Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

by beninho Thu 24 Dec 2020, 18:46

First topic message reminder :

8 bronze badges
The problem states, "If I buy two tickets with different numbers" – msinghal Jul 22 '15 at 6:40
Correct. I just wanted to clarify this explicitly, since this apparently causes the confusion in the internet the OP was writing about... – Bernhard Jul 22 '15 at 7:38
So let me get this right. If I have a 1 in 14 million of chance of winning the lottery, if I buy a further ticket with a different sequence of numbers to the first one for the same draw my chance of winning is slashed to 1 in 7 million? – Rickie Jul 22 '15 at 8:16
Yes, that is correct. – Bernhard Jul 22 '15 at 8:23

by BlueCoverman Tue 29 Dec 2020, 12:56

Thought I'd share my 'Kieran Trippier' moment.

In the 80's our Insurance Broking business was booming. We needed a new computer system to help cope with our expansion and I was charged with the project. I went with a young, fledgling company called Misys. Although they were relatively new on the scene they had lots of good ideas and I thought they would be a good fit for our business. We were the first Brokers in Essex to have a Misys system installed. A few months later I got a call from one of my contacts at Misys saying they were shortly going Public and I could get some shares discounted to 15p.

I wasn't that flush at the time, I was early 20's just left home and bought my first property. But I scraped together £2000 and bought just over 13,000 shares. It was just at the right time, the start of the IT boom, Margaret Thatcher was at the height of her powers, we had just beat the Argies in the Falkland Islands and the City of London was very buoyant. When Misys floated the share price immediately increased. Over the next few months and years it was amazing, some days the share price went up over £1!

Anyway when the share price reached £25 they issued a share split, which brought the share price back down to £5. But you received 5 times the amount of shares you were holding. I hadn't sold any at that stage so I was now sitting on over 66,000 shares. From there the highest price the shares reached was £13.80. My 2 grand investment made me three quarters of a million quid. It got me started, I bought an acre of land in rural Essex and built a 4 bedroom house.

So that phone call I had on the day, was that right and above board? I don't really know, I do know I'll always be grateful for it. Was it really that much different to anything Trippier may have done? I'm not sure of that either.

by Soul Requiem Tue 29 Dec 2020, 12:56

beninho wrote:Also, if the rule is as it is. Why haven't loads of players been found guilty of telling their partners ir friends they are moving. Do we believe that doesn't happen through all 92 teams? Only an issue if someone bets on it?

Obviously it's only an issue if that information is acted on, it is down to Trippier to ensure that does not happen.

by I'm never wrong Tue 29 Dec 2020, 13:29

beninho wrote:
I'm never wrong wrote:
McLaren wrote:I honestly don't understand why there are rules designed to protect the gambling industry?

Shouldn't the betting firms just have to set odds accordingly based on what knowledge might be available?

And so be it if they have to account for "insider trading". If they think too much info is out there don't offer the bet. It's not for footballs governing bodies to protect them.

OK Mac. Put all your prejudices aside and assume that you are running a betting shop employing a load of people. According to you, insider knowledge is not illegal.
I have insider knowledge about a number of events that bookies give odds on. You are not aware that the knowledge is out there, and that I have it. I come into your shop and clean you out. How does that work?

What if soneone has a tip, goes into the bookies and sticks all his money on it. The tip, doesn't cone off, or falls through. Should the bookie return the stake?

A tip is different to insider information. A tip is something that might happen, whereas insider information is something that definitely WILL happen.

by beninho Tue 29 Dec 2020, 14:01

I'm never wrong wrote:
beninho wrote:
I'm never wrong wrote:
McLaren wrote:I honestly don't understand why there are rules designed to protect the gambling industry?

Shouldn't the betting firms just have to set odds accordingly based on what knowledge might be available?

And so be it if they have to account for "insider trading". If they think too much info is out there don't offer the bet. It's not for footballs governing bodies to protect them.

OK Mac. Put all your prejudices aside and assume that you are running a betting shop employing a load of people. According to you, insider knowledge is not illegal.
I have insider knowledge about a number of events that bookies give odds on. You are not aware that the knowledge is out there, and that I have it. I come into your shop and clean you out. How does that work?

What if soneone has a tip, goes into the bookies and sticks all his money on it. The tip, doesn't cone off, or falls through. Should the bookie return the stake?

A tip is different to insider information. A tip is something that might happen, whereas insider information is something that definitely WILL happen.

But in this instance, it was always a tip until he had signed for athletico. Football deals fall apart at the last minute enough. I'm assuming people weren't betting after he had signed a contract. Clubs usually release the information pretty quickly when deal signed.

by I'm never wrong Tue 29 Dec 2020, 14:10

beninho wrote:But in this instance, it was always a tip until he had signed for athletico. Football deals fall apart at the last minute enough. I'm assuming people weren't betting after he had signed a contract. Clubs usually release the information pretty quickly when deal signed.

You (re)quoted the rule that he broke, whereby he provided information that he had due to his position. I am assuming information means definite fact rather than a possibility. Then whoever knew was betting on a certainty.

by **navyblueshorts** Tue 29 Dec 2020, 15:28

McLaren wrote:Navy

Do you support the idea that sports governing bodies should make rules so that bookmakers can offer certain bets?

Don't care. If they're legal businesses, I expect the same rules re. insider info to be applied to them. If we, as a society, think bookies shouldn't be allowed as legal businesses, suggest we get rid of them. Frankly, on this issue, I don't really give a 4X - I don't bet.

by **navyblueshorts** Tue 29 Dec 2020, 15:29

beninho wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
beninho wrote:Trippier denied seven alleged breaches of FA Rule E8(1)(b), but four were found proven during a personal hearing.

Rule E8(1)(b) states that a participant must not provide to any person, any information relating to football which the participant has obtained by virtue of his or her position within the game and which is not publicly available at that time.

Found that in another. It all sounds ridiculous.
Harsh? Maybe. He's paid a fortune, however - least he could do is keep his trap shut about his own transfer etc, especially as that info falls under a rule he might be expected to be aware of perhaps. Then again, it's well known that all footballers are the mental equivalent of Einstein. What's he paying his agent(s), advisors etc for? Maybe he should take this out on them for not better advising him? My heart bleeds for him...

Not all footballers are paid fortunes though. Though unsure what income has to do with it.

Not a lot, to be fair, but it really only means I give less of a damn in his case than I otherwise would.

by **navyblueshorts** Tue 29 Dec 2020, 15:30

beninho wrote:
McLaren wrote:Navy

Do you support the idea that sports governing bodies should make rules so that bookmakers can offer certain bets?

Should bookies offer bets on information that people can and shoukd freely be able to discuss between them.

That, at least, is a very good point. Probably not, but I'd like to see anyone try to police it.

by **navyblueshorts** Tue 29 Dec 2020, 15:36

BlueCoverman wrote:Thought I'd share my 'Kieran Trippier' moment.

In the 80's our Insurance Broking business was booming. We needed a new computer system to help cope with our expansion and I was charged with the project. I went with a young, fledgling company called Misys. Although they were relatively new on the scene they had lots of good ideas and I thought they would be a good fit for our business. We were the first Brokers in Essex to have a Misys system installed. A few months later I got a call from one of my contacts at Misys saying they were shortly going Public and I could get some shares discounted to 15p.

I wasn't that flush at the time, I was early 20's just left home and bought my first property. But I scraped together £2000 and bought just over 13,000 shares. It was just at the right time, the start of the IT boom, Margaret Thatcher was at the height of her powers, we had just beat the Argies in the Falkland Islands and the City of London was very buoyant. When Misys floated the share price immediately increased. Over the next few months and years it was amazing, some days the share price went up over £1!

Anyway when the share price reached £25 they issued a share split, which brought the share price back down to £5. But you received 5 times the amount of shares you were holding. I hadn't sold any at that stage so I was now sitting on over 66,000 shares. From there the highest price the shares reached was £13.80. My 2 grand investment made me three quarters of a million quid. It got me started, I bought an acre of land in rural Essex and built a 4 bedroom house.

So that phone call I had on the day, was that right and above board? I don't really know, I do know I'll always be grateful for it. Was it really that much different to anything Trippier may have done? I'm not sure of that either.

Good story. My take: were you wrong to benefit as a non-Misys employee? Dunno; probably not. Were they wrong to inform you they were going public, thereby allowing you to profit from that privileged info? Probably.

by McLaren Tue 29 Dec 2020, 15:59

Navy, soul etc

I am not sure if some confusion has arisen here. If the rule exists I get why he is in trouble.

The question is, should the rule exist?

Why are sports governing bodies making and enforcing rules for no other reason than for specific betting markets to exist?

Does anyone really think that is what a sports governing body is for?

(PS, you only have to watch sport, specifically the adverts plastered all over it, to realise exactly why it happens but in an ideal world it would not be for governing bodies to create betting markets)

by I'm never wrong Tue 29 Dec 2020, 17:07

Mac, its all part of protecting the integrity of the sport.. Its an extension of trying to create a level playing field, and to keep everyone away from being corrupted. You have to draw a line somewhere and this is where they have done it.

I also agree with Navy regarding Ben's post about betting on matters of fact as opposed to matters of chance.

by McLaren Tue 29 Dec 2020, 18:54

I'm never wrong wrote:Mac, its all part of protecting the integrity of the sport.. Its an extension of trying to create a level playing field, and to keep everyone away from being corrupted. You have to draw a line somewhere and this is where they have done it.

I also agree with Navy regarding Ben's post about betting on matters of fact as opposed to matters of chance.

I don't understand that. Trippier for example has only damaged "integrity" because the governing body was complicit in protecting a type of bet.

How is that protecting the integrity of the sport if without the associated betting market all he did was tell people about his transfer? Some might say that transparency on things like transfers might actually help the integrity of the sport, not keeping stuff quiet so the bookies can get punters to bet on transfers.

by Davie Tue 29 Dec 2020, 19:05

Diego Costa to Arsenal in Jamuary - lump on it! Very Happy

by beninho Tue 29 Dec 2020, 19:33

Davie wrote:Diego Costa to Arsenal in Jamuary - lump on it!

Jorge Mendes client, so Wolves all over it.

by **navyblueshorts** Tue 29 Dec 2020, 20:22

McLaren wrote:Navy, soul etc

I am not sure if some confusion has arisen here. If the rule exists I get why he is in trouble.

The question is, should the rule exist?

Why are sports governing bodies making and enforcing rules for no other reason than for specific betting markets to exist?

Does anyone really think that is what a sports governing body is for?

(PS, you only have to watch sport, specifically the adverts plastered all over it, to realise exactly why it happens but in an ideal world it would not be for governing bodies to create betting markets)

No confusion, no. You've taken the conversation off on a tangent. Not a bad question to ask, but not where I think we started.

by I'm never wrong Tue 29 Dec 2020, 21:00

McLaren wrote:
I'm never wrong wrote:Mac, its all part of protecting the integrity of the sport.. Its an extension of trying to create a level playing field, and to keep everyone away from being corrupted. You have to draw a line somewhere and this is where they have done it.

I also agree with Navy regarding Ben's post about betting on matters of fact as opposed to matters of chance.

I don't understand that. Trippier for example has only damaged "integrity" because the governing body was complicit in protecting a type of bet.

How is that protecting the integrity of the sport if without the associated betting market all he did was tell people about his transfer? Some might say that transparency on things like transfers might actually help the integrity of the sport, not keeping stuff quiet so the bookies can get punters to bet on transfers.

No Mac, by protecting the integrity of the sport it also includes those involved in playing etc. If it is known that someone gives out information that he is privy to, where does it stop? They might be "persuaded" to give out other information or perform in a certain way in order for some people to make a lot of money. Start of a slippery slope?

by McLaren Wed 30 Dec 2020, 15:45

I still see no argument being put forward for why I should believe that sports governing bodies should help maintain certain betting markets.

by I'm never wrong Wed 30 Dec 2020, 16:29

Mac, did you read my post above? Betting is going to take place. The governing bodies of the sport cannot control what these betting markets are, but they need to to avoid corruption within the sport, so they put restrictions on the participants. What don't you understand about that?

by McLaren Wed 30 Dec 2020, 17:07

It is only corruption with respect to the sport if the governing body decides to protect the betting market. How is this not sinking in yet?

Take the Trippier case, with rules to protect betting firms it is "corruption", or without those rules it is just telling people where you will be playing. Which should be fine unless he signed a non disclosure agreement as part of his contract. In any case that would be a legal matter and not one of sporting integrity.

by beninho Wed 30 Dec 2020, 19:26

Is gavin Williamson petty enough to make a point about telling Greenwich schools to open?

by pedro Thu 31 Dec 2020, 01:58

I think it’s better to have a legal, regulated betting industry rather than an illegal. The latter will lead to corruption.

The betting firms put billions into ads and sponsorships across various sports, and I’m pretty sure many a sport wouldn’t be at the level it is today without the money from the betting firms.

I’m watching darts at the moment, an excellent example of this. Imagine how corrupt darts would/could be if betting wasn’t legal or regulated?

by pedro Thu 31 Dec 2020, 02:04

Just a reminder for Super: next time you mention Lewis Hamilton, it’s “Sir”...OK?

by beninho Thu 31 Dec 2020, 08:04

Who remembers the big Sutton united reserve goalie, when they got in tv in the fa Cup. Bookie offered odds on whether he woukd eat a sausage roll. So he did, and got suspended. Another crazy decision.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.com/sport/amp/football/41181979

It was a pie. He was a bit damned if he did or didn't.

by beninho Thu 31 Dec 2020, 08:09

pedro wrote:I think it’s better to have a legal, regulated betting industry rather than an illegal. The latter will lead to corruption.

The betting firms put billions into ads and sponsorships across various sports, and I’m pretty sure many a sport wouldn’t be at the level it is today without the money from the betting firms.

I’m watching darts at the moment, an excellent example of this. Imagine how corrupt darts would/could be if betting wasn’t legal or regulated?

Don't think anyones talking about making betting illegal. But, and I think most will agree. Certain markets are probably not great for betting. Such as the trippier case in point, and even next manager markets as mentioned in the article or next manager sacked. Remember le tiss kicking a ball straight out of play, when they started the time of first throw in markets.

by McLaren Thu 31 Dec 2020, 10:22

Pedro

I agree it is better to have a legal and regulated betting market but that doesn't mean restricting participants actions to create betting markets outside the playing of the sport. The betting firms should stick to who wins, scores first goal, gets an assist etc. Things a sports governing body will already be enforcing integrity on, rather than passing on info about your personal life or eating a pie.

by **navyblueshorts** Thu 31 Dec 2020, 14:23

beninho wrote:Who remembers the big Sutton united reserve goalie, when they got in tv in the fa Cup. Bookie offered odds on whether he woukd eat a sausage roll. So he did, and got suspended. Another crazy decision.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.com/sport/amp/football/41181979

It was a pie. He was a bit damned if he did or didn't.

Ummm, no. Next...

by **navyblueshorts** Thu 31 Dec 2020, 14:25

McLaren wrote:Pedro

I agree it is better to have a legal and regulated betting market but that doesn't mean restricting participants actions to create betting markets outside the playing of the sport. The betting firms should stick to who wins, scores first goal, gets an assist etc. Things a sports governing body will already be enforcing integrity on, rather than passing on info about your personal life or eating a pie.

So, you're suggesting anything except certain demonstrably sport-related markets should be illegal?

by beninho Thu 31 Dec 2020, 14:33

navyblueshorts wrote:
beninho wrote:Who remembers the big Sutton united reserve goalie, when they got in tv in the fa Cup. Bookie offered odds on whether he woukd eat a sausage roll. So he did, and got suspended. Another crazy decision.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.com/sport/amp/football/41181979

It was a pie. He was a bit damned if he did or didn't.
Ummm, no. Next...

If he doesn't eat a pie, while being well aware of the novelty joke bet is he influencing the betting market? Either way he was damned if he did ir didn't, and again, if he did not personally gain, the fine and suspension was crazy. The bookies got what they deserved.

by **navyblueshorts** Thu 31 Dec 2020, 15:31

beninho wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
beninho wrote:Who remembers the big Sutton united reserve goalie, when they got in tv in the fa Cup. Bookie offered odds on whether he woukd eat a sausage roll. So he did, and got suspended. Another crazy decision.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.com/sport/amp/football/41181979

It was a pie. He was a bit damned if he did or didn't.
Ummm, no. Next...

If he doesn't eat a pie, while being well aware of the novelty joke bet is he influencing the betting market? Either way he was damned if he did ir didn't, and again, if he did not personally gain, the fine and suspension was crazy. The bookies got what they deserved.

As I said, I don't bet so I don't give much of a 4X. Bookies get hit - I don't care. Punters waste life savings - I don't much care.

People will bet and so corruption will follow, organised bookies etc or not. Day follows night; that sort of thing. Will let you and Mac opine about it...

by McLaren Thu 31 Dec 2020, 15:32

navyblueshorts wrote:
McLaren wrote:Pedro

I agree it is better to have a legal and regulated betting market but that doesn't mean restricting participants actions to create betting markets outside the playing of the sport. The betting firms should stick to who wins, scores first goal, gets an assist etc. Things a sports governing body will already be enforcing integrity on, rather than passing on info about your personal life or eating a pie.
So, you're suggesting anything except certain demonstrably sport-related markets should be illegal?

I am saying that anything except certain demonstrably sport related markets should not be maintained by the sports governing bodies. If the bookies want to offer odds on pie eating or transfers then they should do so knowing there is a risk that some people might have more information than they would like. After all, they do have a mechanism that tries quantify risk. Why have a sports governing body try to manipulate player behavior when bookies could easily offer odds that take into account the likelihood of certain information being available?

by I'm never wrong Thu 31 Dec 2020, 18:55

I'll give you £10 if you eat a pie whilst you're on the bench.
I'll give you £20 if you do it again.
.
.
.
I'll give you £3000 if you give away a throw in in the 2nd minute.

I'll give you £100,000 if you give away a goal in the first 15 minutes.

by McLaren Thu 31 Dec 2020, 19:21

Could this be more painful?

What is the difference between the two examples?

Hint: in one the sporting integrity isn't an issue and in the other it is cheating regardless of whether anyone is betting on it.

by I'm never wrong Thu 31 Dec 2020, 21:20

It's because you're not getting it Mac. Can't see the trend in my statements? Happening to the same person? Becoming addicted or entrapped? Stop it at the source? Stop it at its most basic level and it shouldn't lead to issues later.

by McLaren Fri 01 Jan 2021, 11:46

To borrow a superism. Are you having comprehension issues?

Speaking of which where is he, seems to be MIA over the festive period.

by I'm never wrong Fri 01 Jan 2021, 12:18

McLaren wrote:To borrow a superism. Are you having comprehension issues?.

No, you are Mac.You cannot see that allowing people involved in sport to bet on what may be inconsequential events couldn't possibly lead to betting on events that make a difference to the outcome of a game.

by dynamark Fri 01 Jan 2021, 12:34

Betting/gambling is utterly daft on every level but folk will do it.I had a grandfather suicide and then it turned out he had huge gambling debt and then I went into an empty property at work tenant had died and we found £4k hidden behind the gas cooker he must have won
Everyone thinks they know something and some are in a position to influence things like darts,tennis snooker 1 on 1 .
I have willie thornes book and he was commentating on a game to be broadcast later and found out a player had lost his cue ,So will on the blower to all and sundry and everyone lumped on his opponent guess what the guy won with a new cue and they all lost a ton of money.Wllies gambling was a bloody disaster and may have contributed to his early demise this year.Top man in the charity stuff though

by JAS Mon 04 Jan 2021, 11:41

Football seems to have got itself uncomfortably intertwined with the betting industry. In a sense the betting industry is not much above the alcohol & tobacco industry in terms of the damage it can wreak to the lives of individuals & their families. Sports in general have gradually extracted themselves from sponsorship from alcohol & tobacco companies and in a few areas betting companies have filled the void.

Gambling like tobacco and alcohol is a vice, a vice that preys on the vulnerable with addictive personalities. Where gambling is different however is that it has the potential to corrupt the sport itself not just those who watch it. So I can understand the tight rules on players.
The upper echelons of the game are awash with cash, the games controlling bodies worship cash more than the game itself. Players wages at the top of the game are an affront to a decent society. With that income level comes the potential for a kind of moral bankruptcy, not for all, obviously there will be exceptions but give young men more money than they know what to do with and they'll find a vice. As well as tight rules on players, football itself should be aware of the pervasive influence the gambling industry could start to have in football. The alarm bells should be ringing.

by JAS Mon 04 Jan 2021, 11:45

Meanwhile Happy New Year all, hope you all had a good break over the festive period. Must admit it was well rounded off by 32Red beating Dafabet in the Old Firm derby. Even at 19 points I still wouldn't call it done and dusted though.

by dynamark Mon 04 Jan 2021, 13:10

Agreed JAS best wishes to all and sundry .
My local driving range is open(at present) so I intend to hit some balls and see how the hip can stand it .First day of proper official retirement today took all my IT kit in to the deserted office in the deserted city of Leicester and wondering how the heck a virus can be spreading so badly
1 pm and nothing much to do .This could be boring !!

by JAS Mon 04 Jan 2021, 14:09

dynamark wrote:Agreed JAS best wishes to all and sundry .
My local driving range is open(at present) so I intend to hit some balls and see how the hip can stand it .First day of proper official retirement today took all my IT kit in to the deserted office in the deserted city of Leicester and wondering how the heck a virus can be spreading so badly
1 pm and nothing much to do .This could be boring !!

Lucky you Dyna I'm a) not retired & b) unable to go to my home course (I'm in Tier 3 but the course is in Tier 4. I'm going to have to content myself with my net in the back garden.

On a completely different subject, anyone up early enough to see BBC Breakfast from the start this morning? my partner was on around 6:10 being interviewed about her school being open.

by McLaren Mon 04 Jan 2021, 14:49

Wasn't up that early JAS. Hope it went well.

Scotland about to enter full lockdown, not sure if golf survives or not? Not like the weather is great anyway.

by McLaren Mon 04 Jan 2021, 15:06

JAS wrote:Football seems to have got itself uncomfortably intertwined with the betting industry.

And this touches on exactly the point others seem to be missing. It is one thing to allow betting on a sporting outcome but you have given the betting firms too much power if they can start to demand regulations around how people behave in their personal life.

PS His ban is now suspended and hopefully Trippier wins his appeal.

by I'm never wrong Mon 04 Jan 2021, 15:07

Mac if the tier 4 is the same you will be able to play with one other person.
At my course it is a struggle to get tee times with all the furloughed workers and those working from home playing as well. All trying for half the tee times in the shortest daylight hours .

by McLaren Mon 04 Jan 2021, 16:05

Yeh not heard anything from the club yet. But Scotland isn't in tier 4 anymore we are full lockdown, like March and April last year.

by I'm never wrong Mon 04 Jan 2021, 16:56

McLaren wrote:Yeh not heard anything from the club yet. But Scotland isn't in tier 4 anymore we are full lockdown, like March and April last year.

Ah, understood. England might be following you from 8pm

by **navyblueshorts** Mon 04 Jan 2021, 17:08

McLaren wrote:
JAS wrote:Football seems to have got itself uncomfortably intertwined with the betting industry.

And this touches on exactly the point others seem to be missing. It is one thing to allow betting on a sporting outcome but you have given the betting firms too much power if they can start to demand regulations around how people behave in their personal life.

PS His ban is now suspended and hopefully Trippier wins his appeal.

The betting companies are demanding nothing of the sort.

by **navyblueshorts** Mon 04 Jan 2021, 17:39

Pretty cool:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/55522133

by beninho Mon 04 Jan 2021, 20:04

Was it only a couple of weeks ago that the government threatened to take Greenwich to court for wanting to close schools..

by I'm never wrong Mon 04 Jan 2021, 20:08

Golf courses in England to close.

by **navyblueshorts** Mon 04 Jan 2021, 22:10

beninho wrote:Was it only a couple of weeks ago that the government threatened to take Greenwich to court for wanting to close schools..

And?

by Sponsored content