Vegas considering allowing Olympics betting again
Meanwhile, AIBA, the International Boxing Association, which handles boxing in the Olympics, recently changed its rules; now, all men's fights are 3 3-minute rounds, using a professional-style 10-point must system (the only real specifics are, (a) there will be five judges at each fight, but the computer will secretly choose three of them at the start to be counted, (b) no judge can score a round a draw, and (c) if a fight would otherwise end in a draw, the judges who scored the fight a draw each must choose a winner). This is the first time since at least 1968 where the scoring system wasn't, or at least wasn't supposed to be, entirely based on the number of punches landed by each boxer and deductions for fouls.
Gee, I don't see any way that this can be rigged...[/sarcasm]
I also wonder what the policy will be if a winner subsequently fails a drug test years later. It has happened; the 2004 gold medalist in the men's shot put was disqualified in 2012 when improved tests detected a drug in his 2004 sample. Also, would it make a difference if the violation was detected "on the spot" - e.g. Ben Johnson in 1988?
Also, although technically this isn't "sports betting", why do I have the feeling that, the next time there's a surprise winner at the Oscars, the initial attention won't turn to the winner but to Vegas to see if there were any "irregular betting patterns"?
Quote: ThatDonGuyThe South Point casino has petitioned the Nevada Gaming Commission to allow betting on the Olympics and the Oscars. The hearing is scheduled for February 26 (which is just after this year's Oscars, although I doubt they would have allowed bets to be taken once the final voting ends on the 17th).
Meanwhile, AIBA, the International Boxing Association, which handles boxing in the Olympics, recently changed its rules; now, all men's fights are 3 3-minute rounds, using a professional-style 10-point must system (the only real specifics are, (a) there will be five judges at each fight, but the computer will secretly choose three of them at the start to be counted, (b) no judge can score a round a draw, and (c) if a fight would otherwise end in a draw, the judges who scored the fight a draw each must choose a winner). This is the first time since at least 1968 where the scoring system wasn't, or at least wasn't supposed to be, entirely based on the number of punches landed by each boxer and deductions for fouls.
Gee, I don't see any way that this can be rigged...[/sarcasm]
I also wonder what the policy will be if a winner subsequently fails a drug test years later. It has happened; the 2004 gold medalist in the men's shot put was disqualified in 2012 when improved tests detected a drug in his 2004 sample. Also, would it make a difference if the violation was detected "on the spot" - e.g. Ben Johnson in 1988?
Also, although technically this isn't "sports betting", why do I have the feeling that, the next time there's a surprise winner at the Oscars, the initial attention won't turn to the winner but to Vegas to see if there were any "irregular betting patterns"?
Boxing is so easy to fix. The change in rules simply mean more judges need to be bought.
When it comes to Olympic boxing, the fix is in. So many examples over the years of Olympic boxing fixxed.
Last Olympics Kazakhstan essentially bought a boxing gold medal.
As to changing the results years later. Happens all the time here but no bets refunded.
Take Penn State during the Paterno era, all wins voided.
Oscars very difficult to fix. Voted on by the people that work in the Industry. Fix is posible but very expensive, got to buy a lot of votes.
Quote: ThatDonGuyAlso, although technically this isn't "sports betting", why do I have the feeling that, the next time there's a surprise winner at the Oscars, the initial attention won't turn to the winner but to Vegas to see if there were any "irregular betting patterns"?
That's interesting. As everyone knows, last year's FROZEN by Disney was the first animated film to gross over a billion dollars worldwide. The odds against it not winning an Oscar were miniscule. But in an emotional reaction the voters chose to give the animated short award to a tiny French outfit instead of the Disney Mickey Mouse short that was the preview for Frozen.
It was one of the few bets that the Wizard lost. Some of these small categories could probably be determined by a dozen people.
Quote: terapinedBoxing is so easy to fix. The change in rules simply mean more judges need to be bought.
When it comes to Olympic boxing, the fix is in. So many examples over the years of Olympic boxing fixxed.
Last Olympics Kazakhstan essentially bought a boxing gold medal.
As to changing the results years later. Happens all the time here but no bets refunded.
Take Penn State during the Paterno era, all wins voided.
Yes, but not forfeited - the teams Penn State beat are still considered to have lost.
I figure it would be similar to the 1969 Kentucky Derby (even though Dancer's Image was disqualified a few days later and Forward Pass declared the winner, win tickets on Forward Pass were not cashed as the "official result" was that Dancer's Image won.) It's just that there has to be some point where they say that a disqualification "no longer counts" - that's why I mentioned Ben Johnson. Since Olympics betting was still allowed in 1988, there should be a record somewhere on how bets on (a) Ben Johnson and (b) "eventual" winner Carl Lewis were handled.
(There's one thing I don't understand - why is it, if one member of a relay team breaks a rule during a race, then the team is disqualified, but if one is disqualified for drugs months/years after the event, then the rest of the team isn't penalized and the teams that finished lower are still punished for the other team's cheating?)
Quote: terapinedOscars very difficult to fix. Voted on by the people that work in the Industry. Fix is posible but very expensive, got to buy a lot of votes.
That much harder than Golden Globes, considering the stories as to how few AMPAS members actually vote? Try telling Pia Zadora how hard it is to rig a Golden Globes vote.
Quote: pacomartinIt was one of the few bets that the Wizard lost. Some of these small categories could probably be determined by a dozen people.
I have a feeling the categories where voters have to sign something saying that they saw all of the nominees - Live Action Short, Animated Short, Documentary Feature, Documentary Short, and Foreign Language Film - will be excluded from betting. I would be surprised if any outside of the Big Eight - picture, director, lead actor, lead actress, supporting actor, supporting actress, original screenplay, and adapted screenplay - had bets taken on them. I also wonder if the Gaming Commission will allow bets on which film will win the most Oscars.
There have been shenanigans in some of these categories, which the Academy tried to fix by requiring potential voters to append specific Academy screenings of the nominees, but they got rid of this. What happened on occasion is, one nominated film was shown once a day, at something like 10 AM, for seven consecutive days in one small theater in Los Angeles. If you didn't know about the screenings, then you couldn't claim to have seen all of the nominated films, and were therefore ineligible to vote for the winner in that category, and if you did know about them, then chances are you were going to vote for that movie anyway.
Quote: ThatDonGuy
There have been shenanigans in some of these categories, which the Academy tried to fix by requiring potential voters to append specific Academy screenings of the nominees, but they got rid of this. What happened on occasion is, one nominated film was shown once a day, at something like 10 AM, for seven consecutive days in one small theater in Los Angeles. If you didn't know about the screenings, then you couldn't claim to have seen all of the nominated films, and were therefore ineligible to vote for the winner in that category, and if you did know about them, then chances are you were going to vote for that movie anyway.
My understanding is all the voters now get DVD's of all the movies in the major categories.
Even if the film has not been released on DVD, members still get a DVD of the film.
Quote: terapinedMy understanding is all the voters now get DVD's of all the movies in the major categories.
Even if the film has not been released on DVD, members still get a DVD of the film.
Last year, the Academy sent out DVDs for the five "special" categories I listed. As for the others, I think the movies' producers send those out, and not the Academy, although I could be wrong, especially if it is a new policy.
Sending out DVD "screeners" is believed to be a major reason Crash was named Best Picture over Brokeback Mountain. Presumably, everybody realized at that point how effective they were, and started doing it for themselves.
Quote: ThatDonGuyLast year, the Academy sent out DVDs for the five "special" categories I listed. As for the others, I think the movies' producers send those out, and not the Academy, although I could be wrong, especially if it is a new policy.
Sending out DVD "screeners" is believed to be a major reason Crash was named Best Picture over Brokeback Mountain. Presumably, everybody realized at that point how effective they were, and started doing it for themselves.
Paul Haggis directed Crash.
Paul Haggis was in $cientology.
When Crash won the Oscar, $cientology described Crash as the greatest movie to ever win an Oscar.
Now Paul is out of $cientology, $cientology now describes Crash as the worst movie ever to win an Oscar.
