Comparison of gambling and betting on resistance to outcome manipulation

[viljy]

If we talk about the possibility of external influence on events in order to manipulate the result (meaning, for example, interference in the gambling process, interference in a sports competition, for example, through match-fixing), which is more vulnerable in this regard: gambling or betting on events (not only on sports)?

Gradually, I came to the conclusion that sports betting is more vulnerable to manipulation of the results of events and the subsequent use of insider information. Betting on events in general strongly depends on the scale of an event. The larger the event, the more difficult it is to influence its outcome to your advantage (a recent example of such a large-scale bet is a bet on the outcome of the US presidential election).

In turn, gambling is the least susceptible to manipulation of the results, since the more random the process, the less manageable it is. In other words, the high proportion of random outcomes in gambling protects them from manipulation of the results to a greater extent than the high predictability of sports betting protects them from contractual outcomes of competitions. This leads to the paradoxical conclusion that the less influence luck or bad luck has on the outcome of an event, the more likely it is that you will simply be deceived. Do you agree or disagree with such ideas regarding gambling and betting?

[Botnake]

There are so many conspiracy theories online claiming that sports betting is manipulated, and it’s not just limited to lesser-known games as even popular ones are questioned. There was a famous case involving Tim Donaghy, an NBA referee who went to prison for manipulating games, not sure if you’re familiar with him, but his story is one of the most talked-about examples of alleged game fixing.

If you’re curious about how he did it, you can check out the video

Inside The Gambling Ring of NBA Referee Tim Donaghy

In that interview, IIRC Donaghy claimed he acted alone and that no one ordered him to manipulate games. But personally, I find that hard to believe. It seems like the organization might have been aware, or possibly even involved using some kind of "script." Why else would Donaghy make a public testimony after serving his sentence? Was it to clear the organization’s name and reassure fans? Makes you wonder.

[mak013]

If we talk about the possibility of external influence on events in order to manipulate the result (meaning, for example, interference in the gambling process, interference in a sports competition, for example, through match-fixing), which is more vulnerable in this regard: gambling or betting on events (not only on sports)?

Gradually, I came to the conclusion that sports betting is more vulnerable to manipulation of the results of events and the subsequent use of insider information. Betting on events in general strongly depends on the scale of an event. The larger the event, the more difficult it is to influence its outcome to your advantage (a recent example of such a large-scale bet is a bet on the outcome of the US presidential election).

In turn, gambling is the least susceptible to manipulation of the results, since the more random the process, the less manageable it is. In other words, the high proportion of random outcomes in gambling protects them from manipulation of the results to a greater extent than the high predictability of sports betting protects them from contractual outcomes of competitions. This leads to the paradoxical conclusion that the less influence luck or bad luck has on the outcome of an event, the more likely it is that you will simply be deceived. Do you agree or disagree with such ideas regarding gambling and betting?

It is not paradox, it is logically true. You can`t influence the result in random games, so you have no reason even to try it. The same time, if the result can be predicted(without guarantee of course, just increase chances of winning) - you can manipulate it. If you don`t know the possible result, you don`t know what side you ought to move.

[Hewlet]

manipulation of sports event is easier than any sort of event like a general election of the order of the presidential election that involve just two kind of potential outcome which is just a win or a loss. because of how straight forward the kind of expected outcome is and the fact that the kind of outcome that ends up playing out will have effect on citizens for a number of years, you cant really predict it or even assume that it can be manipulated just because it has any association with a particular gambling decision.

in sports, players, referee, the team or management and even the VAR can be manipulated and it will have effect on the outcome of the game and when only one of the different potential sources that combines to determine the outcome of the game is being manipulated, it will generally be difficult to ascertain which is the cause except in obvious cases and this is the reason why sports betting will always be susceptible to some sort of manipulation and that is why the issue of max fixing is still a subject of discussion.. attempting to influence the result in both random games and even events that can be easily predetermined will only take out the joy and fun that is associated with doing your prediction without the fear that the outcome has already be predetermined. it will discourage people from gambling on such event like the WWE and definitely is the reason why we talk about voters apathy being on the increase.

[Odusko]

Despite that, we have so many laws that are yet to be made that will make sports games fairer and less manipulated, is still a clear fact that sports is one of the most corrupt and manipulated games among others, this is because sports games have vulnerable chances of interference not just from one actor but multiple interferences which makes the games far from being perfect, that is the reason some of the games within sport games like football and others have organizers that set rules to at least checkmates the excesses of each actor in the game.

[btc78]

If we talk about the possibility of external influence on events in order to manipulate the result (meaning, for example, interference in the gambling process, interference in a sports competition, for example, through match-fixing), which is more vulnerable in this regard: gambling or betting on events (not only on sports)?

obviously betting on events is the most vulnerable to manipulation since it is the only one that is led by people

maybe not the betting platform exactly but matches, sports teams, and athletes are all susceptible to manipulation and fraud and that can affect someone's bet as opposed to gambling whereas it is mostly machines that a gambler is working with it is a lot harder to manipulate and fool something that works under logic and codes

[Fivestar4everMVP]

This leads to the paradoxical conclusion that the less influence luck or bad luck has on the outcome of an event, the more likely it is that you will simply be deceived. Do you agree or disagree with such ideas regarding gambling and betting?

Games that has its outcomes purely based on luck are immune to human manipulation or physical human manipulation if that's the right word to use, we can draw our example for slot games, it is impossible for humans to physically manipulate the outcome of a slot game being played, and this is because the game is purely system based, the game and it's mechanics have been programmed to work on a certain, and computers are non to be very consistent to instructions it's given.

And outside of luck based games, like sports betting and others, this games are more prone to human manipulation, it is easy to bribe a team to allow their opponent win, this is possible not just in football but across all major sports, and the more unpopular a sports league is, the more high risk it is to such manipulation.

So, in conclusion, I would say that you are right, I agree wit you.

[danherbias07]

I agree. This is why I don't bet on small leagues (if available) because I don't have any source that will tell me what the outcome of the game will be. They are prone to manipulation and I bet there's one who is making profits out of those.
Professional sports on the other hand is unlikely to be manipulated and if it is, it sure is too obvious and many people will see it which is why they are trying to avoid it as much as possible. As you said, we cannot influence it, nor other people. It's not like a group of players who are paid in high amounts will just listen to anyone especially if they are stars who are always looking for a win.

[acroman08]

Gradually, I came to the conclusion that sports betting is more vulnerable to manipulation of the results of events and the subsequent use of insider information. Betting on events in general strongly depends on the scale of an event. The larger the event, the more difficult it is to influence its outcome to your advantage (a recent example of such a large-scale bet is a bet on the outcome of the US presidential election).

I totally agree with this, the amount of small scale sports matches I've seen that is clearly being manipulated by either the referees, the players, coaches, organizers, etc.. is just too many. it is also understandable that it is a lot easier to manipulate as there is less security and regulations on them compared to the big leagues.

[Davidvictorson]

It is not paradox, it is logically true. You can`t influence the result in random games, so you have no reason even to try it. The same time, if the result can be predicted(without guarantee of course, just increase chances of winning) - you can manipulate it. If you don`t know the possible result, you don`t know what side you ought to move.

I agree. I have lost count of the number of interference and manipulations in sports betting - in football, basketball and some of the others. I can't even make any comparison with this in betting on casino games. Unless those who are now trying to use bots to manipulate the outcome of their games, which is still difficult and close to impossible, you can hardly find any issues like that compared to sportsbetting. In casino games, winning or losing is random unless the casino just had badly programmed games that are not provably fair.

[Perfectbaby]

Gambling itself can be manipulated beit sports game or casino games, if we talks about sports bet being manipulated yes it can be physically manipulated either from the player or coach whomever that is deemed easily controlled by money but most times players are the people who are more likely to become manipulated due to the handsome offers that could be presented to them.

Now if we talking about casinos, this games can be also easily manipulated by the programer or from the casino end side where they would make winning chances very poor and make the losing possibilities extremely high to favor them. To me I sense that casinos are more manipulated compared to sports betting since they are being watched live on how they plays and runs it than casinos which you would never detect the overall system configuration and even though they said it's provably fair I wouldn't take that as an assurance or a total reliability to say that casino game is entirely fair enough to win easily.

[Obim34]

Sports betting are physically active games, it is easier to manipulate from this end to the other without getting noticed. Options on betting platforms are getting more crazier with betting if random fan interrupting a game or a certain player getting red card in a match and then doing it himself just to establish the win on his bet. There has been many calls about players changing the outcomes on purpose just so they can make million profit from their bet, while others are caught i am sure there are those who are best at it and yet undiscovered.

Election bets can also be tampered, whereas in casino an insider might have the ability to track signals and deploy when is convenient to stake, but the average number of times outcomes are tampered are those from sports betting.

[iv4n]

This leads to the paradoxical conclusion that the less influence luck or bad luck has on the outcome of an event, the more likely it is that you will simply be deceived. Do you agree or disagree with such ideas regarding gambling and betting?

But you can't say that the less influence of "luck or bad luck" may indicate potential rigging if I understood correctly what you want to say. Maybe we can say that it is easier to set up less popular duels compared to popular ones on which many eyes are focused. As some other members have already said, that's why we choose to bet on the most popular sports and leagues.

Your idea is kind of generalized and a little unclear to me... but if you found some way to increase your chances of winning or dodging bullets in sports betting, then that's great.

[viljy]

I agree. This is why I don't bet on small leagues (if available) because I don't have any source that will tell me what the outcome of the game will be. They are prone to manipulation and I bet there's one who is making profits out of those.
Professional sports on the other hand is unlikely to be manipulated and if it is, it sure is too obvious and many people will see it which is why they are trying to avoid it as much as possible. As you said, we cannot influence it, nor other people. It's not like a group of players who are paid in high amounts will just listen to anyone especially if they are stars who are always looking for a win.

You have raised an important question, which I would formulate something like this: "From what level of sports competitions can we be sure that betting will not run the risk of manipulating the results of these competitions?" I'm not sure that even at the level of, for example, Serie A, all matches are guaranteed to be fair. Maybe the World Cup level is closed from manipulation.. As for other sports, I doubt very much that even some fights for world boxing titles are not subject to behind-the-scenes arrangements.

However, I am almost sure that Formula 1 is free from such manipulations. The teams' financial and technological interests clash too much there. And the same big ambitions of the racers are opposed to each other. As for the reasons for this, I have another hypothesis, which is that racing is an inherently rich people's sport, whereas boxing or football allows anyone, including a poor person, to make a career if they have the ability and determination.

[Wexnident]

~

Wouldn't it be on events? Like there's a lot more that can be swayed/affected by various pressures (political, social, etc) compared to sports since most of these events are one time, two-time kind of thing and heavily relies as well on sponsors and the like. I'd like to think that sports themselves are highly impenetrable to match-fixing BUT it still does happen sadly. Still I think it happens more often in lower tier tournaments rather than big ones, which speaks volumes to its reputation imo.

Though I guess if you were to compare it with REALLY big events, then yeah then it wouldn't be susceptible. I reckon they'd both be at the same level-ish then no?

[viljy]

This leads to the paradoxical conclusion that the less influence luck or bad luck has on the outcome of an event, the more likely it is that you will simply be deceived. Do you agree or disagree with such ideas regarding gambling and betting?

But you can't say that the less influence of "luck or bad luck" may indicate potential rigging if I understood correctly what you want to say. Maybe we can say that it is easier to set up less popular duels compared to popular ones on which many eyes are focused. As some other members have already said, that's why we choose to bet on the most popular sports and leagues.

Your idea is kind of generalized and a little unclear to me... but if you found some way to increase your chances of winning or dodging bullets in sports betting, then that's great.

Right. Of course, I can't say this definitively on a case-by-case basis. This is just a generalized conclusion that the risk of manipulation in betting is much higher than, for example, in a casino. But I doubt that there are fewer risks in popular sports and high-level competitions. Here I would draw such an analogy: "If you want to hide something, then put it in the most visible place."

Or another analogy. For example, there is no economic sense in counterfeiting cheap cigarettes or alcohol. They fake expensive cigarettes and very expensive alcohol. The majority of the population is unable to distinguish a fake. For one simple reason, they can't compare because they've never consumed a real product.
This analogy should be understood not literally, but in the sense that the more brazen the lie, the more people will believe in it. For example, the higher the level of a sporting event, the more audacious an attempt at manipulation will seem. People will think, "No, this can't be happening, because this is the championship!" The championship is just an example. By the way, the technology of ridiculing "conspiracy theories" is based on the same reaction of "reality rejection"... and after a while it turns out that this was not a "conspiracy theory" but the virus was indeed of artificial origin (this is about Covid).

[Wapfika]

Gradually, I came to the conclusion that sports betting is more vulnerable to manipulation of the results of events and the subsequent use of insider information. Betting on events in general strongly depends on the scale of an event. The larger the event, the more difficult it is to influence its outcome to your advantage (a recent example of such a large-scale bet is a bet on the outcome of the US presidential election).

Gambling games(3rd party games) usually has a close source which means a shady game providers can easily manipulate the outcome without anyone notice the scam while on sports betting everyone is watching the same game which is very hard to manipulate the result even match fixing.

Match fixing is only possible on lower league while it’s hard to do on popular league since there’s a committee monitoring the game.

Assuming we are just comparing what’s the easiest to manipulate I think casino games is much as easier than sports betting due to the close source nature of 3rd party games.

[madnessteat]

As some people say there is no place for politics in sport, but we all realize that there is politics and corruption and deliberate abuse in sport. It is difficult to answer the question of whether gambling or betting on events (not just sports) is more vulnerable, as we cannot reliably know what happens to the gambling payout distribution algorithm and whether it can be influenced. Personally, I admit that it could be vulnerable too.

[MArsland]

If we talk about the possibility of external influence on events in order to manipulate the result (meaning, for example, interference in the gambling process, interference in a sports competition, for example, through match-fixing), which is more vulnerable in this regard: gambling or betting on events (not only on sports)?

obviously betting on events is the most vulnerable to manipulation since it is the only one that is led by people

maybe not the betting platform exactly but matches, sports teams, and athletes are all susceptible to manipulation and fraud and that can affect someone's bet as opposed to gambling whereas it is mostly machines that a gambler is working with it is a lot harder to manipulate and fool something that works under logic and codes

Talking about the realm of manipulation in gambling is actually not really open to the public openly. This is just an assumption that everyone has and including me personally also have similar thoughts. But in the end we still bet to dismiss the suspicion of a manipulation system. Believe me out there or wherever this manipulation activity is I'm sure there is, but we are very limited to understand it if it is not part of both parties who agree.

[Hatchy]

Though we can't actually tell what is happening behind the scene. These sports can be manipulated.. players can be paid off, officials csn be bribed to take sides. Even though we don't see these things, sometimes there are in play. Sport betting is more vulnerable to manipulation compared to gambling. We can easily predict these games just by looking at past events and players strengths. The high level of randomness in gambling serves as a natural protection against external manipulation.. though the house mostly have the edges to win compared to the players.