the outcome of games. It seems to me that a determined ref could still alter the outcome of a game with a bad call or two, but I’ll defer to these two brilliant economists on this one.
Jeffers writes on the subject:
The competitive advantage conferred by regulation may also channel problem gamblers into the legal sector. If policymakers build in sufficient safeguards, we can direct victims of compulsive gambling into treatment. Instead, today’s problem gamblers are channeled by illegal bookmakers into ever-higher losses, and their mounting financial pressures sometimes lead to criminal conduct.
Point-shaving is a crime of opportunity, and the opportunity comes from the structure of sports betting markets. The commissioners of the major sports need to address these systemic issues. A transparent and well-regulated gambling sector could easily out-compete the unregulated offshore bookmakers and the illegal onshore ones. More important, it would reduce the number of betting scandals we’re likely to see in the future.
As noted in the Freakonomics blog, Jeffers also offers a link to a paper by a Stanford economist who makes the case that point shaving in the NBA is a regular occurrence.
2 Comments
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:29 am
“It seems to me that a determined ref could still alter the outcome of a game with a bad call or two.”
You’re right. There’s nothing regulation per se would do to prevent match fixing. Jeffers wants to legalize only match win/loss betting (moneylines?) which are not as likely to lead to tampering. Spreads offer the opportunity for point shaving without affecting the outcome. I don’t think Freakonomics guy quite got that point.
Anyway, a question(s) for you. Have you read this one:
http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/hunting-for-suspicious-nba-stats-157/
I’m not sure I understand. Is a ref who’s minding the spread going to call more fouls as they article implies? What kind of behaviour would we expect from a crooked ref vis a vis a total points scam? Call me confused, but I don’t see what trends to expect. Seems to me the only thing to study is the ref himself on the game tape. Was hoping you had some answers
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Thanks for the clarification – your interpretation of the Times editorial is definitely correct. They are indirectly advocationg regulation of only win/loss betting in order marginalize and reduce the impact of point-spread betting on the game which are easier to “fix”.
From the wsj article you mentioned, it seems that they’re suggesting that when an inordinate amount of technical fouls and resulting freethrows are made in a game, a possible fix could be in against the “Over/Under” line. The article is pretty vague and full of caveats, however, making it difficult to understand precisely what to look for. It seems like the author may be trying to point out just how difficult it is to track these types of problems.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.