Jan 15, 2014 -- 7:08PM, Wildone wrote:
kt22 the allowance of racing but not sports, is that a state based regulation or federal?
Jan 16, 2014 -- 7:12PM, Wildone wrote:
having a look at some of this info I still think they could be in trouble.Note, on the website they talk about using exchanges as opposed to Bookies. Well duh , of course they would because for the aloof they are not betting probably probably they are trading on tennis futures.The line about corrupting a market without influencing the market is balony to me. The market is the price mechanism at a crystalized point in time and this can be corrupted IMO by placing bets at that time when the person has accessed info unfairly compared with the rest of the market and thus influence that market at a point in time when the rest of the market is operating at a different point in time.Also trying to separate the transfer of info and the actual financial decision and the wager is a desperate move and laughable. The courtsider is an employee for a reason, part of the organization, part of the business, the business relies on the wager and it relies on the transfer of info, trying to detach the to activities is hollywood stuff.Some of these counter arguments are down right laughable.IMO if prosecutors botch this they are fools!!Fault 1 is circus material, one is talking about corrupting a betting outcome not corrupting the event. BTW it really is about corrupting a trading outcome by manipulating price movement supported by potentially unauthorized infomation access like the arguments against the banksters manipulating the silver market and other financial markets
the Act says:
"195C Engaging in conduct that corrupts or would corrupt a betting outcome of event or event contingency"
No betting outcome has been corrupted.
All betting outcomes remain precisely the same as if the courtsiding had not occurred.
Jan 16, 2014 -- 8:51PM, Wildone wrote:
jfc this is how I interpret the legislation.The betting outcome has nothing to do with the tennis match itself except the futures result is related to the particular sport event itself.Just say the the users of this courtside service are using the betfair exchange.So the betting or trading outcome in my interpretation would be the financial result/outcome returned/derived within the betfair market as a participant for the sports event like match odds market. I assume the corruptive element is placing wagers in the markets from unauthorised info so the betting market in a sense is maybe interpreted by some as corrupted because some participants are wagering on the basis of 19.00 while others are wagering on the basis of 19.03.Note the legislation says nothing about match fixing, or affecting the result of an event. It talks about affecting the result of a betting outcome. It just so happens the betting outcome relates to an event, and the event could possibly not be a sport at all I assume if what is being displayed online is actually the legislation.The legislation appears to have nothing to do with match fixing as I interpret it so I am not sure why some seem to think some have been accused of match fixing
Here is the Victoria parliament's info about the legislation
It is clearly aimed at match fixing no doubt whatsoever (count how many times the word "fixing" appears on the page)