is it legal for snooker player to bet on himself?

[mugello]

just read the autobiography of ronnie o sullivan.. and on the book..he said that jimmy white used to bet on him to win..is it legal for a snooker player to bet??was there any scandal about a snooker player to lose purposely?

if there was..maybe its because of the prize of the competition is too little..compared to the salary of a professional football player...how can u live with 4 million pounds like jimmy white to be a celebrity in uk?he spent several years to get that..

[The Statman]

I would guess it's legal.

I know Joe Swail got the highest break at the Crucible a few years ago – 140 or 141 I think.

He immediately put a bet on that it would be beaten – so if it was he'd get the payout, and if it wasn't he'd get the high-break prize!

It wasn't beaten.

I know that's not exactly betting on yourself, but thought it was an interesting anecdote.

[mugello]

wow really??

if i was one of those player..i would bet on myself,1 million pounds, to lose.i bet on 4 bookies..bet365..williamhill..betfred..ladbrokes.. each i bet 1 million pounds..then i dont need to win a competition which prize only 20-40 thousands pounds..

dont u think that one of those player ever bet on themselves to lose???

Possible libellous remark removed

if they dont bet on themselves..they must ask their relatives to bet..dont u think so??how can they live for those player who never won any competitions??how can they survive??

if its legal..i think snooker game could be almost same as [the recent incidents in Italian football]..dont u think so??please give out all ur opinions..

[RaNeN]

I suppose it should be ill-legal. Because a player himself cant decide before a match wether he is going to win the match or not.

[Robert602]

I would imagine it's against the rules to bet on yourself losing, but then it would be hard to police as you could always go through a friend or something. It's more likely, as with Hann's case, that a third party would offer money so there was nothing directly connecting Hann to the bets.

The point is, if you lose a match deliberately or are even strongly suspected of doing so, you'll face a rather large fine, your bets will be cancelled and you'll be banned from the game, as well as being disgraced. Placing huge bets always draws attention and the bookies would probably alert the WSA of something fishy before the match even started.

Whether the game's corrupt doesn't really depend on the rules so much as whether anyone is actually doing anything wrong. I've never heard of any players or former players alledging that this kind of thing is rife (and I'm confident that some would come forward if they suspected anything), and there've only ever been two men at the top level found guilty of match fixing.

I'm sure the vast majority of players would rather earn a living legitimately than risk throwing it all away. You do see it in some sports, horse racing comes to mind, but I don't think we have it in snooker. Can never be sure though I suppose.


mugello - be careful naming names if you don't have anything to substantiate it with. Lee hasn't been found guilty of anything yet, and certainly not match fixing. I know you didn't mean anything by it, but this is a public forum and we've got to respect libel law. Probably best that you edit that bit out of your post to be on the safe side. Edit - done it myself.

[davis_greatest]

I am not certain of the details of the rules governing this but I do not see anything wrong with a player betting on something which either (a) he cannot directly influence or (b) would result in him winning the bet as a result of achieving something which he should be trying to achieve anyway.

So I do not see anything wrong with a player doing the following:

(i) betting on the result of another match not involving himself; or
(ii) betting on himself to win (he should be trying to win anyway)

I do not think it should be acceptable for a player to do the following:

(iii) betting on himself to lose. This would give him a conflict and may make him less likely to try his best. I would say that if the player placed the bet as insurance (or just because he thought it a sound investment) but still genuinely tried his best to win and was not influenced by the bet in any way in how he played, then it should from a theoretical standpoint be OK; however, I do not think it can be tolerated because it still creates an apparent conflict as it cannot be proved that he is still trying his best.

Other areas are more murky:

(iv) Betting on himself to get the top break. I think this should be acceptable, as players will try to get high breaks, but again you might say that it will encourage a player to take a risk to make a high break rather than secure the frame. However, this conflict exists anyway with the awarding of a high break prize, so I do not think it can be used to make such a bet illlegal.

(v) Betting that he will not achieve a break of a certain level (e.g. betting that he will not make a century). I view this as similar to (iii) and so it should not be allowed.

(vi) Betting that his top break will be beaten, as The Statman says Joe Swail did. I think that if the player is already out of the tournament, this should pose no problem. If he is still in, it is less clear cut…. there may be an incentive for him deliberately to open the balls up for his opponent to make a high break. So, if he is still playing, I don't think it should be allowed, as it becomes similar to (iii).

[mugello]

sorry bout my quote bout lee..sorry..i wish i could edit my comment..but i dont know how to do it.. and i hope this thread will continue..

i found this news few days ago in bbc.co.uk and a snooker player purposely to lose in china open..i forgot his name..anyone knows who he is??

please let this thread continues..i believe it will change the way u think bout snooker..as its an individual sport..like tennis..

[mugello]

read this news..

http://212.58.240.36/sport2/low/othe...er/4532425.stm

[Alex0paul]

I would guess it's legal.

I know Joe Swail got the highest break at the Crucible a few years ago – 140 or 141 I think.

He immediately put a bet on that it would be beaten – so if it was he'd get the payout, and if it wasn't he'd get the high-break prize!

It wasn't beaten.

I know that's not exactly betting on yourself, but thought it was an interesting anecdote.

His break was beaten.

Joe had a 140 and then he was playing Matthew Stevens in the semis and Matthew beat his high break with a 143. I remember Swail walking out the arena rubbing his hands.

[mugello]

please dont close this interesting thread..im sorry bout my comment just now..

now we got the proof about quinten hann,..bout match fixing..

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Sport/Chu...533580278.html

i believe there have been a lot of match fixing scandal until now but we dont know about it..how could we know if they ask their relatives to bet or others?

betting will ruin the snooker world..like football..actually since the past..almost every season..serie a has got match fixing..but only this year they know about it..

i believe..as long as betting is still legal for players..there must have a lot of scandals in the future..

[davis_greatest]

His break was beaten.

Joe had a 140 and then he was playing Matthew Stevens in the semis and Matthew beat his high break with a 143. I remember Swail walking out the arena rubbing his hands.

It is not exactly the same, but has similarities then with betting on himself to lose. I am surprised, therefore, that it was allowed.

[mugello]

I am not certain of the details of the rules governing this but I do not see anything wrong with a player betting on something which either (a) he cannot directly influence or (b) would result in him winning the bet as a result of achieving something which he should be tring to achieve anyway.

So I do not see anything wrong with a player doing the following:

(i) betting on the result of another match not involving himself; or
(ii) betting on himself to win (he should be trying to win anyway)

I do not think it should be acceptable for a player to do the following:

(iii) betting on himself to lose. This would give him a conflict and may make him less likely to try his best. I would say that if the player placed the best as insurance (or just because he thought it a sound investment) but still genuinely tried his best to win and was not influenced by the bet in any way in how he played, then it should from a theoretical standpoint be OK; however, I do not think it can be tolerated because it still creates an apparent conflict as it cannot be proved that he is still trying his best.

Other areas are more murky:

(iv) Betting on himself to get the top break. I think this should be acceptable, as players will try to get high breaks, but again you might say that it will encourage a player to take a risk to make a high break rather than secure the frame. However, this conflict exists anyway with the awarding of a high break prize, so I do not think it can be used to make such a bet illlegal.

(v) Betting that he will not achieve a break of a certain level (e.g. betting that he will not make a century). I view this as similar to (iii) and so it should not be allowed.

(vi) Betting that his top break will be beaten, as The Statman says Joe Swail did. I think that if the player is already out of the tournament, this should pose no problem. If he is still in, it is less clear cut…. there may be an incentive for him deliberately to open the balls up for his opponent to make a high break. So, if he is still playing, I don't think it should be allowed, as it becomes similar to (iii).

i do not agree with his comment..

about gambling....

if ure a snooker player..and ur job is just playing snooker..and u never win any competitions..how can u get money to live ur life???

as quote in "italian job" movie.."im not afraid of you..im just afraid the evil inside your heart"...

[Robert602]

It's ok mugello, there's no problem with the thread as a whole, just a couple of comments that in my view crossed the line. Honest mistake this time I think, just bear in mind in future that you shouldn't say anything that might damage a person / organisation's reputation unless you can back it up with facts.

There's an orange 'edit post' button that should appear at the bottom of all of your posts, next to 'quote post' and 'qreply'. You can use that to edit. If you're having trouble let me know.

...Back to the discussion then...

Quinten Hann is one of the two players (the other being Peter Francisco) that I mentioned in my first post. Both were banned from the game. I don't know what Francisco was like personally, but Hann was always a controversial character at odds with the WSA. I don't think you could take his example as typical.

DGE, I agree totally with your post (apart from that I'd put v. in the unacceptable catagory). As long as there's no incentive to underperform a player should be able to place whatever bets he likes. I agree that Swail's bet is a grey area, and similarly would be even if he didn't hold the high break. A player well behind in a match might be tempted to throw the balls open in order to get the high break beaten. Similarly, I don't think players should bet on things like overall winner, as that becomes a conflict of interest if they end up playing their pick.

To some extent though, even the high break prize itself could theoretically be seen as a conflict. If a player is way behind, or indeed way in front, they might choose to gamble a frame by smashing the pack open (a la Hann again) in the hope that they get an opportunity for a big break. I don't really think there's a problem with this, we see players risking frames to make maximums quite often, but if you believe the player should be 100% dedicated to winning then it could be an issue.

[davis_greatest]

i do not agree with his comment..

Is there any specific comment of mine with which you disagree, or do you mean that my entire post is pure rubbish?

DGE, I agree totally with your post (apart from that I'd put v. in the unacceptable catagory)

I think point (v) I put as "murky" because maybe it depends at what "level" the break is.

For example, if a player bets that he won't make a break above 4, I would view this as tantamount to betting that he will lose and so unacceptable.

If a player bets that he will not make a 147 at the Crucible, and stands (say) to win £50,000 if he does not make one, this MIGHT be acceptable. Such a bet would not be any incentive to underperform - indeed, if he does make a 147, he would still be better off as he would win at least £147,000 (assuming no one else makes one). However, I still think that such bets should not be allowed since, even though there may be nothing untoward, they can lead to the SUSPICION that maybe there is something untoward, which is not good for the game.




{I'm probably not posting this in the right place, so apologies, but how does one graduate from being a "Member" to become Red and then up through the colours?


Is it purely based on the number of messages posted? And is so, does this help? (I hope it has nothing to do with the quality of the message. )

Edit: I should add that my two paragraphs above were separate posts which robert602 has put together into the single post above... for no other reason I am sure than to stop my post counter rising so I can become a colour quickly. Aargh!!!! }

[Robert602]

It's purely on the number. 100 posts = red, 200 = yellow, 300 = green etc. See here.

Quality's nice too of course.

(Also, it's preferred that you edit a post and add to it rather than post again immediately after your own in the same thread. Statman's an exception ).