College Basketball March Madness Sports Betting Begins in Bulk this week
By Vincent Tapoglia III
Casinogamblingweb.com
Last week was kind of a slow lead in to the madness that begins this weekend in college basketball. There are already teams that have won some of the smaller conference tournaments and punched their ticket to the big dance.
This week, however, is when the meat and potatoes of the NCAA tournament will be discovered. The big conferences begin their tournaments throughout the week and by Sunday all of the unanswered questions as to who will be dancing will be answered.
Much is at stake as the conference tournaments begin. Some teams will be battling to get that one extra win that will put them in the tournament. Others, like Michigan State and Memphis, will be trying to pad their resume to achieve a number one seed.
The people with the most to lose during all of the madness might be the gamblers. March Madness offers some of the most hectic sports betting that takes place all year. Outside of the Super Bowl, the NCAA tournament is the most gambled on event for sportsbooks.
For many gamblers, this week will be used to try and decipher which of the smaller conference champions can make a run by upsetting higher ranked teams in the tournament. Once that information is processed, the bettors will put their analysis to the test next week.
The regular season is over and the playoffs have begun. For college basketball and gamblers alike, the scene does not get much more exciting than the next couple of weeks.
College Basketball March Madness Sports Betting Begins in Bulk this week
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Monday, March 9, 2009
Betting Odds Sports: Unregulated Gambling Leaves National Football League Unprotected
Betting Odds Sports: Unregulated Gambling Leaves National Football League Unprotected
The National Football League funds one of the richest and most powerful lobbys in Washington, D.C., and uses its immense influence to push legislators to forbid gambling whenever possible, be it online gambling or sports betting. But two recent incidents illustrate the NFL is acting against its own interests, as unregulated gambling leaves its players vulnerable to potentially corrupting influences.
Two former Denver Broncos were found to be regular participants at a high-stakes illegal poker operation in Denver, according to the Denver Post. Play at the club's games involved pots often well into thousands of dollars, and credit was given to certain patrons, leading to at least two suicides of card players who got in over their heads.
Another high-rolling poker set-up was busted by police in Charlotte, North Carolina. An unidentified ex-NFL player was present at the time of the raid, and others are thought to be regulars at the private home, says WCNC-News. A $10,000 pot was left on the table when the police burst in, and membership was $1000 a month.
NFL leaders have long said legalized gambling could result in corrupted games, as gamblers try to manipulate results. But NFL players are still gambling, in situations that could lead to undue influences blackmailing them.
Only legalized, strictly regulated gambling could provide the NFL with the protection it desires, say sports gambling experts. Licensed gambling operations could work with the league to detect betting irregularities, and notify the NFL when players are in jeopardy of putting themselves in compromising positions.
It's ironic, said sports analyst Edmund Crumley, that the NFL has resisted regulating online gambling and legal sports wagering. "Perhaps the best way to insure the games remain unaffected by gambling influences would be to keep all gambling transparent and well-regulated."
Betting Odds Sports: Unregulated Gambling Leaves National Football League Unprotected
The National Football League funds one of the richest and most powerful lobbys in Washington, D.C., and uses its immense influence to push legislators to forbid gambling whenever possible, be it online gambling or sports betting. But two recent incidents illustrate the NFL is acting against its own interests, as unregulated gambling leaves its players vulnerable to potentially corrupting influences.
Two former Denver Broncos were found to be regular participants at a high-stakes illegal poker operation in Denver, according to the Denver Post. Play at the club's games involved pots often well into thousands of dollars, and credit was given to certain patrons, leading to at least two suicides of card players who got in over their heads.
Another high-rolling poker set-up was busted by police in Charlotte, North Carolina. An unidentified ex-NFL player was present at the time of the raid, and others are thought to be regulars at the private home, says WCNC-News. A $10,000 pot was left on the table when the police burst in, and membership was $1000 a month.
NFL leaders have long said legalized gambling could result in corrupted games, as gamblers try to manipulate results. But NFL players are still gambling, in situations that could lead to undue influences blackmailing them.
Only legalized, strictly regulated gambling could provide the NFL with the protection it desires, say sports gambling experts. Licensed gambling operations could work with the league to detect betting irregularities, and notify the NFL when players are in jeopardy of putting themselves in compromising positions.
It's ironic, said sports analyst Edmund Crumley, that the NFL has resisted regulating online gambling and legal sports wagering. "Perhaps the best way to insure the games remain unaffected by gambling influences would be to keep all gambling transparent and well-regulated."
Betting Odds Sports: Unregulated Gambling Leaves National Football League Unprotected
First-Round Betting Sports Tips for March Madness Big Dance
First-Round Betting Sports Tips for March Madness Big Dance
The Super Bowl attracts more attention but many sports betting fans believe the opening round of the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament, which tips off March 17 this year, is the best wagering opportunity of the year.
It's easy to see why: 32 games, starting in the morning and continuing into the night, offering non-stop betting action over two frantic days.
Bettors like the unknown (and the unknowable) as much as bookmakers fear it. Should you lay that outrageously large spread on the No. 1 ranked team over that obscure No. 16 seed or take the points with David against Goliath?
How do No. 15 seeds hold up against No. 2 seeds? Is there anything to be gained by dutifully sifting through the ruins of past years' 16-team brackets? Are there valuable clues that could unveil a winning pattern for this year's tournament?
Let's take a look:
In the history of the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament, a No. 16 seed never has beaten a No. 1 seed. So, prudence would dictate that taking the final seed on the money line is, well, a waste of money.
But basketball is a game primarily bet against a pointspread and No. 16 seeds, perhaps because it's so difficult for oddsmakers to come up with an accurate number on what are mostly obscure, off-the-board outfits, have been highly competitive versus No. 1 seeds when the line becomes a part of the wagering equation. In fact, since 2002, No. 16 seeds are 14-13-1 against the spread (ATS) versus No. 1 seeds. So, you can't automatically toss out a No. 16 seed against the top team in the bracket.
While the history of 1 versus 16 is inclusive, there's no doubt that college basketball betting devotees have made a bundle of dough taking the points with No. 15 seeds against No. 2 seeds in the Big Dance's opening round.
Led by unheralded teams with limited or no pointspread resumes such as Winthrop, Hampton, Montana, Florida Atlantic, Vermont, Central Florida, Southeast Louisiana, Eastern Kentucky, American University, Belmont, East Tennessee State, Illinois-Chicago and Penn, since 2002, No. 15 seeds are a healthy 18-10 ATS versus No. 2 seeds. There were no outright wins last year but Belmont, a 21-point underdog, came close, losing to Duke by just a point, 71-70.
Since they are more adept at dealing with teams with which they have a pointspread familiarity, you might assume, as the seeds narrow and as the straight up (SU) mismatches disappear, oddsmakers would do a better job with the numbers. Hmm, yes and no.
Since 2002, in opening round play, No. 3 seeds hold a 15-12-1 pointspread advantage over No. 14 seeds.
Thanks largely to a 7-1 spurt the past two seasons, No. 4 seeds are 16-12 ATS versus No. 13 seeds in first round action. And while the media makes much of the notion that No. 12 seeds regularly upend No. 5 seeds, the pointspread matchup is dead even at 13-13-2, since 2002.
Interestingly and this does make sense from an oddsmaking standpoint--the higher seeds have enjoyed their greatest wagering advantage when the difference between the teams is obvious but not overwhelming. Thus, since 2002, No. 6 seeds are 17-11 ATS versus No. 11 seeds and No. 7 seeds are 20-8 ATS versus No. 10 seeds. When the picture gets a bit murkier, as in the case of evenly matched No. 8 and No. 9 seeds, the record gets closer as well, with No. 8 seeds on top of No. 9 seeds by a narrow 14-13-1 margin.
It seems clear then that oddsmakers have had their most difficulty assigning odds to the bigger mismatches and, if you fancy underdogs, your best NCAA Tournament basketball betting opportunities in the first round are with the No. 15 seeds. College basketball betting enthusiasts who prefer to back the favorite, will want to take a look at No. 6 and No. 7 seeds. Make sure you keep the above in mind when doing your March Madness bracket contest this year.
First-Round Betting Sports Tips for March Madness Big Dance
The Super Bowl attracts more attention but many sports betting fans believe the opening round of the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament, which tips off March 17 this year, is the best wagering opportunity of the year.
It's easy to see why: 32 games, starting in the morning and continuing into the night, offering non-stop betting action over two frantic days.
Bettors like the unknown (and the unknowable) as much as bookmakers fear it. Should you lay that outrageously large spread on the No. 1 ranked team over that obscure No. 16 seed or take the points with David against Goliath?
How do No. 15 seeds hold up against No. 2 seeds? Is there anything to be gained by dutifully sifting through the ruins of past years' 16-team brackets? Are there valuable clues that could unveil a winning pattern for this year's tournament?
Let's take a look:
In the history of the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament, a No. 16 seed never has beaten a No. 1 seed. So, prudence would dictate that taking the final seed on the money line is, well, a waste of money.
But basketball is a game primarily bet against a pointspread and No. 16 seeds, perhaps because it's so difficult for oddsmakers to come up with an accurate number on what are mostly obscure, off-the-board outfits, have been highly competitive versus No. 1 seeds when the line becomes a part of the wagering equation. In fact, since 2002, No. 16 seeds are 14-13-1 against the spread (ATS) versus No. 1 seeds. So, you can't automatically toss out a No. 16 seed against the top team in the bracket.
While the history of 1 versus 16 is inclusive, there's no doubt that college basketball betting devotees have made a bundle of dough taking the points with No. 15 seeds against No. 2 seeds in the Big Dance's opening round.
Led by unheralded teams with limited or no pointspread resumes such as Winthrop, Hampton, Montana, Florida Atlantic, Vermont, Central Florida, Southeast Louisiana, Eastern Kentucky, American University, Belmont, East Tennessee State, Illinois-Chicago and Penn, since 2002, No. 15 seeds are a healthy 18-10 ATS versus No. 2 seeds. There were no outright wins last year but Belmont, a 21-point underdog, came close, losing to Duke by just a point, 71-70.
Since they are more adept at dealing with teams with which they have a pointspread familiarity, you might assume, as the seeds narrow and as the straight up (SU) mismatches disappear, oddsmakers would do a better job with the numbers. Hmm, yes and no.
Since 2002, in opening round play, No. 3 seeds hold a 15-12-1 pointspread advantage over No. 14 seeds.
Thanks largely to a 7-1 spurt the past two seasons, No. 4 seeds are 16-12 ATS versus No. 13 seeds in first round action. And while the media makes much of the notion that No. 12 seeds regularly upend No. 5 seeds, the pointspread matchup is dead even at 13-13-2, since 2002.
Interestingly and this does make sense from an oddsmaking standpoint--the higher seeds have enjoyed their greatest wagering advantage when the difference between the teams is obvious but not overwhelming. Thus, since 2002, No. 6 seeds are 17-11 ATS versus No. 11 seeds and No. 7 seeds are 20-8 ATS versus No. 10 seeds. When the picture gets a bit murkier, as in the case of evenly matched No. 8 and No. 9 seeds, the record gets closer as well, with No. 8 seeds on top of No. 9 seeds by a narrow 14-13-1 margin.
It seems clear then that oddsmakers have had their most difficulty assigning odds to the bigger mismatches and, if you fancy underdogs, your best NCAA Tournament basketball betting opportunities in the first round are with the No. 15 seeds. College basketball betting enthusiasts who prefer to back the favorite, will want to take a look at No. 6 and No. 7 seeds. Make sure you keep the above in mind when doing your March Madness bracket contest this year.
First-Round Betting Sports Tips for March Madness Big Dance
Sixth-Grade Gamblers Were Hyperactive at Young Age, Betting Sports Study Finds
Sixth-Grade Gamblers Were Hyperactive at Young Age, Betting Sports Study Finds
By Shannon Pettypiece
Children who gambled at age 11 were more likely to have been hyperactive and impulsive 5-year-olds, suggesting symptoms of risky behavior can be found early in life, researchers said.
In a study of 163 Canadian students, 14 percent of sixth graders reported playing cards for money, 13 percent played video games for money, 8 percent placed bets at sports venues or on games, such as pool or bowling, and 4 percent bought lottery tickets. Previous interviews of the children’s kindergarten teachers found the kids ranked most impulsive when they started school were more likely gamblers six years later, according to the study published today in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine.
The findings could alert parents to address hyperactivity and attention problems at a young age, said Linda Pagani, an author of the study and professor at the University of Montreal.
“These behaviors are already a risk factor for a lot of long-term consequences, such as substance abuse, school performance and unemployment,” said Pagani in a telephone interview. “Our research findings now add gambling behavior to that list of consequences.”
The study started by interviewing kindergarten teachers, who were asked to rank the behavior of their students. Six years later, the researchers asked those students how often they played cards for money, bingo, bought lottery tickets, played computer games for money or made bets with friends at sports venues.
Divorce Effect
After analyzing the results, the researchers found that for every 1-unit increase in reported kindergarten impulsivity, children showed a 25 percent increase in later self-reported involvement in gambling. The findings excluded those whose parents had divorced, because that can also be a risk factor for such behavior. The researchers also factored in parents’ gambling behavior to rule that out as an influence.
Previous research has shown that young people who compulsively gamble have an increased risk of substance abuse, depression and suicides, the study said.
Pagani suggested more resources be spent on treating hyperactivity in preschool and elementary school. The study was funded by Canada’s Social Science and Humanities Research Council Standard Research Grants Program.
Sixth-Grade Gamblers Were Hyperactive at Young Age, Betting Sports Study Finds
By Shannon Pettypiece
Children who gambled at age 11 were more likely to have been hyperactive and impulsive 5-year-olds, suggesting symptoms of risky behavior can be found early in life, researchers said.
In a study of 163 Canadian students, 14 percent of sixth graders reported playing cards for money, 13 percent played video games for money, 8 percent placed bets at sports venues or on games, such as pool or bowling, and 4 percent bought lottery tickets. Previous interviews of the children’s kindergarten teachers found the kids ranked most impulsive when they started school were more likely gamblers six years later, according to the study published today in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine.
The findings could alert parents to address hyperactivity and attention problems at a young age, said Linda Pagani, an author of the study and professor at the University of Montreal.
“These behaviors are already a risk factor for a lot of long-term consequences, such as substance abuse, school performance and unemployment,” said Pagani in a telephone interview. “Our research findings now add gambling behavior to that list of consequences.”
The study started by interviewing kindergarten teachers, who were asked to rank the behavior of their students. Six years later, the researchers asked those students how often they played cards for money, bingo, bought lottery tickets, played computer games for money or made bets with friends at sports venues.
Divorce Effect
After analyzing the results, the researchers found that for every 1-unit increase in reported kindergarten impulsivity, children showed a 25 percent increase in later self-reported involvement in gambling. The findings excluded those whose parents had divorced, because that can also be a risk factor for such behavior. The researchers also factored in parents’ gambling behavior to rule that out as an influence.
Previous research has shown that young people who compulsively gamble have an increased risk of substance abuse, depression and suicides, the study said.
Pagani suggested more resources be spent on treating hyperactivity in preschool and elementary school. The study was funded by Canada’s Social Science and Humanities Research Council Standard Research Grants Program.
Sixth-Grade Gamblers Were Hyperactive at Young Age, Betting Sports Study Finds
Betting Sports Forum: Bill Takes a Gamble for new Vikings stadium
Betting Sports Forum: Bill Takes a Gamble for new Vikings stadium
By MIKE KASZUBA
Star Tribune
Should the state authorize a casino with proceeds going to pay for a new stadium for the Vikings? Rep. Tom Hackbarth, R-Cedar, wants to ask voters whether to authorize a metro-area casino to help build a new football stadium.
Two hot-button issues at the State Capitol -- gambling and a new stadium for the Minnesota Vikings -- came together last week in new legislation that proposed using revenue from a new Twin Cities metro casino to build the much-discussed stadium.
Saying his constituents were adamant about not wanting the Vikings to leave Minnesota, Rep. Tom Hackbarth, R-Cedar, said his plan would propose a constitutional amendment, asking voters in 2010 whether revenues from a new casino should be used to finance a new stadium. Hackbarth said bonds would be issued to finance the stadium's construction -- work would begin almost immediately if the amendment passed in November 2010 -- and the Vikings would have to sign at least a 30-year lease and enlist a local government partner to help bring about the project.
"Let's let the voters decide," said Hackbarth, who acknowledged he had not spoken to the Vikings and had floated a similar proposal five years ago that gained little political traction. "I think this is a perfect solution" because there would not be a general tax increase, he said.
State legislators, and even the Vikings, were cool to the idea. "We're not advocating for a gaming situation," said Lester Bagley, a spokesman for the Vikings, who have been searching unsuccessfully for a way to kick-start debate on a stadium at the Legislature.
"[But] if that's what the state leaders want to use," Bagley added, "then let's sit down. At least someone is thinking creatively."
House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, DFL-Minneapolis, said she did not find the proposal appealing, and Brian McClung, a spokesman for Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty, said the governor "has said that he isn't interested in gaming." In the past, Pawlenty has had mixed reactions to gambling expansion proposals.
Said Kelliher: "I don't think Minnesotans have an expectation that the words 'casino' and 'stadium' should be enshrined into our state Constitution.
Betting Sports Forum: Bill Takes a Gamble for new Vikings stadium
By MIKE KASZUBA
Star Tribune
Should the state authorize a casino with proceeds going to pay for a new stadium for the Vikings? Rep. Tom Hackbarth, R-Cedar, wants to ask voters whether to authorize a metro-area casino to help build a new football stadium.
Two hot-button issues at the State Capitol -- gambling and a new stadium for the Minnesota Vikings -- came together last week in new legislation that proposed using revenue from a new Twin Cities metro casino to build the much-discussed stadium.
Saying his constituents were adamant about not wanting the Vikings to leave Minnesota, Rep. Tom Hackbarth, R-Cedar, said his plan would propose a constitutional amendment, asking voters in 2010 whether revenues from a new casino should be used to finance a new stadium. Hackbarth said bonds would be issued to finance the stadium's construction -- work would begin almost immediately if the amendment passed in November 2010 -- and the Vikings would have to sign at least a 30-year lease and enlist a local government partner to help bring about the project.
"Let's let the voters decide," said Hackbarth, who acknowledged he had not spoken to the Vikings and had floated a similar proposal five years ago that gained little political traction. "I think this is a perfect solution" because there would not be a general tax increase, he said.
State legislators, and even the Vikings, were cool to the idea. "We're not advocating for a gaming situation," said Lester Bagley, a spokesman for the Vikings, who have been searching unsuccessfully for a way to kick-start debate on a stadium at the Legislature.
"[But] if that's what the state leaders want to use," Bagley added, "then let's sit down. At least someone is thinking creatively."
House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, DFL-Minneapolis, said she did not find the proposal appealing, and Brian McClung, a spokesman for Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty, said the governor "has said that he isn't interested in gaming." In the past, Pawlenty has had mixed reactions to gambling expansion proposals.
Said Kelliher: "I don't think Minnesotans have an expectation that the words 'casino' and 'stadium' should be enshrined into our state Constitution.
Betting Sports Forum: Bill Takes a Gamble for new Vikings stadium
Sports Betting: Age of complacency over as sport wakes up to gambling risk
Sports Betting: Age of complacency over as sport wakes up to gambling risk
Governing bodies in every major sport now accept that betting corruption represents a clear and present danger, writes Nick Harris.
The snooker match between Stephen Maguire (above) and Jamie Burnett, in December last year, is still the subject of an investigation into match-fixing.
The biggest threat to British sport from betting-related corruption, aside from would-be "fixers" themselves, used to be complacency.
Since the Swan-Kay-Lane football match-fixing case of 1965 led to prison terms for those involved, there has not been any single massive and proven scam in the UK that has led to multiple criminal prosecutions.
Admittedly some floodlights went out at the behest of Asian swindlers (among other football cases), and a snooker player has been caught for bragging he can fix games and banned (among other snooker cases), and horseracing has been through the mill (more than once), but there has not been a nailed-on conviction of a high-profile personality that echoed around the world.
So complacency might have been a viable option. Yet with governing bodies from every major sport acknowledging today in The Independent's news pages that gambling presents as clear and present a danger as doping, that is no longer the case.
The governing bodies want tighter regulations. They want more powers to monitor bookmakers, and especially the participants who take part in the games we watch. As Tim Payton, a spokesman for a coalition of all the major governing bodies, says: "Sports bodies would like to see the Gambling Commission undertake random audits of sports bets, looking for unusual patterns and evidence of betting by sports people".
The governing bodies want more funding to fight the fight, and they know that unless they act, they leave themselves exposed to the charge that they did not do enough to prevent Britain's own version of a Cronje/Hoyzer-esque scandal.
But a threat still remains from the lack of jurisdiction that governing bodies and the Gambling Commission have to act beyond British shores. And it is now incumbent on government, pushed by the country's leading sports, to make fresh progress in this area too.
It matters, and it matters because without such powers then cases like Norwich versus Derby in the Championship last October – when Derby won 2-1 amid allegations of huge amounts of money placed in irregular fashion on Asian betting exchanges – will not be investigated properly.
The FA opened an investigation, then closed it in December, assuring the public: "Based on the information gathered as a result of detailed enquiries, there is no evidence to suggest any irregularities around the game. The FA received assistance from the Gambling Commission and individual UK bookmakers, who confirmed that no suspicious activity took place on their markets around the match at Carrow Road."
What the FA did not say is that it was not able to establish even what bets had been struck, or where, because it had no jurisdiction to do so. It asked the commission. The commission has no jurisdiction, either. In other words, the GC asked some questions of Asian betting firms, got no useful answers and stopped asking. It had no powers to get answers.
The Norwich case only came to public attention because two Norwich MPs, Ian Gibson and Norman Lamb, raised the matter in Parliament and forced disclosure of it as a named case.
Now The Independent can reveal that Gibson met yesterday with the Gambling Commission's director of regulation, Nick Tofiluk, and Tofiluk conceded, for the first time, how powerless the organization remains in looking beyond Britain.
"Mr Tofiluk told me if things happen in this country, it's reasonably easy to make connections, but for something like the Norwich game, there's not a lot they can do," Gibson said. "There is some suggestion that betting on the Norwich game was conducted via China but they [the GC] can't get any details. This particular investigation unit [at the GC] has been going for something like a year and to some extent they're still flying by the seat of their pants.
"They realize and admit gambling is a serious problem. They can't give us more information of what might have happened on Norwich-Derby betting, and they cannot prevent in-game betting. But they know that Asian syndicates capable of a sting already exist.
"They effectively operate in betting havens and what concerns me is that there are no plans yet, in any serious way, to move towards cross-border cooperation on these issues in Europe, let alone Asia. I hope at least we now have the platform for a debate."
Recently, Gibson tabled a question in Parliament asking the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport "what discussions he has had with the Football Association on plans for a pan-European approach to the subject of football match-fixing". The Sports Minister, Gerry Sutcliffe, replied that DCMS officials regularly meet sports bodies "to discuss a number of issues. The general subject of integrity in sports betting has been discussed during those meetings.”
They are about to become more frequent, and more wide-ranging.
Sports Betting: Age of complacency over as sport wakes up to gambling risk
Governing bodies in every major sport now accept that betting corruption represents a clear and present danger, writes Nick Harris.
The snooker match between Stephen Maguire (above) and Jamie Burnett, in December last year, is still the subject of an investigation into match-fixing.
The biggest threat to British sport from betting-related corruption, aside from would-be "fixers" themselves, used to be complacency.
Since the Swan-Kay-Lane football match-fixing case of 1965 led to prison terms for those involved, there has not been any single massive and proven scam in the UK that has led to multiple criminal prosecutions.
Admittedly some floodlights went out at the behest of Asian swindlers (among other football cases), and a snooker player has been caught for bragging he can fix games and banned (among other snooker cases), and horseracing has been through the mill (more than once), but there has not been a nailed-on conviction of a high-profile personality that echoed around the world.
So complacency might have been a viable option. Yet with governing bodies from every major sport acknowledging today in The Independent's news pages that gambling presents as clear and present a danger as doping, that is no longer the case.
The governing bodies want tighter regulations. They want more powers to monitor bookmakers, and especially the participants who take part in the games we watch. As Tim Payton, a spokesman for a coalition of all the major governing bodies, says: "Sports bodies would like to see the Gambling Commission undertake random audits of sports bets, looking for unusual patterns and evidence of betting by sports people".
The governing bodies want more funding to fight the fight, and they know that unless they act, they leave themselves exposed to the charge that they did not do enough to prevent Britain's own version of a Cronje/Hoyzer-esque scandal.
But a threat still remains from the lack of jurisdiction that governing bodies and the Gambling Commission have to act beyond British shores. And it is now incumbent on government, pushed by the country's leading sports, to make fresh progress in this area too.
It matters, and it matters because without such powers then cases like Norwich versus Derby in the Championship last October – when Derby won 2-1 amid allegations of huge amounts of money placed in irregular fashion on Asian betting exchanges – will not be investigated properly.
The FA opened an investigation, then closed it in December, assuring the public: "Based on the information gathered as a result of detailed enquiries, there is no evidence to suggest any irregularities around the game. The FA received assistance from the Gambling Commission and individual UK bookmakers, who confirmed that no suspicious activity took place on their markets around the match at Carrow Road."
What the FA did not say is that it was not able to establish even what bets had been struck, or where, because it had no jurisdiction to do so. It asked the commission. The commission has no jurisdiction, either. In other words, the GC asked some questions of Asian betting firms, got no useful answers and stopped asking. It had no powers to get answers.
The Norwich case only came to public attention because two Norwich MPs, Ian Gibson and Norman Lamb, raised the matter in Parliament and forced disclosure of it as a named case.
Now The Independent can reveal that Gibson met yesterday with the Gambling Commission's director of regulation, Nick Tofiluk, and Tofiluk conceded, for the first time, how powerless the organization remains in looking beyond Britain.
"Mr Tofiluk told me if things happen in this country, it's reasonably easy to make connections, but for something like the Norwich game, there's not a lot they can do," Gibson said. "There is some suggestion that betting on the Norwich game was conducted via China but they [the GC] can't get any details. This particular investigation unit [at the GC] has been going for something like a year and to some extent they're still flying by the seat of their pants.
"They realize and admit gambling is a serious problem. They can't give us more information of what might have happened on Norwich-Derby betting, and they cannot prevent in-game betting. But they know that Asian syndicates capable of a sting already exist.
"They effectively operate in betting havens and what concerns me is that there are no plans yet, in any serious way, to move towards cross-border cooperation on these issues in Europe, let alone Asia. I hope at least we now have the platform for a debate."
Recently, Gibson tabled a question in Parliament asking the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport "what discussions he has had with the Football Association on plans for a pan-European approach to the subject of football match-fixing". The Sports Minister, Gerry Sutcliffe, replied that DCMS officials regularly meet sports bodies "to discuss a number of issues. The general subject of integrity in sports betting has been discussed during those meetings.”
They are about to become more frequent, and more wide-ranging.
Sports Betting: Age of complacency over as sport wakes up to gambling risk
All Betting Sports off Final Four at Caesars in Windsor
All Betting Sports off Final Four at Caesars in Windsor
By Monica Wolfson
Windsor Star
Caesars Windsor will suspend sports betting on U.S. college basketball during the Final Four tournament in Detroit, a gambling official confirmed Sunday.
The Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation and Caesars agreed to halt basketball wagers at the sports betting parlor from March 30 to April 6 at the request of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, said Rui Brum, spokesman for the OLG.
"We were happy to honor the request because we are right in the NCAA area," Brum said.
"The amount bet in the betting parlor (on the Final Four) is a modest amount. Most who bet on these wagers do it through Pro-Line."
Pro-Line is the sports betting that can be done at convenience stores that sell other lottery products.
Gamblers can still wager on most of March Madness, which is the NCAA tournament to determine the national college basketball winner. The tournament runs from March 19 to April 6.
Brum didn't explicitly say why the OLG granted the request, but he reiterated Windsor's close proximity to host city Detroit.
During the Final Four, thousands of U.S. basketball coaches are coming to Detroit for the annual convention of the National Association of Basketball Coaches.
"The NABC board of directors, congress members and a majority of the Division I head coaches will be lodged in Windsor," the coach association's website said.
The convention runs April 2-6 and the majority of the hotel rooms booked are Caesars, the Hilton, Radisson and Quality Suites, according to coach association website.
Coun. Fulvio Valentinis speculated the NCAA didn't want to tempt its members with gambling on the Final Four when betting is strictly forbidden by NCAA rules.
"I guess that's maybe why the request was made," Valentinis said. "(The NCAA) has restrictions and I guess they were uncomfortable.
"I know the tourism people were working on (attracting convention visitors). I'm glad to hear that appears to be the case."
The NCAA bans student athletes, coaches and athletic department staff, conference employees and NCAA staff from sports wagering, its website said.
The NCAA has had many gambling scandals. In 1979 Boston College basketball players were recruited and bribed to ensure the team wouldn't win by a certain margin in a scheme call point shaving.
In 1996, 13 Boston College basketball players were suspended for betting on college and pro football games.
In 1998, four basketball players at Northwestern University were indicted for fixing three games during the 1994-95 season.
Final Four parlor gambling will also be halted at Casino Niagara because the Windsor and Niagara Falls casinos have similar computer systems, Brum said. "You can't shut one down without the other."
All Betting Sports off Final Four at Caesars in Windsor
By Monica Wolfson
Windsor Star
Caesars Windsor will suspend sports betting on U.S. college basketball during the Final Four tournament in Detroit, a gambling official confirmed Sunday.
The Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation and Caesars agreed to halt basketball wagers at the sports betting parlor from March 30 to April 6 at the request of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, said Rui Brum, spokesman for the OLG.
"We were happy to honor the request because we are right in the NCAA area," Brum said.
"The amount bet in the betting parlor (on the Final Four) is a modest amount. Most who bet on these wagers do it through Pro-Line."
Pro-Line is the sports betting that can be done at convenience stores that sell other lottery products.
Gamblers can still wager on most of March Madness, which is the NCAA tournament to determine the national college basketball winner. The tournament runs from March 19 to April 6.
Brum didn't explicitly say why the OLG granted the request, but he reiterated Windsor's close proximity to host city Detroit.
During the Final Four, thousands of U.S. basketball coaches are coming to Detroit for the annual convention of the National Association of Basketball Coaches.
"The NABC board of directors, congress members and a majority of the Division I head coaches will be lodged in Windsor," the coach association's website said.
The convention runs April 2-6 and the majority of the hotel rooms booked are Caesars, the Hilton, Radisson and Quality Suites, according to coach association website.
Coun. Fulvio Valentinis speculated the NCAA didn't want to tempt its members with gambling on the Final Four when betting is strictly forbidden by NCAA rules.
"I guess that's maybe why the request was made," Valentinis said. "(The NCAA) has restrictions and I guess they were uncomfortable.
"I know the tourism people were working on (attracting convention visitors). I'm glad to hear that appears to be the case."
The NCAA bans student athletes, coaches and athletic department staff, conference employees and NCAA staff from sports wagering, its website said.
The NCAA has had many gambling scandals. In 1979 Boston College basketball players were recruited and bribed to ensure the team wouldn't win by a certain margin in a scheme call point shaving.
In 1996, 13 Boston College basketball players were suspended for betting on college and pro football games.
In 1998, four basketball players at Northwestern University were indicted for fixing three games during the 1994-95 season.
Final Four parlor gambling will also be halted at Casino Niagara because the Windsor and Niagara Falls casinos have similar computer systems, Brum said. "You can't shut one down without the other."
All Betting Sports off Final Four at Caesars in Windsor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
