Punters stake $70 million on final Test

[silentstriker]

Punters stake $70 million on Oval Test | Cricket News | The Ashes - England v Australia 2009 | Cricinfo.com

[SJS]

With so much money at stake in legal betting and match fixing, how come nothing major has been heard about umpires being approached by bookies. I refuse to believe that bookies assume umpires to be incorruptible while players are 'easy game'. The fans dont seem to think so, particularly when an umpire makes a few close decisions that go against the fans' favourite side.

[cover drive man]

Thought England looked a bit of a bargain yesterday at 4/1 in totesport.

[cover drive man]

Originally Posted by SJS

With so much money at stake in legal betting and match fixing, how come nothing major has been heard about umpires being approached by bookies. I refuse to believe that bookies assume umpires to be incorruptible while players are 'easy game'. The fans dont seem to think so, particularly when an umpire makes a few close decisions that go against the fans' favourite side.

It's not that often though were an umpire makes a game deciding decision.

[SJS]

Originally Posted by cover drive man

It's not that often though were an umpire makes a game deciding decision.

An umpire can do at least as much damage by himself as a single player can do.

[Athlai]

Originally Posted by cover drive man

Thought England looked a bit of a bargain yesterday at 4/1 in totesport.

[cover drive man]

Originally Posted by Athlai

Doesn't mean I think they'll win just think it's a value bet.

[Athlai]

It isn't that good a value considering the unlikeliness of them winning.

[Dissector]

Originally Posted by SJS

With so much money at stake in legal betting and match fixing, how come nothing major has been heard about umpires being approached by bookies. I refuse to believe that bookies assume umpires to be incorruptible while players are 'easy game'. The fans dont seem to think so, particularly when an umpire makes a few close decisions that go against the fans' favourite side.

You know, I have never really thought of that but it's a good point. An umpire could easily influence a game even without making huge howlers just by making sure the crucial decisions go to one side. He could even disguise it by giving a few close but less crucial decisions to the other side. If it were noticed it would just be written off as one of those things and there is no reason why a bookie would demand the same side to be helped every time so there need not be any long-term pattern of an umpire favouring one side.

Let's not forget that a lot of betting is based on smaller events like a particular batsman's score which would be easier for a umpire to influence. And an umpire wouldn't have to do every single thing asked of him; he could be given a list of events and if managed to influence a few of them that would still be useful to the bookie.

I don't know why we haven't had an umpiring matchfixing scandal yet. Perhaps umpires, being older, are more cautious about these things and afraid to get caught. Perhaps investigators have focused more on the players and umpires have gotten less scrutiny.

Come to think of it, it's a pretty big point on the side of increasing the role of technology in umpiring.

[cover drive man]

Originally Posted by Athlai

It isn't that good a value considering the unlikeliness of them winning.

Dunno, they've already won one match in the series I agree Australia. Obviously the aus are favourites but I wouldn't write England off.

[Craig]

Just wondering, how rife do people think match fixing is? They did some crappy story on ACA where they went to India and went to a bookie's place and he had several mobile phones and taking calls all the time. They interviewed some rubbish sports journalist in Australian where he said one fast bowler who had been paid off by a bookie to bowl a no ball, would get down and tie his shoe laces as code that he would bowl a no-ball, but the umpire would not call it as he had been paid off by a rival bookie.

[SJS]

Originally Posted by Craig

Just wondering, how rife do people think match fixing is? They did some crappy story on ACA where they went to India and went to a bookie's place and he had several mobile phones and taking calls all the time. They interviewed some rubbish sports journalist in Australian where he said one fast bowler who had been paid off by a bookie to bowl a no ball, would get down and tie his shoe laces as code that he would bowl a no-ball, but the umpire would not call it as he had been paid off by a rival bookie.

Its amazing the kind of bets you can take in Bombay for example. Here are a few examples ...

1. Who will win the toss?
2. How many rums will be scored in (say) the 37th over of the innings?
3. Will there be a hit wicket dismissal in the match?
4. How many no balls will (say) India's bowlers ( or a particular bowler) bowl)?
5. How many byes in so and so innings (or the entire match)?
6. Which team's number eleven will score more runs in the first innings?
7. Which team will take more catches in the outfield in the first innings?
8. Which side will the first batsman take strike from in the second innings of the match?
9. Who will bowl the 47th over of the first innings of the match?
10. Which team will be the first one to take a substitute fielder in the match?

The possibilities are endless.

The problem with those who find reports of widespread fixing difficult to believe is that they think fixing is only about winning or losing. Far from it. While a lot of money rides on the end result, a massive number of people take these 'trivial' small bets which appear completely random and unlikely to be manipulated. You can literally take a dozen small bets in a Test match instead of putting all your money on one big (and equally risky) final outcome bet.

That is why it is so difficult to pin point (players or umpires) those who join the bookies because many things can be managed without causing a single eye brow to be raised.

[Athlai]

Originally Posted by cover drive man

Thought England looked a bit of a bargain yesterday at 4/1 in totesport.

Hope you got someone to take that bloody bet.

[cover drive man]

Originally Posted by Athlai

Hope you got someone to take that bloody bet.

Nope

Originally Posted by SJS

Its amazing the kind of bets you can take in Bombay for example. Here are a few examples ...

1. Who will win the toss?
2. How many rums will be scored in (say) the 37th over of the innings?
3. Will there be a hit wicket dismissal in the match?
4. How many no balls will (say) India's bowlers ( or a particular bowler) bowl)?
5. How many byes in so and so innings (or the entire match)?
6. Which team's number eleven will score more runs in the first innings?
7. Which team will take more catches in the outfield in the first innings?
8. Which side will the first batsman take strike from in the second innings of the match?
9. Who will bowl the 47th over of the first innings of the match?
10. Which team will be the first one to take a substitute fielder in the match?

The possibilities are endless.

The problem with those who find reports of widespread fixing difficult to believe is that they think fixing is only about winning or losing. Far from it. While a lot of money rides on the end result, a massive number of people take these 'trivial' small bets which appear completely random and unlikely to be manipulated. You can literally take a dozen small bets in a Test match instead of putting all your money on one big (and equally risky) final outcome bet.

That is why it is so difficult to pin point (players or umpires) those who join the bookies because many things can be managed without causing a single eye brow to be raised.

Yeah, over here you can bet on almost anything on a big football match, number of cards, number of corners don't like those markets, there's no resarch to do it's sheer guesswork.