Topic: Comparison of gambling and betting on resistance to outcome manipulation - page 3. (Read 414 times)

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?