Burden Betting Ban.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/snooker/38500168

"The 40-year-old was found to have made 86 accumulator-style bets between 2006 and 2016, on which he lost £2,995."

Ouch. Are you allowed to bet on yourself to win?

I remember David Haye saying once he'd put a load of money on himself to win in the third (against Chizora) because he was so sure he could do it then. And he did.

Reading between the lines, seems like he was betting on himself to win. In that case, while it's probably silly to bet full stop on Snooker, I'm inclined to feel a small bit sympathetic for him.

Fortunately for Alfie, the ban will only be imposed if he's foolish enough to carry-on betting on matches!

Looking at the WPBSA rules, prior to 2009 they stated that:

A Player shall not bet on the result, score or any other aspect of any snooker match in which he is playing; or arrange for any such bet to be placed on his behalf.

But since 2009, the wording has been changed to reflect that players are now banned from placing bets on any professional snooker match.

Not sure how it came-to-light that he was betting on games.
But, as he was placing the bets online - as opposed to walking in to a High Street bookies - all his bets were electronically traceable, right down to the exact penny wagered.

He had placed 5 bets on his own matches over the period - but all were for him to win. I'm sure if even one of his bets had backed himself to lose, then he would certainly have been in a lot of trouble!

With some of the stories betting has created in snooker I'm surprised anyone would be tempted, at least he was betting on himself.

I only read it quickly this morning and thought he was getting fined 25,000, also missed the part about the ban being lifted. I'll edit the first post so it's not misleading.

Harsh on Burden, but rules are rules. Don't agree with the rule myself.

I wish Hearn would go after the real criminals of the sport instead of flexing his muscles on people who have clearly done nothing wrong.

Cloud Strife wrote:Harsh on Burden, but rules are rules. Don't agree with the rule myself.

I wish Hearn would go after the real criminals of the sport instead of flexing his muscles on people who have clearly done nothing wrong.

He DID do something wrong, though!

PoolBoy wrote:

Cloud Strife wrote:Harsh on Burden, but rules are rules. Don't agree with the rule myself.

I wish Hearn would go after the real criminals of the sport instead of flexing his muscles on people who have clearly done nothing wrong.

He DID do something wrong, though!

Yeah, you're right he did. Incorrect wording on my part.

My problem is with the rule itself. In this instance Burden broke said rule so deserves his punishment I suppose.

Cloud Strife wrote:

PoolBoy wrote:

Cloud Strife wrote:Harsh on Burden, but rules are rules. Don't agree with the rule myself.

I wish Hearn would go after the real criminals of the sport instead of flexing his muscles on people who have clearly done nothing wrong.

He DID do something wrong, though!

Yeah, you're right he did. Incorrect wording on my part.

My problem is with the rule itself. In this instance Burden broke said rule so deserves his punishment I suppose.

i agree with the rule.

no gray areas you bet on snooker then your in the rubbish.

even the most stupid person on the planet shouldn't be confused by that

Why are people seemingly so ok with people betting on themselves?

Imagine you're playing another journeyman pro in the Last 128 or something where there's long-odds on you cos the opponents on a rule, surely it's possible to bet on yourself with a substantial amount of money and split the profit with the losing player who knows he's got no realistic chance of making more than you can give him in the competition. It doesn't immediately look like match-fixing because "he bet on himself to win".

snookerguy wrote:Why are people seemingly so ok with people betting on themselves?

Imagine you're playing another journeyman pro in the Last 128 or something where there's long-odds on you cos the opponents on a rule, surely it's possible to bet on yourself with a substantial amount of money and split the profit with the losing player who knows he's got no realistic chance of making more than you can give him in the competition. It doesn't immediately look like match-fixing because "he bet on himself to win".

That's a very good point you make there.

Most 128 rounds for the top players are virtual walkovers, sometimes there's the odd surprise if it's Best of 7, but you rarely see them troubled.

I wouldn't even go as far as to say the top player would split the money with his opponent. He could win a significant amount of money if he bet high enough and win the match. Yes there shouldn't be grey areas like it has been suggested here, so even betting on yourself should be seen as illegal as it is at the moment, and this case just proves it.

Andre147 wrote:I wouldn't even go as far as to say the top player would split the money with his opponent.

No, but the point is a player COULD do this. Hence the rule.

You can't then let players break the rule, just because you don't think they're the sort to abuse it.

SnookerFan wrote:

Andre147 wrote:I wouldn't even go as far as to say the top player would split the money with his opponent.

No, but the point is a player COULD do this. Hence the rule.

You can't then let players break the rule, just because you don't think they're the sort to abuse it.

My point is even if the top player didn't do that, the fact he could earn large amounts of money if he wins the match by betting on himself is wrong. If he split it with his opponent it would be even worse.

Both are wrong and illegal, that's why this rule exists, to prevent them from doing it. If it was legal (not naming any names) I could see some top players benefiting from it by betting on themselves.

thank god for snookerguy and Andre147 using brain power to work out why Burden and others should not bet on snooker matches.

It was silly of Burden to do what he did given the bad reputation Snooker built up for itself over the 00s and early 10s. Snooker and betting has had a famously strained relationship, and Burden can't have been ignorant of that.

I said I feel sympathy for him, I take that back, clumsy choice of words on my behalf. But it looks like it was a relatively harmless offence. He was stupid in this instance, but not malicious.

http://www.worldsnooker.com/wpbsa-statement-8/

This one has been hushed up.

Anyone know what this is about?

Betting on the sport you play is not acceptable in any way. It is much easier to police as any big bets on early round games will automatically be flagged up for bookmakers.

Amazed Burden got away with it via internet for all those years, unless it wasn't his name on the account.

Dan-cat wrote:Ouch. Are you allowed to bet on yourself to win?

I remember David Haye saying once he'd put a load of money on himself to win in the third (against Chizora) because he was so sure he could do it then. And he did.

That ended in the fifth.

TartanMc wrote:http://www.worldsnooker.com/wpbsa-statement-8/

This one has been hushed up.

Anyone know what this is about?

Betting on the sport you play is not acceptable in any way. It is much easier to police as any big bets on early round games will automatically be flagged up for bookmakers.

Amazed Burden got away with it via internet for all those years, unless it wasn't his name on the account.

It's not been that hushed up. It was on the BBC website. We discussed it already in the General Snooker forum.

Alfie is just a bit of a....

Lot´s of noise and some useless letters, but just can´t be bothered to show up, really.