Legalising Sports Betting + a few quirky ideas

I was once told that 10 times as many people are killed in the production, protection, transportation and selling of drugs than the taking of them. A good argument for legalising many drugs can certainly be made. But what about the betting industry?

The debate topic of legalising sports betting has risen in popularity due to the match-fixing scandals (known as spot-fixing) in the Indian Premier League. The argument goes that if betting is legalised, particularly in India, it would solve the problem of match-fixing. It is known that the illegal bookmakers are responsible for the match-fixing that takes place. When they know what will happen in an over, they can bet themselves or lay bets on outcomes they know will not happen.

Those calling for the legalisation of betting need to look at other sports/countries and see if match-fixing has occurred in forever regulated markets or newly-legalised markets. Football can be bet on at many legal establishments and you don't need me to tell you there have been match-fixing cases at these bookmakers. Even the supposed 'illegal bookmakers' in Asia are only illegal due to specific countries' laws. In England, betting with them is perfectly fine. Tennis is mostly only bet on at legal bookmakers. Snooker is rarely even offered by 'illegal' bookmakers. There have been numerous horseracing, darts and rugby scandals with the majority of the betting on Betfair (who are known to handover client information unlike the Asian bookmakers). Just because the market is legal or technically legal, it doesn't eradicate the problem of match-fixing.

In USA online gambling is essentially banned and match-fixing is relatively rare. However, this is due to the nature of American Sports whose athletes are college educated and the wage structure is such that match-fixing is impractical. Every case is different.

In the majority of European countries, betting is fully legalised and match-fixing is rife. There is no correlation between the legalisation of gambling within a country and the cleanliness of their domestic sport. This is because, bookmaking, particularly online bookmaking is global. A man with an internet connection in Zimbabwe can bet $1 million on Skype. If every single underground bookmaker in India was arrested, or ignored for the regular market (unlikely), or became legal, match-fixing would still occur.

Legalising betting would do little to stop match-fixing. Greed is a core human characteristic with it dominating some. Sport and the manipulation of sport is where greed can be satisfied, through match-fixing.

There is only one way to prevent match-fixing in Cricket (and though even less practical) in football too...think outside the box.

Make it impossible for Indian bookmakers to trade the matches. Whatever ways this can be done, must be explored. This could include:

• Random, unannounced TV Blackouts. This gives others an edge over bookmakers which they do not like. Also suspensions drive customers away. The legitimate fans suffer but it's a preventative measure.
• Game abandoned if match-fixing is strongly suspected to have occurred. The fans suffer. But not only does this impede the bookmakers (as they will have to void bets), the players are going to think twice. 

Reward and Punishment

• The government passes a law that match-fixing is punishable by up to 20-years in prison. Lie detectors (after betting patterns are monitored) and proof are used to bring cases to court. Most bookmakers aren't too great at cricket. They need professionals in their pocket. The most extreme penalties will prevent this.
• Extremely large rewards for players foiling match-fixing attempts. This has to be implemented on a case by case basis but the premise is that paid information is better than no information. Pay more than the fixers.  

In short, legalising betting will have very little impact. Either accept that sport will forever be corrupted or tackle the players and the bookmakers at the same time. People will always want to gamble, legally or illegally.

A note on some bookmakers

Here are some ways in which I claim certain bookmakers rip off gamblers. I sent an article to a few newspapers but no response. Either my writing is poor (possible) or the bookmakers who advertise with the newspaper wouldn't be best pleased. It is certainly of interest for any first-time gamblers.

Betting is a business and whilst I agree profitability is the name of the game, these methods are suspect.

No names mentioned.

They restrict/ban sometimes even the slightest of winning punters. Everyone knows casinos restrict and even throw out people who have an edge but the high street bookmakers constantly stop anyone who shows they are capable of making a profit. If the message got out that no one was ever supposed to win at high street bookmakers they would have to offer more competitive odds. Most of the online bookmakers track bets of new start up accounts and if there is even the possibility that the gambler is profitable he is restricted or banned from betting. In short, whilst the advertising suggests profits can be made, in reality this is not possible.

Bookmakers restrict winning gamblers but copy their preferences and adjust their odds accordingly. They pay low wages to ‘traders’ when compared to the city and manage their books by copying winning bettors. For instance a smart winning gambler will try to bet £100 on a match - they will limit him to £10 and then change their price accordingly. This is so that they can pay poor quality traders (on some sports/leagues) and manage their positions easily. 

They offer extremely poor value for money at times when the gambler cannot choose elsewhere. For instance, the bets odds are available online, but the shops offer worse odds; finally if there is a bookmaker at a football match they offer the worst available odds as bettors have no where else to go once they are there. Examples can be given of the true margin they enjoy. In addition, almost always the price in the racing post differs from the shop price even though theoretically it should be identical. A gambler walks into a shop to be on Manchester United before he goes to watch the game..the price is 8% less than he imagined but he can't go anywhere else..if cigarettes where x% higher there is enough competition out there to choose another brand..of course there is enough competition out there but sometimes punters don't get to hear about it and the ones that do are restricted when they win.

They confiscate bets if they think the match is a fix but continue to take money on the outcome at poor prices..if the bets win they don’t pay out but if they do not, they keep the money as the bet was a loser. This is extremely out of order and is a bone of contention within certain circles. The most recent example of this was after a fixed match ..Bookmakers took bets until they couldn't take any more and they have not paid out on the result. Some of the money is legitimate that saw the end result as a likely result, others were arbing or just recreational gamblers. They should either not offer these matches or remove instantly if they think is suspicious. Further still they should void the bets until kick-off.

They claim certain bets are ‘palpable error’ meaning they don’t have to pay when the rules are very sketchy concerning this. There is a well-known tennis example which is fairly complex but is one of many.

Bookmakers sometimes do not incur any risk at all..They offer poor odds to the punter and then ‘hedge’ their risk by placing the same bet at higher odds on Betfair. In a sense they are simply converting currency by gaining 10p in the pound by bettors and making 6p in the pound off the hedge. This is fairly well-known within the industry but the average punter is simply giving away his money at these shops.

Bonuses given away online have certain conditions that are considerably less generous than advertised. While this is not remotely illegal and is common practice, it is still not right. 

Match-Fixers and Lance Armstrong

'Defrauding the public' - I have heard this phrase on countless occasions, pertaining to match-fixing in football and indeed in the Lance Armstrong case.

The argument goes that those fixing a football match are a) defrauding the public who are paying to see the match; b) defrauding the betting public who think they are betting on a legitimate match; and c) defrauding the bookmakers. 

a) is a non-runner for jail-time. No one could convince me that the match-fixers from Singapore should go to prison because someone paid £2.20 for a ticket in a domestic Eastern European game or £10 for an international friendly, which was fixed. 

b) is a little trickier. Yes the match-fixers have cost some bettors their money but have they stolen from them? Have they defrauded them? For example, a customer bets £20 on Manchester City (no, I am not accusing them, although their mid-season performances were suspect!) at odds of 5/6. If the game is fixed for them to lose, technically, the match-fixers have cost our bettor £20. These odds should be 3/1, 4/1 or even 1000-1 if the fix is definitely in. And yet, by that same token, those unwittingly who have bet on Man City's opponents stand to win money they didn't expect. In any event, when a person bets £20 at odds of 5/6, his £20 is already subject to the margin. The real thieves are the bookmakers! But seriously, I don't think the match-fixers can be held accountable for even larger losses by bettors. 

c) is the most legitimate argument for jail-time. Match-fixers are using 'insider information' to profit from betting. They are defrauding bookmakers. Again, there are some credible arguments against this. Firstly, Dan Tan and the financiers are not betting with William Hill or Ladbrokes who would need a sit-down if someone asked for a million pound bet. No, the match-fixers are betting with Asian operators who are taking the bets illegally. By that I mean, the money is arriving from countries where people are not allowed to bet outside the monopolised lottery. So who are the match-fixers defrauding? - illegal bookmakers. This is further complicated by the fact that occasionally the bookmaker is aware of the match-fixing as in the famous case of Samvo. On the balance of things, based off betting alone and 'defrauding the public' and my wholesale lack of law knowledge, I say match-fixers are not liable for jail-time. 

However, it is what is connected with the match-fixing which is the real crime. Coercion, money laundering, terrorism, drugs, prostitution, illegal doping, murder and theft are all crimes in my book. So find them, make a case and throw away the key. They 'deserve' to be locked up for ruining football - but on football crimes alone, it's not going to happen. If jail-time was handed out on crimes against football, Stoke and Tony Pulis would never see the light of day!

Moving on to Lance Armstrong. 

I've heard many calling out Lance Armstrong for fraud and people have even called for his imprisonment. Again he has defrauded the paying public. But Livestrong (helped by Armstrong) have raised more than $500 million for Cancer Research. I don't care if it was guilt money or he was even forced to do it. The fact is, if cancer is cured one day, Lance Armstrong will have contributed in some way. I think that's a bit bigger than taking some pills to ride a bike quicker. He was a person who was able to 'defraud' cycling fans and sponsors into putting their hand in their pocket. They wouldn't have done it for Basso or the Schleks. I'm not trying to dismiss cycling but it is well known how drug-ridden the game was/is. It just so happens Lance Armstrong's PED game was better than most.

This blog is not a defence of Dan Tan or Lance Armstrong. I just think people should calm down before they scream 'off with their heads'. It's the people outside of football - the real criminals who are responsible as well as the players who get dragged into the mess. You always have a choice as a footballer on that first occasion. Others, such as women taken from their homes and used as prostitutes, do not. But a footballer has a club, teammates, and a manager who he can go to. Those in Spain have no excuse. But I don't think it makes you a terrible person - just a greedy one. Football is just a game. It's the betting, offered by bookmakers FOR PROFIT (not the enhancement of the game) which creates the opportunity. 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Off-Chest-Confessions-match-fixing-ebook/dp/B00BW0NFZE/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1363689840&sr=1-1

All the best,

Striker

Who? What? When? And the dangers of gambling

A few people have asked me who the central characters in Off The Chest are. Here is a brief description although the clues are located within the book.

The author:

This player played for his country (not England - the details were changed) over 30 times. The scam involving the yellow cards and being booked on purpose is real and was executed somewhere around 2005. the bookmakers involved are alleged to have allowed the bets due to wanting continued action. Loved a bet more than life itself.

Simmo: Centre back who did play for England. He is described as a leader in any dressing room and has control over the players. A friendly guy amongst close friends, he is not the nicest of people to those who don't know him. He has cheated on his wife over 100 times. Likes a bet but is more interested in other things - namely getting his end away.

Wheezy: This player in real life is actually white. Known gambler and went on to do worse things than detailed in Off The Chest. An impressionable chap, he was never a star but loved living the high life, which gambling brings, on occasion. This guy was deceptively fast but is sometimes extremely ineffective as seen by his wayward assist rate.

Hollow: This player actually moved abroad but this wasn't detailed in Off The chest. He is rumoured to be getting up to no good. it appears that once he got the taste for it, there was no turning back. Hollow is probably the most skilled match-fixer of the bunch. He controlled the fix in the famous match but you'd never know. He put a few players under pressure and gave away one corner that could have been prevented but never looked to be playing badly. a real professional.

Darren: I can't say too much about this guy. A bookmaker (the name was changed in Off The Chest). He took bets from footballers regularly. The stories he knows could fill five books but he's not talking.

Cedric: For safety reasons, I am not saying any more. A crazy man but it is clear he is not the ring leader as he initially made out.

The author now wishes to educate on the dangers of gambling within footballing circles. Only recently Andros Townsend has been punished for betting. There is talk of a gambling addiction and even some rumours of match-fixing. I don't know about that but I can say, as a footballer, once you place your first bet, it's a downward spiral. Betting is greed - wanting more - either money, or excitement. As a footballer, you have both already in spades. Therefore, the decision to gamble extortionate amounts of money stems from the fact that you are not happy with what you have got. This malady is not helped by gambling. It simply drags you further down.

I hope other footballers read this as it might save one career.

Not everyone who fucks up is a match fixer

There are many ways of investigating match fixing but a common misconception seems to be people thinking they can spot match fixing from watching the game. The fact is, sport throws up all kinds of events and if people cried match-fixing every time, we'd be investigating even more sportsmen. It's usually punters who are losing that complain that a certain player has been match fixing. But they don't finger anyone when their bet wins. In reality, match fixing is subtle. Why would a player be so blatant? These guys in the IPL have been discovered through the Police not because someone's said 'Sreesanth bowled a dodgy no ball!'.

Kieron Pollard recently dropped three catches in three balls (75%, 80% and 95%).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgizzwP1Ooo

Chances of happening based on my probabilities? 25% - 4.0 x 20% - 5.0 x 5% -20.0 = 400s. See it's not that incredible! But people say to themselves - what are the chances of him dropping three in three balls..must be millions! But of course Pollard didn't know he'd get three straight to him. A week later, he hits 68 of 27 balls and wins the game for his team.

Here's a Moldovan goalkeeper making an absolute plonker of himself which again got some match-fixing comments on Twitter

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOOsI0NQExo (someone find me Dave Beasant's one because I'm sure he did something similar!)

and here is Rocky Baptiste's famous miss

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvYOA4BXIqk

There are a thousand examples. I agree it's tempting to think the only possible reason the player could have acted in such a way is if he was match fixing. Trust me, match fixers are far more subtle. Except when they're stupid.

There are over ten million sporting contests happening each year which can be bet on. Just remember, on the most basic probability level, something similar to Kieron Pollard is going to happen one in 25,000 times (not quite correct but I am no Ramanujan). How many contests do you view a week or read about? If it's 1000 a week and you're crying match fixing more than twice a year think again!

Be Lucky,

Striker

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Off-Chest-Confessions-match-fixing-ebook/dp/B00BW0NFZE/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1363689840&sr=1-1

Two huge match-fixing rumours, punishments and the aftermath

I made some pretty strong allegations in Off The Chest - essentially that match-fixing has happened in the Premier League. Everyone knows about the floodlight scandals but I'm talking about players. I want to write about two rumours that have not gone away. The first is well known, the other might be of interest. 

1) Kieren Fallon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D48WDjruPx8

Here is the famous video of Kieren Fallon riding Ballinger Ridge. As you can see, he is a considerable distance clear and drops his hands, allowing his horse to get beat on the line. 

The evidence surrounding his case was enough for him to be suspended but he was later acquitted. They had suspicious phone calls leading up to the race, contact with Miles Rodgers and Fergal Lynch, Betfair records and of course the race footage. People have been convicted with far less. Within the trial it was pointed out that Fallon rode in a such a way that it should be considered suspicious:

"There is no legitimate reason why Mr Fallon would need to be looking back and steadying his horse down with a furlong to go" - Jonathan Caplan QC

Kieren Fallon is arguably one of the most talented jockeys of all time. If he wanted to get away with a race, he could have easily, just as Ronnie O Sullivan could chuck a frame (not an accusation!). So there must be a reason as to why he risked detection. The main conspiracy theory is that Fallon was in debt to an Irish godfather for untold amounts of money. He was instructed to chuck the race in this fashion as it would yield the most profit from an in-running lay. Fallon was made to ride Ballinger Ridge in this way. The horse, though not favourite, had a good chance of winning (15/8) and could at least be in the position to trade lower than its starting price. It just so happened that he was able to stretch clear into 1.01 territory. I was told these rumours some time ago but it came along with other unsubstantiated and vague claims of 'he's a complete wrong'un' etc. There's no smoke without fire and Fallon was later banned for substance abuse. 

The lack of proper investigation for the criminal court sends an important message to match-fixers. The risk IS worth the reward. And when this tipping point is reached, we get a sport as corrupt as (UK) racing. He wasn't even banned from racing in Ireland. The barriers to entry are minimal (you need only own, train or ride a horse) and have a betting account or know someone who does. It is not as complicated as owning a football club or approaching what would have to be several players/the referee. Only recently Michael Chopra was banned from horse racing for life for fixing races and he's a footballer (no comment)!

The BHA could have banned Fallon for life. In 2007, they stated:

“The British Horseracing Authority will now review all the available evidence presented in the criminal trial to determine if there have been breaches of the Rules of Racing that would require it to take disciplinary action. This will be done as a priority and, we trust, with the full co-operation of those involved in the police investigation.” 

Their burden proof is less but they chose to not admit that their sport was (is) crooked to the core. The second most famous jockey (after Dettori who is clean!) appears to have been fixing races, caught with cocaine and is still riding in England. Try stopping an apprentice who is offered ten times his monthly take-home to 'ease one down' from the places in a Class 6 at Southwell. 

2) Anon

I cannot name the player who is rumoured to have been involved in spot-fixing in the Premiership for legal reasons. This player is a known high-stakes bettor/whale and was in debt to a bookie for close to a million (just like me in Off The Chest). It is said that the bookmaker kindly offered the player a get-out. All he had to do was be sent off.

The bookmaker could profit in three ways from this knowledge:

a) Lay the player's team (or back the opposition) and hope for the best with the opposition having a man advantage

b) Buy booking points and sell time of red card on Sporting Index and Spreadex

c) Lay the player's team (or back the opposition handicap) for extremely large amounts (undetectable for this level of game). When the player is sent off, the odds are at a level that a hedge can be executed for a small percentage profit but the profit figure would be over a million. 

Did the player get sent off? Here you go. For your peace of mind, the player is reported to have cleaned up his act. 

How do they get away with it?

In the district of Columbia, 56.1% of murders are unsolved. Although this figure is lower elsewhere, it gives some indication that people are getting away with things. If we agree that match-fixing is actually harder to prove than murder, then who knows what match-fixing is gotten away with across sport in general.

Here are two ways that I believe sportsmen and women could have gotten away with match-fixing:

Winning:

If a player wins, he is rarely suspected of match-fixing. For instance, in snooker, if a certain excellent player backed himself to lose through anonymous accounts/a broker, - a poor performance could result in an investigation. But if he bets on himself to lose, with the intention of then laying off his bet when his opponent's odds decrease and thus increasing his own odds to win - now that's clever. He could win the match and everybody is none the wiser.

Variety:

A player wishes to be sent off/get out in cricket. He/she uploads 20k onto sporting index through a friend of a friend of a friend. A player then spreads 5k worth of liability on four different matches in four different countries (only one is the bent game). One of them miraculously shows 50k worth of profit whilst the others win and lose relatively small amounts randomly. Very difficult to detect.

There are a few others but I must keep them to myself. This blog is not supposed to help match-fixers stay ahead of the game. It is actually to warn of the dangers of gambling and getting into bed with criminals. I imagine these ideas are being discussed round a table in poipet as we speak!

Be lucky,

Striker