Tennis’s New Concern: Data Harvesting
MELBOURNE, Australia — The strangest story of this Australian Open so far involved a man, a smartphone, a consultant service for online gambling, a tennis match, an arrest, allegations of corruption, a new law and much confusion. Naturally, it unfolded without precedent.
This story also brought new attention to the gambling boom around professional tennis and introduced many to the term courtsiding.
The accused is Daniel Dobson, 22, of Britain. The police said he came to the tournament last week with an electronic device stitched inside his clothing and linked to a smartphone. They said he used these devices to relay the outcome of points to his employer, Sporting Data, as much as 10 seconds faster than those results could be transmitted through official channels.
Dobson was arrested and charged with engaging in conduct to corrupt a betting outcome. The accusation fell under a law passed in the Australian state of Victoria last April called the Integrity in Sports Act, which was supported and promoted by a coalition of sports organizations, including Tennis Australia.
At a news conference after the arrest, Graham Ashton, a deputy commissioner with the Victoria Police, described courtsiding as a “type of cheating and betting on sports.” He said the advance notice provided by Dobson allowed bets to be placed on particular points after they happened and before agencies could close their betting windows.
“Courtsiding is really only one step away from then contacting players and getting engaged in more illicit and sinister types of sports corruption,” Ashton said.
But many of those who bet on tennis do not agree. They say it is unlikely that Dobson relayed that information so someone else could bet on individual points. Most bookmakers have policies in place to prevent that; some allow bettors only to bet three points ahead; others institute a five-second delay after transactions.
On Thursday, Dobson will appear before a judge. His case, to industry insiders, is more about sports results data and who owns them. Among the bullet points in its news release to announce its exclusive data rights for the tournament, the sports data provider Enetpulse listed “exclusive official data service designed for bookmakers,” “fastest live scoring service in the market” and “all data direct from the Umpire’s Chair.”
Brendan Poots, the chief executive of the Melbourne-based sports investment fund Priomha Capital, said the value of that rapid data could be seven figures. The question, then, is whether it is against the law for someone other than Enetpulse — like Sporting Data — to try to transmit it faster.
“I think it’s all blown out of proportion,” Poots said. “I can’t see any relevance to match fixing. The value is in providing the best data as quickly as possible.”
In many ways, tennis is tailored for those modern gamblers who are mathematically inclined.
Enetpulse noted that in 2010 the ATP and WTA scheduled 19,000 matches, which included more than 400,000 games and nearly 2.5 million points. There is no shortage of statistics.
The amount of money wagered on tennis increased exponentially in the last five years, according to Poots and others. The boom took place outside the United States. “In terms of live betting on tennis, it’s nonexistent,” said Ted Sevransky, a longtime bettor and analyst based in Las Vegas. But in Europe and elsewhere, tennis often ranks behind only horse racing and soccer in its appeal to bettors.
Poots noted that an innocuous fourth-round women’s singles match here between No. 28 Flavia Pennetta and No. 9 Angelique Kerber attracted more than $4 million in wagers on the betting site Betfair on the first set alone.
“From a gambling or trading perspective, tennis is magnificent,” Poots said. “It’s one-on-one. It’s global. And it takes place almost year round.”
What separates tennis betting from other sports is that most bets are placed on events that happen during a match. That stems from the scoring system, with all the back and forth, which shifts the odds often and significantly enough to exploit.
The more the betting increased, the more opportunities emerged for gamblers. Many center on statistical analysis. Sites like Tennis Ratings advertise analysis of the best and worst players at defending a break advantage, or which players tend to most often play three-set matches.
As gambling on tennis became more popular, concerns spread. In 2007, the Australian Open hired Sal Perna, a former homicide detective who specialized in combating fraud and corruption. The tournament wanted a policy in place by 2008.
Perna studied other sports organizations, including Major League Baseball, the N.F.L., cricket and rugby. What emerged was an anticorruption policy that borrowed from each.
The tournament hung signs around the grounds that read: “Tennis Australia has a zero tolerance policy on illegal gambling, match fixing and the communication of sensitive information which may affect the outcome of a match and will investigate all reported instances.” The signs included a telephone number for a “Tennis Integrity Hotline.”
At the first tournament under the new policy, officials detained a Bulgarian man who Perna said had been placing his hand into a bag after each point. When they played a videotape back, they could see a laptop. The man then left Melbourne in the middle of the next night.
“The challenge with that was, how do you identify what the criminal charge is?” Perna said. “Because what they’re really doing is transmitting live information about a match.”
The Integrity in Sports Act tried to clarify that matter with a law, focused largely on match-fixing and race-fixing and corruption. The most serious penalties carry a potential jail sentence of 10 years.
Courtsiding, though, is not as clear-cut as, say, bribing a player or throwing a match. Someone like Dobson is sitting in a public place, watching a public event. The information he is processing is available to thousands sitting around him. The way he is accused of transmitting data appears nearly identical to what the chair umpires do for Enetpulse.
Professional tennis has its own integrity unit, a joint venture among the men’s and women’s tours, the International Tennis Federation and the four Grand Slam tournaments. The unit is an independent body that can request phone records, computer records and travel arrangements. But it cannot make arrests.
Since last June, betting violations have led to fines and suspensions for four players. They came from the lower rungs of the professional circuit, where money is tighter and expenses often exceed prize money.
Sporting Data did not respond to requests for comment, but released a statement in defense of Dobson. The statement said the company planned to fight “this grossly unfair accusation.” It said the company could not use “out of date” television broadcasts for its mathematical models.
IMG Media, which purchased a majority share in Enetpulse in 2012, said in a statement that the agreement with the Australian Open pumped money back into tennis, while courtsiders do not.
Bill Babcock, director of the Grand Slam committee, said of Sporting Data: “I don’t agree they have a right to use the data. Scoring is the right of the tournament.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/22/sports/tennis/tenniss-new-concern-data-harvesting.html?_r=0
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment