Rick Borghesi, in August 2007:
[...] I take the position (PDF) that, while point shaving in amateur sports may be somewhat more common than previously believed, the suspicious statistical trend that he identifies (heavy favorites win yet fail to cover the spread more often than expected) is unlikely to arise primarily from widespread corruption.
I base my opinion on the observation that the same statistical pattern also appears in NBA and NFL game outcomes, yet athletes in major professional leagues are unlikely to engage in point shaving. [...]
Does anybody know whether Justin Wolfers has responded to this argument? If yes, then please, give me the link in the comment below. Thanks.
What is the evidence for the claim “athletes in major professional leagues are unlikely to engage in point shaving”?
I’ve seen it argued that because pro athletes make so much money in salary and sponsorships, and have so much to lose, they would simply abstain from point shaving out of self interest.
By the same argument we could assume that CEOs and other executives of major companies were unlikely to cheat/defraud/steal etc., because they are well paid and have too much to lose by cheating. Most executives probably don’t cheat, and most pro athletes probably don’t cheat, but we aren’t so worried about the majority of cases as the relative few cases in which suspicions are raised.
When the CEO of a publicly traded corporation defrauds shareholders, he has the potential to increase his personal wealth by orders of magnitude. But a professional athlete’s gains are constrained to a small fraction of his salary by betting limits and vigilant casino execs.
In response to your Vick anecdote: First, Vick didn’t shave points. Second, even if he had, a sample set of one would be unconvincing evidence that shaving is widespread in professional sports. Third, history shows that money has been the primary motive for shaving by college athletes – either players were scared because they owed money to a bookie or else they needed money because they were dead broke. Money had nothing to do with Vick’s involvement in dogfighting.
It’s not my position that no pros shave, but rather that the prevalence of shaving among pros is less than the prevalence of shaving among amateurs.
Because pros are not poor, and because their expected profits would be relatively small compared to their potential foregone salaries, you would need to offer a compelling nonmonetary motive to convincingly argue that pros shave as frequently as do amateurs. What do you suggest?