How John Higgins tried to bet on snooker Championship

DISGRACED snooker star John Higgins is today exposed for the second time in a week - attempting to bet against HIMSELF during last year's World Championship Final.


The three-times world champ was suspended from the sport last week after the News of the World caught him on camera agreeing to a massive £261,000 bribe to deliberately lose frames in four separate matches.


Now we can reveal how Higgins shamefully tried to cash in on the most important fixture in world snooker at the revered home of the sport - the Crucible in Sheffield.


In a break during the May bank holiday weekend final, Higgins made a secret mobile phone call to bookmakers Ladbrokes to ask for odds on him LOSING to opponent Shaun Murphy at some stage in the match.


Using a password to access his personal account, he then tried to place a substantial wager, telling the operator: "I just want to cover myself."


Amazingly the 34-year-old Scot - guaranteed £125,000 prize money even if he lost - added: "I don't want to walk away without anything."


But Higgins' outrageous attempt to bag an extra payout was thwarted when Ladbrokes' call centre betting clerk sought advice from her manager and rejected the bet.

Bourne wrote:Our source said: "He wanted to place a bet on Murphy winning. He wanted to bet AGAINST himself. I can't remember if it was for him to lose the next frame, the next session or the whole match."

Hmm ... that's not exactly a stone-wall anecdote is it.

Bourne wrote:It's certainly immoral, but i'm just wondering why this story is only coming out now, over 12 months later ... IF, this story is true, then i'd expect it to be front page news the next day, why hold it back ?

Templeton Peck wrote:It's absolutely no different to someone who had a bet on Higgins at the start to win it covering their winnings with a second bet on Murphy. That's all Higgins tried to do. Should have bought a laptop and placed the bet online though and then it wouldn't have been blocked.

Alex0paul WC wrote:What about Joe Swail betting on someone to beat his highest break in 2000 then? The same sort of insurance?

Witz78 wrote:im not a Higgins fan, nor do i condone his actions from last week - infact ban him for life i say!!! - but as far as the latest allegations go, then sensibly who can blame Higgins for covering himself, especially when well ahead.

Templeton Peck wrote:It's only immoral if you plan to throw the match. The odds you have bet on still reflect the odds of you winning/losing unlike in match fixing.

wildJONESEYE wrote:

Templeton Peck wrote:It's only immoral if you plan to throw the match. The odds you have bet on still reflect the odds of you winning/losing unlike in match fixing.

absalutly mindblowing if you bet against yourself as insurance policy sorry but thats matchfixing in everything but name and im all for banning any player thats done this.

Witz78 wrote:

wildJONESEYE wrote:

Templeton Peck wrote:It's only immoral if you plan to throw the match. The odds you have bet on still reflect the odds of you winning/losing unlike in match fixing.

absalutly mindblowing if you bet against yourself as insurance policy sorry but thats matchfixing in everything but name and im all for banning any player thats done this.

i dont think it is match fixing, as the player is still playing to win the match ultimately !!!

Its a bit like chatting up a fit young blonde in a nightclub when you have a slappers number in your phone, ultimately you want to pull the fit young blonde, but at least you have insurance of being able to text the slapper at the end of the night if you dont pull the blonde

wildJONESEYE wrote:

Witz78 wrote:
i dont think it is match fixing, as the player is still playing to win the match ultimately !!!

Its a bit like chatting up a fit young blonde in a nightclub when you have a slappers number in your phone, ultimately you want to pull the fit young blonde, but at least you have insurance of being able to text the slapper at the end of the night if you dont pull the blonde

you cant have a top player do this and get away with it .

he was on a win of £125,000 by losing 18-0 in that final and he still wanted more in case he lost intercoursing hell thats a greedy pig and shows money is whats driving him on.

i could understand a struggling pro in the qualifiers doing it id still want it stopped but its understandable but not in this case.

if hes done it hes intercoursed mate.

Bourne wrote:The thing that gets me is why on earth, if he's 11-5 up or whatever it was, would he want to cover himself in the first place ? He was cruising, in control, Murphy was below par, there was no way he was going to lose. Why bother ?

Bourne wrote:The thing that gets me is why on earth, if he's 11-5 up or whatever it was, would he want to cover himself in the first place ? He was cruising, in control, Murphy was below par, there was no way he was going to lose. Why bother ?

Witz78 wrote:

Bourne wrote:The thing that gets me is why on earth, if he's 11-5 up or whatever it was, would he want to cover himself in the first place ? He was cruising, in control, Murphy was below par, there was no way he was going to lose. Why bother ?

Simply cos at that stage it was a low stake high value return insurance policy should the unthinkable happen and Murphy came back

Bourne wrote:

Witz78 wrote:

Bourne wrote:The thing that gets me is why on earth, if he's 11-5 up or whatever it was, would he want to cover himself in the first place ? He was cruising, in control, Murphy was below par, there was no way he was going to lose. Why bother ?

Simply cos at that stage it was a low stake high value return insurance policy should the unthinkable happen and Murphy came back

But that's the point, unthinkable was an understatement, Murphy just wasn't mentally there and Higgins was winning frames consistently at one visit.