Skip to main content

message for the ATP - do something NOW!

Stop playing tournaments in Russia - it's that simple. No respect for authority and importantly, no prosecutable laws for sporting corruption.

The latest fix, which was actually a spoof manoeuvre, designed purely to gain better odds for the syndicate pulling all the strings. Tursunov was never going to lose this one but he's obviously been approached to tank the first set so the syndicate could get far better odds on the victory...

From Tennisform again:

26 October 2010

17:14 Tursunov has been heavily opposed on Betfair from 1.23 to 1.9 (345K matched).

19:25 Tursunov came through in three sets against Michal Przysiezny in what appeared to be yet another predetermined outcome. The Russian rolled over for the first set before Przysiezny stopped trying in sets two and three. Tursunov won 82% of his service points but the stats are totally irrelevant. The Russian drifted hugely just prior to the off, to suggest that he wasn't going to win the first set, before the money poured onto him when he was a set down. The Russian was being backed at sub-1.10 odds despite trailing by a set before starting the deciding set at a ridiculous 1.02. Przysiezny showed absolutely no sign of injury. "The first match of a tournament is always difficult to win. You have to get used to the court and the balls. I was a little nervous but I am glad that I managed to win," said Tursunov laughingly afterwards. Tursunov 3/6 6/3 6/2.

--

This is now so farcical it is turning into wrestling, with results determined by scriptwriters, or in these cases, eastern European betting syndicates. Get off your arse ATP and do something about it NOW, or risk ruining the fabric of the sport across a whole continent, like cricket is in serious danger of...

Meanwhile the mainstream press are excited about a nothing story about how a senior IMG executive had a bet on Federer (one of his clients) to win the French Open back in 2007. Such a beat-up with absolutely no question over the integrity of Federer - he was just confident he could win. How exactly is that privileged information?? At that stage little did he know that Nadal would become the invincible force he is now...

UPDATE - Another questionable match this week in St Petersburg was Yen-Hsun Lu versus Potito Starace. The Italian drifted sharply from 2.3 to around 5 by the start of the match. In-play patterns have not been reported as unusual so the assumption is that Starace wasn't fully fit again and the information was leaked. Lu won comfortably, 6-2 6-2.

Comments

  1. Always one or two every R1, and pretty much the same names over and over and over and over.....

    Tipsarevic-Zeballos
    Volandi-Gabashvili
    Isner-Llodra
    Hajek-Riba
    Starace-Gabashvili

    That's just the last few weeks too.

    ReplyDelete
  2. wouldn't say it was quite that bad, but certainly at low-level events with very little at stake, it is rife. Some results have genuine reasons - guy will play injured so they can pick up their R1 loser's cheque, and the info gets out. That will always happen. It's when the nuances of the match are manipulated i.e. first set deliberately lost in order to gain a better price, then the other guy calls a medical timeout to justify how shit he is playing, they are the ones really stinking of fixes.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yeah, although it's fairly obvious some players seem to be "injured" and it always "leaks" any time the draw is bad for them. For example, Ferrer to beat Dolgopolov at the US Open, the 3-0 was hit down to 1.10, literally any money available was taken.

    I'd agree totally scripted matches where both players are involved are relatively rare though, they stand out like a sore thumb and must draw some negatives in potential sponsorship, wildcards etc etc. Volandri-Gaba was one of those - Volandri won the opener, and Gabashvili's price was hammered down to 1.11 while still on serve. The acting was truly dreadful too, quite comical to watch.

    Tipsarev-Zeballos was another. Tipsy took the opening set, and his price increased to 3.00. Unsurprisingly, he then lost.

    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

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…