Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Sonny9 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 6:40 pm They didn't cover the spread it was 10, that is a push

This is too much. Yes, it is a push. Placing a bet on the Bears wouldn't have won you any money. Are you looking at a different result?

Sonny9 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 6:36 pm ]No I'm not confusing anything. Obviously the money they received would be from bets placed in their names. I've already mentioned that before. The only one confused here is you and your gotcha game didn't work.

I'm not playing 'gotcha', I honestly don't understand what you are talking about. You are mixing up the events as if everything happened during the 46 championship game. And do you honestly think the 'gangsters' used Hapes' and Filchock's names when placing bets? If so, wouldn't that have possibly raised eyebrows? I don't understand how any of it would be evidence that the 1946 championship game was fixed.

Bryan wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 6:46 pm

Sonny9 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 6:40 pm They didn't cover the spread it was 10, that is a push

This is too much. Yes, it is a push. Placing a bet on the Bears wouldn't have won you any money. Are you looking at a different result?

lol This is too much. You said " the Giants still covered the spread so anyone placing a bet on the Bears would have lost." No they would not have lost. It was a push. It's in the article i linked. Go read it
Like I said, trying so hard to be right

Bryan wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 6:50 pm
I'm not playing 'gotcha', I honestly don't understand what you are talking about. You are mixing up the events as if everything happened during the 46 championship game. And do you honestly think the 'gangsters' used Hapes' and Filchock's names when placing bets? If so, wouldn't that have possibly raised eyebrows? I don't understand how any of it would be evidence that the 1946 championship game was fixed.

I've explained it in simple terms. More like you refuse to get it. And no I'm not mixing things up and you have no proof. How about you stop repeating that, it's disingenuous at best.

Yes it would have raised eyebrows but "In their name" doesn't necessarily mean they used their name. Like I said, the thought process isn't there on this subject. You only see one result and cannot fathom other options.

So the gambler saying Filchock reluctantly took the money isn't proof? Could he have lied? Sure he could have. Was the payoff for not saying anything? There was some movement on the line, so did the gamblers get in before the spread hit +10? Could be

6 interceptions doesn't make you wonder? Like I said...