Betting agencies spitting the dummy over certain matches or framed markets is not an issue for any sports governing body. Or is it?
Betting on sports other than horse racing is a reasonably recent phenomenon in Australia which has developed extensively over the past two decades.
Just recently, there have been some incidents of betting agencies withdrawing from certain matches or markets.
Apparently betting on the wooden spoon in the AFL has been suspended by some betting agencies due to the allegations around ‘tanking’.
No doubt any bets on Melbourne to win the wooden spoon looked right on the money given they’re 6 points behind Fremantle on the bottom of the ladder.
However, are betting agencies taking their ‘bat and ball home’ to protect themselves or are they making a point to the AFL about the implications of tanking? Whose credibility is at stake: the betting agency or the AFL?
Betting on the St Kilda–Hawthorn game in Round 19 has now been suspended. Apparently some late, rather large, bets on Hawthorn to win due to potentially unknown St Kilda injuries have forced the betting agencies to withdraw from the market.
Inside mail from the punters was deemed too good due to a flood of money that seemed to know something they did not. So it’s OK for the betting agency to use their inside mail to frame betting markets, but if a punter gets wind of a potentially game changing factor, they run.
The Courier Mail is reporting a windfall by one punter who won $18,750 on Daniel Merrett kicking the first goal in the Brisbane-Collingwood game in Round 18.
Merrett was selected at full back but lined up at full forward at the start of the match. According to the betting agency, no money the previous week was placed on Merrett to kick the first goal thus raising suspicions.
The Lions have denied any wrong doing but do concede it’s possible an innocent comment was made about team selection which a punter got wind of and collected big time.
The concern for me is not that the Lions have an issue, but the betting agency is sticking its nose into positional moves that they lose money on and its hits the headlines.
Are betting agencies using the media to force the AFL to protect their bets?
Pippinu
Roar Guru
Justin no offence taken - it's especially true if you were first in and got the odds at over 100-1 (which are very high odds for someone who will start at full forward). But the flip side is that if this had occurred in 20 other games, he probably wouldn't have been the first goal kicker, even if he started at full forward.
Redb
Roar Guru
Pip, It's major egg on the face of betting agencies that St Kilda beat Hawthorn - fairly comfortably in the end. It is also egg on the face of the punters who picked Hawthorn with inside mail. I have the odd bet on football and horse racing but its not my life, it just goes to prove punters are mugs. To prove just how fickle sports betting can be, one punter lost 200 large on the Western Bulldogs to win at $1.04. Risked $200,000 for a measly $8,000! Redb
Justin
Guest
Pip - no offence but just because you wouldn't put money on Merritt doesn't mean others wouldn't, especially if those odds are bloody massive. Maybe a couple of midfielders just deliberately look for him early on and then your odds are more like 5-1!
Pippinu
Roar Guru
I agree with the sentiment of buyer beware - it's simply bad luck - and that goes for both parties - the odds are designed to reflect whichever direction the bets are going anyway. In any event: 1. Hawthorn still got rolled despite the "hot tips"; 2. the myriad of betting possibilities available for the win, and human nature being what it is, expect bookies to collect even when the tip comes through! 3. Merrit dropping to odds of 17-1 obviously meant something was going on - but - would I put a grand on Merrit kicking a goal if I thought Voss was going to start him at full forward instead of full back? Not likely!!
Redb
Roar Guru
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/betting-rules-a-debacle/story-e6frexx0-1225759532548 Allan Eskander not happy with AFL team list rules. "Betstar's Alan Eskander said it was obvious the AFL needed to review how information was distributed to the marketplace. Eskander said the AFL had to ensure all team selection information was processed simultaneously to prevent the "absolute debacle" that occurred when news leaked that several St Kilda stars, including captain Nick Riewoldt, would not play against Hawthorn. He said punters with "inside information" had sparked a plunge on Hawthorn that saw the Hawks firm from as much as $3.60 to start $1.50." I wodner if Betstar will refund all those punters who laid bets on Hawthorn to win against St Kilda? Maybe betting should not occur until the day before a game, but what about emergencies? Redb
Redb
Roar Guru
"The Age" ran a poll on transparency of team lists over the weekend. QU: INSIDER TRADING? : In the interests of punters and bookies, should clubs be more transparent about injuries early in the week? Yes - 46% No - 54%. Redb
Redb
Roar Guru
Agree with buyer beware - good call. Redb
Redb
Roar Guru
Justin, I agree that sports who accept sponsorship and a cut of turnover cannot completely ignore the betting agencies. I did write something to that effect in the original article that the betting agencies will push for a seat at the table. The AFL does rules around team selection and 5pm Thursday cut-off for Friday and Saturday games. It is ironic that St Kila won despite the betting agencies running scared and it just goes to show this is still sport and punters and the agencieswho offer odds take huge chances. That the game dont run when it gets too hard. It is the degree of control over matters like team selection that concerns me. Redb
MyGeneration
Roar Guru
I meant "Richmond's incompetence".
MyGeneration
Roar Guru
As a keen punter, I always think it's a case of buyer beware. The AFL, NRL, HAL, Super 14 etc. do not exist to provide betting opportunities for punt-starved gamblers. There's plenty of horse races for that (and horses are more honest than humans, at least none has ever lied to me). A betting agency is perfectly within its rights to put pressure on via the media, like any industry does, but any sporting organisation that is letting the concerns of betting agencies dictate policy is not doing their job. From another point of view, if the betting agencies think someone is tanking, why don't they frame the market accordingly. As Justin said, the smart ones know they will win in the long run when they work out who always has the good mail. As seen last weekend, Melbourne's tank job almost came unstuck due to either the desire of the players or Richmond's acceptance. Obviously tanking is not a science yet.
Justin
Guest
Red - Bookies will always protect themselves against losses, they dint give two shits about tanking etc as long as they are winning. I know for a fact that many agencies bar winning punters or dramatically reduce a winning punters bets or odds, the smart ones take on all comers. Why? They know they will win over time or at least be able to follow the really smart money. The Lions scenario does smell. I believe Merret was backed from 125s into 17s before the bounce would suggest that something was up. If sporting bodies are taking money from betting agencies then they need to have much better protocols with regard to team selections, the AFL in this respect is a disgrace. And to be honest the cloak and dagger bullshit that some teams go on about is laughable and they should be fined heavily for late changes, say $20,000 first and $50,000 on subsequent unfringements. They can't say where exactly a player will play but the sides must be as selected at say Thursday night 6pm