Courtsiding - wrong or a mug for thinking so?

[Zeitgeist]

Hello All. The betting world never ceases to fascinate me, a dog-eat-dog race for the know-how to get one up on your fellow punters. Unless you're an especially bitter type you'll probably praise the winners, not least in acknowledgment of their hard work. But what about courtsiding as a means to victory? (Courtsiding is being present at a live event so as to take odds while they're still hot, which is a few seconds in most cases.) In my view it stands apart from other methods/tools in one important respect: it isn't available to everyone. While Patrick Veitch's secrets are out there for any intelligent punter to unravel, sporting event venues would have to be just a bit bigger to accomodate the punting masses. So what you get are a privileged few operating at the expense of the rest of us... right? Of course, I'm speaking in principle and assuming that courtsiding is a viable option. In addition I'd like to make this thread open to the wider topic of morality in betting generally. For example, is there a line to be drawn between fair practice and "cheating"? If so, what is it? Or even, how does betting fit in with your moral outlook, do you have any qualms about it (wrong place to ask I know)?

[ONEDUNME]

Re: Courtsiding - wrong or a mug for thinking so? I'd do it. To me, it's no more immoral than hearing breaking team news on the radio or on Sky and putting a bet on based on it. To think that everyone is going to behave to any sort of moral code when money is involved is naive in the extreme (and those that say that would or do are either liars or a very very small minority).