Scandal in Monte-Carlo
Erik Gravgaard
Monte-Carlo.
From what I've heard some of the matches, including the final, were
fixed - and the bookmakers went brooke because of heavy bets that
became winning bets.
Could someone who knows about this please let us know what happened.
Erik Gravgaard
Pres. of the Danish
Backgammon Federation
victor_m._petersen
>
>For this reason bookmakers have been reluctant to accept bets on the Norwegian Championships.
The bookmaker needs favorable odds or a well diversified betting range to protect against this problem in backgammon.
>Victor M. Petersen
The Norwegian Backgammon Federation
>>
Marty Storer
bookies' problems protecting themselves
against fixed backgammon matches. This in
the context of a "Scandal in Monte-Carlo."
I've heard independent rumors of a scandal
regarding this year's Monte Carlo tournament.
They're not the first rumors I've heard of
scandals in Monte Carlo tournaments.
Of course, any sporting event can be fixed,
and you bet on the outcome with that risk
present.
When it comes to backgammon matches, I don't
bet on anyone but myself. I've heard too many
rumors, and I know too much from firsthand
experience to feel safe doing otherwise. My
advice to others is to do as I do.
Play well,
Marty
Erik Gravgaard
> Play well,
> Marty
I am sorry, but the bookmaker aspect is really not my primary concern.
I simply find it unacceptable, if matches are being fixed.
If I have it my way, we will bar any player taking part in such
unethical action at a Danish tournament.
I was rather hoping that this forum would be able to shed a little
light on the matter, as I will deny to take action merely on rumours
alone - now if they could be substantiated ......
Walter Swan Jr
: sto...@castle.drc.com (Marty Storer) wrote:
: >Victor Petersen and Erik Gravgaard mention
: >bookies' problems protecting themselves
: >against fixed backgammon matches. This in
: >the context of a "Scandal in Monte-Carlo."
: >I've heard independent rumors of a scandal
: >regarding this year's Monte Carlo tournament.
: >Of course, any sporting event can be fixed,
: >and you bet on the outcome with that risk
: >present.
: I am sorry, but the bookmaker aspect is really not my primary concern.
: I simply find it unacceptable, if matches are being fixed.
: If I have it my way, we will bar any player taking part in such
: unethical action at a Danish tournament.
: I was rather hoping that this forum would be able to shed a little
: light on the matter, as I will deny to take action merely on rumors
: alone - now if they could be substantiated ......
: Erik Gravgaard
: Pres. of the Danish
: Backgammon Federation
As I have heard it only the finals were fixed, so who was hurt? It is
common practice for finalists to "hedge", that is before the match, or
during the match, to agree to split the winnings different the the
tournament winner/loser percentage. Perhaps I am naive, or have a
different view of ethics, but if the finalists agreed to increase their
overall equity (winner's tournament share + losers tournament share +
pari-mutual wagering share), then I have no problem with their private
arrangements. However, if preliminary matches were fixed, this would harm
uninvolved future round opponents. Specificly, I do not remember official
rules stating you must play to win at all costs.
On the other hand, no one directly was hurt in the Monte Carlo tournament
by alleged finals pre-agreement, But indirectly, in other tournaments, the
achievement, honor, and recognition, of a hard fought, and honestly won
tournament championship may be tainted by the imagined cloud of
dishonestly.
--
_
( '
walt\___)w...@netcom.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Christopher Yep
This is a tricky topic, because there are more people involved than just
the finalists. There is gambling on the match, Calcutta action, etc.
Also, the tournament's reputation is on the line. For example, if the
finalists fixed the match, then it would indicate that they believed that
money was more important than the honor of being Monte Carlo (World) Champion.
I think that it's reasonable if the finalists settle before or during the
match, as long as they still play a "legitimate" hard-fought match. This
happens in many events (not only backgammon), and I don't think that it
harms the reputation of the tournament too much. Remember that the players
are often under a lot of pressure and stress.
However, settling a match, and fixing a match are two very different things
IMO.
|> Perhaps I am naive, or have a
|>different view of ethics, but if the finalists agreed to increase their
|>overall equity (winner's tournament share + losers tournament share +
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>pari-mutual wagering share), then I have no problem with their private
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>arrangements. However, if preliminary matches were fixed, this would harm
|>uninvolved future round opponents.
If the finalists fixed the match for their own monetary gain (e.g. by
betting heavily on the underdog (personally or through their friends/
bookies/managers, etc), and then throwing the match to the underdog), then
this is very dishonest IMO. In fact, could they then be sued for fraud?
Imagine the outrage if it were discovered that the Mike Tyson-James Douglas
1991(?) heavyweight boxing championship match were fixed - and Tyson or
his agents had personally laid several million dollars on Douglas
(Douglas was between a 25:1 and 50:1 underdog and won the match)!
|>Specificly, I do not remember official
|>rules stating you must play to win at all costs.
That may be true, but if it they fixed the match for monetary gain, then
it is very dishonest and fraudulent, as well as possibly illegal (fraud?).
|>On the other hand, no one directly was hurt in the Monte Carlo tournament
|>by alleged finals pre-agreement,
If they fixed the match for monetary gain, then their winnings would have
to come from somewhere... They would have hurt many people...
|>But indirectly, in other tournaments, the
|>achievement, honor, and recognition, of a hard fought, and honestly won
|>tournament championship may be tainted by the imagined cloud of
|>dishonestly.
That's true - if a player has been proven to be dishonest in previous
tournaments, then people will perceive him/her more likely to be dishonest
in future tournaments.
The question remains: Were any matches fixed? For financial gain?
I would like to know, as well as many other people, including probably
those associated with the Monte Carlo tournament.
Chris
Asger Kring
>As I have heard it only the finals were fixed, so who was hurt? It is
>common practice for finalists to "hedge", that is before the match, or
>during the match, to agree to split the winnings different the the
>tournament winner/loser percentage. Perhaps I am naive, or have a
>different view of ethics, but if the finalists agreed to increase their
>overall equity (winner's tournament share + losers tournament share +
>pari-mutual wagering share), then I have no problem with their private
>arrangements. However, if preliminary matches were fixed, this would harm
>uninvolved future round opponents. Specificly, I do not remember official
>rules stating you must play to win at all costs.
I have a serious problem if players are not playing to win. Imagine if
the players in a superbowl threw a match because they all had a big wager
on the game! Does NFL rules say that the teams have to play to win?
I have no problems if two players in a final or earlier rounds makes
settlements, where they trade with their own interests. In a quaterfinal
(where the winner will receive money), the players can agree that the
loser gets a fixed amount of money or a fixed % of what the winner gets.
But players trading with other peoples interests (such as the
bookmakers), is something I cannot accept. The important thing is that
the players play to win. I've directed many tournaments, and if I
discover someone is throwing a match where a 3rd party interest is
involved, I wouldn't hesitate to eject both players from the tournament.
I don't think the rules should include anything about the players should
play to win - that should be self-evident.
>On the other hand, no one directly was hurt in the Monte Carlo tournament
>by alleged finals pre-agreement, But indirectly, in other tournaments, the
>achievement, honor, and recognition, of a hard fought, and honestly won
>tournament championship may be tainted by the imagined cloud of
>dishonestly.
I don't think the bookmaker or the interested parties from the auction
agree with the first sentence in the above paragrahp.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Asger Kring | If you would not be forgotten |
| email : kr...@dknet.dk | as soon as you are dead & rotten |
| WWW : http://www.dknet.dk/~kring | either write things worth reading |
| FIBS : Albatross | or do things worth the writing |
| | Benjamin Franklin |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Gravgaard
(snip)
>As I have heard it only the finals were fixed, so who was hurt? It is
>common practice for finalists to "hedge", that is before the match, or
>during the match, to agree to split the winnings different the the
>tournament winner/loser percentage. Perhaps I am naive, or have a
>different view of ethics, but if the finalists agreed to increase their
>overall equity (winner's tournament share + losers tournament share +
>pari-mutual wagering share), then I have no problem with their private
>arrangements. However, if preliminary matches were fixed, this would harm
>uninvolved future round opponents. Specificly, I do not remember official
>rules stating you must play to win at all costs.
>On the other hand, no one directly was hurt in the Monte Carlo tournament
>by alleged finals pre-agreement, But indirectly, in other tournaments, the
>achievement, honor, and recognition, of a hard fought, and honestly won
>tournament championship may be tainted by the imagined cloud of
>dishonestly.
To me it is not important if someone actually was hurt financially or
not. The mere risk that someone might be hurt is enough.
IMO backgammon tournaments should be sporting events as any other
sporting event (football, baseball, icehokey, chess, boxing etc.).
The results from the elite events should something that the interested
followers rely on, and take part in - and this makes it an absolute
must that it can be trusted that all players will do their best to
win.
Financial hedging is something else. But as a security precution I
would like to see a rule implemented that states that all heding
agreements should be reported to the tournament director in order to
be in effect. This should also avoid someone to be cheated off their
hedge (which has happened).
Please, let's make it (keep it) a true gentleman's game, with honour
and prestige being the primary concern of the players.
Geary Radcliffe
> IMO backgammon tournaments should be sporting events as any other
> sporting event (football, baseball, icehokey, chess
Ah, but even in chess the finals are sometimes too quickly agreed to draw,
more so at local tournaments than in World competition.
Geary (Reggie) Radcliffe
Albert Steg
Gravgaard) wrote:
>
> IMO backgammon tournaments should be sporting events as any other
> sporting event (football, baseball, icehokey, chess, boxing etc.).
...and of course, who ever heard of a boxing match being thrown?
Well...at least it's never happened in baseball....D'oh!
> The results from the elite events should something that the interested
> followers rely on, and take part in - and this makes it an absolute
> must that it can be trusted that all players will do their best to
> win.
>>>deletia<<<
> Please, let's make it (keep it) a true gentleman's game, with honour
> and prestige being the primary concern of the players.
That would be nice...except that it may simply be unrealistic in a game
with so much $ on the line. The many layers of betting action that rides
on top of backgammon tournaments makes for a highly charged $
environment. Considering that there are often:
entry fee
sweeps pool (sometimes at more than one $ lev el)
calcutta auction (w/buybacks)
side bets
*without* any outside bookies getting involved....
Well, maybe the honor of winning the trophy gets lost. I've sometimes
wondered abou conflicts of interest in the midst of all of this, (although
I'm not very involved in the tournament scene). It starts to look a bit
like a chouette in which some of the players have pooled their interest in
the game.
Given that $ acts as a strong incentive for people to master BG, and given
that many strong players rely on it as a staple of their income, it may be
that this Darwinian pool just doesn't "select" for gentlemanly honor.
Too bad.
Albert
Kit Woolsey
backgammon tournaments where money incentives may make it more profitable
for a player to lose the match. I thought it would be interesting to
relate an incident I was indirectly involved in at Monte-Carlo over 15
years ago. For obvious reasons I'd rather not mention the names of any
of the people involved, but the story is quite true.
For those of you who are not familiar with backgammon tournaments and
calcutta auctions, a calcutta is an auction where the players are
auctioned off to the highest bidders. The money from the auction goes
into the calcutta pool, which is distributed to the owners of the winners
or high finishers in the tournament. Often the players are grouped into
fields, and a field is auctioned off as a package deal (i.e. if you buy
the field, you own all the players in the field and if any of them
finishes in the money you will get something back). In addition, the
players are permitted to buy back a portion of themselves, thus
increasing their stake in the event.
At the Monte Carlo tournament, I was in a field which had been purchased
by a couple of good friends of mine. I had bought back a percentage of
the field, which meant that if someone in the field did well I would
profit as would the owners of the field. One of the players in the field
(I'll call him Joe -- not his real name) was rolling through the
consolation event. When Joe reached the money round, he came to my
friends who had bought the field with the following proposition: He said
that he was playing a friend of his in the money round, and that the match
would not actually be played. If my friends gave him X percent ownership
in the field he would report himself as the winner; otherwise he would
report his opponent as the winner. Obviously the X percent was chosen
such that it would be to my friends' financial advantage to accept his
proposition.
So, what should my friends (who are extremely ethical and honest people)
do in an extortion situation like this? They asked me about it, but I
really could give them no decent advice. Note that I happened to be
indirectly involved even as an innocent bystander, since I had bought
back a percentage of the field.
Eventually, my friends agreed to the deal. Joe was reported as the winner
of the match, and he then went on to win the consolation. My share of the
auction pool for his winning was about $3000 and I only owned 10% of the
field if my memory is correct, so you can see that there were some decent
sums of money involved in this crookedness. My friends did report what
happened to the tournament director and there was a committee meeting,
but as expected Joe denied everything and the matter was dropped.
Now, here's the really interesting part. As it happened Joe and I had
become pretty good friends during the tournament (this friendship had
developed before the extortion incident). After everything was over, he
came to me and in all sincerity said: "What was everybody so upset
about? All I was doing was making everybody some money." In my opinion,
he fully meant this. In his mind he had not done anything remotely
unethical -- he was just doing the financially profitable thing. And of
course he did make money for himself, his opponent in the unplayed match
(who was obviously in on the deal), my friends who had bought the field,
and myself since I owned a portion of the field. The fact that he had
totally screwed the owner or owners of the field which his opponent was
in meant nothing to him. It should be noted that Joe is not a sleazy
hustler -- he is a quite respected professional in his field (once again
I'm not going to be more specific since I don't want the people involved
to be identified). In his mind, what he did was perfectly ethical and
proper.
I'm not saying that this sort of thing is common. In my experience in
American tournaments over the last several years I have come across
virtually no dumping of matches for financial profit. I haven't been to
European tournaments for a long time so I can't say much about them;
hopefully the ethical standards are higher than what occurred in the
incident I described. However this does show that when large amounts of
money are at stake as they often are in calcuttas and side betting there
is opportunity for unscrupulous activity, and innocent bystanders can get
screwed without realizing anything is wrong.
Kit
Michael Klein
described of a match being thrown for calcutta profit disturbs but
does not surprise me. I do think, however, that there are some things
that we can do in setting up rules for backgammon tournaments to make
this sort of collusion more difficult. I have no illusions that any
reasonable rules would stop it, but at very least, we should be able
to make it clear that it is regarded as unacceptable so that the
perpetrators will have a harder time rationalizing it.
Any player with a financial interest in his opponent's victory should
report that to the tournament director. This includes the normal case
of hedging, as well as calcutta money, and the most dangerous case of
a calcutta investment in his opponent of greater value than his own
potential prize money. If a player reports to the director that his
equity will be larger if he loses his current match, that information
should be passed on to all investors in both players so that they will
have an opportunity to watch the match if they so desire.
All matches should be played in an open area and players ability to
bar spectators without cause should be limited. This will at least
create a risk of being caught and require that if a match is to be
dumped that the players go to a fair amount of effort.
When the tournament is down to only a few matches, the director
should, from time to time, check the status of each match, thereby
guaranteeing that the match is being played. This will also help
reduce slow play since it will be an opportunity to introduce chess
clocks if the match is well behind.
Of course, the real solution to this problem is for backgammon players
to behave honorably at tournaments, but if only 99% are willing to do
that, we need to find a way to deter the others.
A misc. aside: making it harder to manipulate results will also have
the side benefit of greatly reducing unfounded accusations. I have no
idea what happened in Monte Carlo, but it worries me that this rumor
has gone as far as it has with what appears to be virtually no
supporting evidence. So far, I've yet to even hear from anyone with
secondhand knowledge of what happened -- let alone first hand
knowledge.
Michael Klein
mklein on FIBS
michael rochman
<much snipped>
>I'm not saying that this sort of thing is common. In my experience in
>American tournaments over the last several years I have come across
>virtually no dumping of matches for financial profit. I haven't been to
>European tournaments for a long time so I can't say much about them;
>hopefully the ethical standards are higher than what occurred in the
>incident I described. However this does show that when large amounts of
>money are at stake as they often are in calcuttas and side betting there
>is opportunity for unscrupulous activity, and innocent bystanders can get
>screwed without realizing anything is wrong.
Kit,
I suggest that "Joe" is either pretty naive or is pulling legs for a
living.
You mentioned that he may be scrupulous in his other business
dealings. I'd suggest that we are not aware of all of his other
business dealings. I'd also suggest that there is no such thing as
being a little bit pregnant.
As you said, when money is at stake, some people can, and often do,
create their own code of ethics. Some of us call this behavior
self-serving. The rest of us call it sociopathic.
You didn't ask, but here's what I would have done when approached as
an owner of the field as your friends were...
I would have asked Joe were he aware that he would be cheating by
exhibiting such actions. If he answered no, I'd have explained it to
him, and then asked him what his intentions were. If there were a
negative response to that..or if he assured me that he knew that he
was cheating, I'd have taken the group of wittnesses to the directors
and turned him in BEFORE the match.
I don't know of a way to say the following without appearing rude, and
I wish you no rudeness... your friends were 100% wrong. They were
accomplices to the sham. Only afterwards, with money in pocket, did a
collective conscience appear that was strong enough to take action.
Or, did they take the collected winnings and try to force it back on
the directors?
A question... why did the directors sluff this off? Because Joe's
actions were turned in to them as an afterthought? Or, because
directors don't get involved in administrating corrections for such
actions?
Thanks for relating this story. If nothing else, it's going to make
for a very interesting thread...
Regards, Mike
STLguy on FIBS
Marty Storer
cheaters described in Kit Woolsey's anecdote.
Bravo.
At least match-fixing involving Calcutta money
figures to be fairly rare, a lot more rare than
fixing matches to screw people betting directly
on the match outside of a Calcutta. So I take
my chances in auctions but never bet on other
people's matches unless I know the participants
fairly well.
But I agree that the participants in this scam
behaved unethically and should have had some
action taken against them. My guess is that
directors don't usually want to bother with
such unpleasantness, especially in a situation
where cheating normally would occur invisibly.
But the more organizers clamp down on this sort
of thing, the less it will be seen.
Play well,
Marty