Seven years ago, I was standing outside a Days Inn motel room tuning my skis in preparation for a race the next morning. I was unusually nervous, but surprisingly it wasn't the race that had me on edge. I was worried about the Atlanta Falcons.
I had just bet $45 on the underdog to win Super Bowl XXXIII. I'm not much of a high-stakes gambler, but that still seems like quite a bit of money considering my age and lack of income. I knew I had enough money to pay if I lost, but I was absolutely positive that the Falcons were going to win. I had never been so sure of anything in my previous 13 years of existence. Never mind the fact that Vegas had Denver as the seven-and-a-half point favorites.
I didn't have a clue what a spread was anyway. I'm still not sure what possessed me to bet against the defending Super Bowl champions. I was convinced Chris Chandler and Jamal Anderson were a more capable duo than John Elway and Terrell Davis. The idea seems laughable today, and it makes me wonder if I wasn't just distracted by those menacing black uniforms, or that catchy "Dirty Bird."
Earlier this week, someone asked me if I wanted to bet on the Broncos-Patriots game. The temptation was hard to pass up, but I respectfully declined the bet without explaining my reasoning. Even though I was as sure of the Patriots as I had been of Atlanta, I was not about to let a bet ruin the game for me. I remembered the painful realization that Denver had won and that I had lost like it was yesterday, but deep down somewhere, I knew that the Patriots were capable of beating anyone.
As it turns out, I was right not to take the bet and wrong about the Patriots, and I saved myself some money. My superstitious side wonders if betting on New England would have changed the outcome, or if bad karma played into the loss. This is obviously impossible, but there is always that side of us that wants to hold on to the possibility that we were responsible for the outcome of the game.
I've arrived at the conclusion that people gamble for two distinct reasons. One is for the thrill, the possibility of winning or losing a lot of money. This is gambling in its purest form. People bet simply for the sake of gambling, not because they care about the outcome. As someone who dislikes the uncertainty of losing money, I will never fully understand this mindset, and will have to leave its explanation to a more empathetic host.
The other side of the coin is betting to prove a belief in one side over the other. My bet on Atlanta was nothing more than a chance to demonstrate I was right and someone else was wrong. If I had bet on the Patriots Saturday, it would have been to prove my conviction that they were a better team. These bets are dangerous, considering how easy it is to lose perspective when you're positive you're right.
In sports, there is no such thing as a sure thing. Believing in one is a great way to lose a lot of money. I gambled on the Falcons because I was sure they would win, but I should have gambled on them because I was sure they would lose. The $45 would have been more intelligently spent if I had been prepared to give it up from the beginning. A wise gambler knows that money is already gone, and he or she should never expect to get it back.
I was lucky I didn't jump at the chance to win money on what I thought was a sure thing. Sure it's a bit pessimistic, but it's probably a good idea to convince yourself that you are a bad gambler. Perhaps next time I won't make such a good decision.
The Patriots have been good to their fans for four seasons and their time will come again soon, so it's probably not a bad thing to remember what it's like to lose a game. I'm just glad I don't have to remember what it's like to lose a bet.
