The WPBSA has issued the following statement following the news that Strathclyde Police had detained Stephen Maguire and Jamie Burnett today:
"We are aware that Stephen Maguire and Jamie Burnett have been detained by Strathclyde Police. This is currently a Police matter and we are awaiting developments. There will be no further comment at this stage."
8 comments:
so why put you on your blog they have been released without charge?
Because they've been released without charge...
You would have to feel sorry for the players as at the moment you have to give them the benefit of the doubt. Clive Everton goes through the difficulties re allegations of match fixing in his book published the other year- I can't think of the title off hand. It seems very easy for bookmakers to make these allegations and hard to prove or disprove. I recall that Hann was essentially banned as the Sun's story was backed up by an audio recording saying that he would throw matches for money. Francisco was hung by the opinion of 3 elder statesman of the game who re-watched his game in Sheffield in 1995 and looked at his shot selection.He wasn't however charged as best I recall- nor was his uncle who was faced a litany of claims that he throw matches in the late 80s and early 90s. There will be some who will forever look at these two players and think no smoke without fire. However the police have their duty to do and can't give them any special favours because they are snooker players. Interesting that they have been arrested and for instance Peter Ebdon wasn't after the game where he was put under the spot light. Is some of that down to the quirks of an individual police force.
Ebdon's match wasn't on TV. The likelihood of a successful prosecution was very small in that case, and not in the public interest to pursue. Without video evidence, it would be extremely difficult to prove any charge of wrongdoing to the burden required in a criminal trial (i'm not suggesting he or Burnett/Maguire are guilty btw). Burnett's match, however, has the benefit of a video archive which would be persuasive to a jury that prosecuting counsel might wish to impress.
£20k+ has been awaiting collection from various Glasgow betting offices. Has it been picked up yet? who knows?
Some thoughts on Anonymous' post above: "It seems very easy for bookmakers to make these allegations and hard to prove or disprove." Having worked several years in the business (though not anymore), I'd like to just explain a little on when the bookies stop accepting bets. Please bear in mind that this post is not about the Maguire - Burnett match. I have no opinion on what went on there whatsoever.
OK, so there's a snooker game coming up. It's best of 17 frames. Typically, you'll have a result that seems more probable than another. To avoid similarities with the match in question here, let's say that Player A is likely to win but he's not going to have an easy game because Player B has shown some form lately so you decide that 9-5 is the most likely result.
When you place the bet, you put your money on 9-5 but you're not really sure if you've made the right analysis, so for safety you place a smaller sum on 9-4 and 9-6 as well.
This is a natural betting pattern. It looks like this in most sports. In football, if you place a bet on 2-1, well you probably gonna place one on 3-1 as well just in case. Maybe not as much money, but you'll do. And if you don't somebody else will.
Natural betting patterns take on a bell-curve shape. Of course there's gonna be a result that's more likely than the others and that one will have a lot more money placed on it, but the adjacent results will also have quite large sums on them and then declining the less probable a result it is.
True, if you have a small number of samples, discrepancies will occur, but if you look at all betting in all markets, the pattern will be like that. Bell-curve.
Now, if suddenly there are people betting large sums on one - and only one - result, the alarms go off. Of course, there could be one bloke out there that had a dream Alan McManus will beat Ronnie 9-0 and put all his savings on that result, but that wouldn't make the bookies stop betting on the game cause that's within the room for discrepancy.
However, if there are many bets placed on that result - from players who don't bet on any other result, just that - and particularly if you have several "small" bets (not what you or I would call small, but not so big that the sums in themselves raise questions) placed in several shops that are geographically close... Then there will be an investigation. The betting companies contact each other and if that pattern shows up in several places... Well, then definitely something fishy is up.
Like I said in the beginning, I have no opinion or info about the Maguire-Burnett match in particular. This is just a typical scenario. It's basically about mathematics and deviation from standard betting behaviour.
Hi, what papers Dave has snooker been featured in today?
If there is £20,000 in winning bets to be paid out it beggers belief that two players and at least one other person- realistically many more would be needed- who laid the bets would do this all for a shade over 6 1/2k each given the risk and cost involved if caught.
Post a Comment