Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Writing on the wall
Burning question for Team Canada fans:
Should we be concerned about this brutal string of luck Wayne Gretzky is on, and anticipate a quarterfinal loss to Slovakia or some damn thing?
Or, should we consider this whole gambling hoo-hah "one thing", call it the "third thing" after his mother and grandmother dying, and since Bad Luck Comes in Threes, basically be happy that the third thing happened now and reassume the confidence of a favourite?
Just asking.
(Related: how much "financing" could a gambling ring possibly need? It's not like there's a ton of overhead; I'm certainly under the impression that generally gamblers fund gambling rings. Yeah, you need a little pot of money just in case bettors go on a hot streak, but...)
Should we be concerned about this brutal string of luck Wayne Gretzky is on, and anticipate a quarterfinal loss to Slovakia or some damn thing?
Or, should we consider this whole gambling hoo-hah "one thing", call it the "third thing" after his mother and grandmother dying, and since Bad Luck Comes in Threes, basically be happy that the third thing happened now and reassume the confidence of a favourite?
Just asking.
(Related: how much "financing" could a gambling ring possibly need? It's not like there's a ton of overhead; I'm certainly under the impression that generally gamblers fund gambling rings. Yeah, you need a little pot of money just in case bettors go on a hot streak, but...)
# posted by Matt @ 9:34 am 
Comments:
Excellent clip, but nevertheless, the thing must be self-funding (or rather, profitable), or they'd shut it down, right?
I dunno.
Maybe when you launder money there is some degree of acceptance that you might not be able to keep everything you actually steal.
Sort of like taxes for bad guys?
Yes, there when one launders money, one expects to pay a price for the detergent. However, whatever laundering occured here happened with the gambling profits, not the other way around (you can't use illegal activity to launder money; it pretty much defeats the purpose). Any Illegal Gambling Ring that operates on an ongoing basis is obviously self-funding, and that includes whatever price is paid for cleaning up the profits at the end.
I should also officially object to your use of the word "steal"; even if Tocchet & Co. are guilty as sin of every allegation made so far, this story still lacks any victims (generally people who place sports bets with bookies do so of their own free will, probably with money they already paid income tax on).
At any rate: no off-hockey-topic discussion at the BofA would be complete without a Seinfeld reference, and Mike Moffit is the only person, real or fictional, who I've ever heard of that found the bookmaking business to be unprofitable.
Nice Seinfeld ref. I had totally forgotten about that one.
Personally, I don't really care.
I'm having more fun going through the rosters of every NHL team and trying to pick out which 12 players / coaches would be likely candidates.
Maybe we should have a pool. Say, $1000 an entry -- closest number of correct guesses wins. Now who could we find to fund this activity . . . ?
Post a Comment
<< Home
Excellent clip, but nevertheless, the thing must be self-funding (or rather, profitable), or they'd shut it down, right?
I dunno.
Maybe when you launder money there is some degree of acceptance that you might not be able to keep everything you actually steal.
Sort of like taxes for bad guys?
Yes, there when one launders money, one expects to pay a price for the detergent. However, whatever laundering occured here happened with the gambling profits, not the other way around (you can't use illegal activity to launder money; it pretty much defeats the purpose). Any Illegal Gambling Ring that operates on an ongoing basis is obviously self-funding, and that includes whatever price is paid for cleaning up the profits at the end.
I should also officially object to your use of the word "steal"; even if Tocchet & Co. are guilty as sin of every allegation made so far, this story still lacks any victims (generally people who place sports bets with bookies do so of their own free will, probably with money they already paid income tax on).
At any rate: no off-hockey-topic discussion at the BofA would be complete without a Seinfeld reference, and Mike Moffit is the only person, real or fictional, who I've ever heard of that found the bookmaking business to be unprofitable.
Nice Seinfeld ref. I had totally forgotten about that one.
Personally, I don't really care.
I'm having more fun going through the rosters of every NHL team and trying to pick out which 12 players / coaches would be likely candidates.
Maybe we should have a pool. Say, $1000 an entry -- closest number of correct guesses wins. Now who could we find to fund this activity . . . ?
Post a Comment
<< Home
