Skip to main content

Redknapp plunge - price manipulation at its best?

Has someone been having a go at manipulating the betting markets over the last 24hrs? Several UK bookies have suspended the book on Next Premier League Manager to Leave after substantial backing for Harry Redknapp starting last night. The man himself denies it, which doesn't mean a lot considering when he outright denied he was going to Portsmouth in a press conference as Southampton manager a few years ago, whilst the price on him getting the job was getting smashed on Betfair, allegedly by people he knew rather well....

But this one doesn't make a lot of sense, unless there's a lot going on behind the scenes. We saw a few weeks ago where market manipulation was the sole reason behind a massive plunge on Rafael Benitez leaving and Franck Ribery heading to Anfield. It seems that here, some guys with plenty of money to splash around have tried to skew the books by backing Redknapp from any old price into single digits before the market closed, almost certainly creating arbitrage opportunities somewhere, or simply a much bigger price on the manager they wish to back, such as Paul Hart. There's obviously a better than tenuous link between Harry and Portsmouth, but why on earth he'd go back when the club is going tits up is beyond me.

It won't be the last time this happens. How exactly can bookies or authorities stop it? If you're a punter, the best advice is don't be a lemming and just follow the money blindly - understand why a move is occurring if you want to get behind it.

Comments

  1. From what various people have been saying on Spurs forums today, the reason behind this plunge if not manipulation is more likely to be revelations and possibly arrests in the transfer bung case over the weekend than a return to Pompey.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thanks for your comments, but if you're a spammer, you've just wasted your time - it won't get posted.

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