Be Careful Using Phones During the Game !!

[The Saturday Boy]

51 minutes ago, Akira said:

Any chance you can remember the name of it please mate? Might give it a watch, sounds interesting. 

It was something like "So you can beat the bookies" - should be OK to find on iPlayer. Well worth a watch. The tennis thing was called courtsiding.

[BTRFTG]

The article doesn't say how the alleged data 'infringement' was monitored. I'm guessing this was somebody snooping over the texter's shoulder and reading their texts. 

Absolutely clear is that data content  (as opposed to Communication Data, itself now subject to the IPA (2016) and cross authorization by OCDA) requires a warrant. Should Hull or their suppliers have breached by intercepting data content this would constitute a very serious criminal offence.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Unconvinced it's illegal tbh.

Questionable ethically I'm sure, but I'd be stunned if the EFL, the clubs and this body went into this quite open or willing to commit illegal acts in conjunction with the issue.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Forgot to add as well. 

What happened to this guy appears to have been very shoddy- I hope he is recompensed appropriately PLUS that systems and procedures reviewed, with lessons learnt in order to prevent a repetition happening to anyone else moving forward.

[Renaissance Williams]

3 hours ago, Erithacus said:

Does this incident highlight the new custom of a betting company now enforcing rules in football grounds, rather than the club's own security? Who is the paymaster here, and who is the employee?

I guess the paymaster's got their name scrawled all over our team's shirts. That's why I'm not buying one - shame, it's a decent looking shirt this year.

[Never to the dark side]

In this day and age,

I wouldn't be surprised if their is a monitoring system in the ground that says a particular phone number is being used continuously

[kmpowell]

11 hours ago, Snufflelufagus said:

I lost loads once on a race horse called on Sad Ken. It was a hot tip in the pub but it turned out it was a bookie in the pub telling us to bet on him.

Damn that tight-mouthed Larry, Or are you talking out of your bottom... 

[BTRFTG]

8 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Unconvinced it's illegal tbh.

The only illegality would be that of the person intercepting another's data content without a warrant, or their communications data were they not a listed body within the IPA 2016 and having obtained authority so to do.

The implication here is that the club, under their terms and conditions, might turf you out of the ground for using your phone, no evidence required.

It's called Courtsiding as Tennis is about the only sport where the bookies do not yet have it fully covered. For the rest all large bookies use live in-play updates using the  real time data they purchase and that the clubs and their suppliers don't want replicating.

[zippycar]

10 hours ago, Akira said:

Any chance you can remember the name of it please mate? Might give it a watch, sounds interesting. 

It's called

Can you beat the bookies 

BBC 3

And it's coming up on I-player 

[bcfcshorey]

14 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

That he was messaging mates who had bets on. Implication is that he could get info to them before the bookies got it from their official data source. His mates could then potentially "cash out" their now losing bets before the bookies can update the odds on their system.

In the nascent days of phone/online betting there were plenty of (potentially apocryphal) stories of this sort of thing happening. Most common one I heard was about a guy who went to low ranking golf tournaments, followed players around, and placed bets on their scores before the bookies could update the online odds.

I thought there was a delay when placing in-play bets to negate this?

[Mr Popodopolous]

55 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

The only illegality would be that of the person intercepting another's data content without a warrant, or their communications data were they not a listed body within the IPA 2016 and having obtained authority so to do.

The implication here is that the club, under their terms and conditions, might turf you out of the ground for using your phone, no evidence required.

It's called Courtsiding as Tennis is about the only sport where the bookies do not yet have it fully covered. For the rest all large bookies use live in-play updates using the  real time data they purchase and that the clubs and their suppliers don't want replicating.

Thanks- I'll look into the laws a bit more at some point.

Saw this online however- seems at this early stage they are within rights. The below appears to cover it. Maybe it was seen via ultra hq CCTV but that seems unlikely- more than likely there was monitoring based on criteria.

Quote

11  The following acts are offences under the Football (Offences) Act 1991 (as amended):

for the avoidance of doubt and by way of example only, shall not include the capturing, logging, recording, transmitting, playing, issuing, showing, or any other communication of any Material for any commercial purposes); and (ii) no Material that is captured, logged, recorded, transmitted, played, issued, shown or otherwise communicated by a mobile telephone or other mobile device may be published or otherwise made available to any third parties including, without limitation, via social networking sites.

 

 

 

[Sydneybcfc]

I think they basically do the same as the cops do and have a person or people whether using cameras or binoculars looking for people consistently and continuously using their phone all game.

To have any impact in betting you'd have to be glued to your phone to beat the bookies, i guess this poor guy was texting his mates a blow by blow account of the game and just looked suspect.

If you don't spend more time on your phone than watching the game then you're probably unlikely to ever see these 'spies'.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Here's the thing though.

Someone is texting on their phone, updates to mates or whatever- pulled up and called a betting cheat or whatever.

Admittedly at a game in play I barely use my phone but this feels wrong.

[SinéadB]

I'm surprised that at a football match you're able to gain an advantage, as the bookies usually suspend the markets incredibly quickly.

The difference with tennis is that you have to wait until the umpire puts the score in, so there can be a delay of quite a few seconds. I've court sided a few times, and was offered a full time job doing so when I was thinking of quitting uni a few years ago. (Women are a lot less suspect than men, so there are quite a few women that do it).

[sephjnr]

22 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

The scandal here is that the bookies are so deep into football that they feel they can legitimately get the club's own security to attempt to enforce this?

I would like @JulieH and the SLO to provide their input on this (don't know the account for the latter).

[Mr Popodopolous]

10 minutes ago, sephjnr said:

I would like @JulieH and the SLO to provide their input on this (don't know the account for the latter).

The new SLO is on Twitter- the Twitter handle is @BristolCitySLO now.

The new SLO however appears to have neglected to join this forum thus far.

[ExiledAjax]

56 minutes ago, sephjnr said:

I would like @JulieH and the SLO to provide their input on this (don't know the account for the latter).

I'm not really sure that this is a matter for the police tbh. My biggest issue is the double standards from the bookies regarding the use of technology by them and by punters. Then there's the separate issue of bookies influencing the terms and conditions of the ticket purchased by a supporter by using their commercial clout to influence ho the club they sponsor behaves. Two big issues but I don't think either are worthy of police time atm.

49 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The new SLO is on Twitter- the Twitter handle is @BristolCitySLO now.

The new SLO however appears to have neglected to join this forum thus far.

But the SLO's timely tweets strongly suggest that he lurks on here and reads most of the posts. But then his tweets also suggest he is a sentient flag so who really knows.

[sephjnr]

2 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

I'm not really sure that this is a matter for the police tbh. My biggest issue is the double standards from the bookies regarding the use of technology by them and by punters. Then there's the separate issue of bookies influencing the terms and conditions of the ticket purchased by a supporter by using their commercial clout to influence ho the club they sponsor behaves. Two big issues but I don't think either are worthy of police time atm.

Undue influence by a commercial entity that is not directly part of, or affiliated to any one club (or any influence that is not codified in the laws of football)  is absolutely worth of police scrutiny. If betting outfits were allowed to exert pressure on clubs to do their bidding then it would be plausible that a company may wish to overturn the laws on players gambling and present such a case with merit.

[JulieH]

You are right in that it is not a police matter.

my own experience of it is that I have been policing a game at city and rovers when the company called comsec were present and notified the safety officer that a person in the crowd was suspected of phoning in corners/ goals/ free kicks etc 

both males were spoken to by stewards and both admitted that they had been paid a small amount of money to do it and had been brought the ticket also. We were called to assist in case of any issues( there weren’t any!) they were subsequently ejected I think for breach of ground regulations 

this was approx 4-5 years ago and at the time there was a police evidence file submitted ; I think in Leicester to request guidance  as to any criminal offence and advice back from top cps barristers was that there wasn’t any evidence for criminal offences . 

Not really had any dealings with them since then .

 

[bristolcitysweden]

In Sweden the betting companies are refusing bets at "Vauxhall League" level. Even in the Championship and I'm not joking there is suspision of  made up matches.  Even in the prem there have abondoned games.

We really are on a sloope. I don't need to tell you why. 

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-sweden-matchfixing/swedish-football-league-cancels-game-over-match-fixing-fears-idUKKCN18E13G

[MarcusX]

On 11/08/2019 at 19:51, spudski said:

There's a documentary on BBC iPlayer about gambling.

Shows a guy doing the same thing at tennis matches, betting on points one or lost. Looks for Umpires who are slow at electronically pressing the result of each point in the chair. Beats the bookies online accounts. Makes £350 k a year doing it.

THis is doable even online, if you find low key matches with enough liquidity on betting exchanges you can catch the traders napping between points - i've seen odds hang around for upto 5 minutes despite play continuing 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Couple of potentially relevant EFL regulations-seen on FSA Faircop Twitter feed, found in our club charter.

Quote

Mobile telephones and other mobile devices are permitted within the Ground PROVIDED THAT (i) they are used for personal and private use only (which, for the avoidance of doubt and by way of example only, shall not include the capturing, logging, recording, transmitting, playing, issuing, showing, or any other communication of any Material for any commercial purposes); and (2) no Material that is captured by a mobile telephone or other mobile device may be published or otherwise made available to any third parties including, without limitation, via social networking sites. 

Plus

Quote

Save as set out in paragraph 16 above, no person (other than a person who holds an appropriate licence) may capture, log, record, transmit, play, issue, show or otherwise communicate (by digital or other means) any Material in relation to the Match, any players or other persons present in the Ground and/or the Ground, nor may they bring into the Ground or use within the Ground (or provide to, facilitate or otherwise assist another person to use within the Ground) any equipment or technology which is capable of capturing, logging, recording, transmitting, playing, issuing, showing or otherwise communicating (by digital or other means) any such Material. Copyright, database rights and any other intellectual property rights in any unauthorised recording or transmission is assigned (by way of present assignment of future rights) to the Club and The EFL. You further agree (if and whenever required to do so by the Club and/or The EFL) to promptly execute all instruments and do all things necessary to vest the right, title and interest in such rights to the Club and The EFL absolutely and with full title guarantee. 

@TomF Fair to say that recording of games already strictly speaking a no? Which club are FDC too?

[AshtonGreat]

On 12/08/2019 at 09:55, Mr Popodopolous said:

Thanks- I'll look into the laws a bit more at some point.

Saw this online however- seems at this early stage they are within rights. The below appears to cover it. Maybe it was seen via ultra hq CCTV but that seems unlikely- more than likely there was monitoring based on criteria.

 

 

 

So you're not allowed to take a picture at a game and post it online? Good luck with that

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, AshtonGreat said:

So you're not allowed to take a picture at a game and post it online? Good luck with that

Well strictly speaking it appears you're not but yeah absolutely agree! I doubt it's enforced tbh

Unenforceable really.

[AshtonGreat]

23 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Well strictly speaking it appears you're not but yeah absolutely agree! I doubt it's enforced tbh

Unenforceable really.

And rightly so. Anyone should be allowed to take photos

[Mr Popodopolous]

18 minutes ago, AshtonGreat said:

And rightly so. Anyone should be allowed to take photos

I believe they are despite the regulation and a blind eye is generally turned- never heard of anyone pulled up for taking photos.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Tbh @ExiledAjax

Taking a quick look at Twitter,  and it appears that the SLO hasn't actually replied to anything by which I mean direct enquiries on there since Saturday let alone here- fair enough he may have responded to DMs! 

https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=bristolcityslo&src=typd

[ExiledAjax]

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Tbh @ExiledAjax

Taking a quick look at Twitter,  and tbh the SLO hasn't actually replied to anything by which I mean direct enquiries on there since Saturday let alone here! 

Yeh. He's not said anything for 3 days.

My sentient flag comment was about this tweet. Why not a photo of his friendly face rather than just a crappy flag? Hardly screams "Come talk to me".

 

[Coxy27]

Followed this thread since it was originally posted, feel the need to comment now as there's clearly some confusion/misconception going around. Rather than reply to several posts, I will tag posters who I think my info is relevant to.

The source of this info: Myself - Worked in the sports betting industry for many years, in live trading, product development, and other roles.

Firstly, for context - To my knowledge there are (or were) three major data providers for football within the sports betting industry in the UK, and by data I mean the feed of information from live matches. This is provided in exactly the way @JulieH describes in her post describing her experience from a match years ago. People are paid (fees and a ticket to matches, it's often a fan) to go to games with a pad/phone and press things like corner, throw-in, goal etc etc. These people are generally called 'scouts'. Of these three major providers, only one has an agreement to operate on UK matches (- @Mr Popodopolous this company will hold the 'appropriate licence' mentioned in your second quote earlier), one other has withdrawn coverage of UK matches, and one further company I believe is still chancing it and is the reason for this Comsec company 'policing' matches looking for rogue scouts. In the past I believe none of these companies had appropriate licenses but the enforcement was effectively non-existent.

@spudski @ExiledAjax - I don't believe this ejection has anything to do with 'courtsiding', the BBC have misinterpreted this incident (probably because of the recent programme on TV). Courtsiding certainly exists and bookmakers are desperate to crackdown on it, but they don't have the power or right to eject anyone from stadiums to my knowledge. They cover themselves with terms and conditions so vague that they can effectively void any bet they want to, so if they think someone is courtsiding or winning in a dishonest manner they will limit the bets that person can place, or shut them down completely (they will shut down that IP address most likely, so any family members or other people using it will also be affected). This particular incident was to do with unlicensed collection of live data from the match. They believed this man to be a scout for a data provider.

@bcfcshorey - Yes, often there is and that is the reason. It's still possible to beat it if the scout is very slow or if you know who it is and can get them in on it!

 @MarcusX - Indeed. I was a trader, many punters had my pants down when I was distracted (mostly because I was just watching the game as a fan and forgetting I was meant to be working!)

Hope that clears it up a bit.

[ExiledAjax]

8 minutes ago, Coxy27 said:

Followed this thread since it was originally posted, feel the need to comment now as there's clearly some confusion/misconception going around. Rather than reply to several posts, I will tag posters who I think my info is relevant to.

The source of this info: Myself - Worked in the sports betting industry for many years, in live trading, product development, and other roles.

Firstly, for context - To my knowledge there are (or were) three major data providers for football within the sports betting industry in the UK, and by data I mean the feed of information from live matches. This is provided in exactly the way @JulieH describes in her post describing her experience from a match years ago. People are paid (fees and a ticket to matches, it's often a fan) to go to games with a pad/phone and press things like corner, throw-in, goal etc etc. These people are generally called 'scouts'. Of these three major providers, only one has an agreement to operate on UK matches (- @Mr Popodopolous this company will hold the 'appropriate licence' mentioned in your second quote earlier), one other has withdrawn coverage of UK matches, and one further company I believe is still chancing it and is the reason for this Comsec company 'policing' matches looking for rogue scouts. In the past I believe none of these companies had appropriate licenses but the enforcement was effectively non-existent.

@spudski @ExiledAjax - I don't believe this ejection has anything to do with 'courtsiding', the BBC have misinterpreted this incident (probably because of the recent programme on TV). Courtsiding certainly exists and bookmakers are desperate to crackdown on it, but they don't have the power or right to eject anyone from stadiums to my knowledge. They cover themselves with terms and conditions so vague that they can effectively void any bet they want to, so if they think someone is courtsiding or winning in a dishonest manner they will limit the bets that person can place, or shut them down completely (they will shut down that IP address most likely, so any family members or other people using it will also be affected). This particular incident was to do with unlicensed collection of live data from the match. They believed this man to be a scout for a data provider.

@bcfcshorey - Yes, often there is and that is the reason. It's still possible to beat it if the scout is very slow or if you know who it is and can get them in on it!

 @MarcusX - Indeed. I was a trader, many punters had my pants down when I was distracted (mostly because I was just watching the game as a fan and forgetting I was meant to be working!)

Hope that clears it up a bit.

Thanks for the input, interesting to hear from someone with some inside knowledge of the practices being discussed. Not sure if you read the guy's twitter thread rather than just the BBC article. He clearly states the reason that he was given for the approach by the ComSec guy, to me the below reads as "we think you're court-siding" albeit for others: