Skip to main content

boxing is fixed - who'd have thought?

And Don King wasn't even involved. Australian boxer Danny Green sought an easy retention of his IBO cruiserweight title, lining up against four-years retired 'boxer' Paul Briggs. Briggs was allegedly paid $200k for the fight, yet went down to a punch most three-year olds would be embarrassed by, just 29 seconds into the first round. And everyone seemed to know about it too - some Australian bookmakers reported the price of R1 KO being smashed from 10.0 to 1.55!

Briggs' 29-second fiasco has bookies fearing a fix

BETTING agencies will today demand that the International Boxing Organisation launch an investigation into the farcical result of Danny Green's title defence in Perth last night against Paul Briggs, fearing a fix.

Green's angry reaction to Briggs's capitulation within 30 seconds rivalled that of the stunned audience's. Briggs went down to a glancing jab that appeared to hit his glove, not his head, and he stayed down for the full count. The fight was over in 29 seconds.

Hundreds of thousands of dollars were lodged with bookmakers yesterday on the result being a first-round knockout, and it's likely they will withhold payment until an investigation is concluded.


Watch the video on the link - it is farcical.

Will the IBO do anything about it? You've got to be kidding? A boxing organisation admitting that the sport is corrupt? That'd be like Gordon Brown or Kevin Rudd admitting he wasn't much good as Prime Minister....

And other reports on the farce -

Fight farce costs bookies $1m

Betting stink over fight farce

The WATAB was the hardest hit of the TAB agencies, with 85 per cent of its $450,000 wagered being targeted towards Green knocking Briggs out in round one. This is simply unheard of.

It was so hot the WATAB odds tumbled from $10.25 on Monday morning to $1.07 by fight time, the equivalent of Sydney recording a 45C day in the middle of July.

Read what you will into the super-slowmotion replay that suggests Green's knockdown of Briggs was legitimate, but the sheer volume of money on the round-one KO implies a very different story.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

lay the field - my favourite racing strategy

Dabbling with laying the field in-running at various prices today, not just one price, but several in the same race. Got several matched in the previous race at Brighton, then this race came along at Nottingham. Such a long straight at Nottingham makes punters often over-react and think the finish line is closer than it actually is. As you can see by the number of bets matched, there was plenty of volatility in this in-play market. It's rare you'll get a complete wipe-out with one horse getting matched at all levels, but it can happen, so don't give yourself too much risk...

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.

The…

damage control when trading goals

When trades go bad, some people will say cut your losses immediately, others will recommend having a bit of patience as events tend to level out (i.e. games with two goals in the first 10 mins never end up with 18 goals in 90 minutes). This is something I like to do on certain matches.

Background:
1. You've backed Under 2.5 goals, trying to nick a few ticks at a time as the clock ticks.
2. You've been caught out by a goal.
3. The market has gone sharply against you.

On this particular match from a couple of weeks ago, there was an early goal (sixth minute) before I got involved. The period immediately after an early goal regularly shows a sharp drop in the Under price, so I was trying to capitalise on that. But Watford then scored again after 14 minutes. The Back price I took (3.95) was now out to 12 - I could close out for a big loss (not my style) or wait and wait for the price to come back to somewhere I could close out for minimal damage. But at 2-0 after 15 minutes, it w…