Insiders rig markets to their proprietary advantage.
Economists rig statistics and modelling to suit their blinkered and highly selective views of reality.
The "dismal" in the Dismal Science has alternative dictionary definitions that are nearer the truth of the alleged science it describes. The Free Dictionary offers "characterized by ineptitude, dullness, or a lack of merit" and "obsolete dreadful; disastrous", for example. Economics is not a science as such. It may have links to scientific disciplines like behaviouralism while it frequently uses and abuses statistical techniques and Black Box Technologies (Bbts) but economics is a multi-disciplinary macro/micro guesstimate of our global reality. When faced with the multi-layered complexities of a global financial system, economists seek, primarily, inside information but otherwise fall back on Bbts and econometrics and other tools that, in inexperienced hands, can produce illusory correlations and anomalies. Even when valid as part of a trading portfolio, Bbts depend on the inputs and, hence, are heavily dependent on the individual training up the software also undertaking the same analysis using more traditional non-linear mathematics and regressions. Vitally, this individual also should still be undertaking the analysis in long-hand, so to speak - it is only by trawling through the data yourself that you develop a feel for the market microstructure and without such micro-holistics, one cannot expect to be training one's Bbts to anything like the optimal degree. Econometrics is even sillier - mathematicians try and produce progressively more obtuse solutions to a rational reality that simply does not exist while the irrationality, lack of market efficiency, the insider trading, the corruption, the behaviouralism that underpins the real reality is beyond both their comprehension and, consequently, their models.
But where economists really show their true colours is in the marketing of their fake statistics. Disinformation is rife in media, in governmental despatches and official statistics. But it is more odiously utilised in areas like developmental economics.
Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) is one such ruse. PPP is a method of using the long-run equilibrium exchange rate of two currencies to equalize the currencies' purchasing power. It is based on the law of one price, the idea that, in an efficient market, identical goods must have only one price. A simple example of PPP for non-economists would be the Big Mac Index published quarterly in The Economist which compares the price of a food product made out of leftover bits of cow in different countries in order to determine whether currencies are under or overvalued. PPP is massive for the world economic overseers as it is the only measure which doesn't show the plight of the global underclass to be worsening over the last quarter of a century. The ability to purchase a few lower tier first world products does not represent economic freedom. For people of the heavily indebted poor countries (HIPCs), having coca cola pushed onto you at a vaguely affordable price, if you don't eat that is, is not liberty. If the global economic system is unable or unwilling to provide a sustainable system for the populations at the sharp end of this rat race then there has to be a freedom of movement to allow the disenfranchised to seek a better future elsewhere meritocratically. Both xenophobia and the realities of PPP make this a journey of peril. If you survive the boat passage and the attentions of the security practitioners who protect our gated countries, you will find that your currency doesn't buy your slaughtered animal remains quite so cheaply anymore and you suddenly realise that there is no escape other than to the bottom of another countries economic system where illegal employment (with associated lack of worker's rights) and the black market become the ghettoised reality. Yet, PPP allows us all that nice warm glow of thinking that the highly abusive system that is shareholder capitalism might actually be delivering some benefits to the bottom of the pile in a suitably laudable trickledown effect. There are numerous more minor issues relating to PPP too. Statistical reliability depends on identical products being available globally and you don't find too many Lexus Hybrid Drives in Somalia. Additionally, comparing standards of living using the PPP method implicitly assumes that the real value placed on goods is the same in different countries. In reality, what is considered a luxury in one culture could be considered a necessity in another. Furthermore, as a little cluster bomb of globalisation, the system imposes itself on the local environment using standard divide and rule tactics to produce the few abusers and the masses of the abused. Income inequalities are parallelled by inequalities in rights as a business elite controls a disenfranchised and enslaved population - think Thaksin Shinawatra. And as a final welcome to this globalised system, the path to the summit is steeper and longer than ever with global income inequalities (measured in any other manner other than PPP) reveal an increasing gap between the have's and the have-nothing's. A further example of the lunacy of PPP has been posted here previously - the size of the Chinese economy will surpass America in 2027 in reality; in PPP-land, it has done so this year. This must be news to the peasants of inland China.
And they have the fucking cheek to call this reality!?
To quote Professor Sheataj Singh: "It is obvious what the attraction is here for western conglomerates.The key thing that India has to offer the global economy is some of the world's cheapest labour, and this is the saddest thing of all the horrors that arise from Delhi's 15,000 inadequately regulated garment factories, some of which are among the worst sweatshops ever to taint the human conscience. Consumers in the West should not only be demanding answers from retailers as to how goods are produced but looking deep within themselves at how they spend their money".
There is no more abusive a form of capitalism than the sub-species that the planet is currently enduring and it is important that we look beyond their statistical propaganda and lies to the structural and economic environments which exist both to disprove the integrity and morality of their psychopathic financial system and to inform in a manner of, as the Italians might say, dietrologia.
If we're going to have a war on terror then lets have one on the terrors of a neo-liberal imperialist capitalism.
© Football Is Fixed/Dietrological
Wednesday, 31 October 2007
Friday, 31 August 2007
Sinister Mafia-Linked Oligarch Buys Into Arsenal
We posted last Sunday that Arsenal were one of only two prominent Premiership teams that hadn't yet sold out to corrupt owners (see: http://footballisfixed.blogspot.com/2007/08/arsnes-arsenal-about-to-go-arse-over.html).
Yesterday, that situation changed in the most disturbing way imaginable. Former Arsenal vice-chairman (the word "vice" being particularly meaningful here) David Dein sold his 14.58% stake in Arsenal to Red And White Holdings (R&WH) - an investment vehicle owned by Uzbek billionaire Alisher Usmanov. Aside from the reward of pocketing £75 million ($150 million) on a stake that originally cost him just £300,000, Dein will become chairman of R&WH. Dein will head up the R&WH's attempts to increase their stake in the Gunners, but the firm insist they have no immediate plans to mount a takeover. Dein was forced off Arsenal's board in April after falling out with his fellow directors over their failure to support his plan to back a takeover by American businessman Stanley Kroenke. There are now fears that R&WH will team up with Kroenke to launch a hostile bid for Arsenal.
So far so similar to standard capitalist business practice worldwide. What sets this deal apart from the norm is Mr Alisher Usmanov.
Usmanov is 278th on the Forbes Rich List and is Russia's 18th richest man with assets totalling £2.75 billion. His prime business interests include being sole proprietor of Gallagher Holdings Ltd, owner of the Kommersant newspaper and Gazmetall steel and mining empire, he owns half of Metalloinvest and is a director of Gazprominvestholding which manages the debts of Russian monopolistic gas giant, Gazprom. The man also owns a mobile phone company, a couple of television stations and is very interested in the diamond trade.
These are the bits of his life, alongside his interest in fencing, that Mr Usmanov wishes for the world to see. Inevitably in the world of Russia's oligarchs, there is an awful lot more below the surface that Uzbek Usmanov wishes to hide from prying eyes.
Usmanov is "a typical oligarch with a very murky past" which leaves him open to pressure from the Kremlin (see: http://russophobe.blogspot.com/2006/10/editor-of-kommersant-out.html). Last year, Usmanov bought Kommersant (a leading Russian business journal that was, at the time, critical of Putin) at the Kremlin's request. The newspaper was formerly owned by Boris Berezovsky - a man who is no stranger to controversial football corruptions as we have posted previously and who has been recently implicated in the murder of journalist Anna Politkovskaya. Usmanov himself stated after the purchase: "no-one asked me to buy the publisher, although I should say that my purchase of it was not against the wishes of the authorities". In today's Russia, this is a clear indication that Usmanov enjoys Putin's approval. After taking over Kommersant, the editor-in-chief was immediately sacked while the defence correspondent, Igor Safranov, mysteriously fell to his death from a Moscow window three months later. The new editor of Kommersant is Andrei Vasilyev who is a close collaborator of Berezovsky and the word on the street in Moscow is that Usmanov is plate-spinning trying to keep well-in with both Putin and Berezovsky so that he may retain his power bases no matter which route Russia moves along in the near future. Usmanov also shares close links to Roman Abramovich via their shared links to the metals sector.
In the grey world of Russian oligarchy, there are two ways to assess an individuals past and current hidden agendas - their previous/current business and political links and the views of those who have come into close contact with the operator historically.
Described widely as "the hard man of Russia" which, when one considers the other hard men of the country, is a pretty disturbing motif, the Mail On Sunday calls Usmanov a "sinister...oligarch". Usmanov has very close links to fellow Uzbek, Gafor Rakhimov - in Uzbekistan, when people utter Rakhimov's name, they prefer to say it quietly. Rakhimov is Uzbekistan's richest self-made businessman and The Observer has labelled him "a major figure in Uzbekistan's booming heroin trade". Rakhimov is also accused of conspiracy and rampant involvement in organised crime and he is close to the Uzbek dictator Islam Karimov as, indeed, through his friendship with his daughter, is Usmanov. Rakhimov cooperates with Usmanov via Gazprom which is a channel for massive slush funds and linkages to offshore financial centres (OFCs). Gazprom's Sergei Kuprianov states: "he [Usmanov] devises vehicles for handling our most difficult and sensitive transactions". In support of this view, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, states that Usmanov "was in charge of Gazprom's bribery and slush funds" and, in his book "Murder In Samarkand" describes human rights abuses including boiling people to death. Reports have claimed that Britain's National Criminal Intelligence Service was monitoring Usmanov for alleged links to suspected mafia figures and a report by Lena Smirnova entitled "Uzbekistan: The Disappeared" suggests that cute and cuddly Mr Usmanov is linked to the abduction of Uzbek dissidents living abroad - a view that is supported by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.
All in all, in the warped world of Richard Scudamore (the chief executive of the Premier League), Alisher Usmanov is evidently a fit and proper person for potential future ownership of one of the big four English football teams!
Dein has encouraged Arsène Wenger to sign a new contract and claims that the pair will work together again in the future. Wenger was known to be disappointed about the manner of Dein's departure but has remained silent, in public at least, about his views on the developing takeover battle at the Emirates although he is known to be disconcerted about the manner in which English clubs are being bought up by global inappropriates. We await Wenger's views.
Kroenke and R&WH now own 26.77% of the shares in Arsenal which, if they combine forces, would make them the largest single shareholder in the club. It also would put them close to the 29.9% benchmark that would require a takeover bid to be launched.
The battle for the soul of Arsenal is only just beginning.
© Football Is Fixed/Dietrological
Yesterday, that situation changed in the most disturbing way imaginable. Former Arsenal vice-chairman (the word "vice" being particularly meaningful here) David Dein sold his 14.58% stake in Arsenal to Red And White Holdings (R&WH) - an investment vehicle owned by Uzbek billionaire Alisher Usmanov. Aside from the reward of pocketing £75 million ($150 million) on a stake that originally cost him just £300,000, Dein will become chairman of R&WH. Dein will head up the R&WH's attempts to increase their stake in the Gunners, but the firm insist they have no immediate plans to mount a takeover. Dein was forced off Arsenal's board in April after falling out with his fellow directors over their failure to support his plan to back a takeover by American businessman Stanley Kroenke. There are now fears that R&WH will team up with Kroenke to launch a hostile bid for Arsenal.
So far so similar to standard capitalist business practice worldwide. What sets this deal apart from the norm is Mr Alisher Usmanov.
Usmanov is 278th on the Forbes Rich List and is Russia's 18th richest man with assets totalling £2.75 billion. His prime business interests include being sole proprietor of Gallagher Holdings Ltd, owner of the Kommersant newspaper and Gazmetall steel and mining empire, he owns half of Metalloinvest and is a director of Gazprominvestholding which manages the debts of Russian monopolistic gas giant, Gazprom. The man also owns a mobile phone company, a couple of television stations and is very interested in the diamond trade.
These are the bits of his life, alongside his interest in fencing, that Mr Usmanov wishes for the world to see. Inevitably in the world of Russia's oligarchs, there is an awful lot more below the surface that Uzbek Usmanov wishes to hide from prying eyes.
Usmanov is "a typical oligarch with a very murky past" which leaves him open to pressure from the Kremlin (see: http://russophobe.blogspot.com/2006/10/editor-of-kommersant-out.html). Last year, Usmanov bought Kommersant (a leading Russian business journal that was, at the time, critical of Putin) at the Kremlin's request. The newspaper was formerly owned by Boris Berezovsky - a man who is no stranger to controversial football corruptions as we have posted previously and who has been recently implicated in the murder of journalist Anna Politkovskaya. Usmanov himself stated after the purchase: "no-one asked me to buy the publisher, although I should say that my purchase of it was not against the wishes of the authorities". In today's Russia, this is a clear indication that Usmanov enjoys Putin's approval. After taking over Kommersant, the editor-in-chief was immediately sacked while the defence correspondent, Igor Safranov, mysteriously fell to his death from a Moscow window three months later. The new editor of Kommersant is Andrei Vasilyev who is a close collaborator of Berezovsky and the word on the street in Moscow is that Usmanov is plate-spinning trying to keep well-in with both Putin and Berezovsky so that he may retain his power bases no matter which route Russia moves along in the near future. Usmanov also shares close links to Roman Abramovich via their shared links to the metals sector.
In the grey world of Russian oligarchy, there are two ways to assess an individuals past and current hidden agendas - their previous/current business and political links and the views of those who have come into close contact with the operator historically.
Described widely as "the hard man of Russia" which, when one considers the other hard men of the country, is a pretty disturbing motif, the Mail On Sunday calls Usmanov a "sinister...oligarch". Usmanov has very close links to fellow Uzbek, Gafor Rakhimov - in Uzbekistan, when people utter Rakhimov's name, they prefer to say it quietly. Rakhimov is Uzbekistan's richest self-made businessman and The Observer has labelled him "a major figure in Uzbekistan's booming heroin trade". Rakhimov is also accused of conspiracy and rampant involvement in organised crime and he is close to the Uzbek dictator Islam Karimov as, indeed, through his friendship with his daughter, is Usmanov. Rakhimov cooperates with Usmanov via Gazprom which is a channel for massive slush funds and linkages to offshore financial centres (OFCs). Gazprom's Sergei Kuprianov states: "he [Usmanov] devises vehicles for handling our most difficult and sensitive transactions". In support of this view, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, states that Usmanov "was in charge of Gazprom's bribery and slush funds" and, in his book "Murder In Samarkand" describes human rights abuses including boiling people to death. Reports have claimed that Britain's National Criminal Intelligence Service was monitoring Usmanov for alleged links to suspected mafia figures and a report by Lena Smirnova entitled "Uzbekistan: The Disappeared" suggests that cute and cuddly Mr Usmanov is linked to the abduction of Uzbek dissidents living abroad - a view that is supported by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.
All in all, in the warped world of Richard Scudamore (the chief executive of the Premier League), Alisher Usmanov is evidently a fit and proper person for potential future ownership of one of the big four English football teams!
Dein has encouraged Arsène Wenger to sign a new contract and claims that the pair will work together again in the future. Wenger was known to be disappointed about the manner of Dein's departure but has remained silent, in public at least, about his views on the developing takeover battle at the Emirates although he is known to be disconcerted about the manner in which English clubs are being bought up by global inappropriates. We await Wenger's views.
Kroenke and R&WH now own 26.77% of the shares in Arsenal which, if they combine forces, would make them the largest single shareholder in the club. It also would put them close to the 29.9% benchmark that would require a takeover bid to be launched.
The battle for the soul of Arsenal is only just beginning.
© Football Is Fixed/Dietrological
Saturday, 18 August 2007
Why Insurance Is Exactly The Same As Bookmaking
At a first glance, there might not appear to be much in common between the bookmaking and insurance industries. Think again. The two sectors are virtually identical.
The basic foundation of the business models for bookmakers and insurers involves the accurate analysis of risk assessment and management. These market makers have an aversion to risk and create strategies whereby any exposure is diversified and/or hedged away from the risk profile of the company. This may be achieved in a range of ways.
All insurance companies rely on the reinsurance sub-sector. These industry giants charge the smaller operators for effectively offering an enhancement of the risk profiles of the small operators. Lloyds of London, Swiss Re, Berkshire Hathaway etc will then trade these probabilities between themselves as financial risk is shunted around the global insurance sector. The resulting structure is opaque, to say the least, as risk is converted into a tradeable asset. As the international financial markets are discovering in the current credit squeeze, in a time of crisis nobody can be sure where the real exposure to risk lies. This, as The Economist states "has shown weaknesses in some of the foundations of modern finance". Mathematical models involving algorithmic and neural network black box techniques are fine at spotting patterns in times of market calm but any new systemic infrastructures render such modelling worse than useless - Goldman Sachs were financially compromised last week via a market occurrence that their proprietary analysis told them should happen once every 100,000 years!
Bookmakers behave similarly. Whether the template is Ladbrokes returning their off-course liabilities to the rails and betting rings of British horseracing courses or Ladbrokes behaving similarly in the illegal Far East football betting markets, the prime aim of market makers is to hedge any risk that they do not wish to keep on their trading books. The European bookmakers also trade directly between themselves in private markets which serve the purposes of risk removal and informational and/or disinformational proprietary strategies. This is high stakes manipulated poker relating to the outcome of sports events.
The major infrastructural difference between these two industry sectors merely relates to the expansiveness of the area covered by their operations. The big picture to be analysed by an insurer is global whereas the bookmakers are dealing with an enclosed system. This is a major dichotomy and, yet, the two sectors move back towards equivalence by their respective responses.
Every effort is made by both the insurance and the bookmaking industries to tilt the playing field markedly in their favour. Insurers utilise such strategies as regulatory capture, abusive clause creation and arbitrary charges and loss adjustments to remove value from the consumer to the favour of the company. Such tactics are omnipresent in any insurance policy whether personal or business and, in our estimation, undermine any logic in getting insured in the first place as the market is priced significantly against a clients interests when viewed holistically.
The closed system of football is even more manipulated. Football bookmakers employ all the same tactics as the insurance sector and then some. The traditional bookies use the overround percentage to tilt the market in their favour before layering their more corrupt trading strategies on top. To the uninitiated, the degree of overround is a built-in bias in the marketplace. For example, for tomorrow's Manchester derby match, Ladbrokes are offering prices of City 7/2, United 8/11 and the Draw 21/10 which represent actual probabilities of approximately 22%, 58% and 32% which results in a book overround of 112%. Based on a 100% book, these prices should be 4/1, 10/11 and 13/5. So, if the Reds were to win, a £1000 bet would return £727 as opposed to £909 without any market tilt. But this machination is only the start of it.
The bookmakers control the outcome of football matches through the coercion of insiders. Players, referees and/or management work together with the bookies to ensure an outcome suitable to the bookmakers bottom line. When a match is under the direct control of any particular bookmaker, there is no need for the manipulating bookie to hedge or offset any liabilities as the match outcome is known prior to the event taking place. Consequently, incredibly skewed books are established for these corrupted events as the market makers happily take any amount of money on outcomes that they KNOW will not occur. The difference between this type of event and a truly competitive event is obvious as, in the latter case, a bookmaker will be seeking to merely achieve a balanced book to avoid exposure to a future reality outside of their proprietary influence. This market strategy is evident to all professional gamblers by the response of the bookies to positions traded in the marketplace. Beneficial prices are offered by the layers on positions that are guaranteed losers while price scalping occurs in all other scenarios.
The bookmakers are always on the lookout for valuable inside information which might solve a particular football match outcome. By offering preferential trading conditions to industry insiders and professional market analysts and brokers, a bookmaker is able to develop a market strategy that increases profits by the buying of information. In this manner, the betting markets are highly regressive with those least able to accommodate losses being charged the most for the trading experience. Not content with this collection of highly abusive business templates, the bookmaking sector has a further pair of aces up its collective sleeve. Firstly, gambling winnings are not enforceable under law and, consequently, all professional traders must build in to their trading strategies the unpleasant reality that the final payment from a bookmaker will not be made. Secondly, once it is apparent to the industry that you are a winning client, there are very few bookmakers who will accommodate your trading positions. In the same manner that casinos bar card-counting blackjack players, Ladbrokes and their like will inform you that "it is not in our economic interests to continue to offer you trading facilities."
As the systemic risks in the global insurance industry become more unpredictable due, in particular, to issues related to climate change, a similarly abusive infrastructural attitude is developing. The breakpoint for this new attitude in insurance was 9/11. The insurance industry haggled, bartered and battled for several years arguing that the demolition of the Twin Towers was one event rather than two separate events. This unethical posturing was profit-motivated and this strategy has now been fine-tuned and, in a direct equivalence with bookmakers, the insurers will now not take on certain types of risk. Following Hurricane Katrina, American insurance companies either refused to insure in hurricane zones or made the cost of such insurance prohibitively expensive. The parallels between insurance, bookmakers and casinos is startlingly similar.
A further intriguing area to focus on is the psychology of risk. Gambling is an addiction that incorporates a whole spectrum of personality attributes and disorders. For example, magical thinking enforces all players of the National Lottery to go to ridiculous lengths to ensure that they purchase their tickets each week as the FEAR that their numbers might come up in the very week where they choose to do something else with their money is colossal. And irrational... Similarly, the insurance industry thrives on fear. The likelihood of being burgled in England has significantly fallen over the last decade which is not a piece of good news that one finds trumpeted throughout the media. The insurers wish for us to remain terrified of burglary, mugging, theft, loss of belongings while travelling etc to an extent massively beyond the real probability of such an occurrence actually coming to fruition. Even better still, from the perspective of the insurance industry, is regulatory capture which enforces insurance on the population whether they desire such cover or not. Health insurance in America is a particularly hot potato at the moment while compulsory car insurance in England is another prime example of regulatory capture.
The marketing of insurance and gambling products show similar equivalence of strategy. William Hill's homepage is currently offering four introductory offers. These offers are very revealing as to where the bookmaker wishes you to place your bets. £50 ($100) bonuses are offered for opening sports betting or casino accounts and £20 for bingo. But, for the highly corrupt poker platforms offered online, Willie Hill's offer a $500 introductory bonus. As we have stated before, it is beyond our comprehension why any individual would trust the efficacy of an online poker game where the cards, the table, the other players and the reality of the game are so opaque and open to rampant manipulation that the format is a magnet for the criminalised businessperson. Similarly with insurance where, for example, it is almost impossible to buy any object with a plug on it or to make any travel booking without some slimy agent informing us of the risks related to the purchase.
So, how should the person on the street deal with these corrupt edifices? With gambling, the solution is simple. Unless you are a professional analyst or have access to privileged inside information, forget it. You are a patsy and you will lose your hard-earned cash. With regard to insurance, the basic strategy should be similar. Apart from areas of compulsory insurance, do the mathematics and determine the value (or, more often, the lack of it) in insuring yourself against a particular risk. If it appears that the insurance company has mispriced the risk then, by all means, seek cover but one should remember that the insurers have highly developed business models and the likelihood of mispricing is minimal.
Personally, I possess no insurance whatsoever anywhere. I minimise my risks by creative work/life balancing and have developed a type of individual amortisation account to provide a safety net against potential future occurrences that are outside my control. Similarly, I never hedge any trading positions unless I am certain that my market exposure has become incorrect due to externalities.
I refuse to pay others for the maintenance of an adequate risk profile and I would advise everybody to behave similarly. We do not need any external cover.
© Football Is Fixed/Dietrological
The basic foundation of the business models for bookmakers and insurers involves the accurate analysis of risk assessment and management. These market makers have an aversion to risk and create strategies whereby any exposure is diversified and/or hedged away from the risk profile of the company. This may be achieved in a range of ways.
All insurance companies rely on the reinsurance sub-sector. These industry giants charge the smaller operators for effectively offering an enhancement of the risk profiles of the small operators. Lloyds of London, Swiss Re, Berkshire Hathaway etc will then trade these probabilities between themselves as financial risk is shunted around the global insurance sector. The resulting structure is opaque, to say the least, as risk is converted into a tradeable asset. As the international financial markets are discovering in the current credit squeeze, in a time of crisis nobody can be sure where the real exposure to risk lies. This, as The Economist states "has shown weaknesses in some of the foundations of modern finance". Mathematical models involving algorithmic and neural network black box techniques are fine at spotting patterns in times of market calm but any new systemic infrastructures render such modelling worse than useless - Goldman Sachs were financially compromised last week via a market occurrence that their proprietary analysis told them should happen once every 100,000 years!
Bookmakers behave similarly. Whether the template is Ladbrokes returning their off-course liabilities to the rails and betting rings of British horseracing courses or Ladbrokes behaving similarly in the illegal Far East football betting markets, the prime aim of market makers is to hedge any risk that they do not wish to keep on their trading books. The European bookmakers also trade directly between themselves in private markets which serve the purposes of risk removal and informational and/or disinformational proprietary strategies. This is high stakes manipulated poker relating to the outcome of sports events.
The major infrastructural difference between these two industry sectors merely relates to the expansiveness of the area covered by their operations. The big picture to be analysed by an insurer is global whereas the bookmakers are dealing with an enclosed system. This is a major dichotomy and, yet, the two sectors move back towards equivalence by their respective responses.
Every effort is made by both the insurance and the bookmaking industries to tilt the playing field markedly in their favour. Insurers utilise such strategies as regulatory capture, abusive clause creation and arbitrary charges and loss adjustments to remove value from the consumer to the favour of the company. Such tactics are omnipresent in any insurance policy whether personal or business and, in our estimation, undermine any logic in getting insured in the first place as the market is priced significantly against a clients interests when viewed holistically.
The closed system of football is even more manipulated. Football bookmakers employ all the same tactics as the insurance sector and then some. The traditional bookies use the overround percentage to tilt the market in their favour before layering their more corrupt trading strategies on top. To the uninitiated, the degree of overround is a built-in bias in the marketplace. For example, for tomorrow's Manchester derby match, Ladbrokes are offering prices of City 7/2, United 8/11 and the Draw 21/10 which represent actual probabilities of approximately 22%, 58% and 32% which results in a book overround of 112%. Based on a 100% book, these prices should be 4/1, 10/11 and 13/5. So, if the Reds were to win, a £1000 bet would return £727 as opposed to £909 without any market tilt. But this machination is only the start of it.
The bookmakers control the outcome of football matches through the coercion of insiders. Players, referees and/or management work together with the bookies to ensure an outcome suitable to the bookmakers bottom line. When a match is under the direct control of any particular bookmaker, there is no need for the manipulating bookie to hedge or offset any liabilities as the match outcome is known prior to the event taking place. Consequently, incredibly skewed books are established for these corrupted events as the market makers happily take any amount of money on outcomes that they KNOW will not occur. The difference between this type of event and a truly competitive event is obvious as, in the latter case, a bookmaker will be seeking to merely achieve a balanced book to avoid exposure to a future reality outside of their proprietary influence. This market strategy is evident to all professional gamblers by the response of the bookies to positions traded in the marketplace. Beneficial prices are offered by the layers on positions that are guaranteed losers while price scalping occurs in all other scenarios.
The bookmakers are always on the lookout for valuable inside information which might solve a particular football match outcome. By offering preferential trading conditions to industry insiders and professional market analysts and brokers, a bookmaker is able to develop a market strategy that increases profits by the buying of information. In this manner, the betting markets are highly regressive with those least able to accommodate losses being charged the most for the trading experience. Not content with this collection of highly abusive business templates, the bookmaking sector has a further pair of aces up its collective sleeve. Firstly, gambling winnings are not enforceable under law and, consequently, all professional traders must build in to their trading strategies the unpleasant reality that the final payment from a bookmaker will not be made. Secondly, once it is apparent to the industry that you are a winning client, there are very few bookmakers who will accommodate your trading positions. In the same manner that casinos bar card-counting blackjack players, Ladbrokes and their like will inform you that "it is not in our economic interests to continue to offer you trading facilities."
As the systemic risks in the global insurance industry become more unpredictable due, in particular, to issues related to climate change, a similarly abusive infrastructural attitude is developing. The breakpoint for this new attitude in insurance was 9/11. The insurance industry haggled, bartered and battled for several years arguing that the demolition of the Twin Towers was one event rather than two separate events. This unethical posturing was profit-motivated and this strategy has now been fine-tuned and, in a direct equivalence with bookmakers, the insurers will now not take on certain types of risk. Following Hurricane Katrina, American insurance companies either refused to insure in hurricane zones or made the cost of such insurance prohibitively expensive. The parallels between insurance, bookmakers and casinos is startlingly similar.
A further intriguing area to focus on is the psychology of risk. Gambling is an addiction that incorporates a whole spectrum of personality attributes and disorders. For example, magical thinking enforces all players of the National Lottery to go to ridiculous lengths to ensure that they purchase their tickets each week as the FEAR that their numbers might come up in the very week where they choose to do something else with their money is colossal. And irrational... Similarly, the insurance industry thrives on fear. The likelihood of being burgled in England has significantly fallen over the last decade which is not a piece of good news that one finds trumpeted throughout the media. The insurers wish for us to remain terrified of burglary, mugging, theft, loss of belongings while travelling etc to an extent massively beyond the real probability of such an occurrence actually coming to fruition. Even better still, from the perspective of the insurance industry, is regulatory capture which enforces insurance on the population whether they desire such cover or not. Health insurance in America is a particularly hot potato at the moment while compulsory car insurance in England is another prime example of regulatory capture.
The marketing of insurance and gambling products show similar equivalence of strategy. William Hill's homepage is currently offering four introductory offers. These offers are very revealing as to where the bookmaker wishes you to place your bets. £50 ($100) bonuses are offered for opening sports betting or casino accounts and £20 for bingo. But, for the highly corrupt poker platforms offered online, Willie Hill's offer a $500 introductory bonus. As we have stated before, it is beyond our comprehension why any individual would trust the efficacy of an online poker game where the cards, the table, the other players and the reality of the game are so opaque and open to rampant manipulation that the format is a magnet for the criminalised businessperson. Similarly with insurance where, for example, it is almost impossible to buy any object with a plug on it or to make any travel booking without some slimy agent informing us of the risks related to the purchase.
So, how should the person on the street deal with these corrupt edifices? With gambling, the solution is simple. Unless you are a professional analyst or have access to privileged inside information, forget it. You are a patsy and you will lose your hard-earned cash. With regard to insurance, the basic strategy should be similar. Apart from areas of compulsory insurance, do the mathematics and determine the value (or, more often, the lack of it) in insuring yourself against a particular risk. If it appears that the insurance company has mispriced the risk then, by all means, seek cover but one should remember that the insurers have highly developed business models and the likelihood of mispricing is minimal.
Personally, I possess no insurance whatsoever anywhere. I minimise my risks by creative work/life balancing and have developed a type of individual amortisation account to provide a safety net against potential future occurrences that are outside my control. Similarly, I never hedge any trading positions unless I am certain that my market exposure has become incorrect due to externalities.
I refuse to pay others for the maintenance of an adequate risk profile and I would advise everybody to behave similarly. We do not need any external cover.
© Football Is Fixed/Dietrological
Saturday, 4 August 2007
When Is A 3rd Party Agreement Not A 3rd Party Agreement?
On Friday July 13th, Football Is Fixed posted that the Carlos Tevez transfer was a done deal with the only remaining obstacle being how to construct a "reality" that would accommodate the multifarious public stances taken by the protagonists. That the final resolution has taken until yesterday to complete was solely a result of further non-strategic foot dragging by the Premier League. The deceleration of this process has merely served to make both their posturing as an organisation and the incompetence of chief executive officer (CEO), Richard Scudamore, more apparent to more people, as the delay has merely produced more damning column inches that have allowed more individuals to discern the Premier League's truly Orwellian fabrication of crime and punishment.
Briefly looking at the overview of this blatant piece of spectacular society corruption, we'll take each of the key participants in turn.
We stated just a couple of days ago that Richard Scudamore has more than passed his sell-by date. His mismanagement of the English game both within the public arena and away from the prying eyes of probity has been abysmal. When one compares his decision making with the interests of the more crooked elements that are corrupting our game to its core, we find a far-too-revealing positive correlation (which obviously occurs entirely by chance). However, his psychic ability to parallel Premier League strategy with the black and grey market's agenda is one of those spooky coincidences that has to be resultant in unemployment if such individuals were accountable to watchdogs. But they're not. The Premier League's accountability axes lead to some rather unsavoury loci.
Scudamore has been the media face that has projected his and his organisation's incompetence onto the footballing public in the Carlos Tevez affair. They dug themselves into a hole and just kept digging when strategic oversight would have preferenced a negotiated settlement. In financial markets, a key behavioural factor is testosterone. The male-dominated marketplace repeatedly throws up instances of testosterone-driven individuals undertaking strategies that are to their own and their associates disadvantage rather than selecting alternative options that might produce a small gain for all. The Premier League have behaved similarly. One of the problems for the likes of Scudamore is when the spin gets out of control. The conjunction of a variety of separate media realities results in people getting cornered in nightmares of their own chaotic creation. So it is with Scudamore. Quest and bungs, the influence of Zahavi and Berezovsky, the takeovers by Shinawatra and Yeung, the Carlos Tevez transfer and the West Ham non-relegation, mismanagement or what? And this are only the tip of the iceberg that is available to public eyes. Insiders also are able to detect the other machinations that are totally undermining and destabilising the game to the financial advantage of a smallish number of very corrupt entities.
Specifically with regard to Tevez and West Ham. By clearing and, indeed, financially rewarding the Hammers for their corrupt practices related to third party agreements, the Premier League set in motion the very public decline of their executive authority. The crisis was spun from Day One as the Premier League sought to achieve their aims with an abusive template. The other parallel stories conspired to establish a typical damage limitation infrastructure where each of the options open to Scudamore's brigade was a losing position. The scenario whereby the third party contracts never existed legally would have been overturned in the High Court to the accompaniment of excessive public awareness of the Premier League's murkier activities = LOSE. Or the scenario where the third party agreements did exist and were legal calls into serious question how the Premier League could possibly not relegate West Ham = LOSE. Keeping the various plates spinning in a spectacular creation of endless contortions until the media loses interest = LOSE. Or, the choice that the Premier League eventually arrived at, reach an out-of-court settlement with all the parties. Despite the fact that this settlement is conclusive proof of the corruption undertaken by the Premier League on a range of different levels as they repeatedly break (and allow others to break) the rules that they are supposed to oversee, pretend that you are still in control of the process while avoiding any cross-referencing between the final solution and any of the executive decisions preceding it = LOSE.
In non-sophisticated sectors like football, the tone of the press releases following these type of tiffs are always revealing. The Premier League's entirely desperate attempt to paper over the chasms states: "The decision of the board, having received leading counsel's opinion, is that the agreement reached is compliant with the rules of the Premier League and consistent with the undertakings given by West Ham United to the Premier League board at various times since 27th April 2007".
No, the agreement is not compliant with the Premier League rules and what about undertakings given by West Ham United PRIOR to April 27th?
Sack the bastard...
When there is a very very big loser, there is usually more than one big winner. In this particular little scam, everybody wins big except the Premier League (who could not have played their hand less expertly) and Sheffield United. Disturbingly, two of the winners should, with judicial equivalence, actually be losers.
In the last two years, it is difficult to find any aspect of the business realities of West Ham United that have even approached the area of ethical behaviour. The illegal transfers of Tevez and Mascherano; the cosy ties with Brooking at the FA; the "interesting" choice of sector links - ask any market analyst; the takeover battle between MSI and Iceland's dodgiest businessman; the undermining of Pardew; the crowning of mr nice guy, Alan Curbishley; the £30 million payment as punishment; having the cheek to spend that money on transfers; accepting the £2 million pay-off from Manchester United that proves the illegality of their historical operations. And, yet, Magnusson's men march into the 2007/08 season in a very strong position with, approximately, £26.5 million worth of assets illegally gained. This is quite a weight advantage in the Premiership Handicap Chase 07/08.
As this tawdry affair has developed, there has been an ever-increasing amount of media flak thrown at the real winners of this confrontation, the really dodgy people - Joorabchian, Zahavi, Berezovsky, MSI Group Limited and Just Sport Inc (JSI). The Quest inquiry, the match fixing scandal at Corinthians and the money laundering charges in Brazil against Joorabchian and Berezovsky are all indicative of the sectors in which these people choose to operate. It is common practice in South America and Africa for slave-like contractual conditions to be the norm as players are tied to criminal operations. The fact that this particular operation has come to light is just another tip of just another iceberg. The football authorities, on the whole, accept this illegal trafficking in legally non-represented human beings - the contracts are heavily tilted in favour of the owners of the player's registrations. Looking at another iceberg - the one representing the financial gains to MSI and JSI - shows exactly how much these dodgy operators have profited from Tevez and Mascherano. Manchester United will pay £10 million to these people for loan playing rights for the next two seasons and then United will have an option to buy. MSI have consequently gained financially from these players at every step of their career entirely illegally and totally without internal policing within the game. And we won't even venture anywhere near the influence that these crooks have on the global football betting markets...
The only parties to have behaved with moral rectitude are Manchester United and Carlos Tevez, himself.
Throughout the process, Man Utd have remained as inside the legal boundaries as was feasible when one is dealing with a rotten edifice. Like Liverpool with Javier Mascherano in January, United have skillfully taken advantage of a slimy corruption to gain competitive advantage. The two year loan deal with an option on outright purchase is a gem of a deal. But, just a point, aren't Manchester United entering into an illegal third party agreement in establishing this loan deal? Just a point... We expect to see the hyper owners hovering around the corruptions, even those corruptions not directly under their influence, as a frequent backdrop to the future English Premiership.
Tevez is a bit of a hero. His life story from day one has entertained Maradona-esque escapades with his existence being anchored by his immense football talent. It is absolutely not only the financial terms of this deal which makes it so massive - Tevez is the business. He has already shown that he can hack it at speed in Argentina, at Corinthians (it is incredibly difficult for any Argentinian footballer to make an impact in Brazil both due to the difference in playing styles and their treatment from opponents, officials and, even, team-mates), for his country in the 2006 World Cup, for a relegation threatened bunch of scallies and, soon, no doubt on the premier footballing stages of Europe. This speedy adaptation to new and alien environments at great rapidity is the very hallmark of a top player. And, to achieve all this against a backdrop of corruption, uproar and criminality = astonishing... Tevez or Torres. Get a grip...
Unless the Premier League determines that another spectacular cataclysmic implosion might best serve their interests, the final word on this corruption should go to one of the biggest losers out of this affair, Neil Warnock. Following the High Court's decision to back the relegation of Sheffield United while acknowledging the efficacy of their legal position, Warnock stated: "so much for the integrity of the Premier League. So much for fairness and justice in English football". Fair dinkum...
© Football Is Fixed/Dietrological
Briefly looking at the overview of this blatant piece of spectacular society corruption, we'll take each of the key participants in turn.
We stated just a couple of days ago that Richard Scudamore has more than passed his sell-by date. His mismanagement of the English game both within the public arena and away from the prying eyes of probity has been abysmal. When one compares his decision making with the interests of the more crooked elements that are corrupting our game to its core, we find a far-too-revealing positive correlation (which obviously occurs entirely by chance). However, his psychic ability to parallel Premier League strategy with the black and grey market's agenda is one of those spooky coincidences that has to be resultant in unemployment if such individuals were accountable to watchdogs. But they're not. The Premier League's accountability axes lead to some rather unsavoury loci.
Scudamore has been the media face that has projected his and his organisation's incompetence onto the footballing public in the Carlos Tevez affair. They dug themselves into a hole and just kept digging when strategic oversight would have preferenced a negotiated settlement. In financial markets, a key behavioural factor is testosterone. The male-dominated marketplace repeatedly throws up instances of testosterone-driven individuals undertaking strategies that are to their own and their associates disadvantage rather than selecting alternative options that might produce a small gain for all. The Premier League have behaved similarly. One of the problems for the likes of Scudamore is when the spin gets out of control. The conjunction of a variety of separate media realities results in people getting cornered in nightmares of their own chaotic creation. So it is with Scudamore. Quest and bungs, the influence of Zahavi and Berezovsky, the takeovers by Shinawatra and Yeung, the Carlos Tevez transfer and the West Ham non-relegation, mismanagement or what? And this are only the tip of the iceberg that is available to public eyes. Insiders also are able to detect the other machinations that are totally undermining and destabilising the game to the financial advantage of a smallish number of very corrupt entities.
Specifically with regard to Tevez and West Ham. By clearing and, indeed, financially rewarding the Hammers for their corrupt practices related to third party agreements, the Premier League set in motion the very public decline of their executive authority. The crisis was spun from Day One as the Premier League sought to achieve their aims with an abusive template. The other parallel stories conspired to establish a typical damage limitation infrastructure where each of the options open to Scudamore's brigade was a losing position. The scenario whereby the third party contracts never existed legally would have been overturned in the High Court to the accompaniment of excessive public awareness of the Premier League's murkier activities = LOSE. Or the scenario where the third party agreements did exist and were legal calls into serious question how the Premier League could possibly not relegate West Ham = LOSE. Keeping the various plates spinning in a spectacular creation of endless contortions until the media loses interest = LOSE. Or, the choice that the Premier League eventually arrived at, reach an out-of-court settlement with all the parties. Despite the fact that this settlement is conclusive proof of the corruption undertaken by the Premier League on a range of different levels as they repeatedly break (and allow others to break) the rules that they are supposed to oversee, pretend that you are still in control of the process while avoiding any cross-referencing between the final solution and any of the executive decisions preceding it = LOSE.
In non-sophisticated sectors like football, the tone of the press releases following these type of tiffs are always revealing. The Premier League's entirely desperate attempt to paper over the chasms states: "The decision of the board, having received leading counsel's opinion, is that the agreement reached is compliant with the rules of the Premier League and consistent with the undertakings given by West Ham United to the Premier League board at various times since 27th April 2007".
No, the agreement is not compliant with the Premier League rules and what about undertakings given by West Ham United PRIOR to April 27th?
Sack the bastard...
When there is a very very big loser, there is usually more than one big winner. In this particular little scam, everybody wins big except the Premier League (who could not have played their hand less expertly) and Sheffield United. Disturbingly, two of the winners should, with judicial equivalence, actually be losers.
In the last two years, it is difficult to find any aspect of the business realities of West Ham United that have even approached the area of ethical behaviour. The illegal transfers of Tevez and Mascherano; the cosy ties with Brooking at the FA; the "interesting" choice of sector links - ask any market analyst; the takeover battle between MSI and Iceland's dodgiest businessman; the undermining of Pardew; the crowning of mr nice guy, Alan Curbishley; the £30 million payment as punishment; having the cheek to spend that money on transfers; accepting the £2 million pay-off from Manchester United that proves the illegality of their historical operations. And, yet, Magnusson's men march into the 2007/08 season in a very strong position with, approximately, £26.5 million worth of assets illegally gained. This is quite a weight advantage in the Premiership Handicap Chase 07/08.
As this tawdry affair has developed, there has been an ever-increasing amount of media flak thrown at the real winners of this confrontation, the really dodgy people - Joorabchian, Zahavi, Berezovsky, MSI Group Limited and Just Sport Inc (JSI). The Quest inquiry, the match fixing scandal at Corinthians and the money laundering charges in Brazil against Joorabchian and Berezovsky are all indicative of the sectors in which these people choose to operate. It is common practice in South America and Africa for slave-like contractual conditions to be the norm as players are tied to criminal operations. The fact that this particular operation has come to light is just another tip of just another iceberg. The football authorities, on the whole, accept this illegal trafficking in legally non-represented human beings - the contracts are heavily tilted in favour of the owners of the player's registrations. Looking at another iceberg - the one representing the financial gains to MSI and JSI - shows exactly how much these dodgy operators have profited from Tevez and Mascherano. Manchester United will pay £10 million to these people for loan playing rights for the next two seasons and then United will have an option to buy. MSI have consequently gained financially from these players at every step of their career entirely illegally and totally without internal policing within the game. And we won't even venture anywhere near the influence that these crooks have on the global football betting markets...
The only parties to have behaved with moral rectitude are Manchester United and Carlos Tevez, himself.
Throughout the process, Man Utd have remained as inside the legal boundaries as was feasible when one is dealing with a rotten edifice. Like Liverpool with Javier Mascherano in January, United have skillfully taken advantage of a slimy corruption to gain competitive advantage. The two year loan deal with an option on outright purchase is a gem of a deal. But, just a point, aren't Manchester United entering into an illegal third party agreement in establishing this loan deal? Just a point... We expect to see the hyper owners hovering around the corruptions, even those corruptions not directly under their influence, as a frequent backdrop to the future English Premiership.
Tevez is a bit of a hero. His life story from day one has entertained Maradona-esque escapades with his existence being anchored by his immense football talent. It is absolutely not only the financial terms of this deal which makes it so massive - Tevez is the business. He has already shown that he can hack it at speed in Argentina, at Corinthians (it is incredibly difficult for any Argentinian footballer to make an impact in Brazil both due to the difference in playing styles and their treatment from opponents, officials and, even, team-mates), for his country in the 2006 World Cup, for a relegation threatened bunch of scallies and, soon, no doubt on the premier footballing stages of Europe. This speedy adaptation to new and alien environments at great rapidity is the very hallmark of a top player. And, to achieve all this against a backdrop of corruption, uproar and criminality = astonishing... Tevez or Torres. Get a grip...
Unless the Premier League determines that another spectacular cataclysmic implosion might best serve their interests, the final word on this corruption should go to one of the biggest losers out of this affair, Neil Warnock. Following the High Court's decision to back the relegation of Sheffield United while acknowledging the efficacy of their legal position, Warnock stated: "so much for the integrity of the Premier League. So much for fairness and justice in English football". Fair dinkum...
© Football Is Fixed/Dietrological
Tuesday, 31 July 2007
Bribesville Revisited
The absence of a close season state of uproar in Serie A has been most conspicuous by its absence this summer so it was somewhat comforting to hear of the bans announced on Monday for four players who have been found out betting on match outcomes.
And these aren't just any old players but four of the senior statesmen of the Italian game. The Italian Football Federation (FIGC) has handed out medium term bans and fines to these players plus fines for the clubs involved in the match manipulations - Udinese, Vicenza and Mantova.
It only became illegal for Italian footballers to bet on matches in 2005 which is one of the reasons why Gianluigi Buffon's betting slips running to several million euros didn't lead to a ban in last year's calciocaos crisis. The difference between last years crisis and this is that the match officials are not involved in the manipulations this time around. Despite that, the mechanism remains the same - insiders profiting from rigged matches and it would be reasonable to assume that a punishment of points reductions for the three highlighted teams would be appropriate. Not so. When the scope of the inquiry into moggiopoli was extended to include further games and more referees towards the end of last season, there was a determined effort by all parties for the extension in the investigation to be undertaken in a quiet manner away from the press and the public. This extension was, effectively, a doubling of the remit of the investigation into match-fixing and yet media coverage was virtually non-existent. This anti-spin continues. The press release relating to these four players being banned was hidden away at the "in breve" (in brief) section of the FIGC homepage yesterday not quite as important as the two full articles regarding Italy's next friendly international. Additionally, as a news item, this latest scandal will not exist following today's announcement of the fixtures for 2007/08 season - always a big topic of discussion in Italy.
Anyway, the details of the banned players are archived below before the news item disappears.
David Di Michele is an Italian international who has just completed a move from Palermo to Torino although his debut will be delayed by three months following the disciplinary action by the FIGC. His bank balance will also be 20,000 euros lighter.
Vincenzo Sommese will be unemployable for five months and twenty days and he will possess 10000 euros less to be betting with. Thomas Manfredini is banned for three months and Massimo Margiotta for four, the latter also having to pay out a 10000 euro fine.
The authorities in Italy were brave to confront the cosy relationships between bookmakers, clubs, referees, players and the mafia but, as we have itemised previously, the investigation was hijacked by Milan from Day One. While Juventus were stripped of two titles, lost a whole squad, were relegated and lost extensive UEFA and merchandising income, Milan had their punishment repeatedly reduced until a Champions League position was assured and last year's Champions League final was won. It is a peculiar backdrop to calciocaos that Italy won the World Cup and Milan the Champions League in the 12 month period covering the uproar.
In 1992, Italian political and business society was turned upside down, apparently, by tangentopoli (bribesville) which confronted the accommodating structure of corruption throughout the upper reaches of Italian society. There are two points worthy of comment here. Firstly, it is generally accepted at all dietrologia gatherings that tangentopoli merely altered the faces while leaving the corrupt infrastructure intact - a sort of investigative neutron bomb. Secondly, football's self appraisal is proving similarly blinkered. Guido Rossi is a key figure here in that he took on an investigative role in both tangentopoli and moggiopoli. The man resigned just months into the moggiopoli inquiry stating: "football does not want rules, it just wants me to solve its problems". The most revealing overview, however, came from Francesco Barelli, Milan's former chief prosecutor, when he declared towards the end of the investigation that: "economic interests in football far outweigh sporting interests".
This is an attitude of mind that should be carried forward into all the new seasons that are about to commence across Europe.
© Football Is Fixed/Dietrological
And these aren't just any old players but four of the senior statesmen of the Italian game. The Italian Football Federation (FIGC) has handed out medium term bans and fines to these players plus fines for the clubs involved in the match manipulations - Udinese, Vicenza and Mantova.
It only became illegal for Italian footballers to bet on matches in 2005 which is one of the reasons why Gianluigi Buffon's betting slips running to several million euros didn't lead to a ban in last year's calciocaos crisis. The difference between last years crisis and this is that the match officials are not involved in the manipulations this time around. Despite that, the mechanism remains the same - insiders profiting from rigged matches and it would be reasonable to assume that a punishment of points reductions for the three highlighted teams would be appropriate. Not so. When the scope of the inquiry into moggiopoli was extended to include further games and more referees towards the end of last season, there was a determined effort by all parties for the extension in the investigation to be undertaken in a quiet manner away from the press and the public. This extension was, effectively, a doubling of the remit of the investigation into match-fixing and yet media coverage was virtually non-existent. This anti-spin continues. The press release relating to these four players being banned was hidden away at the "in breve" (in brief) section of the FIGC homepage yesterday not quite as important as the two full articles regarding Italy's next friendly international. Additionally, as a news item, this latest scandal will not exist following today's announcement of the fixtures for 2007/08 season - always a big topic of discussion in Italy.
Anyway, the details of the banned players are archived below before the news item disappears.
David Di Michele is an Italian international who has just completed a move from Palermo to Torino although his debut will be delayed by three months following the disciplinary action by the FIGC. His bank balance will also be 20,000 euros lighter.
Vincenzo Sommese will be unemployable for five months and twenty days and he will possess 10000 euros less to be betting with. Thomas Manfredini is banned for three months and Massimo Margiotta for four, the latter also having to pay out a 10000 euro fine.
The authorities in Italy were brave to confront the cosy relationships between bookmakers, clubs, referees, players and the mafia but, as we have itemised previously, the investigation was hijacked by Milan from Day One. While Juventus were stripped of two titles, lost a whole squad, were relegated and lost extensive UEFA and merchandising income, Milan had their punishment repeatedly reduced until a Champions League position was assured and last year's Champions League final was won. It is a peculiar backdrop to calciocaos that Italy won the World Cup and Milan the Champions League in the 12 month period covering the uproar.
In 1992, Italian political and business society was turned upside down, apparently, by tangentopoli (bribesville) which confronted the accommodating structure of corruption throughout the upper reaches of Italian society. There are two points worthy of comment here. Firstly, it is generally accepted at all dietrologia gatherings that tangentopoli merely altered the faces while leaving the corrupt infrastructure intact - a sort of investigative neutron bomb. Secondly, football's self appraisal is proving similarly blinkered. Guido Rossi is a key figure here in that he took on an investigative role in both tangentopoli and moggiopoli. The man resigned just months into the moggiopoli inquiry stating: "football does not want rules, it just wants me to solve its problems". The most revealing overview, however, came from Francesco Barelli, Milan's former chief prosecutor, when he declared towards the end of the investigation that: "economic interests in football far outweigh sporting interests".
This is an attitude of mind that should be carried forward into all the new seasons that are about to commence across Europe.
© Football Is Fixed/Dietrological
Saturday, 23 June 2007
Propaganda And The Peripheral Press
Busy lives result in many of us having to depend on a variety of externalised sources for our societal information. The previous post suggested that such a dependency is inappropriate and that we are not able to rely on the media to act as an independent channel to the truth. One of the prime ways that media achieves this sleight of hand is via the reframing of an argument, reality or news story. A spectrum of tactics is utilised to divert our attention from where we should be looking to an altogether safer environment where the global elite and the media barons wish for us to look. The media undertakes a critical role in the filtering of information and in the subject matter that is allowed to pass editorial control. As an example, lets look at how media in the west has dealt with the continuing crisis in the Middle East both with respect to the war of terror and the Palestinian crisis.
Firstly, a little background...
The coalition of the willing is active throughout the Middle East with the publicised aim of bringing democracy to the region. The initial spin around the illegal occupation of Iraq was that the west was out to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people while unearthing Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and bringing the former rulers to summary justice. All of these publicised factors were a veil behind which the reality of the west's agenda lurked - this alleged process of democratisation never mentioned oil or the west's long-term strategic geopolitical agenda in the region.
The USA have not utilised the winning of hearts and minds as a military backcloth since Vietnam. The shock and awe tactics developed against the Vietcong have been the strategy of choice in the intervening years and Iraq is no different. Instead of trying to win popular support, the US has instead approached conflict on a behavioural level whereby tactics are developed that bludgeon the population into an acceptance of western democracy - think Fallujah, for example. Baudrillard famously claimed, quite correctly, that the first Iraq war never actually took place as the armed forces of the protagonists never actually fought each other face to face - as good an example of the triumph of shock and awe over hearts and minds as one is likely to find! The shock and awe mentality has spread through to the gross violations of the Geneva Convention that are represented by Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo. The torture techniques that were successfully utilised against the US in Vietnam have formed the bedrock of America's own tactics in extracting (flawed) information from prisoners in the current phase of the American's imperial agenda. Many of the forms of torture are highly behavioural in style and, yet, are very successful in breaking the wills of the alleged enemy combatants - 24/7 heavy metal music, waterboarding, the use of wild dogs and sexual humiliation have the same collated impact as more physical forms of abuse.
Since the 2nd World War, the US has intervened repeatedly across the planet under the flag of freedom. Initially, it was freedom from communism that allowed the butchery and starvation of many Greek people, for example, to be justified on the grounds that a few starving children were of no relevance when compared with the good fight against the commies. At this time, the CIA was globally active destabilising democratically elected regimes in furtherance of America's imperial aims. As an example, compare how CIA agent Larry Devlin was sent to the Congo to poison the government leader Patrice Lumumba with the huge fuss over the poisoning of some minor Russian recently in London. Lumumba was eventually kidnapped, tortured and murdered in 1961 with the acquiescence of the Belgians and Americans. The number of column inches relating to these two news items is revealing.
Bringing the argument up to date, I intend to focus on the attitude of the powers that be to the democratic election of Hamas to rule Palestine. The coalition of the willing are big on democracy (apart from the US 2000 election, that is) and one might have thought that a non-rigged election might be applauded. Don't be soft. Global sanctions were the first tactic to be introduced, followed by the imprisoning of over half the Hamas MPs in Israeli jails. When this failed and a peace deal was reached between Hamas and Fatah that promised the hope of a better future for all Palestinians, the coalition got serious. In February, Condoleeza Rice held meetings with Fatah, Israel and pliant Arab leaders. A strategy was established to provide arms and training to Fatah with the prime purpose of overthrowing a democratically elected government through the tried and tested tactic of divide and rule. Israel loosened their vice-like grip just enough to allow the weapons into the territories with the inevitable result of yet more bloodshed. The Americans also backed the attempted coup against Venezuelan hardman Hugo Chávez in 2003 in an attempt to undermine the man's BolÃvarian revolution and we could itemise numerous other recent examples where the coalition of the willing have clearly demonstrated an aversion to democracy when such democracy does not serve their strategic agenda.
So how does our free press deal with this sixty year old global agenda? Quite simply, it doesn't. All coverage of the militaristic agendas of the world's sole superpower is conspicuous by it's absence. For example, look at assassination. The deaths of Litvinenko (the unfortunate Russian) and Rafik Hariri are an omnipresent factor in all news coverage of Russia and our glorious war. But, where is the press coverage for the murders of Yasser Arafat or Savimbi? Or look at the warping of the arguments. The coalition line goes that there can be no accommodation of Hamas until the group recognises Israel's right to exist. Where is the press coverage regarding Likud's lack of recognition of the right of a Palestinian state to exist? The press also wishes for us to perceive these wars in isolation rather than combining them as an ongoing campaign to achieve prescribed military aims.
The conflicts in the Middle East only make full sense when one views the agendas that have been implemented over the last half century in an holistic manner. Look at a map of the region with oil deposits highlighted and all the incremental wars and invasions start to make sense. Oil pipelines, control of the region from Europe through Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Iran and Afghanistan are the key factors. Democracy, weapons of mass destruction and alleged assassinations were simply so much spin. The US allows Israel illegally held nuclear weapons but threatens more armageddon if Iran go down the same route. The whole agenda is kneejerkingly simplistic and reactive. By targeting Islam as a whole, America has missed out on a more creative tactic of setting the Shias against the Sunnis at America's bidding and vice versa. Any moral high ground that may have acted as a persuasion to the myopic masses has been totally undermined by illegal war, torture, terror and rabidly non-democratic processes.
Arthur Schlesinger established that the global agenda moves in a series of fits and starts. Every 40 years or so, there is a new climax of psychopathic behaviour that reaches such a crescendo that the elite have to take notice of the masses and, consequently, decelerate. This law is based on the valid premise that most people just wish for an easy life but that when societal, business, governmental and military psychopathy reaches a zenith, the cry goes up that enough is enough and we are all rewarded with a window of pseudo-social living until the next generation can be bought off through their lack of political memory. The last two zeniths were represented by the Depression and the aftermath of Vietnam. Our current cycle began with the nadir of the imposition of shareholder capitalism in the early eighties and the increase in enlightened cynicism is suggestive of an imminent new zenith.
It is by no means certain that the planet will be able to survive the next wave of psychopathy unless considerable restructuring is undertaken in the near future.
And what may we expect from our free press? It is to all of our disadvantages that our present media does not inform us about geopolitical realities and corruptions but chooses to focus instead on propaganda and the periphery. Even in France, 75% of the media is in the possession of just two military defence companies. We cannot expect such organisations to take a neutral line.
In the words of Bertrand Russell: "the authorities no longer have sufficient belief in the justice of their cause to think that it can survive the ordeal of free discussion." Expect more of the same ad nauseum...
© Football Is Fixed/Dietrological
Firstly, a little background...
The coalition of the willing is active throughout the Middle East with the publicised aim of bringing democracy to the region. The initial spin around the illegal occupation of Iraq was that the west was out to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people while unearthing Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and bringing the former rulers to summary justice. All of these publicised factors were a veil behind which the reality of the west's agenda lurked - this alleged process of democratisation never mentioned oil or the west's long-term strategic geopolitical agenda in the region.
The USA have not utilised the winning of hearts and minds as a military backcloth since Vietnam. The shock and awe tactics developed against the Vietcong have been the strategy of choice in the intervening years and Iraq is no different. Instead of trying to win popular support, the US has instead approached conflict on a behavioural level whereby tactics are developed that bludgeon the population into an acceptance of western democracy - think Fallujah, for example. Baudrillard famously claimed, quite correctly, that the first Iraq war never actually took place as the armed forces of the protagonists never actually fought each other face to face - as good an example of the triumph of shock and awe over hearts and minds as one is likely to find! The shock and awe mentality has spread through to the gross violations of the Geneva Convention that are represented by Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo. The torture techniques that were successfully utilised against the US in Vietnam have formed the bedrock of America's own tactics in extracting (flawed) information from prisoners in the current phase of the American's imperial agenda. Many of the forms of torture are highly behavioural in style and, yet, are very successful in breaking the wills of the alleged enemy combatants - 24/7 heavy metal music, waterboarding, the use of wild dogs and sexual humiliation have the same collated impact as more physical forms of abuse.
Since the 2nd World War, the US has intervened repeatedly across the planet under the flag of freedom. Initially, it was freedom from communism that allowed the butchery and starvation of many Greek people, for example, to be justified on the grounds that a few starving children were of no relevance when compared with the good fight against the commies. At this time, the CIA was globally active destabilising democratically elected regimes in furtherance of America's imperial aims. As an example, compare how CIA agent Larry Devlin was sent to the Congo to poison the government leader Patrice Lumumba with the huge fuss over the poisoning of some minor Russian recently in London. Lumumba was eventually kidnapped, tortured and murdered in 1961 with the acquiescence of the Belgians and Americans. The number of column inches relating to these two news items is revealing.
Bringing the argument up to date, I intend to focus on the attitude of the powers that be to the democratic election of Hamas to rule Palestine. The coalition of the willing are big on democracy (apart from the US 2000 election, that is) and one might have thought that a non-rigged election might be applauded. Don't be soft. Global sanctions were the first tactic to be introduced, followed by the imprisoning of over half the Hamas MPs in Israeli jails. When this failed and a peace deal was reached between Hamas and Fatah that promised the hope of a better future for all Palestinians, the coalition got serious. In February, Condoleeza Rice held meetings with Fatah, Israel and pliant Arab leaders. A strategy was established to provide arms and training to Fatah with the prime purpose of overthrowing a democratically elected government through the tried and tested tactic of divide and rule. Israel loosened their vice-like grip just enough to allow the weapons into the territories with the inevitable result of yet more bloodshed. The Americans also backed the attempted coup against Venezuelan hardman Hugo Chávez in 2003 in an attempt to undermine the man's BolÃvarian revolution and we could itemise numerous other recent examples where the coalition of the willing have clearly demonstrated an aversion to democracy when such democracy does not serve their strategic agenda.
So how does our free press deal with this sixty year old global agenda? Quite simply, it doesn't. All coverage of the militaristic agendas of the world's sole superpower is conspicuous by it's absence. For example, look at assassination. The deaths of Litvinenko (the unfortunate Russian) and Rafik Hariri are an omnipresent factor in all news coverage of Russia and our glorious war. But, where is the press coverage for the murders of Yasser Arafat or Savimbi? Or look at the warping of the arguments. The coalition line goes that there can be no accommodation of Hamas until the group recognises Israel's right to exist. Where is the press coverage regarding Likud's lack of recognition of the right of a Palestinian state to exist? The press also wishes for us to perceive these wars in isolation rather than combining them as an ongoing campaign to achieve prescribed military aims.
The conflicts in the Middle East only make full sense when one views the agendas that have been implemented over the last half century in an holistic manner. Look at a map of the region with oil deposits highlighted and all the incremental wars and invasions start to make sense. Oil pipelines, control of the region from Europe through Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Iran and Afghanistan are the key factors. Democracy, weapons of mass destruction and alleged assassinations were simply so much spin. The US allows Israel illegally held nuclear weapons but threatens more armageddon if Iran go down the same route. The whole agenda is kneejerkingly simplistic and reactive. By targeting Islam as a whole, America has missed out on a more creative tactic of setting the Shias against the Sunnis at America's bidding and vice versa. Any moral high ground that may have acted as a persuasion to the myopic masses has been totally undermined by illegal war, torture, terror and rabidly non-democratic processes.
Arthur Schlesinger established that the global agenda moves in a series of fits and starts. Every 40 years or so, there is a new climax of psychopathic behaviour that reaches such a crescendo that the elite have to take notice of the masses and, consequently, decelerate. This law is based on the valid premise that most people just wish for an easy life but that when societal, business, governmental and military psychopathy reaches a zenith, the cry goes up that enough is enough and we are all rewarded with a window of pseudo-social living until the next generation can be bought off through their lack of political memory. The last two zeniths were represented by the Depression and the aftermath of Vietnam. Our current cycle began with the nadir of the imposition of shareholder capitalism in the early eighties and the increase in enlightened cynicism is suggestive of an imminent new zenith.
It is by no means certain that the planet will be able to survive the next wave of psychopathy unless considerable restructuring is undertaken in the near future.
And what may we expect from our free press? It is to all of our disadvantages that our present media does not inform us about geopolitical realities and corruptions but chooses to focus instead on propaganda and the periphery. Even in France, 75% of the media is in the possession of just two military defence companies. We cannot expect such organisations to take a neutral line.
In the words of Bertrand Russell: "the authorities no longer have sufficient belief in the justice of their cause to think that it can survive the ordeal of free discussion." Expect more of the same ad nauseum...
© Football Is Fixed/Dietrological
Tuesday, 5 June 2007
Freakonomics At The Core Of Spectacular Society
There are piles of them in each of my offices, next to my beds and futon, wobbling precariously on unstable shelving – unread books, articles, academic papers, journals and essays. Holidays, consequently, become bibliographical experiences where I catch up on all the items that I really should have read in the previous year. One such book is Freakonomics by Levitt and Dubner.
We should celebrate anything that popularises the corruption in the marketplace or in any other societal structure and Freakonomics utilises big picture overviews to assess a range of structures. By addressing the perverse incentives of individual operators within contorted infrastructures, the book focuses on the preferable nature of a moral approach and contrasts with the actual reality of a manipulated economic environment. By incorporating the power of information together with the relative weightings of economic, moral and social incentives in a spectrum of instances, the authors create landscapes that titillate but, unfortunately, trivialise the whole analytical process.
The authors choices of sectors and situations to analyse are illuminating in that, although entertainingly portrayed, they are peripheral to our realities. Selecting sumo wrestling as a corrupt sport when Levitt trades professionally on massively corrupt horseracing markets; the focus on the ku klux klan’s attitude to information and power rather than the masonic WASP hierarchies of modern day America; targeting estate agent’s (with their lack of a professional trade association) manipulation of property buyers and sellers rather than lawyers with their abusive approach to class action suits or accountants and their consultative corruption; the choice of Black crack rather than white cocaine etc etc. Furthermore, the holistic views presented in the book are often incomplete – any analytical approach that purports to address the selection of a name for your children must incorporate the impact of the selection of names from within your family. A quick straw poll around the office reveals that only one member of our Trading Team is not named after a relative or ancestor, for example. Additionally, by claiming that the internet is shrinking the informational asymmetric advantage enjoyed by the elite, they completely ignore that this very elite also is utilising the internet to enhance their own knowledge and databases. One of the prime reasons political blogs are allowed is that the manipulators wish for an open source world wide web so that they may improve their ability to monitor potential customers and their habits.
Why is there no focus on corruption in the capital markets? Why is the NFL off-limits? What about the warped incentives of the major global accountancy firms and investment banks and their alleged Chinese walls that we are supposed to believe ensure no internal informational advantage? Why ignore the corruptions at society’s core power loci? And don’t even get me started on the perverse incentives of politicians with respect to big business and Wall Street/City of London.
Despite these criticisms, the book should be read by any individual who takes an interest in the corruption endemic in our globalised shareholder capitalist system. The analytical approaches undertaken by Levitt are similar, although significantly less developed, to those utilised at our trading desks. For instance, Levitt repeatedly falls back on regression analysis to show causal links and an expanded version of such analysis is incorporated into our approach regarding the incentives of football referees and horseracing jockeys (to name but two examples). They are also correct that the more recently developed corrupt infrastructures have been established with minimal regard to their in built weaknesses which expose such corruptions to the prying eyes of investigative market analysts. Another big plus is that the book indicates, however fleetingly, that absolute structures are more rewarding (and, hence, more prone) to corrupt than complex systems incorporating information from a range of power bases - think of the corrupt referee whose input can almost always produce a required outcome on a match compared with the manipulation of a financial market where systemic risk may override a corrupting process.
Freakonomics, in many ways, approaches the area of corruption with the same analytical template used by marketing people and spin doctors. By getting the public to gaze at the manipulations on the periphery or the aspects of a product or a political situation that they wish for you to focus on, they avert your eyes from the fundamental systemic corruption that blights all of our existences.
Corrupters view the risk of exposure as a summation of hazard and the ensuing outrage. Football Is Fixed repeatedly presents manipulations at the very core of our systems both in sport and in financial markets by exposing these hazards with the subsequent realisation of public cynicism in the spectacular society constructs that we are all presented with to keep us entertained. Out of all the many emails that we have received since starting this blog, only one has made any attempt to confront our view of these realities and the arguments that were presented were so intellectually flawed as to be not even worthy of consideration. Undoubtedly, some of the corrupt edifices will reconstruct their operations as their manipulations fall under public gaze but, unless the corruption takes on an extremely limited form, investigative analysts will ALWAYS be able to detect the manipulations.
As my hairdresser jokingly (?) exclaimed, while holding a particularly sharp pair of scissors to my neck, “you have ruined football for me”.
We prefer to see the educative process as liberation rather than ruination…
© Football Is Fixed/Dietrological
We should celebrate anything that popularises the corruption in the marketplace or in any other societal structure and Freakonomics utilises big picture overviews to assess a range of structures. By addressing the perverse incentives of individual operators within contorted infrastructures, the book focuses on the preferable nature of a moral approach and contrasts with the actual reality of a manipulated economic environment. By incorporating the power of information together with the relative weightings of economic, moral and social incentives in a spectrum of instances, the authors create landscapes that titillate but, unfortunately, trivialise the whole analytical process.
The authors choices of sectors and situations to analyse are illuminating in that, although entertainingly portrayed, they are peripheral to our realities. Selecting sumo wrestling as a corrupt sport when Levitt trades professionally on massively corrupt horseracing markets; the focus on the ku klux klan’s attitude to information and power rather than the masonic WASP hierarchies of modern day America; targeting estate agent’s (with their lack of a professional trade association) manipulation of property buyers and sellers rather than lawyers with their abusive approach to class action suits or accountants and their consultative corruption; the choice of Black crack rather than white cocaine etc etc. Furthermore, the holistic views presented in the book are often incomplete – any analytical approach that purports to address the selection of a name for your children must incorporate the impact of the selection of names from within your family. A quick straw poll around the office reveals that only one member of our Trading Team is not named after a relative or ancestor, for example. Additionally, by claiming that the internet is shrinking the informational asymmetric advantage enjoyed by the elite, they completely ignore that this very elite also is utilising the internet to enhance their own knowledge and databases. One of the prime reasons political blogs are allowed is that the manipulators wish for an open source world wide web so that they may improve their ability to monitor potential customers and their habits.
Why is there no focus on corruption in the capital markets? Why is the NFL off-limits? What about the warped incentives of the major global accountancy firms and investment banks and their alleged Chinese walls that we are supposed to believe ensure no internal informational advantage? Why ignore the corruptions at society’s core power loci? And don’t even get me started on the perverse incentives of politicians with respect to big business and Wall Street/City of London.
Despite these criticisms, the book should be read by any individual who takes an interest in the corruption endemic in our globalised shareholder capitalist system. The analytical approaches undertaken by Levitt are similar, although significantly less developed, to those utilised at our trading desks. For instance, Levitt repeatedly falls back on regression analysis to show causal links and an expanded version of such analysis is incorporated into our approach regarding the incentives of football referees and horseracing jockeys (to name but two examples). They are also correct that the more recently developed corrupt infrastructures have been established with minimal regard to their in built weaknesses which expose such corruptions to the prying eyes of investigative market analysts. Another big plus is that the book indicates, however fleetingly, that absolute structures are more rewarding (and, hence, more prone) to corrupt than complex systems incorporating information from a range of power bases - think of the corrupt referee whose input can almost always produce a required outcome on a match compared with the manipulation of a financial market where systemic risk may override a corrupting process.
Freakonomics, in many ways, approaches the area of corruption with the same analytical template used by marketing people and spin doctors. By getting the public to gaze at the manipulations on the periphery or the aspects of a product or a political situation that they wish for you to focus on, they avert your eyes from the fundamental systemic corruption that blights all of our existences.
Corrupters view the risk of exposure as a summation of hazard and the ensuing outrage. Football Is Fixed repeatedly presents manipulations at the very core of our systems both in sport and in financial markets by exposing these hazards with the subsequent realisation of public cynicism in the spectacular society constructs that we are all presented with to keep us entertained. Out of all the many emails that we have received since starting this blog, only one has made any attempt to confront our view of these realities and the arguments that were presented were so intellectually flawed as to be not even worthy of consideration. Undoubtedly, some of the corrupt edifices will reconstruct their operations as their manipulations fall under public gaze but, unless the corruption takes on an extremely limited form, investigative analysts will ALWAYS be able to detect the manipulations.
As my hairdresser jokingly (?) exclaimed, while holding a particularly sharp pair of scissors to my neck, “you have ruined football for me”.
We prefer to see the educative process as liberation rather than ruination…
© Football Is Fixed/Dietrological
Friday, 6 April 2007
We're All Cynical Realists Really
The aim of Football Is Fixed, to shamelessly quote Jean Baudrillard, is suggested by the following. "Doubtless one should put oneself in the position of an imaginary traveller who came upon these writings as if they were a lost manuscript and, for the want of supporting documents, subsequently strove to reconstitute the society they describe".
We take a cynical realist's view of the world. We use our analytical skills not just to increase our individual bank balances but to create constructs that explain the data on both a market and a political/societal level. The posts that we choose to place on Football Is Fixed are based on our historical trading strategies and our financial system knowledge (a parallel to institutional knowledge). We believe that the corruption endemic in mature sports betting markets is replicated across all mature sectors in a shareholder capitalist system and one of our prime aims is to demonstrate a systems thinking approach to such correlations.
I'm merely a one trick pony. It's just that society has decided it is a pretty neat trick. I can model things like financial markets and RS Canum Venaticorum Binary Systems. In a world thinly sliced into niches of infinitessimally fine sectors, virtually anyone may focus on their core competencies and peripheralise weaknesses to overachieve in an effectively irrelevant field. I mean, what does it really matter whether the Sevilla penalty was justified last night? Who should really care? This is really not a big deal. It can only become a big deal if extrapolated and tested against the financial structures that represent globalisation. The modern internet includes a web of sites similar to Football Is Fixed openly in discussion of a system designed for manipulation and corruption. The fear factor that underlies our global system enforces an anally retentive isolationism on the part of many market operators but we choose to be open source even if only to an extent.
This is absolutely not a solely altruistic act. We have surprised ourselves with the range of significant advantages that have accumulated from our public discussion of some of the corrupt structures in football. We have based our isolationist/altruistic threshold similarly to Berkshire Hathaway or Phil Bull - openly discuss how you made money last year but no current proprietary trading strategy. Indeed, addressing areas of historical concern in a public format ensures that we fully complete our holistic thinking with regard to particular market phases, inversions and structures. Additionally, and outrageously, by putting information into the market place in a controlled manner we are having a currently small but increasingly larger impact on the marketplace - there will be a threshold where our information and analyses will feed back into our Unified Trading Model (UTM). Cool!
Baudrillard, Buffett and Bull in one post :)
We take a cynical realist's view of the world. We use our analytical skills not just to increase our individual bank balances but to create constructs that explain the data on both a market and a political/societal level. The posts that we choose to place on Football Is Fixed are based on our historical trading strategies and our financial system knowledge (a parallel to institutional knowledge). We believe that the corruption endemic in mature sports betting markets is replicated across all mature sectors in a shareholder capitalist system and one of our prime aims is to demonstrate a systems thinking approach to such correlations.
I'm merely a one trick pony. It's just that society has decided it is a pretty neat trick. I can model things like financial markets and RS Canum Venaticorum Binary Systems. In a world thinly sliced into niches of infinitessimally fine sectors, virtually anyone may focus on their core competencies and peripheralise weaknesses to overachieve in an effectively irrelevant field. I mean, what does it really matter whether the Sevilla penalty was justified last night? Who should really care? This is really not a big deal. It can only become a big deal if extrapolated and tested against the financial structures that represent globalisation. The modern internet includes a web of sites similar to Football Is Fixed openly in discussion of a system designed for manipulation and corruption. The fear factor that underlies our global system enforces an anally retentive isolationism on the part of many market operators but we choose to be open source even if only to an extent.
This is absolutely not a solely altruistic act. We have surprised ourselves with the range of significant advantages that have accumulated from our public discussion of some of the corrupt structures in football. We have based our isolationist/altruistic threshold similarly to Berkshire Hathaway or Phil Bull - openly discuss how you made money last year but no current proprietary trading strategy. Indeed, addressing areas of historical concern in a public format ensures that we fully complete our holistic thinking with regard to particular market phases, inversions and structures. Additionally, and outrageously, by putting information into the market place in a controlled manner we are having a currently small but increasingly larger impact on the marketplace - there will be a threshold where our information and analyses will feed back into our Unified Trading Model (UTM). Cool!
Baudrillard, Buffett and Bull in one post :)
Friday, 5 January 2007
20 Reasons Not To Bet On British Horseracing
British horseracing is riddled with corruption. 10 years ago, I undertook a PhD at The Centre for the Study of Gambling and Commercial Gaming at Salford University and my thesis was entitled "The Impact of Conspicuous Money on Outcome in British Horseracing Markets".
Via the catalyst of my tutor, Professor Neville Topham, I was able to meet with the powerbrokers of the industry sector in this country. One of the most fascinating series of encounters was with Rodney Brack - the Chief Executive of the British Horserace Betting Levy Board (BHBLB). In the initial interactions, we discussed the mechanisms that allow certain key operators within the sport to affect the outcome of races. Jokes were shared and there was a general air of good-natured bonhomie.
Prior to a later meeting at the BHBLB offices in London, Mr Brack had decided to do a background check on me. The Direct Action Movement, the Hunt Saboteurs and the Animal Liberation Front came up and, suddenly, we were at a very different race meeting! The CEO moved into duplicitous overdrive and everything that had been black was now white and vice versa. Corruption? Nonsense. Fixed races? You are biased. Previous discussions? Denials. I considered going public with my proof of the corruption in horseracing but eventually decided to utilise my knowledge in a more creative manner.
Below are the prime reasons why one shouldn't go anywhere near horserace betting markets unless you are muscled up with either inside information from the horse's mouth (as it were) or a state-of-the-art trading model.
1. For most races, the outcome is determined by betting patterns and liabilities. Form is virtually irrelevant. These betting patterns are not publicly available.
2. In football, we must endure corrupt players, referees and managers. The parallels in racing are jockeys, clerks of racecourses, trainers/owners. Corrupt bookmakers and industry sector officials are ubiquitous in both sports.
3. Never bet on the All Weather. These events are the most corrupted and randomised.
4. Many stables are betting stables and they employ proprietary trading strategies that can only be deciphered by a few select individuals. This adds volatility to the market.
5. Performance Enhancing Substances (PESs) are used widely in the sport.
6. All sources of potentially valuable information are industry-owned and, consequently, cannot be trusted.
7. Gambling winnings are not enforceable under law. Very few bookmakers allow winning accounts.
8. It is cruel.
9. The watering of racecourses (ostensibly to soften the ground) is a very manipulative tool that significantly affects the results of races.
10. The jockeys are well paid but obedient and they carry out the instructions of the key market operators.
11. The Racing Post and The Sporting Life and ALL the mainstream media print the information that the betting industry wishes them to print. Disinformation is the norm.
12. The technology utilised for photo finishes is able to be manipulated.
13. On the few occasions when there is a certainty, nobody will lay you a decent sized bet without cropping your price.
14. Betting rings are full of criminals, psychopaths, posh totty and associated slime merchants - it is not a sophisticated office space with it's permanent stench of corruption. Most people are losing money and, subconciously, they understand that they are being taken for a ride.
15. It panders to the establishment and reinforces class issues. Your money allows the upper and upper-middle classes to give prizes to each other; it provides taxation for the government and profit for the bookies and their shareholders.
16. Some of the leading Saudi owners have very opaque strategies for the horses in their ownership. It can seem like the equivalent of deciphering OPEC at times.
17. The key traders place their bets in private very early or as late as possible on the rails. The big betting firms only play the ring in the period leading up to the race. One must maximise the information to be competitive in such corrupted markets and it is often difficult to get your money on late.
18. The handicapping of racehorses is manipulated in favour of insiders.
19. Like the gypsy musicians in Romania, Irish trainers and jockeys are given respect by the establishment in this country. But it is a lacklustre, sneering and condescending respect - these people still think Eire is part of the British empire.
20. It is not a sport. It is a rigged casino game transferred to the countryside. Only a small minority of horseraces in this country are totally clean.
Via the catalyst of my tutor, Professor Neville Topham, I was able to meet with the powerbrokers of the industry sector in this country. One of the most fascinating series of encounters was with Rodney Brack - the Chief Executive of the British Horserace Betting Levy Board (BHBLB). In the initial interactions, we discussed the mechanisms that allow certain key operators within the sport to affect the outcome of races. Jokes were shared and there was a general air of good-natured bonhomie.
Prior to a later meeting at the BHBLB offices in London, Mr Brack had decided to do a background check on me. The Direct Action Movement, the Hunt Saboteurs and the Animal Liberation Front came up and, suddenly, we were at a very different race meeting! The CEO moved into duplicitous overdrive and everything that had been black was now white and vice versa. Corruption? Nonsense. Fixed races? You are biased. Previous discussions? Denials. I considered going public with my proof of the corruption in horseracing but eventually decided to utilise my knowledge in a more creative manner.
Below are the prime reasons why one shouldn't go anywhere near horserace betting markets unless you are muscled up with either inside information from the horse's mouth (as it were) or a state-of-the-art trading model.
1. For most races, the outcome is determined by betting patterns and liabilities. Form is virtually irrelevant. These betting patterns are not publicly available.
2. In football, we must endure corrupt players, referees and managers. The parallels in racing are jockeys, clerks of racecourses, trainers/owners. Corrupt bookmakers and industry sector officials are ubiquitous in both sports.
3. Never bet on the All Weather. These events are the most corrupted and randomised.
4. Many stables are betting stables and they employ proprietary trading strategies that can only be deciphered by a few select individuals. This adds volatility to the market.
5. Performance Enhancing Substances (PESs) are used widely in the sport.
6. All sources of potentially valuable information are industry-owned and, consequently, cannot be trusted.
7. Gambling winnings are not enforceable under law. Very few bookmakers allow winning accounts.
8. It is cruel.
9. The watering of racecourses (ostensibly to soften the ground) is a very manipulative tool that significantly affects the results of races.
10. The jockeys are well paid but obedient and they carry out the instructions of the key market operators.
11. The Racing Post and The Sporting Life and ALL the mainstream media print the information that the betting industry wishes them to print. Disinformation is the norm.
12. The technology utilised for photo finishes is able to be manipulated.
13. On the few occasions when there is a certainty, nobody will lay you a decent sized bet without cropping your price.
14. Betting rings are full of criminals, psychopaths, posh totty and associated slime merchants - it is not a sophisticated office space with it's permanent stench of corruption. Most people are losing money and, subconciously, they understand that they are being taken for a ride.
15. It panders to the establishment and reinforces class issues. Your money allows the upper and upper-middle classes to give prizes to each other; it provides taxation for the government and profit for the bookies and their shareholders.
16. Some of the leading Saudi owners have very opaque strategies for the horses in their ownership. It can seem like the equivalent of deciphering OPEC at times.
17. The key traders place their bets in private very early or as late as possible on the rails. The big betting firms only play the ring in the period leading up to the race. One must maximise the information to be competitive in such corrupted markets and it is often difficult to get your money on late.
18. The handicapping of racehorses is manipulated in favour of insiders.
19. Like the gypsy musicians in Romania, Irish trainers and jockeys are given respect by the establishment in this country. But it is a lacklustre, sneering and condescending respect - these people still think Eire is part of the British empire.
20. It is not a sport. It is a rigged casino game transferred to the countryside. Only a small minority of horseraces in this country are totally clean.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)