MLB wants Dodgers(Ohtani) vs Yankees(Judge) - NFL/Goodell helped the Chiefs

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Section103

And was that the case for every Chiefs game or can we conclude that there is no strong correlation between Vegas' position and the Chiefs outcome?

That is far from the case on every Chiefs game. More money was wagered on the Bills. Usually, but not always, more money is wagered on the chiefs. The books typically try to balance the money out but in this game they took in heavier bets on the Bills.

[Section103]

Originally Posted by Carter08

That is far from the case on every Chiefs game. More money was wagered on the Bills. Usually, but not always, more money is wagered on the chiefs. The books typically try to balance the money out but in this game they took in heavier bets on the Bills.

So then we agree that the Vegas angle is nonsensical? Cool.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Section103

So then we agree that the Vegas angle is nonsensical? Cool.

Gambling never impacts sports. Run with that lol.

[Section103]

Originally Posted by Carter08

That is far from the case on every Chiefs game. More money was wagered on the Bills. Usually, but not always, more money is wagered on the chiefs. The books typically try to balance the money out but in this game they took in heavier bets on the Bills.

Originally Posted by Carter08

Gambling never impacts sports. Run with that lol.

Im with you completely. Just please explain how Vegas is involved in making sure that the Chiefs when when....as you said...the Chiefs almost always had more money wagered on them.

Or just come up with some dismissive snippet pretending to be intellectual again.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Section103

Im with you completely. Just please explain how Vegas is involved in making sure that the Chiefs when when....as you said...the Chiefs almost always had more money wagered on them.

Or just come up with some dismissive snippet pretending to be intellectual again.

Someone should start their own thread on this being about gambling. Has nothing to do with gambling.

Focus people.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Section103

Im with you completely. Just please explain how Vegas is involved in making sure that the Chiefs when when....as you said...the Chiefs almost always had more money wagered on them.

Or just come up with some dismissive snippet pretending to be intellectual again.

I said I didn’t bring gambling into this. You did, with verifiably false statements that I addressed.

[Section103]

Man this is tough. Do you believe Vegas is involved in the fixing of Chiefs games or no? Simple yes or no question.

I did not bring up gambling, someone else did earlier in the thread. You responded. I proposed that the idea was non-sensical, you retorted with a single example in which it was not. Thanks. My theory still stands. Moe agrees with me.

And I'll even give you a diversion. "Vegas" probably is involved in the fixing of games, in the sense that people do gamble and that leads to corruption that we've already seen. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the NFL unless you'd like to offer up your own theory there.

And yet still neither one of you has even gone so far as to confess to no longer watching games or explaining why you do.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Section103

Man this is tough. Do you believe Vegas is involved in the fixing of Chiefs games or no? Simple yes or no question.

I did not bring up gambling, someone else did earlier in the thread. You responded. I proposed that the idea was non-sensical, you retorted with a single example in which it was not. Thanks. My theory still stands. Moe agrees with me.

And I'll even give you a diversion. "Vegas" probably is involved in the fixing of games, in the sense that people do gamble and that leads to corruption that we've already seen. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the NFL unless you'd like to offer up your own theory there.

And yet still neither one of you has even gone so far as to confess to no longer watching games or explaining why you do.

I won't be watching the Super Bowl, only exception would be if I were to be at a party, but since not planning to go to one at this moment, I'm boycotting the SB and will watch something else. Hopefully Hockey is on but guessing prob not, then I'll watch a few episodes of the Sopranos. My boycott means nothing to anyone or the NFL, but I will like having known I didn't give Goodell a second of my time that day. Again he could give 2 shits.

It's like watching a pre-arranged marriage, just aint the same

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Section103

Man this is tough. Do you believe Vegas is involved in the fixing of Chiefs games or no? Simple yes or no question.

I did not bring up gambling, someone else did earlier in the thread. You responded. I proposed that the idea was non-sensical, you retorted with a single example in which it was not. Thanks. My theory still stands. Moe agrees with me.

And I'll even give you a diversion. "Vegas" probably is involved in the fixing of games, in the sense that people do gamble and that leads to corruption that we've already seen. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the NFL unless you'd like to offer up your own theory there.

And yet still neither one of you has even gone so far as to confess to no longer watching games or explaining why you do.

I don’t think gambling played a role in the outcome of the Chiefs-Texans or Chiefs-Bills game. I won’t be watching the Super Bowl this year. The NFL doesn’t care, nor should it. There are millions of Swift fans that will more than replace the people that are fed up.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Section103

So then we agree that the Vegas angle is nonsensical? Cool.

100% agree.