Financial times article on 'Insider betting'

[Euler]

Why is ‘Insider Betting’ a Thing?

https://www.ft.com/content/1f1a500b-74d ... b93dd3ada0

Well, who would have bet on that?

Although London's Metropolitan Police ended their investigation into last year’s election betting scandal pretty quickly, it seems the UK Gambling Commission sees things differently.

It has now charged 15 people – including former MPs, current members of the Senedd, the Conservative party’s former chief data officer, and their former head of campaigning – with the offence of “cheating” under Section 42 of the Gambling Act 2005.

As Alphaville suggested at the time, this is quite an odd case. As you can see from the number of people who have “former” in front of their job titles, being a Conservative Party insider in 2024 wasn’t exactly a good look. But the amount of money involved is also not life-changing – the bets seem to have been in the order of £100 at odds of 5/1.

Regulators don’t usually get involved in criminal cases for these sums of money. But nor does the Gambling Commission, typically. Between the Act being passed and a Freedom of Information request filed in 2019, they brought precisely one successful conviction under Section 42 – someone fixing greyhound races.

There were no more mentioned in the next year’s annual report, and none have made the headlines this year.

So, if the Commission wins its cases at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, we could end up in the bizarre situation where 94% of all criminal convictions for this offence relate to inside information on election dates.

This suggests serious mission drift. Section 42 of the Gambling Act wasn’t designed to extend insider trading laws into betting. It was meant for match-fixing, casino cheating, and racehorse nobbling.

Most sports have their own governing bodies – like the FA or the BHA – which run disciplinary proceedings. Casino cheating is usually a matter for the police. In fact, the Gambling Commission itself says that, in many cases, “someone else is better placed to handle cheating investigations.”

When it comes to insider betting, the Commission admits there are only limited circumstances where a criminal investigation is appropriate – such as high-impact cases, repeated behaviour, or establishing legal precedent.

They even note that, in most “restricted information” cases (i.e., someone using job-related info for betting), sports bodies or employers should handle it, and betting operators should refuse bets under their own rules.

So, why throw the book?

Possibly to save face after a high-profile intervention during an election campaign. Or perhaps because this is about setting precedent.

There’s even a handy flowchart on the Gambling Commission website suggesting “novel” cases get extra attention.

In fact, “insider betting” isn’t even defined in legislation. It only became a thing in 2018, when the Gambling Commission published a policy paper saying it would interpret the word “cheating” in this way under the 2005 Act.

The upcoming cases will be judged mostly on vibes. Courts have never clearly defined cheating beyond “what a normal person would regard as cheating.” There’s no need to prove dishonest intent, and what counts as cheating in one game might be fair play in another.

This could set a precedent – not for politics (no one setting election dates will go near a betting shop now), but for other industries where large sums depend on confidential knowledge, and low-paid staff are often in the know.

The Commission highlighted specific examples:

- Knowledge of team line-ups before they’re public
- A club manager leaving, and someone betting on it
- Advance knowledge of a contestant's health status in a TV talent show
- Employees of betting firms exploiting unusual betting patterns without reporting them

Why do bookies get this level of regulatory protection? Why does it matter who knows what about Celebrity Big Brother line-ups?

Still, if you know someone in media who trades hot tips for side income, you might want to keep an eye on Westminster Magistrates on 13 June.

[Euler]

Gambling commission definition of 'inside information'

https://assets.ctfassets.net/j16ev64qyf ... mation.pdf

[Euler]

So does this mean that fast pictures and drones are 'cheating'

[sionascaig]

Or to turn it around do the bookies have "inside" information that reflects the odds they offer?

(was reminded of an article on asian bookmakers who identify "cheats / fixers" but still accept their bets in order to get the info)

And then there was the Mo Johnston signing for Rangers back in the day - when loads of bets went on the day before he signed - as no way would Rangers sign an ex-Celtic player (and a catholic)!!!

[LeTiss]

The gambling commission are going to destroy the industry. Surely, anything that is deemed an edge will be classified as insider betting! - That means API's and automated bots are a form of insider betting. Even the bookies themselves will be guilty of it, as they set prices according to all the information they have on events

[jamesedwards]

Surely what we do comes under "art of betting" which the GC claim to have no issue with?

z128.JPG

But goodness know what they think they are doing putting so much energy into this tiny issue when there are multiple massive industry-wide problems that need urgent investigation.

[ShaunWhite]

That means API's and automated bots are a form of insider betting.

I'm not sure they're in the same category, APIs and automation don't constitute insider 'knowledge', they're just the equivalent of running to the betting shop instead of walking.

If new rulings are too Draconian the operators will just move offshore, firms like Polymarket certainly aren't going to bow to the UK govt.

[jamesedwards]

Surely what we do comes under "art of betting" which the GC claim to have no issue with?

z128.JPG


But goodness know what they think they are doing putting so much energy into this tiny issue when there are multiple massive industry-wide problems that need urgent investigation.

Here's some dubious, but wide-spread bookmaker practices that would actually benefit the public for GC to investigate:
> Abuse of affordability and AML legislation to withhold funds and delay withdrawals.
> Refusal to accept reasonable stakes at publicised odds.
> Manipulation of racing SPs.
> The often overwhelming prominence of casino gaming within their offer.

[Lynskey888]

Interesting article.

I think the revelations around election date betting were motivated by the desire to cause political embarrassment more than anything else. I feel a bit sorry for the people caught up in it, particularly given the sums involved.

The problem with markets like election dates, TV shows, awards, next managers etc is that someone always knows something, and often those in the know will number many more than can be counted on your fingers and toes.

Bookies and the exchange used to offer Strictly elimination markets. Is that correct? To the best of my knowledge, the elimination show has always been recorded on the Saturday, directly after the main show, then played out on the Sunday. Think of all the people that would have known the result - crew, studio audience, playout staff… Then there’s the folk they’ve talked to… Hundreds of individuals.

When I’ve entered into these special markets it’s always been in the knowledge that people with inside information would be betting on the event. I would expect that and never for a second considered it as cheating.

If bookies are worried about market probity the simple solution is to make no offerings on any event where the outcome will be known to people in advance. No betting on anything that talks.

[Naffman]

So a trainer/stable lad/owner who has knowledge of an unraced horse that is well above average and back him must be against BHA's rules as well then? As that is not public knowledge. This just opens a can of worms IMO, bookies must expect some insiders on certain markets.

[Tuco]

Bookies and the exchange used to offer Strictly elimination markets. Is that correct? To the best of my knowledge, the elimination show has always been recorded on the Saturday, directly after the main show, then played out on the Sunday. Think of all the people that would have known the result - crew, studio audience, playout staff… Then there’s the folk they’ve talked to… Hundreds of individuals.

Yes the bookies used to offer Strictly elimination markets, but only when the results show was screened live on the Sunday night. The BBC then decided to save a few quid by recording the results show on the Saturday night after the main show and after a change of clothes for the presenters and judges, meaning that the elimination results were known by all who attended the show on the Saturday night. Shame as it was a lucrative bookie market.

Betfair still offer an elimination market on the exchange which is suspended when the voting lines close on the Saturday night and therefore before the elimination result is known by anyone.

[Tuco]

So a trainer/stable lad/owner who has knowledge of an unraced horse that is well above average and back him must be against BHA's rules as well then? As that is not public knowledge. This just opens a can of worms IMO, bookies must expect some insiders on certain markets.

Each to their own, but this is precisely why I don't bet on horses and dogs.

#BarneyCurley #TheSureThing

The Sure Thing.jpg

[Lynskey888]

Yes the bookies used to offer Strictly elimination markets, but only when the results show was screened live on the Sunday night. The BBC then decided to save a few quid by recording the results show on the Saturday night after the main show…

Ah, I did wonder about that. I can only remember the elimination show as a pre-record. Not a big fan!