The absurd thing about the whole gambling story is that you could have hung out at Sandbar or trolled grassy and received all the "inside" information you wanted. None of it would have helped your gambling career.
I was given inside information at sandbar by multiple student athletes that we were going to kick Nebraskas *** in the rose bowl.
Inside information wouldn't even move the line. You could walk into the Hilton or other top Las Vegas sportsbooks and prove to them that you were tight within the program and had every gob of inside information available, and they wouldn't care at all. They might offer you a comp to the buffet, in pity. Power ratings and 11/10 are the bookies' friend.
I've generally been in awe of that guy's blog posts but I thought this one was relatively weak. He wastes time extracting the odds of winning 23 bets among 23. The Sports Illustrated piece didn't imply that Shapiro had a perfect record wagering on Canes games. Otherwise, that would have been an overpowering angle that already would have been told and examined a thousand times over.
The Sports Illustrated articles carry unfortunate weight only because the public is strangely ignorant of sports betting. I could supply dozens of examples. Here's one that particularly amused me: Jim Lampley in 2005 began writing for Huffington Post. He's a graduate of Miami Southwest High, BTW. Extremely liberal. In one of his first contributions to the website, Lampley asserted that the 2004 presidential election was rigged by voting machines that flipped Kerry votes to Bush votes. His evidence? Lampley claimed he was in Las Vegas that afternoon and checked sportsbook odds on the election. He said Kerry moved to a substantial favorite in all the sportsbooks, based on early exit polls. Quite a bit of rambling about how sophisticated the oddsmakers were, that it's their occupation and obsession, and that they wouldn't move Kerry to 1/2 or 2/5 favorite minus overpowering evidence he was going to win.
Now, there were numerous problems with Lampley's account. For one thing, -200 or -250 is not much of a favorite. It equates to less than a 6 point favorite in a football game. They lose all the time. Regardess, numerous political websites took on Lampley's assertions. Mark Blumenthal, the famed Mystery Pollster, wrote long examinations. So did Byron York, the prominent conservative pundit. It went back and forth for more than a week. Somehow, none of them uncovered the basic flaw in Lampley's article...that his version was impossible. It simply didn't happen. He either invented the entire thing, or weaved bits of information from unrelated sources. Wagering on political elections is illegal in Nevada. Lampley didn't see any odds in those sportsbooks. You can't even bet on a sporting "election" in Nevada, something like the Heisman Trophy. It has to be an event decided on the field of play. Wagering on the Oscars is not allowed either. Tourists are always stumped when they walk to the window, believing the old wives' tale that, "You can bet on ANYTHING here, honey!," only to be turned away. I remember when Jay Kornegay, now sportsbook manager of the Hilton (LVH), jokingly put up odds on the 1992 presidential election between Clinton and Bush 41 when he ran the Imperial Palace sportsbook in 1992. The odds weren't bettable but Kornegay thought it would be fun. Until representatives of the Nevada Gaming Commission got word of it, via a blurb in the local paper. I was there when they stormed the office and threatened everyone involved with loss of license. Koregay's face was flush and stunned for a week.
Unfortunately, I was on an Alaskan cruise when Lampley's article came out. I would have straightened out the situation immediately. He never did offer an explanation. But after reading all the columns on the matter, I basically gave up on the public gaining an understanding of the sports betting world. When gambling is mentioned in this country, the default is mysterious and sinister.
