TIP OF THE ICEBURG

[primrose-n-blue]

£1000 gambling allogations are only the tip of the iceburg. It has come to light from a source(who's confidence I will not break) at St Helens, that there was a major sting involving a figure nearer to £60,000 putting a small bookie out of business as well as hitting the big names.

[robjoenz]

primrose-n-blue posted:
£1000 gambling allogations are only the tip of the iceburg. It has come to light from a source(who's confidence I will not break) at St Helens, that there was a major sting involving a figure nearer to £60,000 putting a small bookie out of business as well as hitting the big names.

I would have thought a small bookie would not have accepted large bids if the risk was such that they may go out of business. The odds are usually around 5/6 for one of two evenly matched teams to win. In this case a total bet of £72,000 would be needed.

Another explanation I can think of (if you source is correct) is that they bet on Saint's score deficit which generally goes up in brackets of 5 points. The highest odds I have seen are about 250/1 which, to win £60,000 would mean putting on near enough £250. This is highly risky betting on just one bracket so they will more than likely have bet on many different score deficits, in order to ensure a win. Surely if people had bet on many differnt score brackets the bookie would have taken several grand in bets and surely this would have rang alarm bells?!

My final explanation, which carries some prejudice, is that your source is a dirty lying Scouser?!

[primrose-n-blue]

I don't wish to reveal the source. Don't know how much exactly was gambled and neither do I know the facts on the bookies involved going into trouble with the sting, with the exeption of Hills press release. Its only what was told to me, even from my reliable source its still hearsay until the real facts come out. But you can be sure its very very BIG. It'll not be long before more things start to filter out.

[primrose-n-blue]

P.S the gamble was hit with a handicap mark off +9 giving a greater odds than being of scratch for evenly match teams.

[robjoenz]

primrose-n-blue posted:
I don't wish to reveal the source.

Don't know how much exactly was gambled and neither do I know the facts on the bookies involved going into trouble with the sting

Its only what was told to me, even from my reliable source its still hearsay until the real facts come out.

So it's just a nice story then!

[robjoenz]

primrose-n-blue posted:
P.S the gamble was hit with a handicap mark off +9 giving a greater odds than being of scratch for evenly match teams.

That was the particular type of bet I was referring to with low odds. Very often you see matches between the top four clubs having handicapped odds of evens or worse. At very best you may get 2-1 which I think is highly unlikely given Saints-Bradford previos form. This would mean placing a £30,000 bet. If you're a small bookie gambling high money on low odds, you deserve to go out of business for bad management.