
The Tennis Racket - jsvine
http://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/the-tennis-racket
======
jnsaff2
A few years ago a friend of mine wrote a paper on a related issue in tennis:
[http://www.playthegame.org/fileadmin/image/knowledgebank/Ten...](http://www.playthegame.org/fileadmin/image/knowledgebank/Tennisdraws_Katarina_Pijetlovic.pdf)

~~~
roymurdock
Summary: draws were hand-crafted by tournament organizers in order to up the
likelihood that Federer and Nadal would meet in the finals which would
increase viewership and be great for advertisers and sponsors. Insinuation
that Nike was somehow in on it seems a bit far-fetched and the tennis
landscape has changed a fair bit since the paper was written, but the
statistics for the time periods and draws examined are pretty damning.

------
unabridged
The only way to stop this is to align incentives. The ATP (or whichever
league) should open its own sanctioned betting market, then give the winning
player a percentage of the pool. If they can capture a significant amount of
the betting and give a reasonable percentage to the winning player, it will
become very expensive (and hopefully not profitable) to fix a match.

~~~
jonknee
Or police it strictly and enforce lifetime bans on dirty players. It's not
worth a $50k payday to throw a match if it's risking all of your future
income.

------
genericpseudo
IPython notebook with all the workings here:

[https://github.com/BuzzFeedNews/2016-01-tennis-betting-
analy...](https://github.com/BuzzFeedNews/2016-01-tennis-betting-
analysis/blob/master/notebooks/tennis-analysis.ipynb)

Bravo, BuzzFeed.

------
dang
Related BBC article:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10921349](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10921349).

------
unfamiliar
Why is the list of "16 players" not being published?

~~~
ChicagoBoy11
"BuzzFeed News and the BBC have chosen not to name the players whose matches
have repeatedly been flagged for attracting highly suspicious betting, because
without access to phone, bank, or computer records it is not possible to prove
a link between the players and the gamblers. The integrity unit has the power
to demand all that evidence from any tennis professional, yet many of the
individuals whose activity attracted the most serious concern are still
playing at a high level."

------
rickdale
I remember back in 2007 when Davydenko got accused of being part of a betting
scheme. He said, "Its 2007, there is no mafia in Russia."

~~~
at-fates-hands
Ironic considering the mid 2000's had some of the most Russian born players on
the tour. If you're the Russian mob, you're seeing nothing but dollar signs
everywhere.

------
rurban
I investigated a bit this list for the officially banned players, but didn't
do the sha256 matching yet for the rumored players. Should be easy though.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/tennis/comments/41fpeq/tennis_match...](https://www.reddit.com/r/tennis/comments/41fpeq/tennis_match_fixing_evidence_of_suspected_match/cz2kfee)

Cracking the sha256 hashes like this, but still haven't confirmed anyone new:
[https://gist.github.com/rurban/2f1eabc751ebdc3cd056](https://gist.github.com/rurban/2f1eabc751ebdc3cd056)

~~~
chatmasta
How do you know Buzzfeed did not use a random salt along with the hash?

~~~
toomanybeersies
They have used a salt, they mention it on the repo.

~~~
rurban
Yeah I saw that. I'm brute forcing it now... perl is a bit too slow for 12-16
chars, so I'm rewriting it in pony. I assume a known plaintext of a popular
player who should be in the top 4. And I'm assuming the spelling from the ATP
rankins.

~~~
chatmasta
A much simpler way of de-anonymizing the results would be to "match" (lol) the
stats to real players. For example, which player who first appeared in 2005
and has played 15 matches, faced off against another player who first appeared
in 2007 and has played 5 matches?

------
joosters
I remember that corrupt match between Arguello & Davydenko. Betfair's forums
were ablaze with speculation as people watched the ridiculous odds movements
before and during the match. It's appalling that the tennis authorities did
nothing about the corruption, you will never see a more blatant attempt to
cash on a fixed match. (In time, the fixers would learn to not be so obvious
in their betting).

~~~
chillydawg
I worked at betfair at the time. A couple of my colleagues had noticed and
were also following the obviously rogue money. They weren't looking at
customer betting, they were just observing that far too much money was being
traded laying the favourite and copied, as it was obvious there was a fix.

~~~
joosters
It's ironic that Betfair seems to have the industry-leading fraud & corruption
team, when their business model means that they are the least directly
affected by betting corruption.

If only the sports bodies would listen to them, instead of burying their heads
in the sand.

~~~
phillc73
Betfair (and the other exchanges) need to have the best fraud and corruption
teams to ensure the integrity of their marketplace. As it is possible to lay
results on an exchange, it does present ideal opportunity for nefarious
betting activity.

With a traditional bookmaker, it's extremely difficult to consistently win
large amounts over time and multiple events. The bookmakers just close or
severely limit winning accounts.

On an exchange, there's no incentive to limit these winning accounts, whether
they're backing or laying. The marketplace needs liquidity.

However, I still think the government(s) who issue gambling licenses may at
some point take a view that betting exchanges are no longer legal business
ventures, if there is too much evidence of corrupt betting, especially on the
lay side.

You may think that once the genie is out of the bottle, there's no way for a
government to put it back again by banning or de-licensing exchanges. The
exchange just moves offshore to Malta. However, I believe the current
Authorised Betting Partner (ABP)[0] debacle happening in British horse racing
is evidence that industry bodies could make it very difficult in the future
for offshore bookmakers/exchanges to market themselves effectively.

Anyway, my point is, that it's really in Betfair's own self interest to be so
hot on fraud and corruption, when they provide (unlicensed) people the ability
to lay bets and that the legitimacy of exchanges may be called into question
at any time. A prime example of this is what happened to Intrade.[1]

[0] [http://www.britishhorseracing.com/press_releases/british-
rac...](http://www.britishhorseracing.com/press_releases/british-racing-to-
establish-authorised-betting-partners/)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrade)

~~~
joosters
Oh, I get that (which is why I qualified my statement with _directly_
affected). If a sport gains a reputation for corruption, then betting on that
sport suffers.

Note that Betfair is an authorised betting partner, as shown in [0]. They used
to play completely fair with the BHA and the tax authorities, before the
company was floated and they moved offshore to dodge taxes, but they still pay
the levy (or equivalent)

I thought the whole 'laying' controversy was long dead and buried, IMO. (At
least, I hope so, for my own sake :) It's a non-issue in tennis betting, where
laying one player is so obviously exactly the same as backing the opposing
player.

~~~
chillydawg
It is very much dead and anyone who says laying is a special case of betting
does not understand betting. There's now been two court cases in the UK - one
of which went to the court of appeals about this - and the matter is settled
in law firmly. Betfair punters are 100% not bookmakers, regardless of how they
behave. One of the key issues was that the betfair punter has no idea who they
are trading against. For their purposes, they trade vs betfair who happen to
have a perfect hedging model (eg only accepting a bet when there is an equal
and opposite bet to hedge it with).

~~~
phillc73
Yes, Betfair is a BHA authorised betting partner, which is why it is important
for them to be seen to tackle fraud and corruption on their platform. The BHA
could conceivably decide to withdraw that status.

I was very careful in my earlier post not to specifically mention the UK
government, although perhaps it was too strongly intimated. Your points about
laying on an exchange not being a special case in betting does absolutely hold
true in the UK. The point is not so well established in other countries. Why
is Betfair regulated by the Tasmanian Gaming Commission in Australia? Other
States wouldn't issue them a licence at the time. Why does Betfair restrict
access by residents in so many other countries? See the recent withdrawal of
Betfair from the Canadian market.[0]

The point being, Betfair isn't just a UK operation anymore. They need to take
into account global jurisdictions and being high profile about fraud
prevention can only help their image when hoping to expand to new markets.

Lastly, I use Betfair, Smarkets and to a lesser extent Betdaq every day. They
are really the only way to get on a decent bet in the UK today. I think it
would be devastating to the punting population if exchanges were no longer
available.

[0] [http://calvinayre.com/2015/12/24/business/betfair-goes-
full-...](http://calvinayre.com/2015/12/24/business/betfair-goes-full-grinch-
exits-canada/)

~~~
joosters
What's your experience of Smarkets? I've been skeptical of them because it's
not clear how money really gets traded there. Are the markets full of bots
blindly copying Betfair or is there real activity?

~~~
phillc73
Smarkets has been OK. There's very little scope for arbitrage between Betfair
and Smarkets markets, although I've had a couple of small scores doing that.
Mostly, I can usually get a reasonable amount matched at the same price as
Betfair, and only pay 2% commission on profits.

I don't trade that much or play in running. Smarkets is really crap for in
running bets. It takes far to long for the bet to be placed. They also don't
offer an SP option, if that's important to you.

I don't know about bots, because they don't have an official API, just an XML
odds feed.

However, it would appear they used to have an API in the past. No idea if it
still works.

[https://smarkets.com/api/](https://smarkets.com/api/)

[http://smarkets.github.io/smk_api_docs/](http://smarkets.github.io/smk_api_docs/)

------
seanp2k2
Interesting how many people care about the authenticity and integrity of sport
when it's just entertainment. Wrestling matches are fixed and orchestrated,
but it's still popular.

~~~
marshray
Because people invest their own time and enthusiasm in spectating, and
sometimes amateur participation, and they don't want their sport to degenerate
into a farce like American professional wrestling.

------
stplsd
Common, Davydenko incident is already in betting folklore and have been
excessively documented. Where are the other names in top 50?

------
jsvine
Layperson methodology here: [http://www.buzzfeed.com/johntemplon/how-we-used-
data-to-inve...](http://www.buzzfeed.com/johntemplon/how-we-used-data-to-
investigate-match-fixing-in-tennis)

Detailed methodology/code here:
[https://github.com/BuzzFeedNews/2016-01-tennis-betting-
analy...](https://github.com/BuzzFeedNews/2016-01-tennis-betting-analysis)

~~~
jstanley
Wow, this is really good to see. Buzzfeed have wildly exceeded my expectations
here.

~~~
jitl
BuzzFeed's model seems to be "start with the low end, work our way up".
They're using listicles to pay for this sort of awesome reporting.

~~~
ssharp
It will be interesting to see how successful Buzzfeed is at maintaining both
models -- a huge array of clickbait, low-quality, traffic-driving (and revenue
driving, I'd venture) content, and also a investigative journalism unit doing
this type of work.

If Buzzfeed is committed to this and has the financials to support it, I think
they'll eventually win people over. Al Jazeera America never really had the
time to establish itself as a respectable journalistic unit. Their recent
report on Peyton Manning having HGH shipped to his house was met with a fair
amount of skepticism, just based on what news outlet reported it. They folded
their American division a week or two later. I'd guess the same thing will
happen with people questioning Buzzfeed's reporting based solely on what
Buzzfeed is generally associated with. But if they can persevere that and
continue to produce quality investigative reporting like this, the mainstream
will eventually have to accept them.

~~~
Angostura
It is interesting that the BBC seems to have taken Buzzfeed to its heart.

You quite often hear Buzzfeed editors being interviewed on Radio 4 news shows,
or indeed presenting shows in the same positions that have hitherto been
reserved for newspaper journalists. This too, seems to be jointly credited as
Buzzfeed/BBC.

------
pbreit
Buzzfeed continues to impress. The other new content type I am really liking
from BF is the "Tasty" cooking videos:
[https://www.facebook.com/buzzfeedtasty/](https://www.facebook.com/buzzfeedtasty/)

Well-done, easy to consume, perfect for social sharing.

------
lifeisstillgood
tl;dr: Top tennis matches have been fixed, we have the evidence.

Importance:

1\. This is from BuzzFeed News ("""BuzzFeed News began its investigation after
devising an algorithm to analyse gambling on professional tennis matches over
the past seven years.""")

This is a tiny marker of the emergence of the new promised data-led
journalism. And its coming from a new kind of news outlet that has separated
its journalism from its business model (its not about click-bait headlines for
ads, its about providing marketing data or something?)

Who knew. Good for BuzzFeed

2\. Good grief! If Tennis is dirty, then we can happily say that _all_ major
sports are dirty. Cycling and Atheltics has dopers, football is just wrecked,
I think we shall see all major sports get hit soon. F1 crashes anyone?

~~~
moron4hire
I played a lot of sports when I was a kid, but the last few years have taught
me to hate the phrase, "Sports builds character." I can only hope I can pass
on a love for sport to my child, while avoiding the adoration of sports
celebrities (major or minor, we all have our local heroes) that led to my
eventual disenchantment[0], contributing to my sedentary lifestyle that I hope
he never has.

[0] 15 years and 40 lbs ago, I was a semipro martial artist. It's hard to get
into any school when you have a prejudice against martial arts school owners
of a certain extremely common type of school. Ethics isn't a strong point for
most people.

~~~
irremediable
It's sad to hear about your disenchantment. I hope I'm not being presumptuous,
but... why don't you do some sport that's more independent? I enjoy kettlebell
training, running and playing tennis. For the first two sports, it's entirely
on me: I don't need anyone else, and it's all about the joy of the movement.
In tennis you need an opponent, but that can just be one other person whom you
regularly play with.

I guess there must be a feeling of sunk costs, in that you reached a high
level in your martial art(s) of choice. But surely it would be better to do
any kind of exercise, just for health and happiness, than to be thwarted by
your ego? (When I say your ego is thwarting you, I mean to say that _you_
control your reaction. The groups you mentioned are contemptible, but it is
_your_ choice whether you stop exercise entirely because of _their_
malfeasance.)

~~~
moron4hire
If you can ever figure out a single solution to "why don't people 'just' start
exercising", you'll probably solve the global obesity epidemic.

I have not provided all of the details, because they aren't really that
pertinent to the topic (hence why I had tossed it in a footnote), but it
really is about choices, as you have said. And one of my choices was that I
would spend a lot of time on my projects. That has come at the expense of
other things--not just exercise, but playing games, or learning a musical
instrument, or traveling the world.

You don't "just" choose to exercise. It necessarily must come with a choice to
stop doing something else. What that something else is, and how much to
curtail it, those are the reasons people persist in not exercising.

That choice for me is probably "stop commenting on HN". So you can probably
see the problem.

~~~
omegaham
> If you can ever figure out a single solution to "why don't people 'just'
> start exercising", you'll probably solve the global obesity epidemic.

I've seen this at my workplace. There is a gym that is available to all
employees. Like, a _nice_ gym. Fantastic assortment of weights, free classes
from legitimately knowledgeable people at all sorts of times, free
consultations for further instruction...

Very few people use it. It's right there, damn it!

I think that your reason is spot-on. Going to the gym takes a sacrifice
elsewhere, whether it's shortening your lunch break or watching Netflix / TV
for an hour less per day. And, well, it's not enough of a priority for people
to make that sacrifice.

------
blowski
While I love the fact that a native new media organisation like BuzzFeed is
doing genuine investigative journalism, I don't understand why they feel
compelled to use stupid animated gifs all over the page. e.g.
[http://www.buzzfeed.com/johntemplon/how-we-used-data-to-
inve...](http://www.buzzfeed.com/johntemplon/how-we-used-data-to-investigate-
match-fixing-in-tennis)

You can't imagine Bob Woodward of the Washington Post publishing the Watergate
investigations with random cartoons interspersed throughout the content.

~~~
nols
That's the silly summary, there's a much better one here

[https://github.com/BuzzFeedNews/2016-01-tennis-betting-
analy...](https://github.com/BuzzFeedNews/2016-01-tennis-betting-analysis)

~~~
blowski
I just don't understand why they need a silly summary. It makes it hard to
take BuzzFeed seriously as an authoritative news source.

~~~
Avshalom
We're the adults now and we* get to decide what that means. It's not an easy
change to affect I know but we* _can_ be authoritative and well researched and
right and have gifs of getting hit by tennis balls at the same time. It's one
thing if those gifs are trying to use an appeal to emotions to paper over weak
logic/arguments/data but in this case they don't really do anything--which
also yes does mean they could be removed without loss too.

*we: that is the hypothetical we, I am in no way associated with buzzfeed

~~~
MiddleEndian
As an adult, I prefer my news without animations everywhere. It's one of the
reasons I read news online rather than watch TV news.

------
bradleypowers
Was anyone else disappointed that this wasn't an article about the engineering
behind the tennis racket?

~~~
p4bl0
Yes, and just before this one my first thought was of the Racket programming
language…

------
at-fates-hands
There was an article back in 2014 that examined the same thing. I dare to
venture Grantland's reporting is bit better than the click bait Buzzfeed is:

[http://grantland.com/features/tennis-gambling-match-
fixing-i...](http://grantland.com/features/tennis-gambling-match-fixing-
indian-wells-potential/)

------
skhro87
What buzzfeed did is nothing new. A lot of people in the betting "scene"
observe obviously fixed matches on a regular basis, mainly in football but
also in tennis. Some are extremely obvious, some are less. The main is that
organisations such as FIFA, don't seem to care really. They are talking about
having dedicated systems etc in place, yet there are obvious fixes going on
quite often and rarely such cases will be investigated. As someone else
mentioned, Davydenko is a classic.

