Re: The extent of sports "fixing" : Thu May 19, 2016 4:02 pm  

bren2k wrote:

Jesus H Christ...

Ok - you win - I didn't factor in the shooting of women and children by international sporting bodies; that being the case, all sport is indeed fixed and your incredible investigative skills have uncovered yet another facet of modern life that has escaped the notice of those of us who don't have the INTELLIGENCE or WIT to actually LOOK at the FACTS before us.

I don't know what we'd do without you.

Scary Innit

Re: The extent of sports "fixing" : Thu May 19, 2016 5:02 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

As someone who has worked on the IT side for one of the UK's biggest betting companies (and seen every kind of bet possible cycling through the system) I can state categorically that the above is false.

Highly-unusual events such as the Els six-putt are PRECISELY the kind of thing which interest internal security. And that's from the horse's mouth.

Nonsense. You can't "categorically state" anything of the sort, and it is actually spot on.

If anything, you CONFIRM (sorry for borrowing your SHOUTING technique) what I said. If you can't understand it, that's because OF COURSE internal security would be "interested" in an occurrence like a six-putt - IF ANY BETTING HAD TAKEN PLACE ON IT WITH THAT BOOKMAKER. If they hadn't taken any bets on it, THEY COULDN'T GIVE A FLYING FOOK.

And it is PRECISELY BECAUSE - if they HAD taken bets and stood to lose money - security would be looking at it very closely.

If you really did work as suggested, then you'd know that the FIRST question is whether a bookie would take such a bet in the first place. You don't sound as if you have any clue how that works TBH

There would be no advertised betting on E.Els 6-putting at the first. It is waaaaaay too obscure a bet for any bookie to offer.

So, some punter would have to ASK FOR A PRICE. He would be asked how much he wanted to bet, and may (or may not) be given odds. Other than a "fun" bet, I really don't see anyone ever getting a proper bet on something like that. No pro punter is so stupid as to put significant money on something so outrageously ridiculous, so a fraudster attempting to do so would get short shrift.

I would doubt many, if any, bets on something as stupid as that have ever been taken in the history of sports betting but if one was, it would be a pretty rare if not unique event, and certainly no bet would be taken to lose a significant amount of money on a novelty bet like that. And as a scam medium, how ridiculous! It would be literally begging for an investigation if such a bizarre bet actually won.

Let alone won so much money that it was a worthwhile exercise both for the fraudulent punter, and for Ernie Els to prostitute himself, while making a very public twa.t of himself, all at the same time.

And as I said, where is the evidence that there were any strange betting patterns on the incident? Or indeed any betting at all?

I think you conspiracy detector has blown a fuse and gone into meltdown here, while simultaneously casting grossly unfair aspersions on Els, who comes across as a very mild mannered and nice guy, and so far as I know, has no form for even a speeding ticket.

Re: The extent of sports "fixing" : Thu May 19, 2016 5:44 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: A horse is not a machine. It has good days and bad days like you and me. One difference is they can't, in the main, talk and so can't tell anyone how well or fit or lethargic or whatever they are feeling on the day. Next, every horse in training has targets. They are trained to reach a peak at the time those targets come up. If a horse is aimed at a race in a few months time, it is unlikely to run as well now as it will do then. But then again, depending on how the horse runs in its earlier races, those targets may very well, and very often do, change. Also, sometimes owners get the horses put in to races which the trainer wouldn't choose. Then on the day we have the going. A horse may be a mudlark, or a strictly top of the ground horse, and run like two different animals in different goings. The there is race day itself. This can throw up another whole bunch of unpredictable variables. Just for example, sometimes a horse can get itself pretty wound up and stressed in the preliminaries, and have worked off half its energy before the race even starts. And then again, it may get a poor start, maybe stumbling out of the stalls, or getting a slow break. In a short race it may be impossible to recover. And again, the race itself. Your jockey might be up against 9say) 15 other pro jockeys, all wanting prize money, and all literally jockeying for position. You won't get many favours. Your horse could be very unlucky in running, it may end up bumped, or stuck behind a wall of horses, or just generally get a bad run. And when it gets to the sharp end of the race, one day, your horse may sprout wings and go away from the field, on another day, it might hit the front but start treading water, and get beat. These are just some of the reasons why horseracing is such an unpredictable sport, ad that's even before you start putting obstacles in the way that additionally they have to jump over. Then again, you may have set your stall out aimed at (say) a particular handicap race at Doncaster, but it is at least likely that at least one or two, and maybe many more, other trainers have also been doing exactly the same thing. Your horse may run its best race, but so may several others. There are very many ways for people to deliberately ensure that a horse doesn't run its best (I managed to dig out a link to a very interesting old Grauniad article which offers a fascinating insight and is a good read) but while I'm sure a lot of this has always and always will go on, the thing is, it may be easier to guarantee that a horse won't win, but it's not easy to guarantee that it will, and that's where the real money is to be made. Racing is not fundamentally corrupt, punters in general know the sort of things that go on but if they thought it was all fundamentally corrupt then they would walk away. They don't. The bookmakers also have an ever-better technological handle on unusual betting patterns, and ultimately not many of them end up in the poorhouse. Add to that the obvious self-interest of the Jockey Club in being very keen on detecting sharp practices and I'd say overall racing remains a very good and entertaining betting proposition. In the UK at least. good post, i follow racing alot and even had a share in one not long ago. notice alot that horses get punted around 5-10mins before the off giving the bookies less time to react and not letting the cat out of the bag i.e well handicapped, race fit from gallops or been going very well at home..they then go on and win! but horses are not machines and nothing is a dead cert

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: A horse is not a machine. It has good days and bad days like you and me. One difference is they can't, in the main, talk and so can't tell anyone how well or fit or lethargic or whatever they are feeling on the day. Next, every horse in training has targets. They are trained to reach a peak at the time those targets come up. If a horse is aimed at a race in a few months time, it is unlikely to run as well now as it will do then. But then again, depending on how the horse runs in its earlier races, those targets may very well, and very often do, change. Also, sometimes owners get the horses put in to races which the trainer wouldn't choose. Then on the day we have the going. A horse may be a mudlark, or a strictly top of the ground horse, and run like two different animals in different goings. The there is race day itself. This can throw up another whole bunch of unpredictable variables. Just for example, sometimes a horse can get itself pretty wound up and stressed in the preliminaries, and have worked off half its energy before the race even starts. And then again, it may get a poor start, maybe stumbling out of the stalls, or getting a slow break. In a short race it may be impossible to recover. And again, the race itself. Your jockey might be up against 9say) 15 other pro jockeys, all wanting prize money, and all literally jockeying for position. You won't get many favours. Your horse could be very unlucky in running, it may end up bumped, or stuck behind a wall of horses, or just generally get a bad run. And when it gets to the sharp end of the race, one day, your horse may sprout wings and go away from the field, on another day, it might hit the front but start treading water, and get beat. These are just some of the reasons why horseracing is such an unpredictable sport, ad that's even before you start putting obstacles in the way that additionally they have to jump over. Then again, you may have set your stall out aimed at (say) a particular handicap race at Doncaster, but it is at least likely that at least one or two, and maybe many more, other trainers have also been doing exactly the same thing. Your horse may run its best race, but so may several others. There are very many ways for people to deliberately ensure that a horse doesn't run its best (I managed to dig out a link to a very interesting old Grauniad article which offers a fascinating insight and is a good read) but while I'm sure a lot of this has always and always will go on, the thing is, it may be easier to guarantee that a horse won't win, but it's not easy to guarantee that it will, and that's where the real money is to be made. Racing is not fundamentally corrupt, punters in general know the sort of things that go on but if they thought it was all fundamentally corrupt then they would walk away. They don't. The bookmakers also have an ever-better technological handle on unusual betting patterns, and ultimately not many of them end up in the poorhouse. Add to that the obvious self-interest of the Jockey Club in being very keen on detecting sharp practices and I'd say overall racing remains a very good and entertaining betting proposition. In the UK at least. good post, i follow racing alot and even had a share in one not long ago. notice alot that horses get punted around 5-10mins before the off giving the bookies less time to react and not letting the cat out of the bag i.e well handicapped, race fit from gallops or been going very well at home..they then go on and win! but horses are not machines and nothing is a dead cert

Re: The extent of sports "fixing" : Thu May 19, 2016 5:59 pm  

EASTCOASTFC2016 wrote:

Delusional fantasy world, who did you work for, if you're that sure then surely no problem in saying?

Good grief! You really are struggling. What does it matter who I worked for?

Not that I'm all that fussed about admitting that I used to work at BETFRED's head office in Warrington.

Technically speaking I was self-employed providing SQL database support for their branches up and down the country. Which means I saw every kind of bet imaginable as well as some which defied imagination.

Like all of the major betting offices they have their own internal security team (with a police liaison usually present at all times). Those guys were ALWAYS busy because corruption and betting go together like hand and glove.

Whilst I wasn't privy to their investigations (you'd need field artillery to get into the high-security unit) discussions with those guys over the kinds of things they are interested in were a common lunchtime activity. Which is why I KNOW every betting office up and down the land would have been investigating betting patterns in the wake of Els' six-putt.

So whilst you and half of this thread might believe in coincidences I can assure you that the big bookies are far more cynical. Indeed, I suspect most people would be shocked at the EXTENT of their cynicism. The truth is ever since the arrival of spread-betting, bet-to-lose etc. etc. corruption has gone through the roof.

Is that it? Or do you want me to draw you a floor plan including Fred Done's (spacious) office? That's if he's still even there. It was six or seven years ago.

Re: The extent of sports "fixing" : Thu May 19, 2016 6:31 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

And as I said, where is the evidence that there were any strange betting patterns on the incident? Or indeed any betting at all?

What on earth are you babbling about? Surely you don't need me to explain the difference between acts which could be interpreted as suspicious and genuinely crooked play?

I really have no idea whether Els deliberately tanked the hole or not. Nor do I have any evidence of bets relating to Els. Which isn't surprising given that I'm talking about what interests the bookies.

I mean, maybe you think they are completely disinterested observers but I (along with anyone who bothers to pay attention) know that they scrutinise ALL sports down the micro-level.

Don't tell me that a high-profile former winner of the Masters six-putting the opening hole won't have them scurrying to find suspicious patterns when they routinely do the same for any old football nobody kicking the ball into touch within the first ten seconds of a game.

Do yourself a favour and scuttle back to the kiddies pool with your armbands.

Re: The extent of sports "fixing" : Thu May 19, 2016 7:22 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

If you really did work as suggested, then you'd know that the FIRST question is whether a bookie would take such a bet in the first place. You don't sound as if you have any clue how that works TBH

I'm really not interested in your assessment of my knowledge of an industry I've worked in and you have .... what?

So, some punter would have to ASK FOR A PRICE. He would be asked how much he wanted to bet, and may (or may not) be given odds. Other than a "fun" bet, I really don't see anyone ever getting a proper bet on something like that. No pro punter is so stupid as to put significant money on something so outrageously ridiculous, so a fraudster attempting to do so would get short shrift.

I would doubt many, if any, bets on something as stupid as that have ever been taken in the history of sports betting but if one was, it would be a pretty rare if not unique event, and certainly no bet would be taken to lose a significant amount of money on a novelty bet like that. And as a scam medium, how ridiculous! It would be literally begging for an investigation if such a bizarre bet actually won.

And yet investigations happen each day. Fraudsters are sent to jail. Betting rings are busted open. Crooked sportsmen are banned for lengthy periods etc. etc. etc. Which kind of disproves everything you have said.

Let alone won so much money that it was a worthwhile exercise both for the fraudulent punter, and for Ernie Els to prostitute himself, while making a very public twa.t of himself, all at the same time.

Only someone with your limited imagination could think that a sportsman would deliberately underperform for no other reason than money.

I can see this is going to be another one of THOSE threads in which you bore everybody to death arguing the colour of a full stop. Best to leave you barking at your own shadow.

Re: The extent of sports "fixing" : Fri May 20, 2016 9:09 am  

Mugwump wrote:

Whilst I wasn't privy to their investigations (you'd need field artillery to get into the high-security unit) discussions with those guys over the kinds of things they are interested in were a common lunchtime activity. Which is why I KNOW every betting office up and down the land would have been investigating betting patterns in the wake of Els' six-putt.

I should really add that the authorities are every bit as interested. Which is why they often have on-site liaison. To say that an "odd" relationship exists between bookies and state governments is an understatement.

Delve down that rabbit hole and I suspect you'd find some interesting things. Although I doubt whether they would be beneficial to one's health.

Re: The extent of sports "fixing" : Fri May 20, 2016 10:16 am  

brearley84 wrote:

good post, i follow racing alot and even had a share in one not long ago.

notice alot that horses get punted around 5-10mins before the off giving the bookies less time to react and not letting the cat out of the bag i.e well handicapped, race fit from gallops or been going very well at home..they then go on and win! but horses are not machines and nothing is a dead cert

I'm always impressed with how quickly the online bookies react to live events in horse racing - Flying Officer was a favourite at York last week but he unseated Frankie Dettori when hacking down to the start, then disappeared off up the course for a mile or so and battered down one of the rails, he was withdrawn from the race and because there were only five other horses left the panic button was hit, a rule 4 declared and the chart of odds went crazy on Skybet within 60 seconds of the incident starting, luckily I got a 5/1 on Clever Cookie before they took a new view on everything and he started at 5/2 just a few seconds later - fascinating to watch it happen live.

On the other hand and in a "make it up as you go along" style, at Catterick a couple of weeks ago I twice put a £2 each way on a horse at one of the on site bookies and my mate behind me in the queue had the odds adjusted downwards before he could get in I'm sure it was a coincidence and that £4 didn't spoil that bookies day but who knows, this was Catterick and they are a bit strange up there.

Re: The extent of sports "fixing" : Fri May 20, 2016 10:16 am  

Mugwump wrote:

What on earth are you babbling about? Surely you don't need me to explain the difference between acts which could be interpreted as suspicious and genuinely crooked play?

I'd say you need to explain that to yourself. This started by you casting aspersions against Els which were without any visible foundation.

Mugwump wrote:

I really have no idea whether Els deliberately tanked the hole or not. Nor do I have any evidence of bets relating to Els.

But if there HAD been evidence of it being a betting scam, then undoubtedly it would have been big news. The fact that there was no such thing is, in itself, evidence that no such betting scam was involved.

Mugwump wrote:

I mean, maybe you think they are completely disinterested observers but I (along with anyone who bothers to pay attention) know that they scrutinise ALL sports down the micro-level.

Yeah, sure, that's what all but you think. No, really.

You're the straw man specialist!

Mugwump wrote:

Don't tell me that a high-profile former winner of the Masters six-putting the opening hole won't have them scurrying to find suspicious patterns

No, it won't; they'd already know. The way it works is they know in real time what "suspicious betting patterns" may be occurring. The wholepoint is to either immediately react by changing the odds, or indeed to stop taking bets on the event altogether. As a self-proclaimed "insider", it is weird that you don't get that.

Mugwump wrote:

Do yourself a favour and scuttle back to the kiddies pool with your armbands.

And that is just the level you descend to when you're rattled,a nd have been shown up to not known a quarter of what you're talking about. You should just accept some people know better than you, and deal with it. But I fully expect you'll continue to firmly believe you're the fount of all knowledge

Re: The extent of sports "fixing" : Fri May 20, 2016 10:34 am  

Mugwump wrote:

I'm really not interested in your assessment of my knowledge of an industry I've worked in and you have .... what?

I worked (part-time) in betting for 20 years but what i know about security is not only from that but because my best mate ran security for a major bookmaker for some decades before he retired and he will have forgotten more about betting and bookies security than you ever knew.

Mugwump wrote:

And yet investigations happen each day. Fraudsters are sent to jail. Betting rings are busted open. Crooked sportsmen are banned for lengthy periods etc. etc. etc.

Indeed

Mugwump wrote:

Which kind of disproves everything you have said.

Er, riiiiight. Because I did say that I don't believe crooks exist, or that people don't constantly try to beat the bookie, or that fraudsters don't exist, or that there aren't betting rings or scams. Yes, that's exactly what I said.

Mugwump wrote:

Only someone with your limited imagination could think that a sportsman would deliberately underperform for no other reason than money.

As ever, you state the direct opposite of the truth. To remind you, I not only didn't say or think that, I actually put forward (from my limited imagination) my favoured explanation of what seems to me to have clearly happened in the case of Els (yips), and why (banning of anchored putters). In your rage at being shown up, you either forgot that, or hope no-one notices. But don't let the facts interrupt your flow of ad hom drivel

Mugwump wrote:

I can see this is going to be another one of THOSE threads in which you bore everybody to death arguing the colour of a full stop. Best to leave you barking at your own shadow.

Typical hit-and-run tactics of a defeated argument by you who can't admit defeat.

All I have done is state my opinions in response to your opinions. However, the odd thing about your condition is you feel you have an inalienable right to post pages of drivel, thinking everyone will be spellbound and fascinated by it, but are so up your own arrse that you can't stand anyone taking issue with it.

In this way, you even have what is effectively your own blog on here, a thread where you vent at length, but delete any response that doesn't agree with you. Dissent is banned, and so, delusional Stan apart, it is effectively a monologue. If I wanted the classic example of someone boring everybody to death, or a place where you have left yourself barking at your own shadow, I need look no further. You're almost the forums' Steve Davis of boring people to death, except hardly anybody bothers to play with you.