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).

[Zeitgeist]

Re: Courtsiding - wrong or a mug for thinking so? Hmm, there's a difference between what's right or wrong and doing what's right or wrong. I just believe there are guys out there in stands sitting comfortably with a bluetooth earpiece making an easy killing at every tournament, and that seems to make mugs out of the rest of us. The media is there for us all to hear and see, but courtsiding only exists (or so I assume) because a minority are doing it, and getting away with it I might add.

[v-zero]

Re: Courtsiding - wrong or a mug for thinking so? Since prediction markets work on the principle that information, and the interpretation of that information, is paramount to accurate prediction, it makes sense that those with the best access to information that pertains to the markets should act within them. An efficient market is one which reacts as quickly and accurately to current events as possible. Those who predict poorly, bet wrongly, are punished, and hence the market becomes accurate, and the wheat is sorted from the chaff. Morality doesn't come into it.

[Zeitgeist]

Re: Courtsiding - wrong or a mug for thinking so?

Since prediction markets work on the principle that information' date=' and the interpretation of that information, is paramount to accurate prediction, it makes sense that those with the best access to information that pertains to the markets should act within them. An efficient market is one which reacts as quickly and accurately to current events as possible. Those who predict poorly, bet wrongly, are punished, and hence the market becomes accurate, and the wheat is sorted from the chaff. Morality doesn't come into it.[/quote'] The point I'm making is that all but a few of the means to make these predictions are available to everyone, and that courtsiding is one of the few which are available to a minority only. (Another I can think of is inside information which is only available to a select few.) Courtsiding therefore creates an unlevel playing field. We all have, at least in principle, an equal opportunity to acquire the use of a betting bot, a winning betting strategy, an effective risk management plan etc. but we can't all partake in courtsiding. Therefore, unless you believe you shouldn't care about your fellow punters, an unlevelled playing field must be wrong. And I can't think of a way of justifying an every-man-for-himself attitude (however prevalent it may be in the betting world). You don't have the same attitude when queuing for the till at a supermarket, so why apply it here?

[v-zero]

Re: Courtsiding - wrong or a mug for thinking so?

The point I'm making is that all but a few of the means to make these predictions are available to everyone' date=' and that courtsiding is one of the few which are available to a minority only. (Another I can think of is inside information which is only available to a select few.) Courtsiding therefore creates an unlevel playing field. We all have, at least in principle, an equal opportunity to acquire the use of a betting bot, a winning betting strategy, an effective risk management plan etc. but we can't all partake in courtsiding. Therefore, unless you believe you shouldn't care about your fellow punters, an unlevelled playing field must be wrong. And I can't think of a way of justifying an every-man-for-himself attitude (however prevalent it may be in the betting world). You don't have the same attitude when queuing for the till at a supermarket, so why apply it here?[/quote'] The betting markets, by definition, are every man for himself. The playing field is not level, as you suggest. Those without the intellect, drive, care, and knowledge are punished by the markets for it. The exchanges are not a commonwealth, if they were then they would be no different to Betfair's zero edge roulette tables. If the exchanges were perfectly accurate there would be no long term winners or losers, but all would lose their time on a pointless endeavour. When you bet, you attempt to take money from another man's pocket. It is a mutual thing, and he who is most accurate wins. If you aren't comfortable with that, then why are you betting?

[Zeitgeist]

Re: Courtsiding - wrong or a mug for thinking so?

The betting markets, by definition, are every man for himself. The playing field is not level, as you suggest. Those without the intellect, drive, care, and knowledge are punished by the markets for it. The exchanges are not a commonwealth, if they were then they would be no different to Betfair's zero edge roulette tables. If the exchanges were perfectly accurate there would be no long term winners or losers, but all would lose their time on a pointless endeavour. When you bet, you attempt to take money from another man's pocket. It is a mutual thing, and he who is most accurate wins. If you aren't comfortable with that, then why are you betting?

OK, I'm not suggesting the playing field is level, just that it should be. I'm also not saying that every runner should win the race, how can they? The way you can make the playing field level is by eschewing those means to success which we are not all able to potentially acquire, such as courtsiding. Yes not everyone is equally intelligent, but that doesn't mean schools shouldn't accept underprivileged children. The same applies, I think, to betting -- don't hand out the means to success to a minority only.

[Datapunter]

Re: Courtsiding - wrong or a mug for thinking so?

but we can't all partake in courtsiding.

Yes we can. Nobody is stopping you. Go and buy a ticket, a laptop or whatever technical means you see fit. A phone might be enough. And go for it. There is nothing unfair about it, it's just using an edge. By that reasoning it would be unfair to bet against someone who has a 100Mb internet connection whereas another only has a 1Mb connection. Courtsiders exists. Anyone doing basic research into live tennis betting will know this. If you still choose to go head-to-head with them and trade point by point then that is your choice. You haven't got a change but it is still your choice. Nobody is stopping me from entering a high profile poker tournament, pay the entry fee and go for it. Seeing as i get bored playing poker within 15 minutes it would be a pretty foolish thing to do. Just like trading point-by-point from my home PC. YOU choose what betting you do, nobody forces you to place any bet anywhere, anyhow.

[Zeitgeist]

Re: Courtsiding - wrong or a mug for thinking so? Datapunter, not every punter can courtside. If they could there wouldn't be any room left for the sports fans! Am I missing something?

[Datapunter]

Re: Courtsiding - wrong or a mug for thinking so? btw. by your reasoning all on-course betting should be abolished, after all, imagine the advantage of being able to actually see the horses for hours before the races, let alone the fact you see the race live whereas any TV coverage is at least several sconds behind, that's it, from now on all racing should take place on a completely closed track that can be viewed by cameras only :ok

[Datapunter]

Re: Courtsiding - wrong or a mug for thinking so?

Datapunter, not every punter can courtside. If they could there wouldn't be any room left for the sports fans! Am I missing something?

YOU are the one who has a problem with courtsiding and is saying it is not available to you. Which implies if it was available you'd do it. It is available, you just need to do it. I simply choose not to trade point-by-point, problem solved. Just like i choose not to bet in any other market where i know i have no chance of making a profit. You want betting markets to be a level playing field for all ? You've got a whole lot of infrastructure to modify to to that.

[Zeitgeist]

Re: Courtsiding - wrong or a mug for thinking so?

btw. by your reasoning all on-course betting should be abolished, after all, imagine the advantage of being able to actually see the horses for hours before the races, let alone the fact you see the race live whereas any TV coverage is at least several sconds behind, that's it, from now on all racing should take place on a completely closed track that can be viewed by cameras only :ok

In principle, that would be right wouldn't it? Doesn't a level playing field make moral sense? That a proposition challenges what is established and accepted is no reason to say that it's wrong.

[Zeitgeist]

Re: Courtsiding - wrong or a mug for thinking so?

YOU are the one who has a problem with courtsiding and is saying it is not available to you. Which implies if it was available you'd do it. [...] You want betting markets to be a level playing field for all ? You've got a whole lot of infrastructure to modify to to that.

Believe it or not, I'm one of the few who wouldn't. But the real point here is not action, it's the moral principle of the matter that I'm interested in.

[Jase82]

Re: Courtsiding - wrong or a mug for thinking so? Where'd the moral aspect come from ? :unsure Information is key, and anyone that has, or can get hold of greater information than another person is merely slightly ahead of the game.

[Datapunter]

Re: Courtsiding - wrong or a mug for thinking so? That's where you are making a small error. Sports do not exist solely for us to bet, you have that confused with casino's. Sports exists as sports. You want to bet on them great, make the best of it, but you expect the sport to change it's ways because of betting ? Get real. Sports do change because of betting indirectly as it is part of the commercial circuit around them, but it's the money making companies such as TV stations that drive this, not punters, they should simply continue betting on anything and everything and keep on losing. Nothing on this planet is fair, life isn't fair, but you do have a choice in betting on what, when and where to bet, and that is fair enough.

[Zeitgeist]

Re: Courtsiding - wrong or a mug for thinking so?

That's where you are making a small error. Sports do not exist solely for us to bet, you have that confused with casino's. Sports exists as sports. You want to bet on them great, make the best of it, but you expect the sport to change it's ways because of betting ? Get real. Sports do change because of betting indirectly as it is part of the commercial circuit around them, but it's the money making companies such as TV stations that drive this, not punters, they should simply continue betting on anything and everything and keep on losing. Nothing on this planet is fair, life isn't fair, but you do have a choice in betting on what, when and where to bet, and that is fair enough.

Of course the sporting event should remain as it is, but the reason being the enjoyment of the sport by the genuine fan, not the punter. Saying that life isn't fair is an all too common cop out in my view (no offense!), a way of disregarding your own responsibility to form a genuine moral stance. Again, I'm not describing the world, I'm merely prescribing how it should be in my own opinion.

[Datapunter]

Re: Courtsiding - wrong or a mug for thinking so? Morality is measured against a group consensus, philosofical, religious, cultural or otherwise. As such it is to a large extent in the eye of the beholder. Within the context of society as a whole there is nothing immoral about courtsiding. It is simply a method of making money inside the wide world of sports betting. Within the context of a community of punter it could be seen as immoral. But for that to be valid you need a concensus withing that community of what is considered moral and what isn't. As there is no such thing you have nothing to measure morality by. If your definition of morality is that each punter should only bet using the same means as every other punter and ignore any edge he might have then, yes, courtsiding is immoral. However i think the concensus amongst punter is that you should use whatever edge you can find. In that context nothing wrong with courtsiding. And please don't bring up the point that you are taking money from other punters. Seriously get real. When you place a bet with a bookmaker and win, where does that profit come from ? Can bookmakers print their own money ? No, any, ANY, profit you get from a bookmaker is money taken from other punters. If it wasn't for other punters losing you could never win. The bookmaker is no more than an intermediary taking a % for his service. The actual money always comes from other punters.

[Zeitgeist]

Re: Courtsiding - wrong or a mug for thinking so?

Information is key' date=' and anyone that has, or can get hold of greater information than another person is merely slightly ahead of the game.[/quote'] Courtsiding, if employed properly, has the potential for no-risk betting with a near 100% strike rate. I reckon veteran courtsiders are way ahead of the rest of us.

[Jase82]

Re: Courtsiding - wrong or a mug for thinking so?

Courtsiding' date=' if employed properly, has the potential for no-risk betting with a near 100% strike rate. I reckon veteran courtsiders are way ahead of the rest of us.[/quote'] What???? 100% strike rate, all because they sit and watch the action live??? That's not true. Of course EVERYONE has the potential to have a 100% strike rate, but how many do? zero. because it's nigh on impossible. All they have is an edge, just like DP says. There is no such thing as no risk betting :unsure

[Datapunter]

Re: Courtsiding - wrong or a mug for thinking so? I don't believe courtsiding is all that interesting anymore. First of all in order to make money from courtsiding you have to bet before anyone else bets. You can do that as you can see the match before anyone else. However the only thing you can do is hover up open bets left by people who are slower. You need to be fast in order to actually use the time advantage. It only has to happen once that you get an overrule or a challenge and your position is ******. Then there is the maths. If there is one person courtsiding he can hover up open bets nicely as his bets go through before anyone else's. What if there are 10 people courtsiding ? The only way to make a profit of the time advantage is to place your bets before the other 9 courtsiders. That increases your risk with an overrule, challenge, or simply a ball you anticipate going out landing right on the line. Risky business if you ask me.

[Zeitgeist]

Re: Courtsiding - wrong or a mug for thinking so?

Morality is measured against a group consensus, philosofical, religious, cultural or otherwise. As such it is to a large extent in the eye of the beholder. Within the context of society as a whole there is nothing immoral about courtsiding. It is simply a method of making money inside the wide world of sports betting. Within the context of a community of punter it could be seen as immoral. But for that to be valid you need a concensus withing that community of what is considered moral and what isn't. As there is no such thing you have nothing to measure morality by.

The majority view is not a measure of morality, reason is. Different reasons will be given, and so it is up to each person to decide which one is best, that's why I think it's important to get your voice heard.

If your definition of morality is that each punter should only bet using the same means as every other punter and ignore any edge he might have then' date=' yes, courtsiding is immoral.[/quote'] My argument has been that everything that can be done should be done to enable every punter an equal opportunity of acquiring those means to an edge. That's what I mean by a level playing field, that no runner should be allowed a running start.

[Zeitgeist]

Re: Courtsiding - wrong or a mug for thinking so?

What???? 100% strike rate, all because they sit and watch the action live??? That's not true. Of course EVERYONE has the potential to have a 100% strike rate, but how many do? zero. because it's nigh on impossible. All they have is an edge, just like DP says. There is no such thing as no risk betting :unsure

Think for example about the in-play tennis markets. Say you're betting on the winner of a single game. Surely it isn't hard to imagine how huge an edge a courtsider has.

[Zeitgeist]

Re: Courtsiding - wrong or a mug for thinking so?

I don't believe courtsiding is all that interesting anymore. [...] Then there is the maths. If there is one person courtsiding he can hover up open bets nicely as his bets go through before anyone else's. What if there are 10 people courtsiding ? The only way to make a profit of the time advantage is to place your bets before the other 9 courtsiders. That increases your risk with an overrule, challenge, or simply a ball you anticipate going out landing right on the line. Risky business if you ask me.

That is certainly debatable. I still reckon there are guys organized enough to make easy money from it regardless of other courtsiders' operations.

[Jase82]

Re: Courtsiding - wrong or a mug for thinking so?

Think for example about the in-play tennis markets. Say you're betting on the winner of a single game. Surely it isn't hard to imagine how huge an edge a courtsider has.

Yeah, but you still can't bet before the event knowing the result. You could only get 100% strike rate if you had some kind of time travelling device.

[Zeitgeist]

Re: Courtsiding - wrong or a mug for thinking so?

Yeah' date=' but you still can't bet before the event knowing the result. You could only get 100% strike rate if you had some kind of time travelling device.[/quote'] C'mon, I said near 100% ;)

[Datapunter]

Re: Courtsiding - wrong or a mug for thinking so?

My argument has been that everything that can be done should be done to enable every punter an equal opportunity of acquiring those means to an edge. That's what I mean by a level playing field, that no runner should be allowed a running start.

But everything has been done. Anything reasonably possible that is. Televised coverage is available to anyone, appropriate warning messages of delays are in place, for some markets there are delays when placing bets. It IS a level playing field for 99.9999% of people. To get to 100% would require disproportional efforts of such extremeties that the sports as such no longer exist, you would need to put every sporting event in a closed room with camera's only. If you can manage to get amongst the 0.0001% with an edge courtsiding, go for it. And if you choose, repeat choose, to compete with them then that is your choice.

[Jase82]

Re: Courtsiding - wrong or a mug for thinking so? DP just touched on what I was going to say. Trying to make the market a level playing field would ultimately do completely the opposite to that which is trying to be achieved. The edge you are talking about is basically value seeking. Eliminate that element of punting, and the market would be meaningless, therefore making it completely the opposite to a level playing field. Regarding the moral aspect, I don't consider it when placing a bet, and I certainly don't resent, or harbour any negative feelings over an individual that has a slight / huge edge over myself. If we're talking about the small element that actively seek to defraud bookmakers through various methods, then that is different.

[Zeitgeist]

Re: Courtsiding - wrong or a mug for thinking so?

But everything has been done. Anything reasonably possible that is. Televised coverage is available to anyone, appropriate warning messages of delays are in place, for some markets there are delays when placing bets. It IS a level playing field for 99.9999% of people. To get to 100% would require disproportional efforts of such extremeties that the sports as such no longer exist, you would need to put every sporting event in a closed room with camera's only.

I think there are many more relatively low-cost ways of improving the betting world than you think, it's just that the bookmakers' profits are the only motivating force behind any changes so there is no room for these improvements to be implemented. But I don't want to get into that, for one thing I'm not too savvy about the inner workings of the industry, but mostly because any potential changes don't make courtsiding any less wrong or acceptable.

If you can manage to get amongst the 0.0001% with an edge courtsiding' date=' go for it. And if you choose, repeat choose, to compete with them then that is your choice.[/quote'] Most punters are competing with courtsiders whether they want to or not -- vital points in most sports affect the odds in most markets, not just the in-play ones. And anyway, my problem is not any direct competition as such but that courtsiding seems to me to put a finger up to any punter trying to succeed by investing a great deal of time and effort.

[Zeitgeist]

Re: Courtsiding - wrong or a mug for thinking so?

The edge you are talking about is basically value seeking. Eliminate that element of punting' date=' and the market would be meaningless, therefore making it completely the opposite to a level playing field.[/quote'] I'm not criticizing most means of gaining an edge! (Nice song and quote by the way in your sig :))

[Zeitgeist]

Re: Courtsiding - wrong or a mug for thinking so?

To get to 100% would require disproportional efforts of such extremeties that the sports as such no longer exist' date=' you would need to put every sporting event in a closed room with camera's only.[/quote'] Just want to clarify that I intended this thread to be about the principle of the matter. I never imagined that there's a way of eliminating courtsiding altogether, but whether a courtsider is able to do his work has no bearing on the morality of it -- in my view it's wrong regardless, for the reasons given.