Vujacic: Dead Man Walking?

Squirrel Boy · Post #21 » by **Squirrel Boy** » Sun Jun 1, 2008 12:56 am

lol good thing he took the shot. Now those morons learn the risks of it.

Mindflayer · Post #22 » by **Mindflayer** » Sun Jun 1, 2008 1:40 am

I remember a playoff game 20 years ago when the losing team threw up a half quarter that banked in and the annoucer said "That's a meaningless make." It wasn't meaningless because the losing team covered the spread. It happens. Sasha should not have shot it, but too bad.

BlackMamba12 · Post #23 » by **BlackMamba12** » Sun Jun 1, 2008 4:20 am

Gotta love sasha

Tommy Trojan · Post #24 » by **Tommy Trojan** » Sun Jun 1, 2008 6:15 am

The Laker Kid wrote:The Machine > Slot Machine

kobela32 · Post #25 » by **kobela32** » Sun Jun 1, 2008 6:34 am

The Machine + Re-Signed = More W's, More Laughs, More Excitement!!!

SashAlex · Post #26 » by **SashAlex** » Sun Jun 1, 2008 11:24 am

That's funny ! Sasha is for real !

kamillion · Post #27 » by **kamillion** » Sun Jun 1, 2008 2:13 pm

I think the real lesson here boys and girls is, Never bet against the Lakers!

fasca · Post #28 » by **fasca** » Sun Jun 1, 2008 3:35 pm

he should be more worried about bruce bowen breaking his ankle the first time they play next year

TommyTheCat · Post #29 » by **TommyTheCat** » Sun Jun 1, 2008 4:07 pm

kamillion wrote:I think the real lesson here boys and girls is, Never bet against the Lakers!

The Laker Kid · Post #30 » by **The Laker Kid** » Sun Jun 1, 2008 5:52 pm

Ok I don't understand this.. I'm not a gambler at all (don't even know how to play poker) but what is the "spread" ? Ok if let's say, the score is 90-100 LAL leading, and Sasha shoots a 3 and made it 90-103, the Spurs STILL LOSE. Why would that matter? Aren't people betting on who wins and who lose? Apparently it's not that simple... please explain

Post #31 » by **snaquille oatmeal** » Sun Jun 1, 2008 6:23 pm

The Laker Kid wrote:Ok I don't understand this.. I'm not a gambler at all (don't even know how to play poker) but what is the "spread" ? Ok if let's say, the score is 90-100 LAL leading, and Sasha shoots a 3 and made it 90-103, the Spurs STILL LOSE. Why would that matter? Aren't people betting on who wins and who lose? Apparently it's not that simple... please explain

you got the betting world and the real world.

in the real world whichever team has the highest score wins.

in the betting world if one team is favorite to win, the winning team must win by the point spread. that means in this case that the Lakers had a 7.5 point spread.

in other words, the betting world said the Lakers are such favorites to win in the real world that if you want to place a bet for the Lakers to win, the Lakers need to win by a score larger than 8 points for your bet to win. if the Lakers win by 7 points or less or lose the game you lose your bet.

ok here is what happened:

in the betting world about 70% of the bets were for a Spurs win because people thought that the Spurs would cover the point spread (meaning that they thought the Lakers in the real world would win by less than 7 points)

if the Lakers would have won by 5 points (without the Sasha 3 pointer) the bookies and casinos would have lost 70% of the bets made, but since Sasha score that last 3 pointer and got the Lakers to win by 8 points only 30% of the bets won. that made money for the casinos and bookies ( the casinos and bookies won 70% of the bets), but lost money for the people (the gamblers) that bet the Spurs would cover the spread.

if you still don't get it, ill put it another way.

70% of gamblers say "who is gonna win the game the Spurs or the Lakers?"
the casinos say "the Lakers".
70% of gamblers "by how many points?"
casinos say "by 8 points"
70% of gamblers "ok I bet you X amount dollars that the Lakers don't win by more than 7.5 points"
casinos say "ok it is a bet"

-Sasha scores an unnecessary 3 pointer, Lakers win by 8 points-

gamblers lose X amount of dollars plus a betting fee (not to mention that the real high rollers pay big bucks for research on who is gonna win because these people are addicted to gambling and not basketball).

daddyfivestar · Post #32 » by **daddyfivestar** » Mon Jun 2, 2008 1:20 pm

Sacrilege!

I don't care about Spurs fans, or neutral fan gamblers, losing on this, but anyone who calls themselves a LAKER'S FAN got what they deserved if they took the Spurs and pts. Traitors, you all!
As is often said, you cannot serve two masters. You chose money over the Lakers, and would have gleefully pocketed your winnings had the Spurs won outright, justifying it by saying there's still two more games. No faith, "Lakerfan".

Since you must now relinquish your Laker fan membership card (tkb, say it aint so joe) and you are all banished from watching the Finals, can I have your big screen?

The Laker Kid · Post #33 » by **The Laker Kid** » Mon Jun 2, 2008 9:54 pm

Thank you snaq for the detailed, well-thought out response. I get it now.. that should teach them a lesson not to gamble anymore :lol:

Mindflayer · Post #34 » by **Mindflayer** » Tue Jun 3, 2008 1:20 am

Maybe Sasha is the next Jimmy Johnson. When Jimmy was coaching college football there was no bigger lock to win a bet then bet on Jimmy to cover in his bowl game. You knew Jimmy knew the line as was going to cover it for you every time.

Post #35 » by **Slava** » Tue Jun 3, 2008 5:33 am

Knowing Sasha, he'd do nothing different if the same situation was present itself again in this series. :lol: