You know, I got back under the hood of this thing because it had been so long.
A couple things became clear...
Pete sucked at gambling. He had accumulated $400,000 in losses in three months during the 1987 season.
He had at least three bookmakers, we've seen their records, he never bet against the Reds.
So first, with records of over 50 Reds games being bet on, and those records being procured during a raid, if he had bet against the Reds, I'd think we would know it.
But second, we're asking the wrong question! It's not whether he ever bet against the Reds -- that's just a stepstone to "proof" that he may have influenced games. With the kind of debt he was racking up, I would be more concerned with making sure all the numbers matched (debt vs checking account).
Think about it -- Pete owes the bookie 400G -- it's much more likely the book tells him how to reduce that debt *wink, wink* than for Pete to dig out of a hole by placing his own bets and tossing games. And if that's the case? The bookmaker would tell Pete that if he personally bets on these games he's throwing, there will be someone there to break his legs the next morning, because the "big boys" want plausible deniability.
| 
