Skip to main content

Protectionist bollocks from the ATP

Slightly old news now, but I've just found the time to write properly about this. Reports in the press last week of spectators being ejected from the Auckland tournament for 'illegal' betting, which is simply protectionist propaganda from the ATP. There is no 'illegal' betting taking place here - New Zealand has bans on foreign betting firms advertising in NZ but they certainly don't prosecute users of Betfair or Bet365 for example. The courtsiders are simply taking advantage of being ahead of the broadcast back to Europe.

Tennis: Spot-betting spectators ejected

Two spectators have been kicked out of the Heineken Open in Auckland for illegal spot-betting.

Tournament director Richard Palmer confirmed one patron had been removed on Monday at the Heineken Open and another had been evicted during last week's ASB Classic for transmitting scoring information from the stands.

The spectators were spotted in the crowd allegedly using palm-type devices to bet on specific points.

The delay between what happens on court and when it's screened around the world enables people at the stadium to quickly get bets on before those outside know what's happened.

ATP tournament director Tom Barnes said the spectators who were evicted were known to them.

"It is a career opportunity to these people. They show up everywhere."

Mr Barnes said the pair were both using European betting sites.

"On some of these European betting sites, you can bet, for example, on a first serve whether a guy is going to make a fault or not. Somebody sitting in the stands with a cell phone can transmit this information to somebody in Europe and that somebody can bet that the first serve is a fault."

Another piece of utter crap from the ATP spokesman - 'you can bet on a fault'. No, you can't. Certain firms offer betting on each point, but they aren't gullible enough to offer it on the very next point - they know as well as everyone else that broadcast delays exist, so those prices are created for several points ahead, or the next (not current) game. The courtsiders are there to sweep prices, predominantly on Betfair - taking 1.6 before the market moves to 1.5 etc, on the case of a key point like a break point, significantly wider gaps. Then if they want, they can trade straight back and lock in a profit within seconds.

This is not illegal. It is taking advantage of other punters, but it has been going on so long, that anyone betting on tennis should be well aware of it anyway. Are the ATP (and WTA) trying to stop innocent punters from having their unmatched bets hoovered up by courtsiders? Not on your life. Their only interest here is protecting their new live data partners Enetpulse. The subscription price for bookmakers to take this service is massive, so obviously Enetpulse paid a premium for it and the tennis authorities want to protect that revenue stream. Any site not taking data from Enetpulse (or subsidiaries, sub-contracts etc) is supposed to be delayed by 30 seconds, or they are scraping from another site. The only way to get around this is via live pics, where a separate data stream isn't required.

Note, the Grand Slams are ITF events, and will not be covered by the above deal, so scores should be live, assuming the website is working at the optimum level.

Comments

  1. Other countries, other deals:
    http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/21/three-cows-on-lucas-oil-stadium-verizon-wireless/
    Nobody cares if people using cellphones.

    ReplyDelete
  2. not really something they can control though. More like the Olympics and VISA, or a beverage company holding exclusive rights for a venue.

    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…