Courtsider arrested - Aussie Open

D style the only sensitive I am talking about is price sensitive because that is why many trade, to extract financial gain from price sensitive movements

I agree the question becomes is the current behaviour unlawful. My answer is not sure, I don't do that activity so never had to worry about it

But if you ask me if I think it is unfair , my answer is yes.

If you think Aus government are missing out on taxes of trading activities in Oz, IMO probably not just from the culprits but the effect on other traders.

IMO, if somehow the culprits escapes the law written atm, or jumps bail, in time the law will probably be devised so markets get fairer for all participants.

bigger question maybe , given potential links between the two organizations via personnel , is betfair independent and/or unrelated to this other entity

the problem is not that a few people are faster than everyone else; the problem is that so many people are so much slower.

people like to believe the idea that the courtsiders are the unpleasant sharks making the water too dangerous to swim in. "if only we could get rid of them it would be so much better for everyone."

but there is only one reference point and that is live. you cannot delay everyone to the same extent in an attempt to create a "fair market".

if everyone had the same timely information and it was as close to live as possible, there would be no courtsiding.

this is the only solution to the problem, castigating those who look to gain the fastest information, in its absence of being easily available to all, is a distraction.

DStyle is obviously 100% correct.

The nanosecond a point is won it is public information. Some people have the quickest methods of getting a bet on to the Betfair servers with their new found information.

If you rely on the TV, internet or Ceefax for your information that's your problem and should bet accordingly.

Wildone 15 Jan 14 09:47 
bigger question maybe , given potential links between the two organizations via personnel , is betfair independent and/or unrelated to this other entity

excellent question. given that courtsiders are almost certainly paying super premium charge, is it in betfair's interest to take steps to address the problem?

What about the official score feeds being sent in real time to bookmakers by the tennis authorities. Exactly the same thing isn't it?

Dstyle, the courtsider is just a guinea pig of the organization

The question is are the stakeholders of the organization absolved of the any potential corruption etc.. and are they operating true and fairly in terms of the laws and regulations.

I agree, since the big bookies have manipulated the markets, like buying fuel and other cartels my activity is smartly only sparingly these days thus the low turnover

Interesting thread

It's a non story that will only raise the eyebrows of non gamblers. They swamped Madrid one year and if no criminal proceedings are brought forward it's a waste of time and money even bothering to clamped it out, it's like Tom and Jerry on repeat.

Bstyle, at the very least , the courtsider, as an employee appears to be a participant in an activity that may be construed as conducting the business of trading on Australian soil because it would be difficult to argue he was punting on a point by point bass due to the frequency of activity one may imagine.

If that was the case, one could presume, at the very least, this 'sporting data' entity would need to provide a tax return to the ATO ;for income derived from such business activity in Australia and meet other business regulations and license requirements in Australia not to mention UK. The question may become how they determine where aspects the business activity occurred. It could be argued since the activity is based on critical info sourced only from Australia, with the source of the info key, the business activity may get attached to Australia

So I think this investigation may continue for a while at minimum given national govt budget issues globally and the chasing of a group of high end punters previously in Australia over tax related queries.

Other issues that may or may not be determined as breaches or ilegal probably will follwed up, one could imagine, whether successful or not

Furthermore the AO tournament may have provisions that only allow entry for entertainment purposes. Conducting business activity may be deemed a breach, furthermore the live info they get from being courtside may only be used for entertainment purposes. The use of this information asset for revenue may be construed as a breach and maybe they might argue theft of intangible rights, furthermore their may be provisions for entrants bringing the tournament into disrepute like the AFL.

TBH, I think this will drag on for a while because sport is an area they have been targeting and , without being too sarcastic, it provides a lovely distraction for govt!

The very best of luck to him. He paid the air fare spent 24 hours getting there,paid the admission,hotel food,and much more.Well done a proper trier.
He has done nothing wrong it is there for all.

These are all possibilities Wildone, but none of those possible trangressions, nor even betting in play on Australian soil, are covered by the specific charge he was arrested under.

So how many years down the line are we now and the authorities still seem to think courtsiders are a route of corruption?

Courtsiders are the fastest score service available.

Who is to say the organization will not be charged??

I would have thought they are more potentially in the gun barrel than the employee!

They may even argue since they are presumably trading online, based on local court-time info, that no local investors,punters can utilise because they have to use a slower phone mechanism effectively it is deemed a national security issue in terms of wealth redistribution out of Australia from punters in OZ who do not have the same advantage not to mention the probable traders probably are not paying tax for any trading activities

Just more sensationalist bs from the press trying to take the moral high ground on a subject they know f all about. They are calling it a scam and a sting and trying to convince people that we have the greatest crime fighting organisations on the planet, as if we are the only ones concerned.

"In Play" betting on the gee gee's is permitted in Oz as I understand it and I am sure there would be many people at the track utilising it. I sussed it out from my computer at one stage and horses always hit 1.01 a long way from the finish line.

*on the tv coverage

in play over the phone is allowed but not online in OZ so effectively it sounds these probable traders are trying to circumvent the rules  to again advantage over the locals and possibly avoid tax extracting funds through the exploitation of an possible unfair unauthorized advantage which potentially diminishes Australia's national wealth and prosperity.

It is only natural the authorities are looking to protect the national interest and public from any corporate raiders using unfair practices

As an Aussie punter in OZ I am happy these authorities are empowering me, through their actions, not to be a charity donating to any potential corporate parasites by me potentially accepting reduced odds!

of course if OZ punters are allowed to bet online live on sprts events like the tennis the national wealth and prosperity is protected and preserved far more but these activities still create an unfair advantage IMO due to the timing and knowledge gain

When I said that betting on horse racing is permitted "in play" in Oz I meant online, without the need to use on the phone.

Also as an OZ punter, me and most others using Betfair think the government regulations suck, and severely reduce our opportunities to compete on overseas markets on a level playing field due to the delay in having to make a phone call, not to mention the cost of constantly having to make overseas phone calls to place bets "in play".

So wildone why do you suppose that we are allowed to bet on horse races both here and overseas without needing to phone up. Perhaps our authorities are happy to protect our so called national interest, wealth and prosperity while exploiting the wealth of other countries without paying any taxes.

Are you Senator Nick Xenophon by any chance?

sleepless, pretty sure we can't be live online with the horses . once the horses in a race jumps the market goes in play and one in OZ has to ring up, you cannot put a bet on online when the market is in play, but youcan put a bet on in running over the phone.

I think the reason they do not allow online gambling is to protect national betting organizations revenues , and protect tax revenues , largely a left argument.

but the decision makers probably have no idea of the real world based on free will of the people who know what they want in free and fair markets. That or they are just playing politics until they can get a substitute national online exchange provider. In the long run online live betting has to come in and any protection against it is purely protection of the elite through the repression of the broader public. The wealth and prosperity of Australia is dependent on fair free markets otherwise participants will not buy/sell or invest and the economy will die. It is the same forces behind the car industry dying, retail down etc..., the average joe do not appreciate being slaves to the powerful exploiting them

The free will of the people seems to want the best to survive, similar to law of the jungle which is 'I want the best fair chance to succeed(fair cause in the jungle if a predator thinks you are f.. with you they will try and kill you) which is why ACT tabs lately look like going up for sale because the public is not prepared to be screwed over a few abusing a power position providing reduced prices when there are superior substitutes like online bookies and exchanges even in a location that is in love with the left and a sense of entitlement due to a lot of dependancy on it to the detriment of the majority of the rest of Australia.

sleepless, btw I am pretty far from being Nick X

I am just an average joe that thinks he understands the real world and is pretty far from the political game just trying to survive in a perceived power driven world these days

Wildone, horse racing and some trots have in play via internet.The govt.considers these not to be sports so allows in play.Just more bizarre policy from those least informed to enact law.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/australian
open/10575346/Sport-on-alert-after-first-arrest-for-courtsiding.html

kt22 in 35 min race 1 at Sale.

Pretty confident it will go in play at 12.00 and i will not be able to bet on it .

lets do a bit of trial an error

kt22I stand correct tried to get on the fav and it let me get on live although I wasn't matched.

Kt22 when did that get allowed? I am sure you were not able to do it before!


Tell you what not happy you can do it on the horses but not sports!!!!

Good luck with your trial wildone, for I know what your response will be after race 1.

As far as government. policy, in my opinion they have a lot more to gain by taking the high moral ground and being seen to do what is perceived to be the right thing, because they will get many more votes doing that than by pleasing a few gamblers. The past government/s has also needed the likes of Nick X and independents and would never have their support by being seen to approve of gambling. Of course I am sure that the yanks disapproval played some sort of part because we can not do anything without copying them to some degree,

kt22 the allowance of racing but not sports, is that a state based regulation or federal?

Wildone, it is federal. I would consider horse racing to be a lot more dubious than sports but the whole beef centres around the fact that the government does not approve of the perception that on Betfair we can bet on something to lose. Obviously this is due to their lack of knowledge because by backing someone to win in a 2 horse race, you are obviously betting that the opponent will lose.

sleepless , don't understand your argument?

Allowing online live betting on sports is the moral high ground and the righteous!!! Not allowing online live betting fuels corruption and exploitation like courtsiding because the greater delays create greater room for exploitation via power plays supporting tyrannies of evil!!

Any economist worth their salt argues for fair and free markets and not exploitation by big business!!! Why would moral crusaders endorse slavery and compromise human rights by blocking live online investing on sports?? I think a class action on the basis of discrimination may eventuate!

sleepless what has online live betting on sports have anything to do with a option backing a future to lose when those options already exist in substitute mechanisms including shorting stocks etc..??

Sounds like a reduction of human rights and fueling a mechanism for the powerful elite to exploit the many to me!!

sounds like blatant discrimination to me!!

Perhaps I am not being clear. Taking the moral high ground is anti gambling in all forms, but the government can't afford to ban gambling due to revenue and jobs created and the overall uproar it will create.
The government is just looking to get on their soapbox when incidents like this occur(even if it is caused sometimes by their stupid laws) to justify their decisions, and that match fixing does exist, regardless of how infrequent it may be.
The press then jump on the bandwagon because it sells newspapers. As I recall it was a newspaper in Melbourne that had Daq closed down in Oz due to them finding out that they did not have an Australian License

Don't shoot the messenger wildone, that is just my understanding on why we are not allowed to bet "in play" online, because the government has to protect us from match fixing because it is their ill informed perception that being able to back a horse/team/player to lose encourages corruption.

perhaps, I am not being clear, what is the difference with investing on sports and the stockmarket. Why does the moral high ground regard one as gambling and the other an investment vehicle?

I remember getting a vibe from US that some where perturbed by our focus on sports versus corporate culture of the US. Now it appears in the next 10 years the US economy has a high probability of going belly up!!


Do we have a left driven dumbed down society that have been brain washed into thinking sports futures are riskier than the stock market like thinking high property values are good for the economy with low interest rates, big govt and markets dominated by a few corporate giants?

Is the moral high ground a perpetuated myth to promote the politics of a few?

What is the moral high ground  based on anyway?

Is the press dependent on big govt and power driven markets promoting advertising investments?

What is the statistical record of stock futures versus other forms of investment?

I am not shooting anyone, I just don't like the powerful few stopping my fair right to have a go and succeed and live!!!

You just hit the nail on the head. To you and I there is very little difference between betfair and the stockmarket in concept(just more volatile), but the government says otherwise because it is in their interest to, because they will never convince the uneducated and they will lose many votes and their power by trying.
The high moral ground is based on the perception that gambling is evil, destroys families, causes homelessness blah, blah. If they were to be honest with themselves so does the stockmarket, which also causes suicides, insider trading etc. For some reason the stockmarket is perceived to be a genuine business whereas gambling is considered to be an addiction and blight on society.
As far as I am concerned their is a lot more knowledge required in sports betting, but the government and clubs love pokies and lotto due to revenue returns and because they can not lose.

Jan 16, 2014 -- 1:08AM, Wildone wrote:

kt22 the allowance of racing but not sports, is that a state based regulation or federal?

Federal

Read this article, this man at least knows what he is talking about (as do you DStyle, tip of the cap to you sir)

http://www.sportismadeforbetting.com/2014/01/courtsiders-at-aussie-open-has-nothing.html?spref=tw&m=1

That article is exactly right. At best the guy could probably be ejected from the event, but he has not committed a crime. He is simply being used as a scapegoat and the do-gooders and press are running rampant with their hysteria for their own agenda's, which is pretty much what I said in my original post many hours ago, before the conversation turned to other issues in Oz, which I tried to clarify, but not very well it appears.

From the horse's mouth

http://www.sportingdata.co.uk/

I think the reason they do not allow online gambling is to protect national betting organizations revenues , and protect tax revenues , largely a left argument.

Wildone, the Act was intended to protect us poor souls from online casinos. Unfortunately, the geniuses that wrote it later figured out the actual words meant you could no longer bet on sports. It's an anomaly, a bastardised piece of legislation, nothing more. Altering it however, can be used by the Opposition as painting the govt as PRO gambling, which to the uneducated, is pro suicide, pro families losing homes, pro divorce and pro whatever else. In the court of public opinion, it's a risk to revert it, and with not much to gain, no one will take it on.

good luck to the defense trying to explain to the magistrate that probably more often than not this fast data is used to cancel unmatched bets

Agree this guy has not broken the law. If you read the law he has done nothing wrong. Charged with fixing basically and there was no element of player involvement. The streams for this AO are less than 5 secs behind the market, so i don't see how he could be beating the bookies unless they are bookies who either don't pay for streams or are too slow to correct their prices - fair play to him if he did that, although I'm not sure if people doing what he did is a good thing, I wouldn't mind if he was just having a bet himself. It could be argued that bookies are defrauding the public by not updating their prices at times. No law against that though of course.

What I have noticed is that for unstreamed courts, courtsiders are beating both Slamtracker and the 365 Scoreboard quite often, so maybe he was on these courts. Scoreboards should be just as fast as streams but they are lethargic for this tournament for some reason.

We also have what appears to be the organised and deliberate slowing of pictures for all ATP Masters 1000 events for betting purposes. This has been the case for at least 2 years now and somebody within the TV streaming companies or perhaps even within the ATP is involved in this ring.

perhaps it's possible in AO because of the distance from bookies' servers but the scoreboards should not be further behind than streams, so perhaps enetpulse should be asked a few questions

Scott Ferguson has written a good blog on it.

only just saw that statement from sporting data ^^. Could be a defamation case in this somewhere.

The aussie bookies seem to have a lot of power over there and are very protective of their industry. Isn't that why bf were only allowed in under a joint-venture with them?

He is doing exactly what enetpulse do and the bookies get their info from enetpulse, so i can't see how he can beat the bookies here unless they are too slow in correcting prices or too cheap to pay for the fastest info. In any event, the bets appear to be placed on here, so it's only us mugs who are getting hoovered.

surely the streams/feeds from the aussie open are so up near live that it's not possible to gain an advantage, no more then a second or 2 behind live i would imagine , with the countdown theres no advantage , am i missing something ??

No you're not missing anything. The feeds are there for everyone and no-one needs to get hoovered. Betfair has a 5 second delay and that is plenty.

The live pictures are around 7 - 10 seconds delayed, so courtsiders get a few seconds advantage.

They are up to 2 seconds ahead of the stream when they need to be

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

note how the blogger talks about courtsiders getting boxes overseas , paying money for them and charging big fees to bookies for their service.


great, thats why us small players in OZ don't bet on these trimmed markets unless really astute


Bottom line is it seems one does not have the authority to do that in OZ , which is probably a good thing, because in the long run it should bring more money to Australian sport over time, attract more traders and gamblers on the sports markets as well, particularly if they allow online live betting on sports in OZ since obviously it seems little evidence of corruption to an event or match fixing from online gambling live!

a good case in point is premier league match odd markets that get suspended when a goal is kicked.


Presumably Betfair want to prevent any timing abuses from such events to promote integrity in these markets to generate more turnover, confidence and interest in the betting markets . Frankly, I cannot blame them

If most sports events had the liquidity and volume depth of the major premier league markets wouldn't betting and trading on all sports events be far more attractive and popular!

there is no way the AO streams are 7-10 secs delayed, unless there are absolutely no courtsiders betting whatsoever, not even one, and the fastest streams are delayed by 5-7 secs. That is what the ATP masters 1000 events are like. But for this AO the price changes 2-3 secs after the standard betting stream, meaning that the fastest money is moving 2-3 secs before you see the point end. Sometimes they beat the stream, yes, but i'd say they are placing bets before the point ends when that happens.

Far more likely is that there are indeed people betting courtside on every court and that the streams are only about 3 secs behind. I'd say it's more likely there is organised exclusive courtsiding by an insider group and that this individual may have been kicked out for trying to compete with them.

if the streams are delayed by 7-10 secs then the scoreboards are delayed by 10-13 secs. No way. The scoreboards are definitely delayed tho but not by that much.

Jan 17, 2014 -- 1:12AM, 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

Rubbish.

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.

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.


you're living in cloud cuckoo land wildone.

specifically the market is the price mechanism at a crystalised point in time where the price is 5 seconds after someone has concluded the point has ended. i.e. live subject to in play delays NOT , i repeat NOT, 5 seconds after the most commonly available broadcast.

if IBM updated their software so that slam tracker delivered scores as fast as this guy in the stands, you seem to think that there would be no transgression because "the rest of the market", i.e. you, would be protected.

i'll say it again. THE INFORMATION IS NOT PRIVILEGED AND LIVE IS THE BENCHMARK.


the best the prosecutors can hope for is that they have broken section 44 of the Major Sporting Act 2009 in that they have broadcast without authorisation for which they could charge sporting data 2400 penalty units which is about $350,000 AUD.

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

*section 43 not 44

Dstyle, who determines the info is not privileged and why is live the benchmark?


What authority are you using?

What has 5 seconds got to do with it?

Which jurisdiction are you basing your opinion on? UK law or Australian law?

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.

Furthermore no Australian has been affected by the incident.

Considering Internet in-play betting is disallowed.

So surely this should be under the jurisdiction of Scotland Yard or Interpol?

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

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

Dstyle if eastbourne is in UK it may well have little precedence, don't know, but this happened in Oz according to media reports

I am just providing my interpretation of a common line that seems to have some link to an Act 195C?

Presumably this is the act that is relevant in this case as a distant observer,  don't know, I am not involved thankfully and am far away from any such activity.


But do I want to have fair markets to wager in and have live online betting on sports in OZ. I confess I do want to bet on sports online and enjoy sports betting very much

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.

How does this affect you Wildone? The lad giving scores to his mate if anything I've ever tried is to go by is still behind "the people" who have access to real time pictures and a wired internet connection. I'd be surprised if he's creaming anything, 5 years ago he'd probably be making a packet.

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!

as i said RMB, good luck to the defence trying to explain to the magistrate that more often than not this information will be used to cancel unmatched bets, given that the prosecutor is struggling to come to terms with some of the most basic elements of this situation (given that it's made it to court in the first place)

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

Not as an Australian. As a punter. This guys money almost certainly isn't hitting the queue first. Why don't you email Betfair and ask them who source their markets, and get them done for betting in real time?

Jan 17, 2014 -- 2:51AM, 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

http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/publications/research-papers
/bills-backgrounders/8521-crimes-amendment-integrity-in-sports-bill-2013

It is clearly aimed at match fixing no doubt whatsoever (count how many times the word "fixing" appears on the page)

Returning to the question of which Australian subjects were affected by this incident.

Our system of only allowing phone bets above $100 on Betfair means that anyone actually using that for live tennis would surely have some serious capability limitations.

Such a person would almost certainly fail to finish in front medium-term, because they are so disadvantaged by any Internet counter-party.

Prosecutors would have a very tough proving any actual or theoretical material damage to legal Australian players.

So if there is no contact with match participants, and no evidence of pertinent victims, how far will the prosecution get?

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?

Bayes

Do you use courtsiders information or do you win just because you're cleverer than the rest?

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

fack me, they must be sh1t traders

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

I read that as they tried to sell their courtside data to enetpulse.

makes you wonder about the edge

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.

DStyle     Joined: 20 Jan 05
Replies: 17717 20 Jan 14 06:33 
I read that as they tried to sell their courtside data to enetpulse.

makes you wonder about the edge

Nope, have a listen to this https://soundcloud.com/774-abc-melbourne/sporting-data-ltd-ceo-steven

Enetpulse won't sell them the data because they're not a regulated bookmaker.  Whoever is controlling the majority of markets away from the main matches and tournaments must have access to their data, whether it's an inside job or someone who's acquired the data through a bookmaker who knows.

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

put it this way - it was happening before enetpulse came on the scene and it's based off protennis data.

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

You would think they both use exactly the same data source for the scores (umpire's PDA). There might just be very slight difference between Enetpulse's customer and alleged protennis inside man. But I would be willing to take quite heavy bet on 1.2 that the 1k-sidecourt-both- way-scalper-after every point is integrated & automated to Enetpulses feed. Exactly the same what Sportingdata is doing with the difference SD being little faster though.

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.

everyone here seems to believe that there are no courtsiders betting at AO. I don't believe that for a second. There is too much money to be made.

I can understand enetpulse refusing to sell to sporting data as it would reduce the value of their product to bookies. Bookies pay a premium because punters don't have access. Same as perform, the value of their streams to bookies is reduced if they sell to punters (perform will apparently do this but only for the prohibitive cost of 7k a month for a 10 user licence). I also agree that a courtsider will be faster than enetpulse as the umpire can be slow and eg may not update his pda until the ball bounces out, even if you can tell long before that that the ball is going a mile out. The point is not dead until it bounces.

But for this tournament, the enetpulse data appears to be a few seconds slower than the streams, which is strange and doesn't make any sense. Is someone slowing this down? Perhaps is is deliberately slowed and the scalper has access to the raw feed, with the bookies getting slower data. But i still think that there is someone placing bets watching live.

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

Added to this, the courtsider is probably in Australia on a tourist visa and not a work visa - so essentially, the employer of the courtsider is breaking immigration laws.  It's a pretty big issue.

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.

enetpulse don't provide grandslam data afaik. their arrangement isn't with the ITF et al.

makes sense DStyle

http://green-all-over.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/gambling-commission-in-play-int...

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

Lord Moynihan trying to amend the UK Gambling Act with exactly the same wording from the Australian law

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills
/lbill/2013-2014/0061/amend/am061-R-b.htm

http://www.smh.com.au/business/charges-against-accused-australian-open-court...

UK police said earlier this week that courtsiders could be arrested under the Gambling Act 2005, while Britain's major sports all said the practice was banned under their own ground regulations

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.

Interview with the guy that was arrested for courtsiding:
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32402945

also on the radio, 39 mins commentary on live betting / courtsiding / ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05r3w43#auto