THOU SHALL NOT GAMBLE ON BASEBALL -- NEITHER FOR NOR AGAINST

PETE NEVER BET AGAINST HIS OWN TEAM --- OH REALLY?

I have finally had enough of the Pete Rose fans telling everyone that Pete's gambling had no negative effects on the Reds, nor did his wagering change the outcome of any games, because he never bet against his own team.

If you are of that same opinion, I offer you the following -- SECOND OPINION.

Gambling with an illegal bookie, as Rose has admittedly done during his coaching career, has certain rules and regulations. For instance, one may wager on games without the necessity of having to actually put up any money.
The entire illegal bookmaking process operates on the credit system. Also, it is understood, in most cases, that the week runs from Monday through Sunday, with everyone settling the previous weeks debts on a Wednesday or Thursday.

With that understood, let's place ourselves in the shoes of Pete Rose for a week and see how we can let our team lose while at the same time trying to win some money by betting on them.

We -- The Cincy Reds -- are starting a four game series against the Mets, on Thursday night. We just concluded a three game series with the Pirates, and we lost all three games. Pete, wagering $10,000.00 on his Reds in the first game, then $20,000.00 on each of the next two games, finds himself down (juice included) $55,000.00.

Remember, this is all on paper. We are betting on credit. Payoff doesn't occur until next Wednesday or Thursday.

So, here I am, down 55 big ones and my fifth starter is taking the mound tonight in the first game vs the Mets. What's the best way to get even? Pete contemplates his plan of attack and decides his best bet, if you will, is to bet it all on the second game, Friday night, when his ace is taking the mound. To further ensure our 'get even' win, let's rest a position starter or two, so we have an even better chance of a Friday night victory.

Here we are, seven innings complete and we are holding a 3-2 lead in the first game. This is the game in which we have no action.

In the bullpen, I have the premier closer in all of baseball, however, if I bring him to finish up the last two innings of this game, which would virtually guarantee us getting this win, good old Pete realizes he may need this stud fresh and ready to close out the $55,000.00 game, on Friday night.

Four hits and three runs later, Pete's Reds give up their 3-2 lead and lose the first of the four game series by a 5-3 count.

Now, do you still believe Pete Rose didn't cost his team any victories, just because he supposedly always bet on his team to win?

Don't for a second think that Rose didn't think this way. Every degenerate gambler, which Rose is (according to him -- was), thinks this way. Hell, nearly every gambler, degenerate or not, thinks this way. It's the nature of the beast, to always look for a sure fire way out of a gambling debt. Pete was in control and probably cost his team as many wins by betting on them as his managing won for them.

What people didn't notice is that Pete cost his team games which were played before the games which he was betting on them to win.

Bottom line: If you are in a managerial or head coach position, betting on your team to win, does cost your team victories. You may not be wagering against your team, however, at times, you will sacrifice wins on the field to help ensure victories in the games you do wager.