Porter under investigation for prop betting involving himself

[PushDaRock]

The longer this investigation goes on, the better his odds of getting out of this. I thought he was dead in the water when this first came out but maybe a very tiny glimmer of hope right now for him.

Isn't this the first instance of a player betting on himself? They'll take their time with this.

I am more so looking at it from the perspective that the team hasn't released him yet which is a bit surprising. Compare that to the Kevin Porter Jr. situation where they got rid of him right away without even waiting for the case to play out. Don't get me wrong, the situation is still very bleak looking for him.

[HangTime]

If all the overs hit, would we have heard anything?

The amount would still be "suspicious"
Would they refund the bettors?

Also, why are they creating the betting Props on a 2-way contract player? Also, why would they accept all of them?

[720]

If all the overs hit, would we have heard anything?

The amount would still be "suspicious"
Would they refund the bettors?

Also, why are they creating the betting Props on a 2-way contract player? Also, why would they accept all of them?

I think it has more to do with the fact that in both games a bunch of people were betting thousands of dollars on the under on a no name player who happened to sit out in both games after playing a few minutes.

[Fairview4Life]

If all the overs hit, would we have heard anything?

The amount would still be "suspicious"
Would they refund the bettors?

Also, why are they creating the betting Props on a 2-way contract player? Also, why would they accept all of them?

They'd probably look to see if he hit the overs due to a whole bunch of foul shots or something. Or check the official scorekeeper. Things that a human could control.

[Tofubeque]

On the other hand there's this take on reddit:



https://www.reddit.com/r/billsimmons/comments/1bnuh70/this_jontay_porter_thing_seems_like_sour_grapes/

That's a very stupid take. The idea that gamblers found a badly set line on Jontay **** Porter and then hammered it to beat the house is just flat out silly. Just because he was under the points/rebound lines in previous games doesn't mean **** all when the Raps were missing bigs and he was going to get lots of minutes in both of the games he left. If he was under so much previously, why weren't gamblers winning big on those lines as well? Because it's Jontay Porter! no one bets on that ****. The fact he left both games with "injuries" is exactly how you can tell the lines being set where they were had nothing to do with it. They guaranteed the winnings by him playing a little bit and then leaving the games, which is why those lines were hammered. It's goddamn amateur hour rigging. Any time a large amount of money is being bet on Jontay Porter over/unders, you can absolutely guarantee it's bull ****.

Man - you severely under estimate career gamblers who barely make their own decisions but rather have computers and algorithms doing it for them. I played a TON of daily fantasy and paid for some services. If these guys with 300 patereon subscribers can identify stuff like this, you can guarantee whales gambling thousands a night would be able to identify it.

Did their algorithms tell them Jontay was checking out at the end of the 1st quarter both times?

Like I don't doubt gamblers can be sophisticated, but those operations also aren't trying to put 10,000 on single prop bets, or swinging the volume of payouts for ALL NBA PROPS to hit 1 obscure 2-way player out of all the others with lines that night, twice in only games where he removed himself. That post above focuses on the 7.5 and 5.5 and ignores all the categories where the line was 0.5, not unusual lines in the slightest.

Those circumstances are really obvious and that reddit post is so dumb I want to think someone wrote it just for fun. Other things tipping me off are calling Porter a "blind man" because he got poked in the eye 2 nights before, the flattering position of DraftKings being idiotic and we reddit gamblers being very smart, and bringing up the Porter family's "anti-vax and manslaughter brother" as if that's a narrative anyone but complete sickos will remember. I don't even know which brother that refers to.

[tecumseh18]

If all the overs hit, would we have heard anything?

The amount would still be "suspicious"
Would they refund the bettors?

Also, why are they creating the betting Props on a 2-way contract player? Also, why would they accept all of them?

They'd probably look to see if he hit the overs due to a whole bunch of foul shots or something. Or check the official scorekeeper. Things that a human could control.

Hmm, someone should do a deep dive on the gambling odds (including prop bets) for our play-in game against the Bulls last year. 16 for 32 on FTs is ... suspicious. Hah, DeMar may even have been in on it, to the extent of providing his daughter as a diversion from the truth.

The perfect crime.

[MiamiSPX]

Like I don't doubt gamblers can be sophisticated, but those operations also aren't trying to put 10,000 on single prop bets, or swinging the volume of payouts for ALL NBA PROPS to hit 1 obscure 2-way player out of all the others with lines that night, twice in only games where he removed himself.

All the syndicates know these bets would get flagged. Whoever did this was an amateur OR it was one of the unlikeliest coincidences.

and bringing up the Porter family's "anti-vax and manslaughter brother" as if that's a narrative anyone but complete sickos will remember. I don't even know which brother that refers to.

They have another brother who killed someone while driving under the influence.

[YogurtProducer]

That's a very stupid take. The idea that gamblers found a badly set line on Jontay **** Porter and then hammered it to beat the house is just flat out silly. Just because he was under the points/rebound lines in previous games doesn't mean **** all when the Raps were missing bigs and he was going to get lots of minutes in both of the games he left. If he was under so much previously, why weren't gamblers winning big on those lines as well? Because it's Jontay Porter! no one bets on that ****. The fact he left both games with "injuries" is exactly how you can tell the lines being set where they were had nothing to do with it. They guaranteed the winnings by him playing a little bit and then leaving the games, which is why those lines were hammered. It's goddamn amateur hour rigging. Any time a large amount of money is being bet on Jontay Porter over/unders, you can absolutely guarantee it's bull ****.

Man - you severely under estimate career gamblers who barely make their own decisions but rather have computers and algorithms doing it for them. I played a TON of daily fantasy and paid for some services. If these guys with 300 patereon subscribers can identify stuff like this, you can guarantee whales gambling thousands a night would be able to identify it.

Did their algorithms tell them Jontay was checking out at the end of the 1st quarter both times?

Like I don't doubt gamblers can be sophisticated, but those operations also aren't trying to put 10,000 on single prop bets, or swinging the volume of payouts for ALL NBA PROPS to hit 1 obscure 2-way player out of all the others with lines that night, twice in only games where he removed himself. That post above focuses on the 7.5 and 5.5 and ignores all the categories where the line was 0.5, not unusual lines in the slightest.

Those circumstances are really obvious and that reddit post is so dumb I want to think someone wrote it just for fun. Other things tipping me off are calling Porter a "blind man" because he got poked in the eye 2 nights before, the flattering position of DraftKings being idiotic and we reddit gamblers being very smart, and bringing up the Porter family's "anti-vax and manslaughter brother" as if that's a narrative anyone but complete sickos will remember. I don't even know which brother that refers to.

Probably not, but Jontays lines were way to high if they actually were 7.5 and 5.5. Guys who gamble thousands and thousands every night would smash those lines without question.

I still lean to the side of Jontay did some **** (knowingly or not), but it is not crazy to think there is 1000 guys out there with algorithms and they all smashed a few thousand on a very high line for a guy who barely crossed those #'s in weeks past (even with playing time)

[Fairview4Life]

Man - you severely under estimate career gamblers who barely make their own decisions but rather have computers and algorithms doing it for them. I played a TON of daily fantasy and paid for some services. If these guys with 300 patereon subscribers can identify stuff like this, you can guarantee whales gambling thousands a night would be able to identify it.

Did their algorithms tell them Jontay was checking out at the end of the 1st quarter both times?

Like I don't doubt gamblers can be sophisticated, but those operations also aren't trying to put 10,000 on single prop bets, or swinging the volume of payouts for ALL NBA PROPS to hit 1 obscure 2-way player out of all the others with lines that night, twice in only games where he removed himself. That post above focuses on the 7.5 and 5.5 and ignores all the categories where the line was 0.5, not unusual lines in the slightest.

Those circumstances are really obvious and that reddit post is so dumb I want to think someone wrote it just for fun. Other things tipping me off are calling Porter a "blind man" because he got poked in the eye 2 nights before, the flattering position of DraftKings being idiotic and we reddit gamblers being very smart, and bringing up the Porter family's "anti-vax and manslaughter brother" as if that's a narrative anyone but complete sickos will remember. I don't even know which brother that refers to.

Probably not, but Jontays lines were way to high if they actually were 7.5 and 5.5. Guys who gamble thousands and thousands every night would smash those lines without question.

I still lean to the side of Jontay did some **** (knowingly or not), but it is not crazy to think there is 1000 guys out there with algorithms and they all smashed a few thousand on a very high line for a guy who barely crossed those #'s in weeks past (even with playing time)

It is hard to believe the guys with the algorithms only smashed the Jontay Porter unders in the 2 games Jontay pulled himself from. That is, actually, very crazy.

[YogurtProducer]

Did their algorithms tell them Jontay was checking out at the end of the 1st quarter both times?

Like I don't doubt gamblers can be sophisticated, but those operations also aren't trying to put 10,000 on single prop bets, or swinging the volume of payouts for ALL NBA PROPS to hit 1 obscure 2-way player out of all the others with lines that night, twice in only games where he removed himself. That post above focuses on the 7.5 and 5.5 and ignores all the categories where the line was 0.5, not unusual lines in the slightest.

Those circumstances are really obvious and that reddit post is so dumb I want to think someone wrote it just for fun. Other things tipping me off are calling Porter a "blind man" because he got poked in the eye 2 nights before, the flattering position of DraftKings being idiotic and we reddit gamblers being very smart, and bringing up the Porter family's "anti-vax and manslaughter brother" as if that's a narrative anyone but complete sickos will remember. I don't even know which brother that refers to.

Probably not, but Jontays lines were way to high if they actually were 7.5 and 5.5. Guys who gamble thousands and thousands every night would smash those lines without question.

I still lean to the side of Jontay did some **** (knowingly or not), but it is not crazy to think there is 1000 guys out there with algorithms and they all smashed a few thousand on a very high line for a guy who barely crossed those #'s in weeks past (even with playing time)

It is hard to believe the guys with the algorithms only smashed the Jontay Porter unders in the 2 games Jontay pulled himself from. That is, actually, very crazy.

I agree, but for all we know they smashed that two other times and lost - but funny enough we dont hear about those times, do we?

[Fairview4Life]

Probably not, but Jontays lines were way to high if they actually were 7.5 and 5.5. Guys who gamble thousands and thousands every night would smash those lines without question.

I still lean to the side of Jontay did some **** (knowingly or not), but it is not crazy to think there is 1000 guys out there with algorithms and they all smashed a few thousand on a very high line for a guy who barely crossed those #'s in weeks past (even with playing time)

It is hard to believe the guys with the algorithms only smashed the Jontay Porter unders in the 2 games Jontay pulled himself from. That is, actually, very crazy.

I agree, but for all we know they smashed that two other times and lost - but funny enough we dont hear about those times, do we?

…didn’t we just get through hearing that the unders hit all the time and were therefore the smart bet? So the argument is the under was always the good bet, they smashed them previously and lost, and only won when Jontay pulled himself from games? I mean, that’s not particularly plausible.

[WaltFrazier]

On the other hand there's this take on reddit:

This Jontay Porter thing seems like sour grapes on behalf of the Sportsbooks and their Co-Conspirators in the National Media
As we all know, the national media has sold their souls to the gambling companies and will do the bidding of the sportsbooks and try to dupe gambling addicts and unsuspecting teenagers into making prop bets and horrendous parlays to profit off the new sports gambling world.

Now they have sour grapes from getting their asses handed to them by some smart people betting on Jontay Porter prop bets and have sent their pawns at ESPN to do a hit job on Jontay Porter.

It was public info that Jontay Porter suffered an eye injury against the Grizzlies and was then questionable for the next game against the Clippers. Betting on a blind man whose already a mediocre three point shooter, and who is questionable to play because of his injury to not make a three point shot is just a smart prop bet.

Even more egregious is the March 20th game against the Kings, where everyone hit his unders and won because of the illness. DraftKings and ESPN would love for you to believe he tipped people off about being sick and leaving early, but the more obvious explanation is that they set a completely idiotic line and got their asses handed to them as a result.

Per ESPN, the SportsBooks set his over/under at 7.5 points and 5.5 rebounds.

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/39808900/nba-eyes-raptors-jontay-porter-betting-issues

For the season, Porter has went over on the points 7 times versus 19 times under (26.9% over). He's hit the over on the rebounds 5 times versus 21 under (19.2% over). Even parlaying those together, you have a 58.6% probability of both happening in the same game.

It's not a surprise that some smart gambling addicts would find a poorly set line and then hammer them on those.

On top of this, this also benefits Adam Silver, also in bed with the gambling companies, by deflecting attention away from the referees, who there have been concrete proof of being involved on betting on games. With this he targeted Jontay Porter, a scrub from a relatively unpopular family because of their anti-vax and manslaughter brother. A very easy scapegoat. This has the added benefit of also potentially getting NBA fans to turn on Michael Porter Jr., which would allow the betting refs to screw the Nuggets over in the NBA Finals against the Boston Celtics.

https://www.reddit.com/r/billsimmons/comments/1bnuh70/this_jontay_porter_thing_seems_like_sour_grapes/

That's a very stupid take. The idea that gamblers found a badly set line on Jontay **** Porter and then hammered it to beat the house is just flat out silly. Just because he was under the points/rebound lines in previous games doesn't mean **** all when the Raps were missing bigs and he was going to get lots of minutes in both of the games he left. If he was under so much previously, why weren't gamblers winning big on those lines as well? Because it's Jontay Porter! no one bets on that ****. The fact he left both games with "injuries" is exactly how you can tell the lines being set where they were had nothing to do with it. They guaranteed the winnings by him playing a little bit and then leaving the games, which is why those lines were hammered. It's goddamn amateur hour rigging. Any time a large amount of money is being bet on Jontay Porter over/unders, you can absolutely guarantee it's bull ****.

Most Redditors agreed with you back when I first saw this

[WaltFrazier]

Probably not, but Jontays lines were way to high if they actually were 7.5 and 5.5. Guys who gamble thousands and thousands every night would smash those lines without question.

I still lean to the side of Jontay did some **** (knowingly or not), but it is not crazy to think there is 1000 guys out there with algorithms and they all smashed a few thousand on a very high line for a guy who barely crossed those #'s in weeks past (even with playing time)

It is hard to believe the guys with the algorithms only smashed the Jontay Porter unders in the 2 games Jontay pulled himself from. That is, actually, very crazy.

I agree, but for all we know they smashed that two other times and lost - but funny enough we dont hear about those times, do we?

The last comment, that would come out in an investigation, no?

[YogurtProducer]

It is hard to believe the guys with the algorithms only smashed the Jontay Porter unders in the 2 games Jontay pulled himself from. That is, actually, very crazy.

I agree, but for all we know they smashed that two other times and lost - but funny enough we dont hear about those times, do we?

…didn’t we just get through hearing that the unders hit all the time and were therefore the smart bet? So the argument is the under was always the good bet, they smashed them previously and lost, and only won when Jontay pulled himself from games? I mean, that’s not particularly plausible.

You dont gotta bat 1.000 to be a successful bettor my guy

A smart bet =/= guarantee bet

[Fairview4Life]

I agree, but for all we know they smashed that two other times and lost - but funny enough we dont hear about those times, do we?

…didn’t we just get through hearing that the unders hit all the time and were therefore the smart bet? So the argument is the under was always the good bet, they smashed them previously and lost, and only won when Jontay pulled himself from games? I mean, that’s not particularly plausible.

You dont gotta bat 1.000 to be a successful bettor my guy :lol:

A smart bet =/= guarantee bet

The argument from Reddit is that the bettors knew the line was high because Porter has been going under all season, like 75% of the time or something. The fact that the Porter under payouts were only huge when he pulled himself out of games means that those algorithms were apparently only picking those games to slam the under, and not the rest of the supposedly easy money bets, which beggars belief. They were either not smartly betting the under all year, or they just magically picked the two games that he pulled himself from. I wonder how those fancy spreadsheets would have done that?

The idea is that they had a very good chance of winning their bets but, just coincidentally, Porter pulled himself from those games and guaranteed it. Just in those two games, somehow.

[YogurtProducer]

…didn’t we just get through hearing that the unders hit all the time and were therefore the smart bet? So the argument is the under was always the good bet, they smashed them previously and lost, and only won when Jontay pulled himself from games? I mean, that’s not particularly plausible.

You dont gotta bat 1.000 to be a successful bettor my guy

A smart bet =/= guarantee bet

The argument from Reddit is that the bettors knew the line was high because Porter has been going under all season, like 75% of the time or something. The fact that the Porter under payouts were only huge when he pulled himself out of games means that those algorithms were apparently only picking those games to slam the under, and not the rest of the supposedly easy money bets, which beggars belief. They were either not smartly betting the under all year, or they just magically picked the two games that he pulled himself from. I wonder how those fancy spreadsheets would have done that?

The idea is that they had a very good chance of winning their bets but, just coincidentally, Porter pulled himself from those games and guaranteed it. Just in those two games, somehow.

But you have not idea if there was also high activity on other Porter games as well that either won or lost, you only know on the two games he got hurt.

I am interested where you got this information that there was no activity on the other games?

Like I said - I would bet Porter is guilty of something here, but it is foolish to act like seasoned bettors would not be able to see a trend that hits 75% of the time

[Fairview4Life]

You dont gotta bat 1.000 to be a successful bettor my guy :lol:

A smart bet =/= guarantee bet

The argument from Reddit is that the bettors knew the line was high because Porter has been going under all season, like 75% of the time or something. The fact that the Porter under payouts were only huge when he pulled himself out of games means that those algorithms were apparently only picking those games to slam the under, and not the rest of the supposedly easy money bets, which beggars belief. They were either not smartly betting the under all year, or they just magically picked the two games that he pulled himself from. I wonder how those fancy spreadsheets would have done that?

The idea is that they had a very good chance of winning their bets but, just coincidentally, Porter pulled himself from those games and guaranteed it. Just in those two games, somehow.

But you have not idea if there was also high activity on other Porter games as well that either won or lost, you only know on the two games he got hurt.

I am interested where you got this information that there was no activity on the other games?

Like I said - I would bet Porter is guilty of something here, but it is foolish to act like seasoned bettors would not be able to see a trend that hits 75% of the time

Im getting that information because on both occasions draftkings said those were the biggest winning over/unders of the day. But that didn’t happen on any other day. So on the days Porter pulled himself, the unders paid out huge. But on the other days when he was hitting on the under, they didn’t. What a truly baffling coincidence.

[The Duke]

If all the overs hit, would we have heard anything?

The amount would still be "suspicious"
Would they refund the bettors?

Also, why are they creating the betting Props on a 2-way contract player? Also, why would they accept all of them?

They'd probably look to see if he hit the overs due to a whole bunch of foul shots or something. Or check the official scorekeeper. Things that a human could control.

Hmm, someone should do a deep dive on the gambling odds (including prop bets) for our play-in game against the Bulls last year. 16 for 32 on FTs is ... suspicious. Hah, DeMar may even have been in on it, to the extent of providing his daughter as a diversion from the truth.

The perfect crime.

It’s not about the odds… its whether there was a “significant win” that is unusual compared to the ‘normal’

No one cares if the over/under was 50% FT% … ppl care if unusual higher amount of bets (and wins) happens compared to the ‘season average’

[The Duke]

You dont gotta bat 1.000 to be a successful bettor my guy

A smart bet =/= guarantee bet

The argument from Reddit is that the bettors knew the line was high because Porter has been going under all season, like 75% of the time or something. The fact that the Porter under payouts were only huge when he pulled himself out of games means that those algorithms were apparently only picking those games to slam the under, and not the rest of the supposedly easy money bets, which beggars belief. They were either not smartly betting the under all year, or they just magically picked the two games that he pulled himself from. I wonder how those fancy spreadsheets would have done that?

The idea is that they had a very good chance of winning their bets but, just coincidentally, Porter pulled himself from those games and guaranteed it. Just in those two games, somehow.

But you have not idea if there was also high activity on other Porter games as well that either won or lost, you only know on the two games he got hurt.

I am interested where you got this information that there was no activity on the other games?

Like I said - I would bet Porter is guilty of something here, but it is foolish to act like seasoned bettors would not be able to see a trend that hits 75% of the time

Good seasoned betters are not waiting for a trend that hits 75% to bet big. They would bet it every day, max bet if they knew it was “75%” daily. To have spike bets is the unusal part. If they bet it everyday, it wouldn’t be unusual anymore.

[brownbobcat]

The argument from Reddit is that the bettors knew the line was high because Porter has been going under all season, like 75% of the time or something. The fact that the Porter under payouts were only huge when he pulled himself out of games means that those algorithms were apparently only picking those games to slam the under, and not the rest of the supposedly easy money bets, which beggars belief. They were either not smartly betting the under all year, or they just magically picked the two games that he pulled himself from. I wonder how those fancy spreadsheets would have done that?

The idea is that they had a very good chance of winning their bets but, just coincidentally, Porter pulled himself from those games and guaranteed it. Just in those two games, somehow.

But you have not idea if there was also high activity on other Porter games as well that either won or lost, you only know on the two games he got hurt.

I am interested where you got this information that there was no activity on the other games?

Like I said - I would bet Porter is guilty of something here, but it is foolish to act like seasoned bettors would not be able to see a trend that hits 75% of the time

Good seasoned betters are not waiting for a trend that hits 75% to bet big. They would bet it every day, max bet if they knew it was “75%” daily. To have spike bets is the unusal part. If they bet it everyday, it wouldn’t be unusual anymore.

The sample size with Porter is so small and the data so limited, there is no way anyone has a model for him that they'd make consistently large bets on him. That's just not believable.