Pages:
Author

Topic: Potential Match Fixing involving Finnish teams FC Futura and Ilves-Kissat - page 2. (Read 2839 times)

hero member
Activity: 2492
Merit: 761
No one can prove that match is fixed except the official league administration. All of us can have only their own opinion. And the casino decided that it was fixed match. I don`t think that it is fair decision - it is their own opinion too.
At least the casino must return the bet to gambler, but it would be better to pay his prize.
PS. I never heard about casino, who return lost bets in the fixed matches.

How does an official ruling on match fixing make any difference in the payout? There are three suspicious matches every day and the bookmaker can't withhold money for a year on three matches every day waiting for some type of league administration to rule. The investigations may not even start for a month and most don't start. We have to stay in the real world instead of making stuff up on how it should be done. The bookmaker makes the decision since no one has any idea if an investigation will be started. The bookmakers marked the match as suspicious even the ones that paid.
I said that i think that casino must at least return the bet. No one has proves that it is fixed match. A part of casino paid. And, as i said, casino don`t return lost bets, so they has enough money from such matches. I don`t see here a problem to return money for casino.
legendary
Activity: 2226
Merit: 1571
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
All defenders of Fairlay - why do you keep ignoring one question that is of huge significance?

Why does Fairlay offer a 1BTC pool of bets on over/under games in the Finnish amateur leagues?
Nobody does that, you can bet 20$ on it on bwin or bet365.

If you take the bet, pay out. It's really that simple.
legendary
Activity: 2632
Merit: 1462
Yes, I'm an asshole
Not directed towards me but I’ll answer this since I did recommend you. I know it was a misunderstanding as I didn’t explain it well, but Fairlay was looking to hold arbitration off the forum by one person with input from all on forum and you didn’t accept under those conditions. Ef declined to arbitrate. There is now arbitration being down off forum according to Fairlay’s post. People are holding Fairlay to a standard impossible to meet since outside investigation, if even done, will be done at a later time.

Let’s ignore the Fairlay is an exchange, it works more like a book or seeded exchange. The question is how would you grade based on wagers made considering amounts, time of bets as well as these wagers being very high for a small market. Fairlay can only be judged on accessible information. Fairlay’s actions on the forum do not determine grading.

Hopefully I’ll refrain from further comments.


Still doesn't explain why Fairlay choose this one [with all of the "perks" I mentioned above] instead of other bets for their "teaching opportunity".

To lay it out in the open and being transparent, as previously said, that I have some questions and opinions that I think will add momentum to the pendulum, suppose this case goes further and fairlay did not sabotage their own "resolution attempt" by unilaterally choosing a mystery detective and goes on with having the public to give their opinion [and follows what the majority of the community suggested], I'll actually point out to newfish1 that it's there on the ToS, he was bound by those clauses he agreed upon signing up.

Many other cases I see to a resolution ended with the ToS playing a big role that binds the cheater and nullifies their attempt, or the grumpy loser from wreaking havoc to a casino, it won't be fair if we close our eyes to that very same aspect for this case.

There is a reason I deliberately made an archive of their ToS before asking them to point us out to the clause that they use as the basis of their decision; to see whether they'll play dirty by ninja-updating their ToS, but consulting to the archived version told me that those clauses are there before, newfish1 agreed to it upon sign up.

Of which, almost simultaneously, I also asked newfish1 to begin defending himself by laying it out in the open his strategy, the one that he said will make it very clear that he didn't cheat. I'd like to know whether the point he provided will have enough weight to tip the scale [the one that previously moved toward fairlay] back to his direction.

So yeah, I can understand the part where they want to be strict, those entire pingpong scenario. But, thanks to Seymour's post that teach us to see from different perspective and weight in things that we seemingly [at least to me] missed, it'll be very naive if we didn't consider a possibility that Fairlay has another agenda on this case.

If they simply want to take action against fixed-bettors, why this one? The one where other bookmakers ruled as valid, the one which points I've mentioned above? They can go headache-free by having Jontay Porter's case. Or other case from major league where investigation from officials are more likely.

Feel free to refrain from answering this, as I actually think SeymourT will be better fitted to explain. After all, it's his teaching moment that "open my eyes". So, Seymour, the room is yours.
legendary
Activity: 3878
Merit: 1061
[...]

Two points that can be inferred from your teaching so far, one, minor league and the potential fixing within it didn't get investigated by the authorities of the league, and two, due to above, the bookmakers are the one who made the final call.

Wow, people should change their mind, apparently you go to a length to paint fairlay as a bad actor here, because not only fairlay is not a bookmakers, the other actual bookmakers actually go with a decision to stick with the official result instead of voiding it. And from fairlay's own statement, the market maker on that bet wouldn't need to be compensated if the arbitrator decides to say so.

[...]
The market maker / counterparty in this bet  has actually hedged the bet we learnt, so he does not have to be compensated if arbitrator decides so. It would also be acceptable for us and the market maker, if we donated the 799mBTC to charity.  Just giving it back to the alleged criminal involved in match-fixing would be the wrong thing to do.[...]

Thus, if you try to teach us that Fairlay is allowed to make their own call for this match...

You don't understand it because you have tunnel vision. If Fairlay allows this when Pinnacle matches bets Pinnacle will be taking the loss. Every cheater out there will come out paying off ping pong players and tennis players. Fairlay has to take a stand on cheaters or Pinny will never match bets. Fairlay wants to stop this gang from cheating.

So the solution will be, amongst many other possible bets, to take one with [subjectively] big win, where the market maker doesn't need to be compensated with whatever the arbitrator decide, then take an independent arbitrator who will pull investigation from only-god-knows-where-but-clearly-not-from-officials-of-the-league? Interesting. This should explains why they won't accept mediators who openly said they will rule to the player's favor.

You sure you're here to teach us about things we don't understand and that we wrongly assumed fairlay is the bad actor here?
Not directed towards me but I’ll answer this since I did recommend you. I know it was a misunderstanding as I didn’t explain it well, but Fairlay was looking to hold arbitration off the forum by one person with input from all on forum and you didn’t accept under those conditions. Ef declined to arbitrate. There is now arbitration being down off forum according to Fairlay’s post. People are holding Fairlay to a standard impossible to meet since outside investigation, if even done, will be done at a later time.

Let’s ignore the Fairlay is an exchange, it works more like a book or seeded exchange. The question is how would you grade based on wagers made considering amounts, time of bets as well as these wagers being very high for a small market. Fairlay can only be judged on accessible information. Fairlay’s actions on the forum do not determine grading.

Hopefully I’ll refrain from further comments.
legendary
Activity: 2632
Merit: 1462
Yes, I'm an asshole
[...]

Two points that can be inferred from your teaching so far, one, minor league and the potential fixing within it didn't get investigated by the authorities of the league, and two, due to above, the bookmakers are the one who made the final call.

Wow, people should change their mind, apparently you go to a length to paint fairlay as a bad actor here, because not only fairlay is not a bookmakers, the other actual bookmakers actually go with a decision to stick with the official result instead of voiding it. And from fairlay's own statement, the market maker on that bet wouldn't need to be compensated if the arbitrator decides to say so.

[...]
The market maker / counterparty in this bet  has actually hedged the bet we learnt, so he does not have to be compensated if arbitrator decides so. It would also be acceptable for us and the market maker, if we donated the 799mBTC to charity.  Just giving it back to the alleged criminal involved in match-fixing would be the wrong thing to do.[...]

Thus, if you try to teach us that Fairlay is allowed to make their own call for this match...

You don't understand it because you have tunnel vision. If Fairlay allows this when Pinnacle matches bets Pinnacle will be taking the loss. Every cheater out there will come out paying off ping pong players and tennis players. Fairlay has to take a stand on cheaters or Pinny will never match bets. Fairlay wants to stop this gang from cheating.

So the solution will be, amongst many other possible bets, to take one with [subjectively] big win, where the market maker doesn't need to be compensated with whatever the arbitrator decide, then take an independent arbitrator who will pull investigation from only-god-knows-where-but-clearly-not-from-officials-of-the-league? Interesting. This should explains why they won't accept mediators who openly said they will rule to the player's favor.

You sure you're here to teach us about things we don't understand and that we wrongly assumed fairlay is the bad actor here?
legendary
Activity: 3878
Merit: 1061
Against my better judgement, I’ll jump back in the fray.

I would throw out the argument that it wasn’t proven. Match fixing is never proven at the time the money is confiscated. The proof may come much later.

I would have to agree that this bet coming from a market maker other than Pinny is also irrelevant agreeing that Fairlay is sending a message. A decision can’t be made trying to determine the market maker as it may be Pinny in a future case, it’s setting a precedent. The rules state that there’s a penalty for match fixing.

I would hate to be the arbitrator, but in this case, as well as every other case where money has been confiscated, it’s based on the bets made and pattern.

As I’ve said many times, I don’t know what happened but the arbitrator’s decision should be based on the bets, nothing else and done in the same manner as other match fixing cases. All the questions on who, what and when come long after the decision to pay or not.

Sportsradar has some great information on match fixing. AI is playing a big role.
newbie
Activity: 21
Merit: 0
so it is pinacle who matches bets there Wink

overall, if anybody wants to win with this fairlay, we can say that he has a tunnel vision. If he wins money from them, pinacle will not match bets, they dont like to loose.

So bettors, just loose at fairlay and pinacle will continue matching bets there.

SIMPLE AS THAT
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
[...]

Two points that can be inferred from your teaching so far, one, minor league and the potential fixing within it didn't get investigated by the authorities of the league, and two, due to above, the bookmakers are the one who made the final call.

Wow, people should change their mind, apparently you go to a length to paint fairlay as a bad actor here, because not only fairlay is not a bookmakers, the other actual bookmakers actually go with a decision to stick with the official result instead of voiding it. And from fairlay's own statement, the market maker on that bet wouldn't need to be compensated if the arbitrator decides to say so.

[...]
The market maker / counterparty in this bet  has actually hedged the bet we learnt, so he does not have to be compensated if arbitrator decides so. It would also be acceptable for us and the market maker, if we donated the 799mBTC to charity.  Just giving it back to the alleged criminal involved in match-fixing would be the wrong thing to do.[...]

Thus, if you try to teach us that Fairlay is allowed to make their own call for this match...

You don't understand it because you have tunnel vision. If Fairlay allows this when Pinnacle matches bets Pinnacle will be taking the loss. Every cheater out there will come out paying off ping pong players and tennis players. Fairlay has to take a stand on cheaters or Pinny will never match bets. Fairlay wants to stop this gang from cheating.
legendary
Activity: 2632
Merit: 1462
Yes, I'm an asshole
[...]

Two points that can be inferred from your teaching so far, one, minor league and the potential fixing within it didn't get investigated by the authorities of the league, and two, due to above, the bookmakers are the one who made the final call.

Wow, people should change their mind, apparently you go to a length to paint fairlay as a bad actor here, because not only fairlay is not a bookmakers, the other actual bookmakers actually go with a decision to stick with the official result instead of voiding it. And from fairlay's own statement, the market maker on that bet wouldn't need to be compensated if the arbitrator decides to say so.

[...]
The market maker / counterparty in this bet  has actually hedged the bet we learnt, so he does not have to be compensated if arbitrator decides so. It would also be acceptable for us and the market maker, if we donated the 799mBTC to charity.  Just giving it back to the alleged criminal involved in match-fixing would be the wrong thing to do.[...]

Thus, if you try to teach us that Fairlay is allowed to make their own call for this match...
hero member
Activity: 3178
Merit: 977
www.Crypto.Games: Multiple coins, multiple games
It's quiet embarrassing to see the route fairlay has taken, otherwise if someone is to be punished it has to be those players that will probably get fined if found in the wrong and not the gambler!!

Best way to resolve this is refund wagers by making bet void this way it's a win-win for everyone!!!
What makes this entire situation weird is the fact that Fairlay is a sports betting exchange and betting exchanges don't usually focus on this sort of stuff unlike regular sportsbooks like Pinnacle etc.

The punter in question was definitely shady based on the evidence that they provided, but it was never confirmed beyond a doubt thanks to Fairlay's unilateral decision. Bizarre situation overall!
hero member
Activity: 1834
Merit: 879
Rollbit.com ⚔️Crypto Futures
~snop~
What you indeed are forgetting, not only does fairlay accuse the player to having made bets on fixed games, they also say he is the fixer because he is Ukranian and some of the players are from the Ukraine as well.
Well, maybe not the fixer but he supposedly is involved. That's hilariou.

The banned his account, a normal bookie would void a game and refund the wager amounts, yet fairlay tends to keep the whole bill for whatever reason.
So many bad calls made by fairlay tbh , first they profile a user based on their nationality and just because a few players  from the waged game are from Ukraine they are calling it match fixing, come on....if anything, if they want to prove something isn't right here it has to be against the players and not the gambler!!!
It's quiet embarrassing to see the route fairlay has taken, otherwise if someone is to be punished it has to be those players that will probably get fined if found in the wrong and not the gambler!!

Best way to resolve this is refund wagers by making bet void this way it's a win-win for everyone!!!
member
Activity: 511
Merit: 11
it is also a fact that the bookmakers arrange the outcome to be in their favor depending on the accumulation of money on a given outcome. and this becomes easy because they sponsor all the teams = at least that's how it is with us
for example, I see an advantage in a certain volleyball line. apparently the provider's judgment is incorrect. I give a prediction. for a short time, a huge number of bets are made. the line is corrected. but it is late. there will be big losses for the site. and what happens. everything goes normally 1 game 25 -12 2 game 25-10. and hop 3 game 23-25. 4 game again 25-10. and when accumulating they always do this.
member
Activity: 511
Merit: 11
No one can prove that match is fixed except the official league administration. All of us can have only their own opinion. And the casino decided that it was fixed match. I don`t think that it is fair decision - it is their own opinion too.
At least the casino must return the bet to gambler, but it would be better to pay his prize.
PS. I never heard about casino, who return lost bets in the fixed matches.
Another issue is that there is a sanction only for the organizer. The other people's profits are not canceled. Only the police can investigate.
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
No one can prove that match is fixed except the official league administration. All of us can have only their own opinion. And the casino decided that it was fixed match. I don`t think that it is fair decision - it is their own opinion too.
At least the casino must return the bet to gambler, but it would be better to pay his prize.
PS. I never heard about casino, who return lost bets in the fixed matches.

How does an official ruling on match fixing make any difference in the payout? There are three suspicious matches every day and the bookmaker can't withhold money for a year on three matches every day waiting for some type of league administration to rule. The investigations may not even start for a month and most don't start. We have to stay in the real world instead of making stuff up on how it should be done. The bookmaker makes the decision since no one has any idea if an investigation will be started. The bookmakers marked the match as suspicious even the ones that paid.
hero member
Activity: 2492
Merit: 761
No one can prove that match is fixed except the official league administration. All of us can have only their own opinion. And the casino decided that it was fixed match. I don`t think that it is fair decision - it is their own opinion too.
At least the casino must return the bet to gambler, but it would be better to pay his prize.
PS. I never heard about casino, who return lost bets in the fixed matches.
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
that three posters with activity over 3000 say the match was fixed.

thats VERY nice MANIPULATION from your side, CONGRATS. You should ask fairlay to double your fee, to manipulate others words like this is a very hard work  Grin Grin Grin Grin

other thing - those 3 quotes were made based only on the fairlay words, before the bettor had any chance to speak up. I think the bettor even pointed out some lies in the fairlays original post.

This shows your stupidity. Fairlay stopped posting a month ago. They aren't going to pay someone with a burner account to continue this crap show where you twist their words. It's just as stupid as thinking a bookmaker waits for authorities to determine fixed matches. It's the bookmakers opinion that counts.
newbie
Activity: 21
Merit: 0
that three posters with activity over 3000 say the match was fixed.

thats VERY nice MANIPULATION from your side, CONGRATS. You should ask fairlay to double your fee, to manipulate others words like this is a very hard work  Grin Grin Grin Grin

other thing - those 3 quotes were made based only on the fairlay words, before the bettor had any chance to speak up. I think the bettor even pointed out some lies in the fairlays original post.
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
Is this match between Liverpool and Manchester City obviously fixed?
https://youtu.be/j_6iRCcfYu8?si=CYrwBsPAyXOkGMqb
Focus from 00:50

How about this between Liverpool and Real Madrid (2018 final)
https://youtu.be/rtFGpfrdlMI?si=Qoh0lYjh63tpvSsD

This should tell you that personal opinion means nothing when it comes to determining incidence of crime like match fixing. A match can be suspicious to different people, but needs an authority to determine that.

Bookmakers would be withholding money for years if they had to wait to see how an authority would rule. Tiny markets don't get investigated. The bookmaker makes the decision in tiny markets on their opinion and it's never going to change. It's been done that way forever. You are trying to make up your own rules.
Is this match between Liverpool and Manchester City obviously fixed?
https://youtu.be/j_6iRCcfYu8?si=CYrwBsPAyXOkGMqb
Focus from 00:50

How about this between Liverpool and Real Madrid (2018 final)
https://youtu.be/rtFGpfrdlMI?si=Qoh0lYjh63tpvSsD

This should tell you that personal opinion means nothing when it comes to determining incidence of crime like match fixing. A match can be suspicious to different people, but needs an authority to determine that.

What you indeed are forgetting, not only does fairlay accuse the player to having made bets on fixed games, they also say he is the fixer because he is Ukranian and some of the players are from the Ukraine as well.
Well, maybe not the fixer but he supposedly is involved. That's hilariou.

The banned his account, a normal bookie would void a game and refund the wager amounts, yet fairlay tends to keep the whole bill for whatever reason.

But hey, you got our opinion straight anyway with your burner account, congratulations. The 3 3000k activity accounts that said this game was 100% fixed have yet to be spotted by the way.


You are putting words in Fairlays mouth since that's not what they said. You did the same with me. I said that the three accounts said likely.

Haunebu, LFC Bitcoin, Rating Place

Quote
Interesting. That's a lot of evidence against op and I feel like your team did the right thing here since he clearly took advantage of fixed matches in a pretty transparent manner and expected to get away since your site is a betting exchange.

Quote
The red cards, own goals & particularly goalkeeping performances certainly point towards the potential of likely match fixing.

Quote
We agree the games were rigged. At least you don’t deny it.

Don't try and change the normal procedure. The bookmaker has always made the decision on their opinion. The mediator should do the same.
hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 803
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
Is this match between Liverpool and Manchester City obviously fixed?
https://youtu.be/j_6iRCcfYu8?si=CYrwBsPAyXOkGMqb
Focus from 00:50

How about this between Liverpool and Real Madrid (2018 final)
https://youtu.be/rtFGpfrdlMI?si=Qoh0lYjh63tpvSsD

This should tell you that personal opinion means nothing when it comes to determining incidence of crime like match fixing. A match can be suspicious to different people, but needs an authority to determine that.

Bookmakers would be withholding money for years if they had to wait to see how an authority would rule. Tiny markets don't get investigated. The bookmaker makes the decision in tiny markets on their opinion and it's never going to change. It's been done that way forever. You are trying to make up your own rules.
Is this match between Liverpool and Manchester City obviously fixed?
https://youtu.be/j_6iRCcfYu8?si=CYrwBsPAyXOkGMqb
Focus from 00:50

How about this between Liverpool and Real Madrid (2018 final)
https://youtu.be/rtFGpfrdlMI?si=Qoh0lYjh63tpvSsD

This should tell you that personal opinion means nothing when it comes to determining incidence of crime like match fixing. A match can be suspicious to different people, but needs an authority to determine that.

What you indeed are forgetting, not only does fairlay accuse the player to having made bets on fixed games, they also say he is the fixer because he is Ukranian and some of the players are from the Ukraine as well.
Well, maybe not the fixer but he supposedly is involved. That's hilariou.

The banned his account, a normal bookie would void a game and refund the wager amounts, yet fairlay tends to keep the whole bill for whatever reason.

But hey, you got our opinion straight anyway with your burner account, congratulations. The 3 3000k activity accounts that said this game was 100% fixed have yet to be spotted by the way.

newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
Is this match between Liverpool and Manchester City obviously fixed?
https://youtu.be/j_6iRCcfYu8?si=CYrwBsPAyXOkGMqb
Focus from 00:50

How about this between Liverpool and Real Madrid (2018 final)
https://youtu.be/rtFGpfrdlMI?si=Qoh0lYjh63tpvSsD

This should tell you that personal opinion means nothing when it comes to determining incidence of crime like match fixing. A match can be suspicious to different people, but needs an authority to determine that.

Bookmakers would be withholding money for years if they had to wait to see how an authority would rule. Tiny markets don't get investigated. The bookmaker makes the decision in tiny markets on their opinion and it's never going to change. It's been done that way forever. You are trying to make up your own rules.
Pages:
Jump to: