[durito]

Oh sorry DK i wasn't aware of this .................

That's because it's entirely fabricated. No such thing ever happened.

[englishmike]

This policy was instituted due to the aforementioned Davydenko match. Betfair refused to pay the winnings and confiscated them due to betting irregularities. Other books paid.

The policy was actually instituted when five jockeys realised they could make more money by laying their horses to lose than they could make by winning the race with prize money.

At the British Horseracing Authorities request, Betfair handed over the names and addreses and account activity of individuals thought to be winning bets through deception involving the jockeys themselves.

The resultant inquiry was so succesfull and produced so many convictions and jockey bannings, every major sports body in the world realised that a major part of the integrity of their sport could be protected by making arrangements with Betfair to monitor matches.

As you rightly point out, the Davydenko match was a turning point because the criminals realised a major chain in their corruption ring was broken and have now been forced to bet elsewhere. Betfair is the best thing to happen for the inegrity of betting in sports in history.

[daggerkobe]

I'll believe SBR_John is a sharp but not durito.

[durito]

Please show me where I admitted to "lying about payouts".

.

Still waiting....

[durito]

Still waiting....

.....

[cobra_king]

I'll believe SBR_John is a sharp but not durito.

I think even SBR John would get a chuckle out of this!

[durito]

I think even SBR John would get a chuckle out of this!

I think I'm gonna make it my signature.

[Tchocky]

I probably watch more tennis than anyone on this board. I can't remember the last time I saw an official match that was obviously rigged. The last match I saw that was rigged was the Federer/Sampras exo in MSG earlier this year. Read Michael Mewshaw's "Short Circuit". Tennis today isn't nearly as corrupt as it was in the 70's and 80's. I of the opinion that match fixing is very rare and usually only happens in exo's. The biggest problem in tennis is appearance money and the lack of high profile players at the smaller tourneys. Retirements and the long schedule is also another problem that needs to be addressed.

[daggerkobe]

I think even SBR John would get a chuckle out of this!

durito apparently thinks SBR_John is sharp enough to plagiarize, so that's good enough for me.

[daggerkobe]

I probably watch more tennis than anyone on this board. I can't remember the last time I saw an official match that was obviously rigged. The last match I saw that was rigged was the Federer/Sampras exo in MSG earlier this year. Read Michael Mewshaw's "Short Circuit". Tennis today isn't nearly as corrupt as it was in the 70's and 80's. I of the opinion that match fixing is very rare and usually only happens in exo's. The biggest problem in tennis is appearance money and the lack of high profile players at the smaller tourneys. Retirements and the long schedule is also another problem that needs to be addressed.

Well, most books require only the first 2 sets to be completed for the bet to become official so a well timed retirement can be a fix.

Like the Davydenko match.... while he was up a set and break pt, all the bets were coming in on his opponent. Instead of being a 10-1 fav or higher, he was the dog. #4 player in the world a dog to a #80+ while up a set and break.... unheard of.

[pico]

if i play tennis, i would bet on myself to give myself more incentive to win.

imagine roddiick has like 1 mil on himself to win, and he chokes...that meltdown will be priceless

[kisado]

I have been betting tennis for years and I will boldly declare that I am better at it than any of you. I will also declare that only losers whine about fixed matches.

A 50 cent line movement in tennis is nothing. Its merely a bad line that got pounded into shape. As an example...recently, I had Dushevina (+320) over Szavay, if memory serves me. I nabbed this price right when the line was released because I knew this match was much closer to a 50/50 proposition than a 3/1. Come match-time, Dushevina was around +160. Dushevina won. Was it fixed? Most certainly not. It was a weak line that got pounded by sharp players who knew she had no business paying out 3 to 1.

A Gulbis 50 cent steam move is NOT a fix, man. I can understand Davydenko/Vasallo Arguello. That was highly suspicious. Not due to the play of either of the players but the live odds and betting patterns.