*section 43 not 44

i may well ask what authority are YOU using, because this is the nub of the argument.

you have defaulted to the most commonly available feed, whereas that can be proved to be a nonsense.

go back to my eastbourne example earlier on.

or what if i had rights to redistribute the score, say i was involved with the broadcasters?

the burden of proof is surely on the prosecutors.

and 5 seconds has everything to do with it.

I might also add that the Eastbourne example is highly relevant.

I could have an apartment at eureka tower and a telescope.

but i've already made this point.

you can only ever ensure fairness by giving everyone live pictures or data feeds or guarantee that the in play delay (5 seconds) is suitable.

you cannot ensure fairness by going after the few with the quicker information when the supposed majority are delayed.

jfc, I would have thought UK law is far away from this Australian case. Wouldn't know for sure.

The fact it relates to the utilization of exchanges apparently from online statements , presumably betfair is one,  AO is the event and Australian punters bet over the phone on such events, in possibly the same betting outcomes, Australian law becomes very relevant I would have thought.

I would have thought any business activity in Australia makes Australian law relevant to the legal object conducting such activity generally speaking!

RMB how does it effect me as an Australian?

RMB, how long is a piece of string? I could write war and peace on this subject non doubt!!!


I will have a breather and make a quick reply shortly which only really touches the surface

the receivers of the information from this person cannot possibly be faster than a courtsider betting at the event. Wildone do you believe that there are no courtsiders betting at this event?

Plenty to chew on in this apparent investigative effort here:

Note the AFR is free for the rest of January to those that register.

--------------------

Betting syndicate defends actions of courtside analyst

JESSICA GARDNER

The British employer of the man arrested courtside at the Australian Open on January 14 says the betting syndicate has been sending its ­workers to the tournament for the past three years and despite losing on the match in question, was on track to make a profit from the tennis ­tournament.

Sporting Data director Steve High claimed his employee Daniel Dobson had done nothing illegal by relaying information on the outcome of individual points back to the company in Surrey, just outside of London.

This information was used to take advantage of a delay in the fluctuation of odds on betting exchange Betfair.

Mr Dobson, 22, was arrested on Tuesday after the round one match between Australian Nick Kyrgios and German Benjamin Becker.

He is alleged to have “engaged in conduct to corrupt a betting outcome” by using an electronic device in the pocket of his shorts, which was linked to a smartphone, to send the information to Sporting Data.

But Mr High said he believed laws under which Mr Dobson has been charged have been applied inappropriately. “To have criminal charges pressed was unthinkable to us,” he said. “We were shocked that the police got involved. Obviously it’s in the hands of the court, but we’re still strongly of the opinion it’s not illegal.”

Victoria Police declined to ­comment while the case was before the court.

Mr High said Sporting Data first sent one of its ‘data analysts’ to the Australian Open in 2012.

At the 2014 tournament the company has three paid analysts including Mr Dobson. The other staff members have stopped working ­following the charges.

148 BETS MATCHED
Mr High would not disclose Sporting Data’s overall financial details, but he revealed that the company had laid bets of £74,346 ($139,000) on the Kyrgios v Becker match. The company had 148 bets matched on Betfair, but lost £2763. On a betting exchange, every bet laid is matched by another punter willing to take the opposite outcome. The exchange takes a commission on winning bets.

“Obviously we lost on this one and actually we were having a pretty poor tournament even before Dan was pulled in,” Mr High said. “I think we were still marginally up overall for the tournament though and we still expected a good profit for the tour­nament.”

A Betfair spokesman would not comment on individual punters, but said the total bets matched on the exchange for the Kyrgios v Becker match reached $776,461 (£423,627).

At a press conference following the arrest the Victoria Police said Mr Dobson’s employer was using the information to place bets on ­individual points. This is known as micro or spot betting.

But Mr High said the company was only laying “in-play” bets on the outcome of a match. It is illegal for Australian operators to offer micro-betting. In-play betting is allowed on the outcome of a match, but not via online platforms. Punters have to ­telephone a wagering company instead. Many international jurisdictions allow online in-play betting.

Mr High was previously employed by Betfair in the United Kingdom as a senior product manager until 2009. While working at a smaller betting start-up he developed an automatic trading tool and started Sporting Data with two other directors in 2011.

The company uses mathematical models to predict how the odds on the outcome of a match will fluctuate after a point is won or lost.

By knowing the outcome of a point faster than it is relayed either on a television broadcast, or updated on a betting exchange, the company can decide if the odds offered are out of line and as such could provide an arbitrage opportunity.

Mr High said Sporting Data approached Enetpulse, the Danish company engaged by international tennis authorities to sell live result information to betting operators like Betfair, about also paying for the data but it refused. The company could not be reached for comment.

SOPHISTICATED PUNTERS
A number of gambling experts said sophisticated punters often use un­licensed wagering operators because the markets available on matches between relatively un­known players aren’t deep enough to be lucrative. Mr High denied his ­company used illegal operators and only used licensed betting exchanges Betfair and ****.

“I don’t have the contacts to know who they would be and to trust them to pay up,” he said of illegal operators.

Mr High said Sporting Data would fight the charge against Mr Dobson, and was paying his legal costs. The company had taken advice in the United Kingdom twice before in the past to ensure their use of courtsiding was legal. Mr High said his data analysts acted covertly, such as hiding the electronic devices, because the company knew it was violating the terms and conditions of spectator tickets. “We have had people ejected from other tournaments. We want to be as discrete as possible,” he said.

This was the first time a Sporting Data employee had been charged with a criminal offence, despite the company sending staff to all four of the grand slams and other tournaments. Mr High said tennis most suited the company’s mathematical models, but they had begun testing football and cricket as well.

Mr Dobson has been charged under laws introduced last year by the Victorian government that make it an offence for anyone to “engage in or facilitate any conduct that corrupts or would corrupt a betting outcome of a sport or racing event resulting in financial advantage”.

“The court case may well have the affect of confirming we are [operating within the law], but I’m not going to want to go through this experience again,” Mr High said.

He is considering legal action against Channel Seven’s Today Tonight, after what he said were incorrect reports about his company. Today Tonight sent a television crew to his home and tried to interview his wife, he said.

“I didn’t know much about ­Channel 7 before but I know I’m not a fan now,” he said.

Mr High said he was reconsidering having employees courtside, but also said it was unlikely that tennis authorities could stamp out the practice. “I think maybe the tennis authorities should consider other ways of working with us and we could have a grown up discussion about courtsiding,” he said.

Tennis Australia did not respond to requests for comment.

http://www.afr.com/p/national/betting_syndicate_defends_actions_tLIe9dFVZJDxWNbZifLwmK

Interesting read. 

Mr High said Sporting Data approached Enetpulse, the Danish company engaged by international tennis authorities to sell live result information to betting operators like Betfair, about also paying for the data but it refused.

Why wouldn't Enetpulse sell the data to them? Suggests to me they do their own bf trading on the side so selling to any trading outfits like sportingdata isn't in their interests.
There's one main sniper week on week, every court stream or no stream they're there firing in their fill or kill bets after the point, setting the new price, sniping on serves and clearing any lumps out of line etc.  Proper automated job

“I think maybe the tennis authorities should consider other ways of working with us and we could have a grown up discussion about courtsiding,” If only

Why wouldn't Enetpulse sell the data to them? Suggests to me they do their own bf trading on the side so selling to any trading outfits like sportingdata isn't in their interests.
There's one main sniper week on week, every court stream or no stream they're there firing in their fill or kill bets after the point, setting the new price, sniping on serves and clearing any lumps out of line etc.  Proper automated job

i might also add that anyone trying to be first in australasia events would base themselves out of New Zealand, not the UK. There's an extra 2 seconds to be had.

I think i know what's happening with that and i don't think it has anything to do with enetpulse.

Ok, keen to hear your thoughts, i've dropped you a message

well, if you watch the matches you must have noticed that umpires are sometimes slow to enter the last point played on their PDA.  it may take even up to several seconds on some (not that rare) occassions, so if you have a dedicated person feeding you the match data through a separate channel you may pretty much own the market.

i'm a bit shocked that Sportingdata actually posted a loss on the match discussed (or any match in fact), if they are honest about what they say with this respect.  or their setup with the 'analyst' is not as efficient as it can be.

The data player is beatable, sometimes the streams are quicker or there's an obvious courtsider ahead, but nobody is as methodical and has the court coverage they do.

It's not that inconceivable to me nouse trap as we don't exactly know what bets they matched, if they matched one large lump after a given point and the match went against them then they could easily turn a loss.  The streams are quick and people betting through the night aren't you're typical day mugs who are more inclined to get hoovered

I can't think it'd make much difference to them lurka, they need the quick data to protect themselves from courtsiders but don't really gain any advantage to having it ahead of punters? Bet365 reoutputs the score within a second or two anyhow. 

The streams are just quick for this tournament, no slower than 2 seconds behind so somebody feeding off data won't be that far ahead if at all.  Sure there are a number of courtsiders present but I suspect much of the quick money outside the main two show courts is from someone who has the raw stream feed rather than the rebuffed one we get

Don, check the speed of 365 scoreboard in a streamed AO match. The enetpulse data is nowhere near as quick as usual, slower than the stream, so I'd say being at the court would give an advantage of 2 secs over the stream and 3+ over enetpulse (unless 365 are slow to relay all of a sudden).

I'd be slow to believe they lost money too. A pro with that type of advantage would have to be a bit of a mug to lose money betting when you could more or less guarantee profit by trading. 'No financial gain made' sounds good as part of a robust defence.

makes sense DStyle

http://green-all-over.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01
/gambling-commission-in-play-integrity.html?m=1

http://www.smh.com.au/business/charges-against-accused-australian-open-courtsider-dropped-in-embarrassing-backflip-20140306-348la.html

http://www.smh.com.au/business/charges-against-accused
-australian-open-courtsider-dropped-in-embarrassing
-backflip-20140306-348la.html

Think this was the link jfc was trying to post 

Plod who brought the charges should be sacked imo.