General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
who was arrested for having electronic devices hidden in his clothing?
Show More
He was doing the same thing all around the world though. As somebody with a British BF account, that just doesn't fly.
The syndicate is not there this year. Well done for Australian authorities! Betfair is full of pathologies example: how is that possible that we have 4 seconds "in pocket"to manage the position of the bet on Australian markets, and during Bnp Paribas in France the guy hadnt even threw a ball up and we knew the score on an exchange?
Market is 4 seconds behind the video in Australia and it was 3 seconds in front of the feed in France this year?
How is that possible that Asutralia is 20 h fly from London and I have a plenty of time to manage my position, and in France being hoovered sometimes even 5,6 seconds before TV coverage and I can get there by 45 min from Heathrow - awkward !
Market is 4 seconds behind the video in Australia and it was 3 seconds in front of the feed in France this year?
How is that possible that Asutralia is 20 h fly from London and I have a plenty of time to manage my position, and in France being hoovered sometimes even 5,6 seconds before TV coverage and I can get there by 45 min from Heathrow - awkward !
I barely play tennis markets en France. Wonder why!
Doesn't matter where his passport is, he cant bet in Australia in running without using a proxy or so.
Regardless of the fact that this bloke didn't break any criminal laws, Australia in certain aspects is the global standard bearer for betting integrity.
I had the opportunity to watch some tennis traders at work. They did well and it was not point-to-point. It was betting (yep, remember that - betting) on the swings of the match based on their knowledge of the players on the court. So it was about forming an opinion, watching how they progressed through the match, looking for tells and positioning themselves accordingly.
Let the point-to-pointers eat themselves. There is money to be made on sport without playing the ticks.
Let the point-to-pointers eat themselves. There is money to be made on sport without playing the ticks.
Jan 26, 2015 -- 2:16AM, Joel wrote:
Doesn't matter where his passport is, he cant bet in Australia in running without using a proxy or so.
Well it does, but take Australia out of it. As I said, he was doing it around the world. Why not simply do it for yourself on BF?
2 weeks for a tournament, 2-3 games per day, and he is getting paid 114 pounds a day. A decent courtsider could make that in 2 minutes if there really is that much of a speed advantage.
So why, when a courtsider could easily make 2,000% what he makes, would he be doing it?
40-50 pounds a game as a courtsider? Please........
takes a headspace to trade as well as a bank.
His salary was most likely "net" meaning per diems for food plus benefits cited as "expenses".
So, at the end of the year, a solid amount of money in your account for pushing a button.
His salary was most likely "net" meaning per diems for food plus benefits cited as "expenses".
So, at the end of the year, a solid amount of money in your account for pushing a button.
No flat required in London: £18,000 saved
No food for year: £4,000
Basic monthly entertainment: £2,400
No transport to work: £1,500/year
It adds up.....
No food for year: £4,000
Basic monthly entertainment: £2,400
No transport to work: £1,500/year
It adds up.....
Jan 29, 2015 -- 4:57AM, SHAPESHIFTER wrote:
takes a headspace to trade as well as a bank. His salary was most likely "net" meaning per diems for food plus benefits cited as "expenses".So, at the end of the year, a solid amount of money in your account for pushing a button.
No. Not when you know the result and are simply hoovering money. 2 ticks on a known result, easy money. That is per point. 6 points per game, 25+ games per match or so. That is 150+ opportunities to be hoovering 2+ ticks at a time. That doesn't even include breaks where you could get up to 30.
If he was that quick that he could simply send the information back to a computer in london, that then works out bets, then sends a bet request to the market and still be first in line, then he would be definitely first in line if his click sent his own bet to the market. 20% first to the market, sees him having minimum 20 2+ tick trades per game, 2-3 games per day.
No bankroll? Start with 100 bucks, you would make thousands after the first week. Start with 1,000, and you would near make his yearly wage at the end of the first tournament.
Rent? Wouldn't be paying rent, would own his own inner city apartment inside 12 months if he really had an edge over the market.
Look a little smaller. 1,000 bankroll. 1.20 - 1.22 trade. 100 dollars or so, hedged to around 82.00. That is twice as much as he gets paid for a full match, and it took him 1 point to make, out of 125+ points available to him per match. With a pissy 1,000 bankroll. Say he only get 3 of those in a match, and the others were 1.22-1.20, say 5 of them, which would equal about the same 80.00 total, so 80 + 3*80 around 320 profit, or 32% for the match.
3 games like that he ends the day with a bankroll of 2300 (and that is only compounding match to match, not trade to trade).
Another 3 games the next day, up to 5289. End of the third day 12,166.
Even if you stop at 10,000 per trade, you are looking at around 9,600 profit per day on those numbers.
Look at a dog winning a point against a 1.05 favourite, nipping in at 1.05 and out at 1.06, with 10,000 bankroll, looking at nearly 1,900 profit from that 1 point ffs.
And you are worried about rent?
Or as you would say. It adds up....
WOW, I wonder why there aren't 100s in the grounds having a go ?????
The guy who got arrested was just an employee paid a wage to go to events. The companies owners back in the office were making the real money - and they were ex betfair staff with knowledge of the markets and the technological skills to set this up. Its not something anyone could/can do with just a mobile, at least not as efficiently as these.
The point, logroller, is if it was worth paying multiple people 40k + expenses to get the data a little quicker than others, is that they must have been getting it quicker than everybody.
If it all came down to technical analysis of the markets, then it would not make 1 scrap of difference if they were getting that data before or after the market had settled on the point. The only valid reason to pay somebody at the game, is to beat the market.
If they weren't beating the market, he was a waste of money. If he was beating the market, then he was much better off doing it for himself.
The power of thought is a beautiful thing. You should look into it.
If it all came down to technical analysis of the markets, then it would not make 1 scrap of difference if they were getting that data before or after the market had settled on the point. The only valid reason to pay somebody at the game, is to beat the market.
If they weren't beating the market, he was a waste of money. If he was beating the market, then he was much better off doing it for himself.
The power of thought is a beautiful thing. You should look into it.
Like any "business", you need to have every edge possible to try to max your potential. As well, if a handful of times, the "official" data streams go down, then having someone at the matches would pay for themselves.
As well, when a retirement comes, they would know quicker and if they went to the trouble of creating technology, the "cancel all" panic button or "grab all down to 1.01" button would be there.
The company was trading 1,000's and you can often see their "spreads" of a few ticks go up, expecially between sets, the only way for individuals to get matched is to leap into the middle of the pit.
I believe Steve High's company also incorporated a myriad of analysis on player performance, stamina, etc, for prediction so the courtsider was just one aspect.
One full-time trader told me the key for in-running tennis is not so much when to get matched is to know when to hit cancel and avoid big movements.
As well, when a retirement comes, they would know quicker and if they went to the trouble of creating technology, the "cancel all" panic button or "grab all down to 1.01" button would be there.
The company was trading 1,000's and you can often see their "spreads" of a few ticks go up, expecially between sets, the only way for individuals to get matched is to leap into the middle of the pit.
I believe Steve High's company also incorporated a myriad of analysis on player performance, stamina, etc, for prediction so the courtsider was just one aspect.
One full-time trader told me the key for in-running tennis is not so much when to get matched is to know when to hit cancel and avoid big movements.
One full-time trader told me the key for in-running tennis is not so much when to get matched is to know when to hit cancel and avoid big movements.
I'll vouch for that. If you're trading small movements, then if you're caught out on one big movement the wrong way, it can destroy days or weeks of hard work.
I'll vouch for that. If you're trading small movements, then if you're caught out on one big movement the wrong way, it can destroy days or weeks of hard work.
AN EDGE TO SOME PEOPLE ,A FIDDLE TO OTHER PEOPLE,
UNREAL 12 YEARS AGO 2 BROTHERS FROM THE MIDLANDS HAD THE TENNIS TO THEM SELVES,THEY USED TO GET UPWARDS OF 30 GRAND EVERY TIME THEY VENTURED OUT OF THE UK. AND THEY WENT EVERYWHERE.USA DUBAI AUSTRALIA AND OF COURSE LOCAL SUCH AS ITAY,FRANCE,GERMANY
I REMEMBER SOME ONE HAVEING A MOAN ABOUT IT SEEMED SOMEONE WAS BEATING EVERYONE ELSE AT THE TIME.
ONE POSTER SAID.
WELL IF THEY PAY THE PLANE FARE AND THE HOTEL BILL .AND THE ADMISSION ,AND ALL THE OTHER EXS.
THEN BEST OF LUCK TO THEM.WHY SHOULD EVERYONE ELSE THAT SITS IN THERE NICE BACK ROOM AND NEVER VENTURES OUT THE HOUSE,NEVER PAY ANY EXS,THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE THE SAME EDGE.
NEVER A TRUER WORD SPOKEN.
I REMEMBER SOME ONE HAVEING A MOAN ABOUT IT SEEMED SOMEONE WAS BEATING EVERYONE ELSE AT THE TIME.
ONE POSTER SAID.
WELL IF THEY PAY THE PLANE FARE AND THE HOTEL BILL .AND THE ADMISSION ,AND ALL THE OTHER EXS.
THEN BEST OF LUCK TO THEM.WHY SHOULD EVERYONE ELSE THAT SITS IN THERE NICE BACK ROOM AND NEVER VENTURES OUT THE HOUSE,NEVER PAY ANY EXS,THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE THE SAME EDGE.
NEVER A TRUER WORD SPOKEN.
yes Coner. and now the market place is full for court sitting, and if u want to take the best API's in the business good luck to you.
If you walk into a poker game and the other three people at the table are flat mates, do you sit down or head for the door?
If you sit down, you know what you're in for and the deck is stacked against you. It doesn't mean you can't win. But it is going to be a lot harder to win big.
I used to trade horses without pictures. I knew others had them and would have "an edge" (NOT "the edge"). And there would be fallers and surprises. But my style of in-running didn't need pictures, one of the keys is I tend to close out 75% into a race, sometimes sooner.
So we all know there are court-siders. Fine. And, yes, it some (not all situations), it allows them to pounce. But the bottomline is if you are putting up a lay, you are hoping to get matched and then will put up a back. You are gambling. And someone who is courtside might grab it which means you are now gambling that the next two points will push the market back out or atleast one so you can break even.
You got matched which, ironically, is what you wanted.
And if you want to avoid a heavier hit, pull out before the swings get more volatile where, yes, a match can go against your position.
If you sit down, you know what you're in for and the deck is stacked against you. It doesn't mean you can't win. But it is going to be a lot harder to win big.
I used to trade horses without pictures. I knew others had them and would have "an edge" (NOT "the edge"). And there would be fallers and surprises. But my style of in-running didn't need pictures, one of the keys is I tend to close out 75% into a race, sometimes sooner.
So we all know there are court-siders. Fine. And, yes, it some (not all situations), it allows them to pounce. But the bottomline is if you are putting up a lay, you are hoping to get matched and then will put up a back. You are gambling. And someone who is courtside might grab it which means you are now gambling that the next two points will push the market back out or atleast one so you can break even.
You got matched which, ironically, is what you wanted.
And if you want to avoid a heavier hit, pull out before the swings get more volatile where, yes, a match can go against your position.
So we all know there are court-siders
Until Jan 2014 we didn't generally know this. We certainly didn't know the extent of it. And we didn't know that it was ex-betfair employees with inside programming knowledge who were out in Australasia breaking local laws to their own advantage as well as breaking the ticketing rules and the rules of this web-site.
The only certainty is the incompetence of police who charged the dude with the wrong thing, but we know all about government incompetence generally since government controlling anything began. That's not to say that incompetent government control is worse than competent criminal control, far from it, I prefer incompetent government to competent crims, it's just how it is.
The courtsiders are scum. And it still isn't generally known even now. This forum is the exception. And calling them scum gets your post deleted.
Until Jan 2014 we didn't generally know this. We certainly didn't know the extent of it. And we didn't know that it was ex-betfair employees with inside programming knowledge who were out in Australasia breaking local laws to their own advantage as well as breaking the ticketing rules and the rules of this web-site.
The only certainty is the incompetence of police who charged the dude with the wrong thing, but we know all about government incompetence generally since government controlling anything began. That's not to say that incompetent government control is worse than competent criminal control, far from it, I prefer incompetent government to competent crims, it's just how it is.
The courtsiders are scum. And it still isn't generally known even now. This forum is the exception. And calling them scum gets your post deleted.
"You got matched which, ironically, is what you wanted."
The premise is that you wanted to get matched at 30-30 not 40-30. At 40-30 you didn't want to get matched, you just didn't have time to cancel, so the polar opposite is true. As a company the exchange doesn't generate enough money without in running and it's too subjective to police. If I was Betfair I think I'd probably do the same as what they are doing, i.e. small steps and generally don't talk about it.
fwiw I don't think the Aussie tennis authorities ever had any expectation of criminal charges being bought. It was more about publicising what was going on and to put the frighteners on. I remember as a school kid being stopped by the police for dropping litter (can't recall if it was me or my friend). You knew nothing was going to come of it, but the experience wasn't pleasant and you didn't do it again.
The premise is that you wanted to get matched at 30-30 not 40-30. At 40-30 you didn't want to get matched, you just didn't have time to cancel, so the polar opposite is true. As a company the exchange doesn't generate enough money without in running and it's too subjective to police. If I was Betfair I think I'd probably do the same as what they are doing, i.e. small steps and generally don't talk about it.
fwiw I don't think the Aussie tennis authorities ever had any expectation of criminal charges being bought. It was more about publicising what was going on and to put the frighteners on. I remember as a school kid being stopped by the police for dropping litter (can't recall if it was me or my friend). You knew nothing was going to come of it, but the experience wasn't pleasant and you didn't do it again.
I'm not one to support any 'cheating' in gambling, but isn't working (ie travel, watching etc) to gain information quickly not really cheating as such?
Someone called them 'scum' above, so seems this is an emotive point, but how morally wrong is doing this?
Someone called them 'scum' above, so seems this is an emotive point, but how morally wrong is doing this?
The mere fact that devices are hidden is a tacit self admission that it is considered cheating. If it wasn't considered cheating they'd be sitting openly with their laptops ipads or mobiles betting.
I get that CB, but I am asking whether it is actually cheating. Do you think it is, or are they merely putting in extra effort that others are not?
I can't imagine someone sitting in the front row of the World Darts Championships with their laptop open betting away.
When asked by Barry Hearn what he's doing the bloke says
"Barry, I've bought my laptop down because the pictures shown on Sky are 6 seconds behind, so I can place a bet on Phil Taylor or Van Gerwen before anyone else knows he's won the leg."
Does Barry reply..
a) "I admire your work ethic and ingenuity. Carry on bro."
or
b) "That's not acceptable in my tournament. Now remove your sorry @rse out of here."
???
When asked by Barry Hearn what he's doing the bloke says
"Barry, I've bought my laptop down because the pictures shown on Sky are 6 seconds behind, so I can place a bet on Phil Taylor or Van Gerwen before anyone else knows he's won the leg."
Does Barry reply..
a) "I admire your work ethic and ingenuity. Carry on bro."
or
b) "That's not acceptable in my tournament. Now remove your sorry @rse out of here."
???
I'm not sure whether placing Barry Hearn in some godlike judgement does the question justice though 
In relation to that darting example, are mobiles banned in this case from the darts? Easy enough to bet live on them.
Feb 7, 2015 -- 6:48AM, stu wrote:
I'm not one to support any 'cheating' in gambling, but isn't working (ie travel, watching etc) to gain information quickly not really cheating as such?Someone called them 'scum' above, so seems this is an emotive point, but how morally wrong is doing this?
Totally immoral.
Why? Because you're betting on a market that prices a match at 4-2 30-15, when you know it's already 4-2 40-15. Same as any sport, betting on a market in cricket that doesn't know a wicket has fallen, or in football that a goal has been scored.
I know anyone who leaves money in-play does so at their own peril, but two wrongs don't make a right.
And I know that everyone is trying to find their own little edge, but this practice is pretty abhorrent and totally immoral.
End of my little rant.
I know anyone who leaves money in-play does so at their own peril, but two wrongs don't make a right.
And I know that everyone is trying to find their own little edge, but this practice is pretty abhorrent and totally immoral.
End of my little rant.
Would it be immoral if you noticed something in a market before someone else and took their bet - surely that happens all the time, and you win money from them that way?
when I say noticed, I mean noticed something in the actual event (e.g. injured player etc)
No, because if you spot something before anyone else using the same data then that's your better judgment, and secondly you have to relate that judgment to how a market will react. You won't be ahead many times, and you won't always get the judgment call right. People sitting courtside/pitchside etc aren't using any intelligent judgment simply knowing the score before anyone else. Your example, requires some skill level, their methods require no skill level at all.
Like I said before, we're all trying to find our own edge. Some will disagree about exactly what is cheating / immoral, and what is a skilled judgment call.
To be fair, this is an interesting debate, considering these players were not trying to influence games or fix anything.
I've never been a track/court player, so I've nothing to gain from this, but I find the issue interesting, when as you say we all try to develop an edge over others. Would you think it's immoral to take a poor bet from a drunk player? Probably not. But you also probably know that some of your profit comes from that.
I've never been a track/court player, so I've nothing to gain from this, but I find the issue interesting, when as you say we all try to develop an edge over others. Would you think it's immoral to take a poor bet from a drunk player? Probably not. But you also probably know that some of your profit comes from that.
I guess skill is a tricky term to define also - but effort (travelling around, closely watching matches) could still be considered a perfectly acceptable approach to winning.
To also add, we all know track players operate in horse racing, what's different there?
"Would you think it's immoral to take a poor bet from a drunk player? Probably not. But you also probably know that some of your profit comes from that."
No I don't believe it's immoral as I am breaking no rules. The big difference between courtsiders and track players operating in horse racing is one gets an advantage from breaking the rules and one does not.
Why is it permitted for one sport and not another? I think that the answer here is because Horse Racing is not really a sport. It's all about gambling really lets face it. How many people would really go to the races just to watch the the horses run. Some maybe but not many.
Horse Racing watching is about betting and the fact that it is a sport is incidental.
Tennis watching is about the sport and the fact that there is betting is incidental.
No I don't believe it's immoral as I am breaking no rules. The big difference between courtsiders and track players operating in horse racing is one gets an advantage from breaking the rules and one does not.
Why is it permitted for one sport and not another? I think that the answer here is because Horse Racing is not really a sport. It's all about gambling really lets face it. How many people would really go to the races just to watch the the horses run. Some maybe but not many.
Horse Racing watching is about betting and the fact that it is a sport is incidental.
Tennis watching is about the sport and the fact that there is betting is incidental.
Darlo Bantam 07 Feb 15 16:24 Joined: 27 Mar 07 | Topic/replies: 21,615 | Blogger: Darlo Bantam's blog
Why? Because you're betting on a market that prices a match at 4-2 30-15, when you know it's already 4-2 40-15. Same as any sport, betting on a market in cricket that doesn't know a wicket has fallen, or in football that a goal has been scored.
I know anyone who leaves money in-play does so at their own peril, but two wrongs don't make a right.
And I know that everyone is trying to find their own little edge, but this practice is pretty abhorrent and totally immoral.
End of my little rant.
The thing is that if you are profitable on here and competing with these people from your living room, you eventually realise that the only way to defend yourself against these people is to have people at the event yourself...
Why? Because you're betting on a market that prices a match at 4-2 30-15, when you know it's already 4-2 40-15. Same as any sport, betting on a market in cricket that doesn't know a wicket has fallen, or in football that a goal has been scored.
I know anyone who leaves money in-play does so at their own peril, but two wrongs don't make a right.
And I know that everyone is trying to find their own little edge, but this practice is pretty abhorrent and totally immoral.
End of my little rant.
The thing is that if you are profitable on here and competing with these people from your living room, you eventually realise that the only way to defend yourself against these people is to have people at the event yourself...
My own defence is to use systems/methods that don't rely on speed and inplay betting too much. I know that doesn't answer for those who want to use inplay of course. But even tennis traders can avoid it by not trading during the actual play (there's plenty breaks).
UA - I'm not sure that's really the question. The point is track players in racing have a betting advantage over home players inrunning, same as in tennis. I fail to see how one is right and the other wrong, but some may see a distinction. I don't agree the point about betting makes that clear.
UA - I'm not sure that's really the question. The point is track players in racing have a betting advantage over home players inrunning, same as in tennis. I fail to see how one is right and the other wrong, but some may see a distinction. I don't agree the point about betting makes that clear.
To emphasise that, everyone betting on tennis is concerned about betting.
Everyone betting on racing is concerned about betting.
So the comparison is exactly the same, when we are talking about betting.
Everyone betting on racing is concerned about betting.
So the comparison is exactly the same, when we are talking about betting.
Well yes, you can trade only during breaks for example in tennis. But that's effectively throwing in the towel as far as having a chance of becoming a big player is concerned.
Let's say you do bet in play, and do very well betting in between points. At some point you must think to yourself 'how much more would I be able to make if I could turn over 50x as much betting all the time, without worrying about getting hoovered?'.
Let's say you do bet in play, and do very well betting in between points. At some point you must think to yourself 'how much more would I be able to make if I could turn over 50x as much betting all the time, without worrying about getting hoovered?'.
A point played in a match is not insider trading, as it is a fact that's already out in the open, so to speak. Literally.
I’m not sure it really is rubbish. I’m not talking about just courtsiders I’m talking about everyone who goes to the venue. I shall try to rephrase it to avoid any confusion.
If you look at all of the paying public who physically go to the racing and the tennis, and took a poll working out the percentage of people who made a bet whilst they were physically at the venue then I would say, assuming that all answers are honest, that the percentage of people who have made a bet whilst being at the racing is much much higher than those who were at the tennis. You may think that this is rubbish and in this case we will have to disagree.
My point in all of this is that the reasons behind racing allowing it and tennis not allowing it are based on the organisation’s financial incentive. That and its ability to police it due to the nature of the sport. In racing it’s believed it is beneficial to allow it.
In tennis there is no incentive, there is nothing to gain and much more to lose. There is more possibility to corrupt an outcome. If, as an organiser you believe that if you allow courtsiding then the revenue would be pretty much the same but there is more potential for corruption to creep into the sport, then why allow it?
I don’t think that it’s them not understanding what these people are doing, it’s more a case that they are so determined to minimise corruption in the sport that if it means that people who also want to fasttrack information are also caught in the crossfire then so be it. But that’s just my belief.
Let me ask a question. Assuming that you believe that the people in tennis should allow courtsiding, what benefits to tennis are there in allowing this. What does tennis gain from this? I personally can’t think of anything but maybe I am missing something.
If you look at all of the paying public who physically go to the racing and the tennis, and took a poll working out the percentage of people who made a bet whilst they were physically at the venue then I would say, assuming that all answers are honest, that the percentage of people who have made a bet whilst being at the racing is much much higher than those who were at the tennis. You may think that this is rubbish and in this case we will have to disagree.
My point in all of this is that the reasons behind racing allowing it and tennis not allowing it are based on the organisation’s financial incentive. That and its ability to police it due to the nature of the sport. In racing it’s believed it is beneficial to allow it.
In tennis there is no incentive, there is nothing to gain and much more to lose. There is more possibility to corrupt an outcome. If, as an organiser you believe that if you allow courtsiding then the revenue would be pretty much the same but there is more potential for corruption to creep into the sport, then why allow it?
I don’t think that it’s them not understanding what these people are doing, it’s more a case that they are so determined to minimise corruption in the sport that if it means that people who also want to fasttrack information are also caught in the crossfire then so be it. But that’s just my belief.
Let me ask a question. Assuming that you believe that the people in tennis should allow courtsiding, what benefits to tennis are there in allowing this. What does tennis gain from this? I personally can’t think of anything but maybe I am missing something.
With what U.A. said, I feel he is correct.
Looking at the crowd that attends tennis, the percentage betting BEFOREHAND as well as at the match must be much lower than racing and below football.
This would make in-rnning even less.
But use on an exchange, tennis is the most attractive sports to traders, imo. The volatility much greater than any other sport and besides cricket and golf (less volatile), few examples where you can trade several hours a day, even with a handful of events.
Looking at the crowd that attends tennis, the percentage betting BEFOREHAND as well as at the match must be much lower than racing and below football.
This would make in-rnning even less.
But use on an exchange, tennis is the most attractive sports to traders, imo. The volatility much greater than any other sport and besides cricket and golf (less volatile), few examples where you can trade several hours a day, even with a handful of events.
I can only imagine that they contain some phrase on a banned list used by a clueless "moderator"
This will prob get deleted as well
If, as an organiser you believe that if you allow courtsiding then the revenue would be pretty much the same but there is more potential for corruption to creep into the sport, then why allow it?
Why then do they allow umpires to relay scores to an organisation used by bookmakers for in-play betting? The attack on courtsiding is to protect their monopoly on fast information, nothing to do with absurd fears about corruption.
This will prob get deleted as well
If, as an organiser you believe that if you allow courtsiding then the revenue would be pretty much the same but there is more potential for corruption to creep into the sport, then why allow it?
Why then do they allow umpires to relay scores to an organisation used by bookmakers for in-play betting? The attack on courtsiding is to protect their monopoly on fast information, nothing to do with absurd fears about corruption.
It is about the monopoly of information.
If, as an organiser you believe that if you allow courtsiding then the revenue would be pretty much the same but there is more potential for corruption to creep into the sport, then why allow it?
I think it was mentioned on this thread: If you are involved with 'match fixing', you would be no where near the event. The plan would have been done days, if not weeks before. No need to be near the event.
If, as an organiser you believe that if you allow courtsiding then the revenue would be pretty much the same but there is more potential for corruption to creep into the sport, then why allow it?
I think it was mentioned on this thread: If you are involved with 'match fixing', you would be no where near the event. The plan would have been done days, if not weeks before. No need to be near the event.
Yeah it was the idiotic policeman who said there was a connection in a pathetic attempt to justify the charges that were dropped.
Yeah the charges were so pathetic and idiotic that the organisation concerned (if they are being truthful) say they are abandoning courtsiding, whereas if the charges and activity had never been highlighted and publicised they'd still be doing it.
I also think they are more concerned about integrity issues and the image of the sport than the monopoly of information. The monopoly of information possibly gives them an angle for a civil case though.
Someone posted the law that he was charged under and Betfair deleted the post for some bizarre reason.
The law was about match-fixing and there was utterly no way it could apply to someone transmitting scores from courtside. The idiotic policemen when presumably informed that the law didn't apply said "courtsiding is just one step away from match fixing" or words to that effect.
The entire incident was about preserving the monopoly of information that the organisers sell to in running bookmakers.
As I commented earlier and was also deleted - how do the in running books use the info they get sourced from the umpire? It isn't just about the exchange.
The law was about match-fixing and there was utterly no way it could apply to someone transmitting scores from courtside. The idiotic policemen when presumably informed that the law didn't apply said "courtsiding is just one step away from match fixing" or words to that effect.
The entire incident was about preserving the monopoly of information that the organisers sell to in running bookmakers.
As I commented earlier and was also deleted - how do the in running books use the info they get sourced from the umpire? It isn't just about the exchange.
Oh and will the befair employee who is deleting posts in this thread at least have the courtesy to state that he/she is deleting posts and why. We are customers of betfair discussing issues that concern our betting and should be treated as such.
The entire incident was about preserving the monopoly of information that the organisers sell to in running bookmakers.
that's not true. It's only main tours scores (i.e. not the Grand Slams, Fed and Davis Cup, and ITF tours) that are redistributed by enetpulse and the delays on the official scoreboards, which were extended when the deal was first struck, have now been removed, so pretty much everyone receives the data at the same time.
Betfair, I think, have now purchased the enetpulse feed as well (the standard scoreboard data is encrypted). The point about this information is that it allows bookmakers to offer markets on non televised courts.
As for the whole AO thing, it was an embarrassment from start to finish. There was possibly a civil case about unauthorised rebroadcasting of data, and the condition of ticket sale was violated as well, but there was NEVER anything criminal about it and it was patently obvious the moment the laws were consulted. It was one thing for plod to get it wrong, but for prosecutors to take it to court shows them up as having the sort of sub-normal intelligence that would have got you sterilised in many European countries in the early half of the 20th century.
The really galling thing about this is that the TIU (tennis integrity unit) are a disgrace, an utterly ineffective disgrace, and this petty sort of sh1t gets the heavy handed treatment to compensate for their egregious incompetence in addressing match fixing. It also wouldn't hurt for the ATP and WTA to spend some time investigating some of their broadcast partners as well.......
that's not true. It's only main tours scores (i.e. not the Grand Slams, Fed and Davis Cup, and ITF tours) that are redistributed by enetpulse and the delays on the official scoreboards, which were extended when the deal was first struck, have now been removed, so pretty much everyone receives the data at the same time.
Betfair, I think, have now purchased the enetpulse feed as well (the standard scoreboard data is encrypted). The point about this information is that it allows bookmakers to offer markets on non televised courts.
As for the whole AO thing, it was an embarrassment from start to finish. There was possibly a civil case about unauthorised rebroadcasting of data, and the condition of ticket sale was violated as well, but there was NEVER anything criminal about it and it was patently obvious the moment the laws were consulted. It was one thing for plod to get it wrong, but for prosecutors to take it to court shows them up as having the sort of sub-normal intelligence that would have got you sterilised in many European countries in the early half of the 20th century.
The really galling thing about this is that the TIU (tennis integrity unit) are a disgrace, an utterly ineffective disgrace, and this petty sort of sh1t gets the heavy handed treatment to compensate for their egregious incompetence in addressing match fixing. It also wouldn't hurt for the ATP and WTA to spend some time investigating some of their broadcast partners as well.......
There's been a question on this thread along the lines of:
So it's against the rules of the event, we know that
But is it against Betfair's rules?
As if courtsiding is a morally ok activity on here.
But the question has an answer and the answer is YES. That's because Betfair have it in their Terms that the event rules of the sport are their rules. You break the sport's rules, then you're not welcome to do that on here. Here's the extract:
"Specific Conditions relating to your use of the Exchange
Your Conduct
You will at all times act in good faith in relation to the counterparties to your bets struck through the Exchange and such counterparties will be able to enforce this duty directly against you. In particular you will not place bets on the Exchange in breach of any sporting rules, regulations or code of conduct which apply to you."
So it's against the rules of the event, we know that
But is it against Betfair's rules?
As if courtsiding is a morally ok activity on here.
But the question has an answer and the answer is YES. That's because Betfair have it in their Terms that the event rules of the sport are their rules. You break the sport's rules, then you're not welcome to do that on here. Here's the extract:
"Specific Conditions relating to your use of the Exchange
Your Conduct
You will at all times act in good faith in relation to the counterparties to your bets struck through the Exchange and such counterparties will be able to enforce this duty directly against you. In particular you will not place bets on the Exchange in breach of any sporting rules, regulations or code of conduct which apply to you."
Apparently Matchbook are closing accounts if they suspect people are placing bets because they have superior pictures/stream/info, i.e., they're taking this far more seriously. Dodgy ground either way though.
I think it was mentioned on this thread: If you are involved with 'match fixing', you would be no where near the event. The plan would have been done days, if not weeks before. No need to be near the event.
I personally disagree with this, in theory. There are other forms of betting available other than who will win the match. Who will win the next point or next game are available. If someone was throwing certain points or games it could be difficult to determine this before the match starts as the point/game might be crucial and the person may still want to win the match.
Also if someone is at the venue and live betting and gets themselves into a awkward situation then they can try to disrupt play on important points to help themselves out.
I think that Bongo makes a good point. The fact that BF seem to allow such activities when their rules state they shouldn't, together with their stance that it's ok because we get to pocket 40-60% of it, only heightens certain peoples stance on the immorality/cheating that is going on.
I personally disagree with this, in theory. There are other forms of betting available other than who will win the match. Who will win the next point or next game are available. If someone was throwing certain points or games it could be difficult to determine this before the match starts as the point/game might be crucial and the person may still want to win the match.
Also if someone is at the venue and live betting and gets themselves into a awkward situation then they can try to disrupt play on important points to help themselves out.
I think that Bongo makes a good point. The fact that BF seem to allow such activities when their rules state they shouldn't, together with their stance that it's ok because we get to pocket 40-60% of it, only heightens certain peoples stance on the immorality/cheating that is going on.
I personally disagree with this, in theory. There are other forms of betting available other than who will win the match.
Exactly. The cricket spot-fixers were giving certain symbols, like grabbing hold of a chain before they bowled a no ball. A dream to any courtsider in the know to get on as soon as they see the sign in person, not with a five-second delay on TV.
Exactly. The cricket spot-fixers were giving certain symbols, like grabbing hold of a chain before they bowled a no ball. A dream to any courtsider in the know to get on as soon as they see the sign in person, not with a five-second delay on TV.
And if a horse is sweating up in the mounting yard? We don't see that siht on tv. So anybody at the track is just as immoral if they react to the information that nobody else will even get, let alone see it delayed. ?
And seriously, how many buttons did he have to memorise on his phone in his pocket to relay? He was relaying a point for, a point against, fault, payer a played with his chain, player b tugged his earlobe 3 times, player a flick tug flick flicked his earlobe, wind changed directions, sun in his eyes, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.
And why in fcuk was my last post deleted?
And seriously, how many buttons did he have to memorise on his phone in his pocket to relay? He was relaying a point for, a point against, fault, payer a played with his chain, player b tugged his earlobe 3 times, player a flick tug flick flicked his earlobe, wind changed directions, sun in his eyes, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.
And why in fcuk was my last post deleted?
same old arguments.
if you own one of the houses overlooking one of the courts at eastbourne, would you consider it immoral or against betfair's rules to bet on matches being played on these courts?
melbourne park is visible from a high rise hotel in melbourne. would it be wrong to train a number of telescopes on different courts and then relay point by point information back to london?
if you own one of the houses overlooking one of the courts at eastbourne, would you consider it immoral or against betfair's rules to bet on matches being played on these courts?
melbourne park is visible from a high rise hotel in melbourne. would it be wrong to train a number of telescopes on different courts and then relay point by point information back to london?
This discussion is a constant circle that goes to the basics of "have / have nots".
I traded horses in-running without pictures for years. I learnt that where I got stung (besides fallers), was in the last few furlongs. So I used to trade and get out before the volatility started.
Years ago, when "Tony McClure" set up in a NY hotel room for the US Open, everyone screamed "cheater".
You put up a bet at 30-30, wanting to be matched. After 15 seconds, if you have not been matched, you are now gambling on the next point, not the score anywmore. You don't need pictures or faster data to know that they are about to start the next point.
I have telephone numbers, emails and twitter feeds for journists around the world who are at events, some who travel with teams who, when asked for basic info (even the weather), more than happy to share. Am I "cheating"?
When I traded financials, there was money to be made in the last 30 minutes on volatile days. I paid $200/month for my feed from the States. The rest of those trading relied on Yahoo (60 second delays +-2005). And, yes, it was an edge that I paid for. So would you pay $5/match for data from court-side? Or are can you do it with delayed video or watching a feed from some platform that puts up the score then closes their betting on the next point just before the next serve?
But if you feel you don't have the ability to trade or bet with what you have rather than what you don't have, then adjust yourself rather than trying to swim against the current.
Rant over. Soap box put away.
I traded horses in-running without pictures for years. I learnt that where I got stung (besides fallers), was in the last few furlongs. So I used to trade and get out before the volatility started.
Years ago, when "Tony McClure" set up in a NY hotel room for the US Open, everyone screamed "cheater".
You put up a bet at 30-30, wanting to be matched. After 15 seconds, if you have not been matched, you are now gambling on the next point, not the score anywmore. You don't need pictures or faster data to know that they are about to start the next point.
I have telephone numbers, emails and twitter feeds for journists around the world who are at events, some who travel with teams who, when asked for basic info (even the weather), more than happy to share. Am I "cheating"?
When I traded financials, there was money to be made in the last 30 minutes on volatile days. I paid $200/month for my feed from the States. The rest of those trading relied on Yahoo (60 second delays +-2005). And, yes, it was an edge that I paid for. So would you pay $5/match for data from court-side? Or are can you do it with delayed video or watching a feed from some platform that puts up the score then closes their betting on the next point just before the next serve?
But if you feel you don't have the ability to trade or bet with what you have rather than what you don't have, then adjust yourself rather than trying to swim against the current.
Rant over. Soap box put away.
increasingly i wonder about the possibility of trialling a system in tennis that would work as follows (obviously markets would have to be managed and televised)
i. 0 seconds delay in play.
ii. Bets can be tied to a scoreline, i.e. you can specify the current scoreline with your bet. If you know the delay of the quickest live feed you have, you can infer the exact time at which the present point was concluded, your bet no longer becomes valid, and is voided if it's been matched.
(i actually think this would work much better in kickball as well than the current suspension method).
i. 0 seconds delay in play.
ii. Bets can be tied to a scoreline, i.e. you can specify the current scoreline with your bet. If you know the delay of the quickest live feed you have, you can infer the exact time at which the present point was concluded, your bet no longer becomes valid, and is voided if it's been matched.
(i actually think this would work much better in kickball as well than the current suspension method).
If you are unable do something openly without permission and are concealing what you are doing so as to not get caught then my opinion is that is cheating.
I think it is that simple.
I think it is that simple.
Betfair voided bets on the Jump yesterday on bets they decided they were placed after the result was known.
Let me ask a question. Assuming that you believe that the people in tennis should allow courtsiding, what benefits to tennis are there in allowing this. What does tennis gain from this? I personally can’t think of anything but maybe I am missing something.
UA, this may be a fair question, and perhaps there is no advantage I agree.
UA, this may be a fair question, and perhaps there is no advantage I agree.
Involved in several matches today. All I know is Istomin was outsider went to 1.03 without winning a set so perhaps somebody fell asleep with their elbow on his "point won" button 
Clearly the guy knew he was breaking the rules - hence the hidden device. Match fixing? How is the match being fixed by relaying the score.
Was the data really being sent all the way to London, processed and then a bet placed back on the server in Tasmania? Or was it being processed somewhere closer? Doesn't matter if the bet was being placed from outside Oz.
I think I read somewhere that the guys behind it claimed to have made over £1m from the tennis scheme. Based on models that needed the latest scores. They were ex-Betfair and probably knew the system inside out and where the money was to be made.
Unfortuantely it is the way of the world. People dont stay in a job for life anymore. The revolving door between banks and government is an obvious example of this.
Who really cares? At the beginning of Betfair there was probably two, maybe three people that wanted to build a fair exchange and iron out all the integrity issues. The rest wanted to get on with building the business for a short term IPO. Who can blame them? They are all long gone.
There is no incentive, beyond short term firefighting PR, for the markets to be completely fair. Someone will always know more than you.
Was the data really being sent all the way to London, processed and then a bet placed back on the server in Tasmania? Or was it being processed somewhere closer? Doesn't matter if the bet was being placed from outside Oz.
I think I read somewhere that the guys behind it claimed to have made over £1m from the tennis scheme. Based on models that needed the latest scores. They were ex-Betfair and probably knew the system inside out and where the money was to be made.
Unfortuantely it is the way of the world. People dont stay in a job for life anymore. The revolving door between banks and government is an obvious example of this.
Who really cares? At the beginning of Betfair there was probably two, maybe three people that wanted to build a fair exchange and iron out all the integrity issues. The rest wanted to get on with building the business for a short term IPO. Who can blame them? They are all long gone.
There is no incentive, beyond short term firefighting PR, for the markets to be completely fair. Someone will always know more than you.
Someone will always know more than you.
Once you take that on board, you will be a better trader and know when to step back from the keyboard rather than fight the current.
Once you take that on board, you will be a better trader and know when to step back from the keyboard rather than fight the current.
Cricket "courtsiders"
http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/02/14/cricket-world-corruption-idINL4N0VO07M20150214?utm_content=bufferf5967&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/02/14/cricket-world-corruption-idINL4N0VO07M20150214?utm_content=bufferf5967&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
THEIR THE KIND OF PEOPLE WHO FIND THE GOLDEN NEEDLE IN THE HAYSTACK,BUT NEVER EVER THINK OF FINDING THE FARMER AND ASKING HIM IF ITS HIS
SS - another interesting example.
But, as you can quite easily bet on mobile phones these days, is it becoming common practice for anyone with a phone being evicted from any sporting events?
Seems rather unlikely/tricky!
But, as you can quite easily bet on mobile phones these days, is it becoming common practice for anyone with a phone being evicted from any sporting events?
Seems rather unlikely/tricky!
I sent an email to a friend in New Zealand. Trying to find out the wording on the tickets (per the article: "they had been in breach of the ticketing regulations"). Wondering if it was for "transmitting data in relation to the score".
But as stu said, are they going to chuck people out for using their phones?
But as stu said, are they going to chuck people out for using their phones?
Why don't they just hire a corporate box? Probably get an internet plug and take their laptop in and have topless waitresses bringing them piss all day.
Feb 14, 2015 -- 3:09PM, SHAPESHIFTER wrote:
I sent an email to a friend in New Zealand. Trying to find out the wording on the tickets (per the article: "they had been in breach of the ticketing regulations"). Wondering if it was for "transmitting data in relation to the score".But as stu said, are they going to chuck people out for using their phones?
The Ticket Holder shall not be entitled to conduct, carry out or cause to be conducted or carried out:
any form of betting or gambling whatsoever within the Venue; or
any promotions, advertising, marketing or other commercial activity in or around the Venue, unless the same has been expressly authorised in writing in advance by IDI (the Ticket Holder may be asked to deliver up a copy of any such authorisation upon entry to or at any time whilst within the Venue).
Except in each case with the prior written app
http://tickets.cricketworldcup.com/tickets/terms-conditions/termsandconditions/default.aspx
Wonder if that includes drinking their drinks. That seems a bit of a gamble to me.
The Ticket Holder shall not be entitled to conduct, carry out or cause to be conducted or carried out:
any form of betting or gambling whatsoever within the Venue;
interesting, I know this is a different venue, but the man at the aussie open wouldn't have breached that condition as he wasn't gambling.
any form of betting or gambling whatsoever within the Venue;
interesting, I know this is a different venue, but the man at the aussie open wouldn't have breached that condition as he wasn't gambling.
Yes but version of the story I read yesterday says:
The group in question were watched covertly for about ten minutes before detectives stepped in and led them away for questioning.
Courtsiding is a criminal offence in parts of Australia and carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison.
Whilst not illegal in New Zealand, it is in breach of the terms of entry to matches at the Cricket World Cup.
The group in question were watched covertly for about ten minutes before detectives stepped in and led them away for questioning.
Courtsiding is a criminal offence in parts of Australia and carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison.
Whilst not illegal in New Zealand, it is in breach of the terms of entry to matches at the Cricket World Cup.
And anyway the key to the ticketing smallprint is "cause to be".
"Courtsiding is a criminal offence in parts of Australia and carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison." Thats nonsense - show me any law in any part of the world that mentions the word "courtsiding". That's just another journo quoting from the retarded police in the oz open case.
"cause to be" is irrelevant as the condition is restricted to "within the Venue;"
"cause to be" is irrelevant as the condition is restricted to "within the Venue;"
btw I can see how you have interpreted that bit but imo "within the Venue" would have to be separated from "any form of betting or gambling whatsoever" to have your interpretation.
and then we move on to where "remote gaming" actually takes place - at the server location or at the bettors location.
Ticketing conditions I'm guessing are a matter of civil law. If you're thrown out for breaching conditions, then you have no comeback at the venue until retrospectively. It's their rules, and they'll apply them how they want to at the time.
Feb 15, 2015 -- 6:18AM, SHAPESHIFTER wrote:
...I'm building a drone.......
Joking aside, it's only a matter of time until someone does take betting to that level.
10 years in prison for watching a sports event and sending the scores to someone.
Err, yeh, ok....
Err, yeh, ok....
Feb 15, 2015 -- 5:59AM, dave1357 wrote:
"Courtsiding is a criminal offence in parts of Australia and carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison." Thats nonsense - show me any law in any part of the world that mentions the word "courtsiding". That's just another journo quoting from the retarded police in the oz open case."cause to be" is irrelevant as the condition is restricted to "within the Venue;"
At a guess, here's the piece of law:
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fs833_first-senate%2F0004;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fs833_first-senate%2F0000%22;rec=0
135A.3 Obtaining a financial advantage in relation to a code of sport by deception
A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the person, by a deception, dishonestly obtains a financial advantage from another person; and
(b) the other person is a constitutional corporation; or
(c) the deception affects the activities of a constitutional corporation; or
(d) the deception takes place in the course of trade or commerce:
(i) with other countries; or
(ii) among the States; or
(iii) between a State and a Territory; or
(e) the financial advantage is obtained in the course of trade or commerce:
(i) with other countries; or
(ii) among the States; or
(iii) between a State and a Territory; or
(f) the deception takes place in a Territory; or
(g) the financial advantage is obtained in a Territory.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years or 10,000 penalty units, or both.
I don't think the law has ever been tested, so it's up to a court to determine what exactly falls foul of this law.
I reckon you could probably twist those wordings to mean anything - you could probably condemn some shrewdies amongst the forum with them.
Exactly. Politicians can word all the laws they want, but it's not them who actually pass the laws. Without any legal precedence, it's still open to any interpretation you want. And that also means police can abuse it too, if they so wish.
the deception affects the activities of a constitutional corporation
what exactly is a constitutional corporation? Does a bookie or exchange qualify?
what exactly is a constitutional corporation? Does a bookie or exchange qualify?
Guess the other key part is the word 'deception' - does courtsiding qualify I wonder?
Feb 15, 2015 -- 6:53AM, stu wrote:
Guess the other key part is the word 'deception' - does courtsiding qualify I wonder?
Answer:
deception , in addition to the definition in section 133.1, includes:
(a) conduct by a person that contrives the outcome of a sporting match or the occurrence of a micro-event during a sporting match;
(b) deliberate underperformance by a player during a sporting match that achieves a particular result in the sporting match;
(c) contriving the withdrawal of a player during a sporting match to achieve a particular result in the sporting match;
(d) use by a person of confidential information in relation to a code of sport, to which the person has access because of the person’s association with the code of sport, before that information is publicly available;
(e) making a deliberately incorrect refereeing or like decision during a sporting match to influence the outcome of the sporting match;
(f) deliberate interference before a sporting match with the equipment or playing surface to be used during the sporting match;
(g) offering a bribe or making a threat, or engaging in any other coercive behaviour, against a person to achieve a particular result in a sporting match;
(h) any other conduct prescribed by the regulations.
Presumably that is the match fixing law. There is utterly no way it applies to courtsiding (look at the full law AND the documents introducing of the law it is all about actual match fixing).
Once again in the Oz open case the thicko policeman charged the guy under that law. At the first court hearing the prosecution lawyers were all wtf, no way we get this through, but the police insisted on continuing for further enquiries. It was such a blatant ****-up by the police that the prosecution had to pay defence expenses.
Once again in the Oz open case the thicko policeman charged the guy under that law. At the first court hearing the prosecution lawyers were all wtf, no way we get this through, but the police insisted on continuing for further enquiries. It was such a blatant ****-up by the police that the prosecution had to pay defence expenses.
Anyway there isn't any point in arguing as justice was done in the oz case. I was just commenting that relaying info but not betting in the NZ case doesn't appear to break the T&C.
don't worry about it. its a paper tiger law. you can be assured no one will ever go to jail over it in a first world country.
If anyone interested, there's an interview with the fella who was arrested at 12 minutes into this R4 programme: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05r3w43
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539