Sports Gambling Expert Uncovers Startling Data Backing Allegations that Ref Abnormally Influenced NBA Games

Las Vegas, Nevada (July 20,2007) The sports world is abuzz with talk of NBA referee Tim Donaghy, who is accused of betting on NBA games, and making calls to manipulate the final score of at least 10 games.

Sports Gambling expert RJ Bell, President of Pregame.com has uncovered these remarkable facts:

Over the last two seasons (reportedly the focus of the FBIs investigation into this matter), the games refereed by Tim Donaghy scored more points than Las Vegas expected over 57 percent of the time (79 of 138 games). The odds of that happening randomly are 19 to 1.

Premise #1: The more fouls a referee calls, the more he affects the game.

Premise #2: There is an absolute correlation between the number of fouls a referee calls in an NBA game and the number of points scored by the teams. (The logic being that fouls result in free throws, which stop the clock and add points).

Conclusion: An NBA ref who intended to illicitly influence a game would do so by calling more fouls, and thus his games would be higher scoring than average.

Not only have Tim Donaghys games the last two seasons been higher scoring than average, they have been so to a degree that would happen naturally only quite rarely. Which means it can be stated fairly that Tim Donaghys on-court behavior the last two seasons has an over 95% probability of being abnormal!

Maybe Tim Donaghy has always called lots of fouls, some may suggest. In the two years prior to the two years the FBI is investigating, Tim Donaghys games scored more points than Las Vegas expected only 44% of the time!

Assuming 44% "over" is Donaghy's natrual tendency, the odds of being "over" 57% for two full seasons are about 1000-1 against!

Nice analysis RJ!

Also, don't miss the following about the big NBA betting scandal from RJ Bell:

• NBA Betting: Over 10 Billion Dollars Bet per Month!
• NBA Betting Scandal: Vegas Can Stop The Next One!
• How common is game-fixing?

For those of you who are visiting this site for the first time, don't forget to check out the other unique content Pregame offers...

• Pregame Wire - breaking betting news & wiseguy moves
  
• Pregame Buzz - info worth betting on today's top games
  
• Free Picks from Pro Bettors - FREE plays from Pregame Pros
  
• FreePicksByEmail - sign up for the largest free picks email on the planet
  
• Sportsbook Spy - spy on who's betting what
  
  

Very interesting indeed - Can't wait for the 2007/08 NBA season

No doubt Bonds - your favorite sport has already started its season.

Your 1000-1 claim is highly misleading. There is no way you can use 44% as Donaghy's "natural tendency" after just 2 seasons worth of data. If this was the case you could look at any ref who was <45% or >55% in the past two years and just simply pick 55% winners going forward. No bettor would ever do this of course. Take a look at the other refs who were 5+% away from 50-50 in their results and you will see for the most part they did not continue that tendency going forward.

It smells like you were looking to generate some kind of extreme result for your headline and needed to use the 44% as a long term rate to get it. A 19 to 1 shot is not unsual in a league that has more than 20 refs. Flawed analysis IMO.

The sample size of the 2 years is 133 games, which is significant. I have those 4 years of data that I trust (so I can't go back further) . . . so if we assume 44%, the odds against the 57% is 1000-1.

If we assume his natrual tendency is 50%, then the odds of 57% those next two years is 19-1 against.

Is there a certain right answer in stats? Not often. Both answers above are reasonable assumptions - and either way the odds are that the change in him these most recent two years was not natrual.

"The sample size of the 2 years is 133 games, which is significant."

 That is very arguable. If you flip a coin 133 times the chances one side will come up <44% or >56% of the time is about 1 in 6. Doesn't that feel like you'd want more trials before you are sure of a result like that? Again, if you are really confident 133 trials is enough to establish long term tendency then you would start betting on a trend like this with real $$ and expect to have 55% winners going forward. Check the other refs who had a similar <44% or >56% trend over the same two seasons. How did they do over the next two years? Without even doing the work myself I can assure you they regressed to 50-50. A professional bettor needs a much bigger subset than 133 games before he assumes a trend will continue long term. 

 "If we assume his natrual tendency is 50%, then the odds of 57% those next two years is 19-1 against."

And again, in a league that employs over 20 refs having at least one ref that falls into this 19-1 subset is perfectly normal. You need a much more extreme result to conclude his behaviour wasn't the result of normal variance.

 

 

 

That is very arguable. If you flip a coin 133 times the chances one side will come up <44% or >56% of the time is about 1 in 6. Doesn't that feel like you'd want more trials before you are sure of a result like that? Again, if you are really confident 133 trials is enough to establish long term tendency then you would start betting on a trend like this with real $$ and expect to have 55% winners going forward. Check the other refs who had a similar <44% or >56% trend over the same two seasons. How did they do over the next two years? Without even doing the work myself I can assure you they regressed to 50-50. A professional bettor needs a much bigger subset than 133 games before he assumes a trend will continue long term. 

 "If we assume his natrual tendency is 50%, then the odds of 57% those next two years is 19-1 against."

And again, in a league that employs over 20 refs having at least one ref that falls into this 19-1 subset is perfectly normal. You need a much more extreme result to conclude his behaviour wasn't the result of normal variance.

 

AMEN

Tired of all that crap I hear on ESPN from these "TOUTS"  I understand Brandon Lang was on today...LMAO  Good Grief

 

Would I like an n-value greater than 133 . . . For sure - but I have nowhere to get it. I have 4 years of data that I trust. I agree that assuming .44 is not a sure thing (that's why it is a stated assumption) - but I have one question for you: If you HAD to use a number, what number would be better than .44?