Poor Blooms!

Madeline · Admin:Moderator + Tennis Legend

RE: Poor Blooms!

Count Zero · Tennis legend

Madeline wrote:

Yes, the betting conspiracy band on MTF were insinuating a tank by Rochus in the first match. I pointed out that Bloomers was expected to win by people who followed British tennis. I haven't been back to check what they said about the Giraldo win.

Giraldo saves himself for Slams

Madeline · Admin:Moderator + Tennis Legend

Tim · Intermediate Club Player

This is pretty hysterical stuff ...

indiana · Tennis legend

Hmm,

Good a shot as I thought Boomers was, I'm not sure this was on the face of it such a good bet :

"Yet in the hours leading up to the match, Bloomfield was backed down to 1-4,"

Vandenburg · Futures level

I MEAN IS IT THAT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT THE NORFOLK NUMBER 1 COULD REACH A ATP QF?
i think the authorties are being disraspectful to norfolk

angry1 · Lower Club Player

murray_2k9 wrote:

Seems to me that the Bookies underrated Bloomers chances and are trying to wipe the egg off their faces by looking for wrongdoings elsewhere.

Investigations like this are nearly all involving punter to punter betting sites who don't care who wins,they get a % of the trading involved in commission.The fact that set betting was available in running on a quite minor match suggests to me that conventional bookies aren't involved.The article mentions one such site.

The sites involved were in racing compelled to help investigate dodgy betting patterns,it isn't in their interest to do so IMO.To maintain their ability to operate they have to police corrupt betting.

The Giraldo comment is a weird one,it does sound like they mean that to sound like something suspicious.

ForeverDelayed · Grand Slam Champion

Giraldo did hit zero unforced errors in one of his Aussie Open matches this year, so obviously that is where he peaks (everyone assumes that it's just a fault in the stats, but as is the way with MTF, things like this take on a life of their own)

Was the match against Rochus fixed? Probably not, but it would not be that surprising if Rochus didn't put 100% of his effort into the match and was really only playing Newport for the first round losers cheque.

indiana · Tennis legend

Must admit I didn't read anything at all into the Giraldo commet at the end. To me, it was just a more by the way Richard won his next match.

I do suspect there is nothing in at all really here, that a few folk initially thought Bllooomers had more of a chance than the general odds sbeing offered suggested, this was noticed by others and perhaps a domino effect occurred with others joining in either believing simply he must have a good chance or believing it might be dodgy.

I can imagine a certain domino effect is not totally unusual on such as Betfair.

But if the betting has followed strange patterns and amounts it should quite rightly be investigated, particularly initially studying the betting moves.

I wonder how many matches are looked into similarly and the Daily Mail, not unusually, is quite probably sensationalising this a bit.

But I don't think we should get sensitive about how dare they investigatre a match with Bloomers winning smile

djlovesyou · Strong Club Player

Yep. That would be part of it. A price starts shortening and people think something is up and jump aboard too.

As someone else said on another board, it's probably one guy having a big punt. In a small match like this, one big lump can make a big difference to the price.

angry1 · Lower Club Player

indiana wrote:

Must admit I didn't read anything at all into the Giraldo commet at the end. To me, it was just a more by the way Richard won his next match.

I do suspect there is nothing in at all really here, that a few folk initially thought Bllooomers had more of a chance than the general odds sbeing offered suggested, this was noticed by others and perhaps a domino effect occurred with others joining in either believing simply he must have a good chance or believing it might be dodgy.

I can imagine a certain domino effect is not totally unusual on such as Betfair.

But if the betting has followed strange patterns and amounts it should quite rightly be investigated, particularly initially studying the betting moves.

I wonder how many matches are looked into similarly and the Daily Mail, not unusually, is quite probably sensationalising this a bit.

But I don't think we should get sensitive about how dare they investigatre a match with Bloomers winning

Any match with a non-English speaking player of a flaky disposition is ripe for things like this.

People always seem to claim to have overheard something in a foreign language that suggested the player was not up for the fight and to have bet accordingly.

Like you I reckon matches are investigated very frequently without the public being needlessly informed.If anything seriously dodgy is found the sanction should be harsh IMO.

The integrity of competition is vital for maintaining interest in any sport.

What's wrong with dodgy as a word?The spell checker is trying to force me to use longer words than required.

I shall persevere in resisting it's nefarious attempts to make me sound pompous.

philwrig · Hall of fame

When bookies lose money they are always going to look for a scapegoat and any excuse for not paying out.

angry1 · Lower Club Player

philwrig wrote:

When bookies lose money they are always going to look for a scapegoat and any excuse for not paying out.

It's not the bookies who are complaining it's an impartial broker who alerted the authorities to unusual betting patterns.That's assuming there's any substance to the reports anyway.

indiana · Tennis legend

Also I am sure in racing such as Betfair are obliged to notify anti corruption units of strange betting patterns. I am not sure if this is more general, including tennis.

And as was pointed out if we are mainly talking here about such as Betfair that provide the platform for client vs client betting it is not really effecting them particularly gain or loss wise compared to "normal" bookies.

-- Edited by indiana on Friday 9th of July 2010 04:53:29 PM

philwrig · Hall of fame

angry1 wrote:

philwrig wrote:

When bookies lose money they are always going to look for a scapegoat and any excuse for not paying out.

It's not the bookies who are complaining it's an impartial broker who alerted the authorities to unusual betting patterns.That's assuming there's any substance to the reports anyway.

I'm pretty sure Betfair also lay alot of their own money on these markets. At the same time as providing a betting exchange, they are also acting as bookmakers.

-- Edited by philwrig on Friday 9th of July 2010 09:35:43 PM