Not that it’s my usual style to comment on corporate stories, but the news which has been published on various blogs, and formally announced on the official website, of a deal which puts Betfair onto Samsung televisions, is one of the more exciting releases I have seen in a long time, and in my view a huge personal success for the amiable and extremely capable head of Betfair TV, Simon Miller.
The wider picture here, though – following on so soon after the equally exciting launch of Betfair’s iPhone application, which was downloaded 20,000 times in the first month – is the same as I was making when I was interviewed the other day as part of the BBC’s coverage from the Aegon Championships at Queen’s. Asked by John Inverdale what should be done about people betting on laptops court-side, I commented that there is little point in dealing with any ‘issues’ perceived to be associated with betting by trying to hold back technology. It’s far better to address them through transparency and co-operation.
On that track, I recently spent some time with a number of sporting Chief Executives, who gave up some of their time to come and understand how betting is tracked today. I think it is fair to say that they were wide-eyed about what they described as ‘almost anti-terrorist style’ means of tracking any problematic betting. We agreed that the biggest deterrent to malpractice is getting the message out there that the proliferation in online betting has tipped the risk/reward ratio dramatically in favour of risk, by virtue of the trackability, and not – as is commonly perceived – in favour of reward.
The more sports leaders who understand that, the better for all of us, because the message will be easily communicated to the players and officials (who are the only people who can genuinely impact the outcome of a sporting contest). I’m very encouraged that organisations like the Professional Players’ Federation and the British Athletes’ Commission are so willing to engage in the subject. It’s good news for everyone – except the would-be corruptors.
Posted in Betfair, Betting industry, Integrity in sport.
– June 15, 2010
Hi Mark, always enjoy reading your opinions. Here you are suggesting technology should be embraced (or not denied) for track players/courtsiders which is fair enough. But in my opinion, technology at the other end – tv pictures – seems to be getting worse for the vast majority. So technology is working well for those with the advantage and doing nothing for those on the receiving end. Do you think Betfair in particular take the issue seriously enough? To me it seems they dont care who wins as long as liquidity holds up – but isnt that why the premium charge was brought in ie to stop some winning too quickly?
Hi TH
Thanks for your comment.
My point is neither that technology should be embraced nor not denied; just that it exists and that trying to stop people from betting using it is a waste of time. It is more to point out that people can bet remotely, and that trying to prevent them from doing so by banning a laptop somehow makes you believe that you have prevented the remote betting happening.
I don’t think that is the same as the point you are alluding to, which is that people who DO bet remotely are creating an unfair advantage for themselves over people who are betting from a television picture which is delayed.
Personally, I have always been very sceptical indeed about this: I just don’t buy the fact that by sitting live at the venue, the 3-5 second advantage you give yourself over the latency of the television pictures is allowing people to ‘clean up’. I think it is questionable that this happens with repeated success at tennis matches; I think it is absolute nonsense that it happens with repeated success on racecourses.
Having said that, I know people who swear blind that it is happening. I have just never seen any evidence for it, and believe me, I have looked for it when I was in a position to do so.
I’m not really in a position to comment on what Betfair do and don’t take seriously enough. My view is that their job is to provide a betting platform which allows people to express their view on the outcome of an event. I think they have a duty to ensure that people are not making money by betting after the event, which they have always done. They can’t, after that, determine whether someone saw or heard news after someone else.
I think they put up very clear warnings that people should not assume that a picture described as ‘live’ is quite as ‘live’ as the word suggests, and after that, everyone takes their chance if they wish to. I’ve never been in the camp that says that people who bet on Betfair, or anywhere else for that matter, aren’t big enough and responsible enough to make their own decisions about when it makes sense to place a bet or not. As with most things in life, if a price looks too good to be true, it probably is; and in betting terms, that almost certainly means that someone knows something, for some reason, that you don’t.
Thanks for the reply, Mark. I know this subject has been done to death but I do think it’s a shame that a general response to queries regarding in-running betting would be “that’s best left to the sharks”. Because the ‘sharks’ are basically just people well ahead of you on the pictures.
I also saw you mention on a more recent posting that you are restricted from commenting on some issues – hopefully not too much because it’s very interesting to hear from someone who maybe knows more than is often in the public domain. I especially hope Betfair won’t restrict you because I think you still promote them very well either through a business relationship or just because you have a fondness for the company.
Thank you!