Skip to main content

Istomin and Crivoi in more fishy matches


Last week against Crivoi in Bastad, he turned up injured and put in little effort. Now the same thing is happening again in Indianapolis, against an even weaker player in Kevin Kim. Kim backed from 2.34 down as low as 1.10. I dare say bookies won't be covering his first-round matches for much longer...

Crivoi vs Brands also looked very fishy today. The market went sharply against Crivoi in the hour before play started (1.74 to 2.24), then after winning the first set and going a break up in the second, he was still only marginal favourite (1.9). But, he had traded as low as 1.3, which suggests injury was involved. There were a couple of long breaks between activity on the scoreboard which suggests treatment from the physio - but, as commented by a colleague, that would be part of the script anyway if the match was arranged. Brands wins 4-6 6-4 6-1, not a surprising result on the cold form, but the betting movements were much different.

The ATP could have something serious on their hands if they don't act fast, that's four suspicious matches in a week.

UPDATE: Istomin v Kim match just plain odd. Istomin favourite at 4-4 in the second set despite losing the first. Serving at 3-3 in the final set, he is matched as low at 1.15. Based on pre-match prices before the heavy betting game in, that's still odd. Is the match fixed or are there just people with a hell of a lot money influencing the market AS IF it's fixed....???

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

It's all gone Pete Tong at Betfair!

The Christmas Hurdle from Leopardstown, a good Grade 2 race during the holiday period. But now it will go into history as the race which brought Betfair down. Over £21m at odds of 29 available on Voler La Vedette in-running - that's a potential liability of over £500m. You might think that's a bit suspicious, something's fishy, especially with the horse starting at a Betfair SP of 2.96. Well, this wasn't a horse being stopped by a jockey either - the bloody horse won! Look at what was matched at 29. Split that in half and multiply by 28 for the actual liability for the layer(s). (Matched amounts always shown as double the backers' stake, never counts the layers' risk). There's no way a Betfair client would have £600m+ in their account. Maybe £20 or even £50m from the massive syndicates who regard(ed) Betfair as safer than any bank, but not £600m. So the error has to be something technical. However, rumour has it, a helpdesk reply (not gospel, natur

What shits me about match-fixing 'journalism'.

The anti-wagering media bandwagon has dozens of new members this week, all weighing in an industry they have absolutely no idea about. I'm all for getting the betting industry into the mainstream but it shits me no end when they roll out reports and celebrities who simply don't have a clue what they are talking about and don't bother to check basic facts which key arguments in their story. If this was the financial industry, making errors like this would have them in all sorts of trouble, but the same level of regulation doesn't apply because finance stock markets are supposedly all legitimate and serious, whereas sports betting is just a bit of fun for people who can never win in the long-term... according to the media. This week we have seen the sting by the Telegraph which, on the face of it, looks to be a tremendous piece of investigative work into fixing in English football. But the headlines around it are over-sensationalised yet again. Delroy Facey, a former pla

Racing has a Ponzi scheme - and the fallout will be enormous

When the term ' Ponzi scheme ' is mentioned these days, the names Bernard Madoff and Allen Stanford instantly spring to mind. The pair of them ran multi-billion dollar frauds (US$60bn and $8bn respectively) that destroyed the lives of thousands of investors who had put their life savings into a 'wonderful' investment strategy. How so many people were sucked into the scheme is baffling to those on the outside. The lifestyle, the sales pitch, the success stories of the early investors - I suppose it all adds up. So where does this link to racing you ask? A prominent Australian 'racing identity' this week has been reported to have lost access to a bank account with punters' club funds of $194m in it. Firstly - is there a worse term for anyone to be labelled with that 'racing identity'? It ALWAYS ends up meaning shonky crook! Secondly - who the hell has a punters' club with an active bankroll in the tens of millions? It simply can't be done. T