John Higgins match fixing claims

Rjd2

He tried to throw a grand on himself to lose in his final last year when in total control of the match.

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/809149/How-John-Higgins-tried-to-bet-on-snooker-Championship.html

He's ****ed.

steelcityblues

He looks like a goon from GTA Vice City with that jacket and sneakers!

This allegation probably is the final straw though!

fryup

betting against himself, and he didn't realise it was against the rules.....what a thicko!

BaZmO*

Rjd2 wrote: »

He tried to throw a grand on himself to lose in his final last year when in total control of the match.

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/809149/How-John-Higgins-tried-to-bet-on-snooker-Championship.html

He's ****ed.

I'm in no way defending him, but he didn't bet on himself to lose. He was betting on himself "if" he was to lose. He was hedging his bets. Still wrong whatever way you look at it but not as wrong as just throwing a game on purpose.

The scum rag NOTW are blowing this latest story out of all proportions. It may be against the rules but I'm sure players do it all the time.

Higgins seems a bit stupid to use his own account though?

He obviously has serious gambling problems.

As for last weeks claims - he's fcuked if they are true.

blinding

Best thing John Higgins can do is go the political route and claim incompetence and stupidity.

It works for politicians when they are caught with brown envelopes and their fingers in the till.

John Higgins is a good snooker player but a complete moron.

a148pro

I think if anything today's story improves Higgins' position.

First of all you've got more video of Mooney confirming that he was the main mover in the scam, which is why he walked straight away, he knew he was fcuked.

Then betting against himself. First of all he was just hedging his bets, so he was prob saying grand, I'm looking good for the 100k difference between first and second, but just to be safe, I'll lay a grand off to secure me say, 25k more if I do lose. This wasn't wrong in my opinion. Unless he was maybe 12 frames up with 13 to play he wouldn't have gotten odds sufficient enough (on a 1k bet) to make it more profitable for him to lose than to win, so the whole story is, in true tabloid style, completely misconstrued.

Finally, I think the fact that he tried to place the bet himself, on his own phone with his own account with the given bookmakers prob shows how naive he is, and makes it more believable that he could conceivably 'go along' with something in a hotel room in Kiev.

Just my two cents.

IrishKev

I'm not being naive here, but something about the story unfolding today isn't right, and I wouldn't be surprised if the NOTW are fabricating the whole thing. The Kiev story is obviously true, with the video evidence and all it would be very hard not to believe that Higgins was involved in the match fixing claims. But this story doesn't really add up. I mean, Higgins can't have been that naive and just plain stupid to have called up Ladbrokes half way through the match himself to place a bet against himself, I mean the least he would have done is gotten somebody else to ring for him. And another thing, the "source" who worked at Ladbrokes "forgets" a lot of the details and her story seems vague.

News of the World wrote:

Our source said: "He wanted to place a bet on Murphy winning. He wanted to bet AGAINST himself. I can't remember if it was for him to lose the next frame, the next session or the whole match.

I don't know, her story just seems too vague and unplanned to be true. Considering Higgins was discussing how to get the €300,000 into his account without raising suspicion suggests that he had some knowledge about getting away without being caught, and it seems that he wouldn't have been so stupid as to ring up a betting shop himself half way through the biggest match of the year to place a bet. And don't forget, this is the News of the World, they do seem to want to ruin Higgins' career so after last week's big story they surely wanted to squeeze another big story in this week, and probably would've been willing to write anything to get the big sales.

aDeener

IrishKev wrote: »

I'm not being naive here, but something about the story unfolding today isn't right, and I wouldn't be surprised if the NOTW are fabricating the whole thing. The Kiev story is obviously true, with the video evidence and all it would be very hard not to believe that Higgins was involved in the match fixing claims. But this story doesn't really add up. I mean, Higgins can't have been that naive and just plain stupid to have called up Ladbrokes half way through the match himself to place a bet against himself, I mean the least he would have done is gotten somebody else to ring for him. And another thing, the "source" who worked at Ladbrokes "forgets" a lot of the details and her story seems vague.



I don't know, her story just seems too vague and unplanned to be true. Considering Higgins was discussing how to get the €300,000 into his account without raising suspicion suggests that he had some knowledge about getting away without being caught, and it seems that he wouldn't have been so stupid as to ring up a betting shop himself half way through the biggest match of the year to place a bet. And don't forget, this is the News of the World, they do seem to want to ruin Higgins' career so after last week's big story they surely wanted to squeeze another big story in this week, and probably would've been willing to write anything to get the big sales.

they claim to have recordings of it though.

im with the poster above this could well be better for higgins in that it shows him to be not the brightest of people - how could he not know that was against the rules?

what he has done is wrong, absolutely, but at least it might show that there might be no slyness to it and hes just a foolish person

blueyedson

I think this story can only help John Higgins case. Its sounds made up to me - the quotes from the employee 'it could of been betting on match or frame outcome I cant remember' ,to me this sets off alarm bells thats the paper has made up this trash.

See this link here with more details.


http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2010/05/09/fresh-doubt-over-higgins-cheat-claims-as-mystery-lingers-over-entrapment-%E2%80%98firm%E2%80%99-090502/

aDeener

anyone know how you could get an email for john higgins?

BaZmO*

IrishKev wrote: »

I wouldn't be surprised if the NOTW are fabricating the whole thing.

I wouldn't be surprised. The original story is true (it would have to be or they would be sued) but because of that they can just print anything now because they know Higgins would never sue them now because it would just drag the story on.

aDeener wrote: »

they claim to have recordings of it though.

Not the NOTW though, but apparently Labrokes do.


If this latest allegation is actually true why is the story only being broke now? Do all players hedge against themselves? Because if it was such a big deal why wasn't the story released when it took place?

Dr.Silly

BaZmO* wrote: »

I wouldn't be surprised. The original story is true (it would have to be or they would be sued) but because of that they can just print anything now because they know Higgins would never sue them now because it would just drag the story on.



Not the NOTW though, but apparently Labrokes do.


If this latest allegation is actually true why is the story only being broke now? Do all players hedge against themselves? Because if it was such a big deal why wasn't the story released when it took place?

It hasn't taken place before because Ladbrokes aren't going to give away any customer info whatsoever. It's only taken place now cause this girl that "used" to work there broke the story, obviously for a few quid.

Can't believe some people are supporting higgins on this thread. the guy is a f*kin moran who deserves a ban a hell of a lot more than 1 poxy year. He's a disgrace and I'd be happy for the sport to never see him return, and put an example to the rest of the professionals of what happens when caught cheating.

Hulk Hands

There's nothing really wrong with what he did in the second case here. Taking out a bit of insurance on a 100k difference is probably the norm I would say. It's what I would do in that position. If this was found out by snooker authorities and not the media, I would imagine a blind eye would be shown.

I can't believe he was stupid enough to do it on his own account though.

The guiltier Mooney is looking, the guiltier Higgins is looking imo. Mooney would not drag his client out to Kiev without telling him what was going to go down. Mooney was the instigator, but Higgins certainly agreed to the match fixing. Lets not forget also that the NOTW did this on an insiders tip. I doubt they would waste months of work and risk legal action without being sure of getting a scandal. It seems obvious that they were fairly sure that Higgins would get involved in match fixing even before the whole process began. There may have been matches thrown in the past.

Psychedelic

Hulk Hands wrote: »

There's nothing really wrong with what he did in the second case here. Taking out a bit of insurance on a 100k difference is probably the norm I would say. It's what I would do in that position. If this was found out by snooker authorities and not the media, I would imagine a blind eye would be shown.

He is already filthy rich and stood to win over €100k if he lost the final so to try "cover" himself and make extra money if he lost is just plain greedy. The man is completely stupid, greedy and immoral.

I hope he is banned for life, it's the only way to stop players doing this in future. Anything less than a severe penalty and the game of snooker will lose all integrity, much like soccer and the way Fifa condones cheating.

Exclamation Marc

Hulk Hands wrote: »

There's nothing really wrong with what he did in the second case here. Taking out a bit of insurance on a 100k difference is probably the norm I would say. It's what I would do in that position. If this was found out by snooker authorities and not the media, I would imagine a blind eye would be shown.

No, I have to completely disagree with you on this one. Imagine a footballer taking out insurance at half time to cover him in case he lost his win bonus, or a boxer taking a bet 6 rounds into a dominating fight in case he got flash knocked out. It's an awful thing to do and should never be tolerated. They're called professionals for a reason, and its assumed you don't bet against yourself or even for yourself because of the position you're in.

A blind eye would never have been shown by the snooker because the media weren't aware of it. It's not the norm either. I'm sure you've heard of betting markets become suspended because of huge bets on completely incomparable bets which turned out to win. What sort of sport could maintain its integrity and respect if its competitors are covering themselves in competitive markets.

aDeener

FireballPitcher wrote: »

No, I have to completely disagree with you on this one. Imagine a footballer taking out insurance at half time to cover him in case he lost his win bonus, or a boxer taking a bet 6 rounds into a dominating fight in case he got flash knocked out. It's an awful thing to do and should never be tolerated. They're called professionals for a reason, and its assumed you don't bet against yourself or even for yourself because of the position you're in.

A blind eye would never have been shown by the snooker because the media weren't aware of it. It's not the norm either. I'm sure you've heard of betting markets become suspended because of huge bets on completely incomparable bets which turned out to win. What sort of sport could maintain its integrity and respect if its competitors are covering themselves in competitive markets.

the gambling commission and ladbrokes didnt see much wrong with it considering they didnt report him to WPBSA, which they have a legal obligation to do if there is any misconduct with regards betting

Exclamation Marc

aDeener wrote: »

the gambling commission and ladbrokes didnt see much wrong with it considering they didnt report him to WPBSA, which they have a legal obligation to do if there is any misconduct with regards betting

Maybe because the bet was never placed?

(That sounds narky, its not meant to be )

I'd assume there's little that can be done if the bet was rejected by LB, whereas if it was placed and was a legitimate active bet, then it would have been an issue.

a148pro

FireballPitcher wrote: »

I'm sure you've heard of betting markets become suspended because of huge bets on completely incomparable bets which turned out to win.

but this isn't what happened

as I pointed out above he was still going to make far more money by winning, so in my view, the bet is almost 100% innoccuous. 1 or 2 % bad because of the perception it creates, but when you look at what was really going on its fine

anyone who gambles for a living or as a serious hobby will be familiar with the concept of laying off a likely win and that was precisely what Higgins was doing

Chucky the tree

a148pro wrote: »

but this isn't what happened

as I pointed out above he was still going to make far more money by winning, so in my view, the bet is almost 100% innoccuous. 1 or 2 % bad because of the perception it creates, but when you look at what was really going on its fine

anyone who gambles for a living or as a serious hobby will be familiar with the concept of laying off a likely win and that was precisely what Higgins was doing

Anyone who gambles for a living or as a serious hobby would be disgusted to find out the person they backed had bet against themselves for a huge sum. Do you really think if it came to a deciding frame Higgins would be putting the exact same amount of determination and effort into wining it if he backed his opponent to guarantee him a nice pay day no matter what the outcome compared to a deciding frame where he had no insurance?

BaZmO*

Well if he's as tight as he's making himself out to be I reckon he'd put just as much effort into trying to get the biggest pay day possible. And if anything, it would make him less likely to lose because he's lessened the pressure on himself to win which in this particular case he did.

a148pro

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Anyone who gambles for a living or as a serious hobby would be disgusted to find out the person they backed had bet against themselves for a huge sum. Do you really think if it came to a deciding frame Higgins would be putting the exact same amount of determination and effort into wining it if he backed his opponent to guarantee him a nice pay day no matter what the outcome compared to a deciding frame where he had no insurance?

sigh

1k is not a huge sum

he was not guaranteeing himself a nice payday if he lost, he would probably still be guaranteed to LOSE 70k if he lost. so I think 70k would be a sufficient bonus to make him play to win

so I think you're completely misconstruing the situation

Exclamation Marc

a148pro wrote: »

sigh

1k is not a huge sum

he was not guaranteeing himself a nice payday if he lost, he would probably still be guaranteed to LOSE 70k if he lost. so I think 70k would be a sufficient bonus to make him play to win

so I think you're completely misconstruing the situation

The line is too fine between "insuring yourself" (Which in my view is still cheating) and actually throwing games. And how do you decide between the two?

You can't have two different attitudes of
1. Oh you're insuring yourself, to guarantee a payday, no problem.
2. Oh you're throwing a frame/game, that's illegal, you're out.

How do you define this?? What if Higgins had thrown 5 frames and won money on that, and yet gone onto win the game and won the overall money? You can't decipher between the two, so you have to blanket ban any betting.

a148pro

I agree its not a good idea, and should be formally prohibited. But I don't think the most recent allegation is a banning offence, just a faux pas.

Throwing a game should be (indeed is) a banning offence.

I suppose the line between the two is whether there is a profit to be made. Here he would have made a loss if he lost the game, therefore he could hardly be said to have thrown it if he did.

Exclamation Marc

a148pro wrote: »

I agree its not a good idea, and should be formally prohibited. But I don't think the most recent allegation is a banning offence, just a faux pas.

Throwing a game should be (indeed is) a banning offence.

I suppose the line between the two is whether there is a profit to be made. Here he would have made a loss if he lost the game, therefore he could hardly be said to have thrown it if he did.

I really don't understand your rationale at all for this, its quite baffling.

You can't bring profit into it, betting in any scenario is on yourself is wrong. Its right or its wrong, you can't start quantifying how much betting is allowed and how much is not. Competitiveness is all about reaching the pinnacle, and if athletes aren't motivated to get to the top, why bother. It's not as if Higgins was getting nothing for losing, he still made a mint off his sponsors and would have taken home a nice 2nd place. Whether he makes a profit or not is irrelevant, its still betting on himself which is illegal, the only thing that has saved Higgins here is that the bet wasn't accepted, and there's no offence of "attempted betting", there's only one of "betting".

There's too much at stake. Punters pay thousands in the bookies, sponsors pay thousands to get behind honest successful sportsmen, the Commission recieves money because its a competitive sport. Snooker is already on its knees since cigarette advertising was banned. If I was a company looking to invest in the sport, why would I invest in it or a player if it's proven that the players aren't 100% motivated as they have a fall back. It compromises the integrity of the sport. There's a reason why there is money prizes for second place etc.

a148pro

well from my point of view betting against yourself where you have no intention of losing the match but rather are trying to minimise your potential loss, is not a big crime. its not the lack of profit per se, its the fact that the lack of profit means he wasn't throwing the match. he had no intention of playing worse in any way. he just wanted to insure against a negative outcome. I don't think that's a problem. I don't think it should be encouraged because it potentially undermines credibility in the sport, but I don't think its a big crime, and I think the people who do think it is a big crime are not reasoning through it properly

my two cents

Exclamation Marc

a148pro wrote: »

well from my point of view betting against yourself where you have no intention of losing the match but rather are trying to minimise your potential loss, is not a big crime. its not the lack of profit per se, its the fact that the lack of profit means he wasn't throwing the match. he had no intention of playing worse in any way. he just wanted to insure against a negative outcome. I don't think that's a problem. I don't think it should be encouraged because it potentially undermines credibility in the sport, but I don't think its a big crime, and I think the people who do think it is a big crime are not reasoning through it properly

my two cents

But whats the difference? The only evidence you will ever have that a player is mitigating their loss and not throwing a game is their word? If a player gets caught, he'll always say "oh i just wanted to compound my losses" and on your reasoning, thats ok. But how do you differ between that and someone throwing frames? Say Higgins throws 8 frames but still goes on to win, what is he supposed to do? Give the money to charity? That would be an absolute piss-take if snooker ended up like that.

a148pro

how do we ever know that a player who loses hasn't thrown frames? in this case the fact of him wanting to place a bet doesn't disclose that he was trying to lose. in fact, given the amounts involved and the likely odds it shows that he was not trying to lose.

Chucky the tree

a148pro wrote: »

sigh

1k is not a huge sum

he was not guaranteeing himself a nice payday if he lost, he would probably still be guaranteed to LOSE 70k if he lost. so I think 70k would be a sufficient bonus to make him play to win

so I think you're completely misconstruing the situation

lol, how do you know 70k would be sufficient? Also there is 125k difference in first and second and he tried to put the bet on when he was comfortably in the lead he would have gotten decent enough odds to cover a lot less then 70k.

a148pro

Chucky the tree wrote: »

lol, how do you know 70k would be sufficient? Also there is 125k difference in first and second and he tried to put the bet on when he was comfortably in the lead he would have gotten decent enough odds to cover a lot less then 70k.

eh... not sure i follow you here

the 70k was an guesstimate of how much of an incentive he would still have had to win the match, even after placing the bet.

as you've pointed out, there was a 125k difference in prizemoney

he was proposing betting 1k

in order for it to have been in his interests to throw the game he would have had to have been given odds of 126 to one.

quite apart from the inherent stupidity in placing such a bet against himself, through his own account, personally, he would almost never be given those odds

so my point is that at no point was it in his interests to lose the match. nor could it ever have been. so the suggestion that he was betting against himself, for reasons other than insurance in case he actually did lose, is nonsense

so the reason he wanted to bet against himself was as an insurance policy

which I don't think is a major crime

and is certainly much less of a crime than the NOTW would have you believe