I would have to see a slip. Say Pete bet that the Reds would get 10 hits, e.g, and they got the hits but lost the game. Pete wins, but he did not throw the game.
The slips were actually published. Stuff like “Phils -15 2 000.” The alternative take is even worse than that he was betting for the Phils to lose: it’s that he was point-shaving. Wanna let your mind run to unproven, but apparent crimes? We do know he was betting with the mob, and was deeply in debt. From ESPN:
To Dowd, one of the most compelling elements of the newly uncovered evidence is that it supports the charge that Rose was betting with mob-connected bookies through Bertolini. Dowd’s investigation had established that Rose was hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt at the time he was banished from the game.
“Bertolini nails down the connection to organized crime on Long Island and New York. And that is a very powerful problem,” Dowd said. “[Ohio bookie] Ron Peters is a golf pro, so he’s got other occupations. But the boys in New York are about breaking arms and knees.
“The implications for baseball are terrible. [The mob] had a mortgage on Pete while he was a player and manager.”
Oh, and let’s just say you’re right. Let’s say the slips meant “Phillies - get 15 hits” even though the notation LOOKS like Phillies minus 15. So he’s deeply in debt (proven) to the mafia (proven) and he’ll lose the bet if the Phillies don’t get 10 hits. Suppose he’s got 8 hits, two outs, a runner at first and his hitter has a 3-0 count. A walk puts a runner in scoring position. You think he’s going to issue a take sign?