More gambling incomprehension
Sep. 5th, 2010 12:52 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksThe good and great Mr Engel on Thursday took a similar attitude on the reporting of the Pakistan betting scandal (all the while nobly restraining from attacking the rather attractive German student sitting at the same table as us for her clear role in Nazi war crimes "I hold grudges for thousands of years!" he proudly proclaimed later -- but, I digress). As Mr Engel said, suppose this spot-betting market exists, illegally, somewhere in South-East Asia. There you are, a bookmaker, offering odds every ball, taking an Indonesian Rupiah here, a Thai Baht there, when all of a sudden the phone rings: "I'd like ten thousand dollars on the next ball being a no ball please". What are you going to say? Well, "fuck off", obviously, particularly since it's a Pakistani bowling the ball.
The FT yesterday had a piece that, once again, seemed to accept the existence of this "spot-betting" market, completely missing the point that these were clearly just "tasters". That the money that was paid to the agent was found in one of the Pakistani players' hotel rooms, seems to indicate that this was a payment for a future fix, presumably in the 20/20 series, where an individual can have a significantly greater effect on the final result.
But the mainly readable FT piece once again falls into the standard trap of the non-gambler.
Unscrupulous bookmakers? There's a laugh. It would be nice if any evidence could be produced (I've not seen any in my lifetime, and I spent 30 years on and off in the betting industry) where a bookmaker tried to influence a result through bribery. It may have happened, but every "fix" that I have seen has been on the part of an unscrupulous punter, not a bookmaker. But, well, the methodist principle is deeply ingrained in the British psyche. It's always the "bookie" who the crook, isn't it?
Given this pleasant naivety about the realities of the betting world, I'm not sure whether to take at face value the statement that France
Well, er, I hate to tell the French government how to suck eggs, but if person "A" backs someone or a team to win a contest, then the counterparty, person "B", must by definition be backing that team to lose the contest. Or, put another way, if it's a two-team contest, if I back one team to win, then I am laying the other team to lose. The sentence, as written, is a nonsense. But perhaps the French law as written is a nonsense. That wouldn't surprise me. Presumably what is meant here is that it's fine to be a lay bettor if you are a registered bookmaker, but not if you are an individual. In other words, this is just a system set up to favour established bookmakers at the expense of betting exchanges.
++++++++++
Life in the sewerage lane just gets grimmer and grimmer. I've decided that delegation is important, and that I am not going to let it affect my work. Therefore, despite there being a possibility that Dyno-Rod will return mob-handed to reclear the route, release the stuck camera cable, hopefully get a new camera cable down there to get a full report on the horrific state of affairs (so far merely verbally designated as a "total collapse"), yes, despite all this, I am going to go into the office, trust Tristan from downstairs handle the face-to-face matters, and do any negotiating or decision-making that needs to be done by phone. If I have to come back to pay the bill, then, so be it. They can wait until I get back.
Two nights of badly interrupted sleep, waking up at 2am both times and not getting back to sleep until either 5am or 4am. Played some online poker bopth nights, winning eight bucks on night one and $26 on night two -- so, at least there's a bit of a plus. The Viz Top Tip on insomnia was to use the time freed up to lie in the bed in the dark thinking through all of those things that worried you during the day -- a tip that appealed to my sense of humour.
But, I can only do what I can do. I get the feeling that the DynoRod franchisee that is dealing with the problem is doing its best -- I've been less impressed with the DynoRod call centre. You never speak to the same person twice; the only information that they have is that which is on the screen in front of them. Since this is already a complicated situation, this necessitates a wasted few minutes every time while I try to explain it. On Friday when I phoned up, the visit that day had not been entered into the system. DynoRod still had Winkworth as the client and Tristan downstairs as the contact. So clearly this is standard call centre procedure of not actually doing anything beyond handling the call; changing data, if it looks complicated, just doesn't get done. It's quite possible that the people I speak to don't even have the authority to change the data already entered; perhaps they can only enter "new" data on top of the old data.
There are basically two issues; (1) getting the sewage pipe fixed, because essentially I am living in a house which is technically uninhabitable, not having a functioning sewer system. (2) Working out who is going to pay for it.
Both of these issues involved more "interested" parties than I like to think about. The tenants downstairs, DynoRod call centre, the franchisee, Winkworth, possibly the council, insurer Liverpool Victoria, insurer Aviva, the freeholder next door, the leaseholders next door, the tenants next door (there are four flats in the house under which the offending pipe could be shattered) and the insurers of all said parties next door. Ideally the problem gets fixed quickly (by which I mean, within six weeks to 12 weeks, as digging will have to be involved), and then we can all argue about who is going to pay for it. So for the moment I have to focus on getting it fixed and talking to all the people involved about that. However, what if I am asked to pay all of the money upfront? What do I do? Can I say no? I have no idea. I can hardly deny having the cash. This could be where the council (who have not yet been notified) might come into play, because they can compel the undertaking of the work. With luck, they wouldn't compel me to pay the bill (not if it's not underneath my property). But all of this is entering a region about which I know very little. Perhaps the location of the cracked pipe is irrelevant; perhaps it's only it's the function (emptying my sewerage) that matters when it comes to deciding "who pays".
I'm really just trying to keep sane, and to stop it affecting my "real" work. In fact, maintaining an even emotional keel and not completely cracking up is currently my sole focus. So if I stop blogging for a while it will probably mean that the concentration on work and the sewerage problem is taking up all of my time. Of course, it might also mean that I have topped myself, or gone on a Leaving Las Vegas-like kill-myself binge. But I think that I am a fair way away from that yet.
________________
The FT yesterday had a piece that, once again, seemed to accept the existence of this "spot-betting" market, completely missing the point that these were clearly just "tasters". That the money that was paid to the agent was found in one of the Pakistani players' hotel rooms, seems to indicate that this was a payment for a future fix, presumably in the 20/20 series, where an individual can have a significantly greater effect on the final result.
But the mainly readable FT piece once again falls into the standard trap of the non-gambler.
"how to control the ever-more popular phenomenon of online gambling, while keeping in check the capacity for unscrupulous bookmakers to fix sporting outcomes".
Unscrupulous bookmakers? There's a laugh. It would be nice if any evidence could be produced (I've not seen any in my lifetime, and I spent 30 years on and off in the betting industry) where a bookmaker tried to influence a result through bribery. It may have happened, but every "fix" that I have seen has been on the part of an unscrupulous punter, not a bookmaker. But, well, the methodist principle is deeply ingrained in the British psyche. It's always the "bookie" who the crook, isn't it?
Given this pleasant naivety about the realities of the betting world, I'm not sure whether to take at face value the statement that France
doe not allow "lay betting", a bet placed on losing a contest rather than winning".
Well, er, I hate to tell the French government how to suck eggs, but if person "A" backs someone or a team to win a contest, then the counterparty, person "B", must by definition be backing that team to lose the contest. Or, put another way, if it's a two-team contest, if I back one team to win, then I am laying the other team to lose. The sentence, as written, is a nonsense. But perhaps the French law as written is a nonsense. That wouldn't surprise me. Presumably what is meant here is that it's fine to be a lay bettor if you are a registered bookmaker, but not if you are an individual. In other words, this is just a system set up to favour established bookmakers at the expense of betting exchanges.
++++++++++
Life in the sewerage lane just gets grimmer and grimmer. I've decided that delegation is important, and that I am not going to let it affect my work. Therefore, despite there being a possibility that Dyno-Rod will return mob-handed to reclear the route, release the stuck camera cable, hopefully get a new camera cable down there to get a full report on the horrific state of affairs (so far merely verbally designated as a "total collapse"), yes, despite all this, I am going to go into the office, trust Tristan from downstairs handle the face-to-face matters, and do any negotiating or decision-making that needs to be done by phone. If I have to come back to pay the bill, then, so be it. They can wait until I get back.
Two nights of badly interrupted sleep, waking up at 2am both times and not getting back to sleep until either 5am or 4am. Played some online poker bopth nights, winning eight bucks on night one and $26 on night two -- so, at least there's a bit of a plus. The Viz Top Tip on insomnia was to use the time freed up to lie in the bed in the dark thinking through all of those things that worried you during the day -- a tip that appealed to my sense of humour.
But, I can only do what I can do. I get the feeling that the DynoRod franchisee that is dealing with the problem is doing its best -- I've been less impressed with the DynoRod call centre. You never speak to the same person twice; the only information that they have is that which is on the screen in front of them. Since this is already a complicated situation, this necessitates a wasted few minutes every time while I try to explain it. On Friday when I phoned up, the visit that day had not been entered into the system. DynoRod still had Winkworth as the client and Tristan downstairs as the contact. So clearly this is standard call centre procedure of not actually doing anything beyond handling the call; changing data, if it looks complicated, just doesn't get done. It's quite possible that the people I speak to don't even have the authority to change the data already entered; perhaps they can only enter "new" data on top of the old data.
There are basically two issues; (1) getting the sewage pipe fixed, because essentially I am living in a house which is technically uninhabitable, not having a functioning sewer system. (2) Working out who is going to pay for it.
Both of these issues involved more "interested" parties than I like to think about. The tenants downstairs, DynoRod call centre, the franchisee, Winkworth, possibly the council, insurer Liverpool Victoria, insurer Aviva, the freeholder next door, the leaseholders next door, the tenants next door (there are four flats in the house under which the offending pipe could be shattered) and the insurers of all said parties next door. Ideally the problem gets fixed quickly (by which I mean, within six weeks to 12 weeks, as digging will have to be involved), and then we can all argue about who is going to pay for it. So for the moment I have to focus on getting it fixed and talking to all the people involved about that. However, what if I am asked to pay all of the money upfront? What do I do? Can I say no? I have no idea. I can hardly deny having the cash. This could be where the council (who have not yet been notified) might come into play, because they can compel the undertaking of the work. With luck, they wouldn't compel me to pay the bill (not if it's not underneath my property). But all of this is entering a region about which I know very little. Perhaps the location of the cracked pipe is irrelevant; perhaps it's only it's the function (emptying my sewerage) that matters when it comes to deciding "who pays".
I'm really just trying to keep sane, and to stop it affecting my "real" work. In fact, maintaining an even emotional keel and not completely cracking up is currently my sole focus. So if I stop blogging for a while it will probably mean that the concentration on work and the sewerage problem is taking up all of my time. Of course, it might also mean that I have topped myself, or gone on a Leaving Las Vegas-like kill-myself binge. But I think that I am a fair way away from that yet.
________________
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Utter Irrelevancies
Date: 2010-09-06 08:40 pm (UTC)I'd love to know the thought process you went through on that one.
It's either clean money (tremendously unlikely) or dirty money. If it's dirty money, there are, of course, alternative explanations. Maybe Mohammed X has a cousin in New Jersey who has a chain of Chaat restaurants that have just gone into Chapter 11. On the other hand, maybe nobody trusts anybody, which is why the money isn't in a hole in the sea (aka Bermuda).
Bear with me on that one. If you can't trust your crooked agent to hold on to the taster, that's understandable. Doesn't make much sense if the taster in question is going to deliver a multiple of 10x when you throw the T20, does it?
On the assumption that the money found in hotel rooms is bent, we are left with a limited number of conclusions:
(1) All N Pakistani cricketers are cretins. This, of course, is not beyond the bounds of possibility.
(2) The ones with the money in their room were part of your "taster" theory, but not actually part of the original no-ball "tester." In which case, it's quite possible that they had no idea that their rooms would be searched.
(3) The Agatha Christie theory. Nobody had a clue what they were doing (although everybody knew that the butler was going to do it). This is where we come into Conspiracies.
Pakistanis being Pakistanis (I've had perfectly reasonable posts on a Pakistani cricket blog excised because I mentioned the Lahore/Karachi rivalry), they're all absolutely up in arms, because It's India's Fault! (They even mentioned the RAW, of which I'd never previously heard.) Or maybe it's The 'Merkans! Or, of course, Britain is a Colonialist Power!
Now, personally, I am very partial to conspiracies. I just think that the finger of doom points at the SIS and the nastier end of Nawaz Sharif's little friends in the military and in the Jamaat-e Islami. Cui bono?