Skip to main content

Golf bookies on alert as Ryder Cup wildcard announcements become imminent

A lot of this is bookies boosting their own PR but obviously there is some substance behind it. Any time someone knows the answer before the official announcements are made (Academy Awards, Big Brother etc), then there is always a risk of insider trading.

Montgomerie 'on guard' to ensure no Ryder Cup betting coup

Gambling fears prompts Europe captain to be wary of telling wildcard contenders decision ahead of announcement.



As if Colin Montgomerie hasn't enough to think about in this run-up to making his three picks, the Ryder Cup captain must also be wary of a betting scam staged by "unscrupulous insiders". A source inside the European Tour yesterday revealed the Scot will be "on his guard" to ensure his selections do not leak out before his team announcement here on Sunday night.

Montgomerie has said he plans to speak to all the wild-card contenders before the official unveiling, meaning many would inevitably learn of his decision while bookmakers are still taking bets on who will get the nod. Whether he will now alter this plan after hearing the concerns of the Tournament Players' Committee is unclear. But many betting firms are not prepared to take the chance.

"We don't want to leave ourselves in a position whereby we can have our pants pulled down by potentially unscrupulous insiders chasing a quick buck," said a Ladbrokes spokesman yesterday.

.
.
.

Even the bookmakers who will take bets in the hour between the conclusion of the final qualifying tournament and Montgomerie's announcement will have their finger hovering above the "suspend" button. "We do discuss the risks about insider trading on these type of markets and our traders will watch it very closely," said a Paddy Power spokesman. "If there is any activity that suggests insider knowledge we will close or suspend the market immediately." 

It is a similar story at the spread- betting specialists, Sporting Index, who will also be keeping a close eye on who is wagering what. "We will be trading up right until the announcement, but trading conservatively," said their spokesman. "We would be able to tell by the profile of a client's account if anything unusual might be taking place. If, for instance, a client who usually has a smallish average stake size suddenly requests a bet far bigger than usual on the market in question, alarm bells would ring and we would limit that trade."

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