11/21/24
October 13, 2003
Several top-100 men's tennis players are suspected of throwing matches to make money betting against themselves on Betfair, the Telegraph reports (via TechDirt).
How is a low-tier player supposed to gain? I mean, it's expected that he will lose, so won't his odds kind of suck? In other words, your scenario doesn't make sense. It only makes sense if you're the higher-ranked player.
posted by worldcup2002 at 11:56 AM on October 13, 2003
wc2k2, I think wfrazerjr's scenario describes a sure bet...Like if the Browns played the Bucs, bet against themselves, lost, but still made 20-30%.
posted by garfield at 12:26 PM on October 13, 2003
Don't the bookies shift the line/odds so that whichever side loses provides for the winners' payoffs plus a profit? So if the matches in this scenario draw too much betting, the payoff would be near zero to compensate--who would bet on the lower ranked player?
posted by billsaysthis at 12:43 PM on October 13, 2003
From what little I know on the subject, I think bookies try to move the line to ensure themselves a profit regardless of outcome. So if everyone's betting for Roscoe Tanner to defeat Steady Eddie Dibbs, they would raise the payout on a Dibbs victory to get more money on that side.
posted by rcade at 12:55 PM on October 13, 2003
Exactly as rcade said ... let's suppose the game we're discussing is a Yankees-Devil Rays baseball game. The odds are much in favor of the Yankees, and the betting line will show this to the tune of having to bet perhaps $160 to make make an extra $100. Laying $100 of the Devil Rays, conversely, would earn you a fat $160. However, were the Devil Rays to lay down as a team that night and bet, say, $160K between them (for the sake of the math), they'd earn $100K for being on the correct side of the wager. Now, that's chump change for a baseball team, and I'm sure the odds would be much higher for a low-tier tennis player facing Andy Roddick. But even if they are 20-1, the low-tier player bets on Roddick to win, and a $100K bet nets a $5K (or so) payday. The odds might suck, but it makes them pretty damn good if you already KNOW you're going to lose. ;)
posted by wfrazerjr at 01:36 PM on October 13, 2003
But wfrazer and rcade, wouldn't the extra betting on the favorite move the odds to get the profitable outcome? So that 160 for 100 would go up and up, assuming the player was betting enough to get a meaningful return, thereby moving the pot. IOW, $1,000,000 bet on Yanks and only $50k bet on Devil Rays, with bookie requiring, say $20,000 profit, means Yankee bettors only getting $30k to split.
posted by billsaysthis at 03:44 PM on October 13, 2003
Can you imagine a scenario where both players were trying this? Might be quite amusing to watch ...
posted by walrus at 04:22 PM on October 13, 2003
hi...new here. read the article, and please correct me if I'm wrong - but the article states that:
Most of the players under suspicion are outside the world's top 100, but last week the association warned a former world Top 10-ranked player not to get involved in the betting after it learned that there had been heavy, irregular betting on one of his matches, which he lost in straight sets.so...my question is, isn't the question posted here a little misleading? Only 1 top ten player was warned, and most are outside of the top-100.
posted by owl at 06:17 PM on October 13, 2003
I misread the top-100 factoid in the article; it does appear to be stating that this is mostly confined to people ranked from 101 upwards. When double-checking this fact, I found some new details worth throwing in the mix: "Last week bookmakers suspended betting on the match between Yevgeny Kafelnikov of Russia and Spain's Fernando Vicente in Lyon six hours before it was due to start after receiving bets from 'marked accounts'." More: "It was brought into the open Sunday in the British press with an allegation that Spain's Feliciano Lopez had thrown a match against Finland's Jarkko Nieminen in Long Island in August."
posted by rcade at 06:41 PM on October 13, 2003
A guardian article about this goes into more detail about the scope for misuse/abuse of the Betfair betting website.
posted by dng at 08:33 AM on October 14, 2003
You guys have no idea how much this has been blown way out of proportion, even moreso in the tennis world. You want names? Read between the lines. Yevgeny Kafelnikov is gaining the brunt of the accusations, but almost every player named in the Telegraph's little summary has aroused suspicion. This week from Madrid, the players are striking back: Jarkko Nieminen Fernando Vicente Yevgeny Kafelnikov Feliciano Lopez
posted by somethingotherthan at 04:07 PM on October 14, 2003
Striking back? It sounds like none of the four of them have any clue what the hell anyone is talking about. The damning things are the large bets placed before specific matches, if I can follow the garbled English there. I find it highly suspicious, however, that someone is out there taking 80,000 pounds on a low-tier match without being a) the low-tier player or b) someone who knows a great deal about specific injuries, i.e. managers, trainers — people who shouldn't be betting on such things. Last week bookmakers suspended betting on the match between Yevgeny Kafelnikov of Russia and Spain's Fernando Vicente in Lyon six hours before it was due to start after receiving bets from "marked accounts". Although there is no suggestion that either player was involved in wrongdoing, according to the Racing Post a huge worldwide gamble was made on Vicente, who won 6-2, 6-3. The Spaniard had not won since June, losing 11 first-round matches until Lyon. His odds were reduced from 7-2 to odds-on favourite on one of the internet betting exchanges. How does this happen if someone's not working the inside?
posted by wfrazerjr at 06:20 PM on October 14, 2003
It sounds like none of the four of them have any clue what the hell anyone is talking about. They don't. Because they don't fix matches or bet against themselves. Which is my point. How does this happen if someone's not working the inside? It's actually very easy to find out who is injured; usually there is some sort of announcement made through the player or his representative, or on-site reports from fans (the tennis network is pretty tightly woven on the net because of the absolute zero coverage it receives in the mainstream media). MY point is, I seriously doubt players are betting against themselves and then losing the match. Most of them are too proud to do that, especially those that are in the Top 100 in the world. Perhaps it is some other insiders, I don't know, but what I'm angry about is the accusation that players are either doing this themselves, or are somehow 'in on it'.
posted by somethingotherthan at 10:29 PM on October 14, 2003
Damn it, I want names! This doesn't surprise me, though. If you are a low-tier player matched up against a high-end player, even with the odds being terrible, you could bet a ton through a friend, lose the match and not have anyone suspect a thing. Well, ok, apparently someone suspected something, but is there another venue where it would be so easy to do this? Nice link, rcade.