The problem is they get caught setting up the account. theres cases of players getting bans for doing that and betting a few quid and being flagged. I think andros townsend example was one i gave who did just that. The only means for the FA to be investigating is a complaint is made by betting firm who don't like paying out. They have had to have had enough data to show what happened. The FA could have spend months looking at evidence of betting pattern and interviewing sturridge as to do you know this person or this persoin etc etc. As he is now charged one can only conclude that an odd pattern of bets occurred on some event in january that related to sturridge (we assume we know what that is) and some people made money on it that are able to be associated with sturridge.
Here is my question: If an agent leaks a move.... and we all bet on it. can the player be sanctioned? This leaking happens a lot. if the players are not charged do we assume not bets too kplace or that it was actually a lie?
Is there a linked database for all betting outlets? It would make sense if there was. A load of money being placed on a specific bet would surely suspend betting before it got to the point were bookies were having to inform the FA and/or whoever they report these things to.
I don't know. they monitor for "suspicious" betting patterns and there is a large data set and market data that is available to bodies which do this monitoring on behalf of companies. For example you can see a match in europe with betting in asia and patterns of bets can emerge. A quick google produced this: http://www.performgroup.com/wp-cont...ous-Trends-in-Global-Football-Report-2018.pdf Quote: ABOUT THE AUTHORS Starlizard Integrity Services is the specialist and dedicated integrity division of Starlizard Consulting that has been working with football governing bodies and associations since 2010. Starlizard are the world leaders at knowing true prices and probabilities which, together with their unique inside view of the market, makes them best placed to identify anomalies in betting markets across global football competitions. Perform Group is the digital leader in global sports media, touching every aspect of the way fans engage with sport. Perform works with Rights Holders and other stakeholders to enhance and protect the value of sport. Its non-commercial Integrity team provides support to sport governing bodies, Rights Holders and the betting industry in protecting competitions from betting fraud and match-fixing through in-house monitoring, intelligence and investigations capabilities. TXODDS is a data company that specialises in the aggregation and global distribution of real time betting odds. As betting data experts they have worked together with Perform to deliver an industry-leading betting market monitoring system. All three companies are committed to preserving the integrity of sport. It seems they are monitoring closely and picking up on this stuff
I read the contents of that link you provided mito. Of the 54,757 games from around the world that they analysed they found 397 with suspicious betting patterns but none were in Tier 1. I thought the Tiers represented football levels and was pleasantly surprised that no suspicious betting was seen in Tier 1 but when they go on to explain the Tiering, it's a bit unclear ... Tiers relate to betting market levels which sometimes, but not always, correlate to football tiers. Tier 1 represents high maximum stakes per bet, whilst Tier 8 matches are at the lower end of this scale. Congested fixture programmes, *such as Saturday afternoons in Europe, can have a profound effect on how competitions are tiered. Whilst World Cup matches and elite level competitions would be included in Tier 1, other competitions can be tiered both on their prominence and the timings of the games played. For example, leagues in Asia may have a higher than expected tier status due to less competition in the betting market space. * no explanation provided
If an agent leaks a move to the press and they pass that on to Joe Public, then it’s also been leaked it to the betting companies ffs
It’s obvious. A game like last nights FA Cup RD 1 match for example, would normally be a low stake game, if played on a Saturday amongst 50 others. However, given it was televised and was the only game on the night it would have attracted more bets than normal, and thus would have a different tiering. The bottom line is that they look for large cumulative bets on either results or specific outcomes on fixtures that look a tad random.
due to the sheer number of games at approx same time the bets are widely spread where as at a WC for example there will only be 1 or 2 games available to bet on therefore they will get nearly all available football betting revenues leading them to be placed in Tier 1.
I will take your word for it Tobes, you understand betting a lot more than I do. One thing though, Sturridge's bets can't have anything to do with results or outcomes because he could only influence games he was involved in and I don't think he played any in January.
The rules don’t allow for players to bet on any game irrespective, Joey Barton got done simply for betting on football, but this case appears to relate to his loan move, and the bookies being rinsed based on insider knowledge. I’d be intrigued to see the sums involved, as usually a market like that would be tiny, which is why odds move so much and so quickly based on either gossip or money staked, in markets of that nature. Bookies usually limit the amount you can stake on those kind of markets as well, so I’d doubt the sums were genuinely significant tbh, unless it was part of a massive operation, which again is fanciful.
The agent is theoretically employed by the player so is say so yes. However, making it to a media outlet is different. You are giving each party (bookies and gamblers) the same info. If a player stands in front of a camera broadcasting to millions and says "I'm joining X", everyone that heard it is entitled to make that bet. But the player wouldn't be in trouble. It would be more fool the bookies for still taking the bet.
i'd say no as it then becomes general knowledge rather than insider trading. Plus who takes seriously the ****e agents spout
well since it was about agents "leaking it" i thought it seemed obvious to me that would be to the media.
I took "leaking it" as them telling their mates (Yeah, but silly, they've not got any) to make a bet. I edited my original comment you quoted btw
ah ok in that case the agent would be in the **** as he used his knowledge to make dosh so may lose his agent licence. PS Agents have mates
