To be fair to the Beeb, the whole of media-land is confused. (Don't any of these guys play poker these days? Fleet Street is definitively no more.)
I asked myself this simple question: if somebody sidled up to me in a Singapore gin joint and asked "psst, guv! I can offer you ten to one that ball three of over five by [insert Mohammed X here] won't be a no-ball," then my first thought is going to be: "What a stupid idea for a bet." My second thought is going to be "... unless it's a fix."
Then there's your far more realistic possibility of ball-by-ball betting. Unfortunately, that makes little sense either, because it's, er, ball-by-ball. You'd have to keep the margins on the other 597 balls in a 100 over inning fairly slim, because the punters would lose interest way before the crucial no-ball occurs. I'll grant it's possible, but is it £150,000 possible? If people are betting with that amount of turnover, I think I'll just take the rake on the other 597 balls, thanks.
I'm left with your conclusion that it was a "taster." Or, of course, a News of the Screws cock-up. Even that's a bit odd, because you have to be in a position to win a game before you lose it. Pakistan are a particularly bad choice in this regard, because (a) Hoi En Telei in India won't let their players into the IPL (which is probably 90% of the betting market) and (b) they don't have any batsmen left who can convincingly win a game. Except possibly against Sri Lanka, who are understandably reluctant to play them.
As an outlier, has anybody considered the political conspiracy theory? About the only thing holding Pakistan together in these current distressed times is a national pride in the cricket team. If rogue elements in the SIS think they can engineer a suitable army coup on the back of yet another scandal that makes Zardari look stupid, then who's to say that some piffling £150,000 isn't worth it?
And before anybody points out that the £150,000 in question came from the NotW, you have to consider the future of the "agent" in question, who would presumably want a fair few bob more to risk jail and the loss of his livelihood.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: The home of cricket
Date: 2010-08-30 02:09 pm (UTC)I asked myself this simple question: if somebody sidled up to me in a Singapore gin joint and asked "psst, guv! I can offer you ten to one that ball three of over five by [insert Mohammed X here] won't be a no-ball," then my first thought is going to be: "What a stupid idea for a bet." My second thought is going to be "... unless it's a fix."
Then there's your far more realistic possibility of ball-by-ball betting. Unfortunately, that makes little sense either, because it's, er, ball-by-ball. You'd have to keep the margins on the other 597 balls in a 100 over inning fairly slim, because the punters would lose interest way before the crucial no-ball occurs. I'll grant it's possible, but is it £150,000 possible? If people are betting with that amount of turnover, I think I'll just take the rake on the other 597 balls, thanks.
I'm left with your conclusion that it was a "taster." Or, of course, a News of the Screws cock-up. Even that's a bit odd, because you have to be in a position to win a game before you lose it. Pakistan are a particularly bad choice in this regard, because (a) Hoi En Telei in India won't let their players into the IPL (which is probably 90% of the betting market) and (b) they don't have any batsmen left who can convincingly win a game. Except possibly against Sri Lanka, who are understandably reluctant to play them.
As an outlier, has anybody considered the political conspiracy theory? About the only thing holding Pakistan together in these current distressed times is a national pride in the cricket team. If rogue elements in the SIS think they can engineer a suitable army coup on the back of yet another scandal that makes Zardari look stupid, then who's to say that some piffling £150,000 isn't worth it?
And before anybody points out that the £150,000 in question came from the NotW, you have to consider the future of the "agent" in question, who would presumably want a fair few bob more to risk jail and the loss of his livelihood.