Originally Posted by Chip R
Yes, but Pete had the inside knowledge that bookies crave. For example, he might have decided to sit Barry Larkin for a game. He'd tell the bookies, "Look, I'm sitting Larkin today so make your bets accordingly." Now, of course, that's no guarantee that the Reds would have lost that game but I think you have to agree that they had a better chance of winning if Larkin was playing than if he were not.
Also, if Pete owed bookies money, it's possible they may have asked him to do his darndest to throw a game in exchange for wiping or reducing his debt. I'm not saying this actually happened but it's an example of what could have happened.
That's the other part that's always bugged me about this. Why do we so easily accept that he never bet against the Reds or threw a game?
Because he said so? From the very beginning, Pete's statement's have essentially been their own version of two truths and one lie.
1st- He said he gambled and hung around with bookies, but he never bet on baseball.
Next- He admitted to betting on baseball, but he never bet on Reds games
Then- He said he bet on Reds games, but he always bet the same amount on each game(so as to not tip the bookies)
The- He admitted to betting different amounts on different games, but he always bet on the Reds to win.
I'm almost inclined to believe he bet against the Reds, if only because he says he didn't.