5 clues that a tennis match is fixed.

Given the recent focus on fixed matches on the ATP tour, I thought I'd write a piece about some of the signs of a fixed match.  This is by no means an exhaustive list, just 5 pointers to raise suspicions and importantly - raise enough doubt for those of us that bet on tennis to give it the swerve.

1 & 2, "Irregular betting patterns" before the match begins.  Most fixed matches will involve an amount of money being put down before it begins.  This is when liquidity should be at it's strongest - the odds being based on form, surface, physical condition, head to heads etc.  Liquidity being provided by bookmakers and betting exchanges, there's plenty of scope for a lot of money to be wagered on many different websites.

Things you should look for are;

• Larger than normal movements in odds.  Not just on who will win the match, but sometimes in the set score markets too.  It's fairly common for a player to be told to work towards a 3 set match rather than a straights sets win - money can be made just by altering the story of the match.  It's not usual for the odds to move a bit pre match in line with normal supply and demand.  Odds that move in excess of 15% are unusual and are either injury related, a very strong opinion expressed by one or more big players or signs of something untoward.  Clearly there is a need to stay on top of injury information.  The larger the move in odds pre match then the more serious the injury or the more fixed it might look.
• Markets being closed by bookies.  This is an unusual move from the bookmakers - what it is showing is that they have taken a large amount of money on one player or outcome and are of the opinion that this is suspicious: ordinarily they would continue to keep it open but just move their odds to make the other side of their books more attractive.

3, Odds during match bear no resemblance to the match itself.  There are certain movements in the odds during a tennis match which can't be argued against, unless a player is injured in some way. 

Using the Davydenko v Vassallo-Arguello match as an example.  A player that wins the first set comfortably (6-2 in Davydenko's case) without sign of injury should have his odds considerably shorter to win the match (perhaps 25-40% of what they were at the beginning).  In the case of that controversial match, Davydenko's odds were longer after set 1, even though he was cruising the match, injury free - it made no sense at all, other than someone knew what was about to happen.

This was only acheived with the help of a great deal of money being put on his opponent, thus soaking up the money that wanted to back Denko at these seemingly crazy odds.  Odds that don't conform roughly to the laws of probability are unusual.

4, Large amounts of one sided money during the match.  This in itself is not unusual, there's plenty of big punters in these markets, some will take a view.  It's also the case that in order to get all of this money on, they have to be agressive and sometimes go against the run of play slightly.  It's the extent and the timing of this seemingly contrarian view which needs consideration.  No respectable big player will give away "value", that's why they are having their bet.

Question things if large amounts of money go through at odds that are out of line with where the market has been trading, especially if the player being layed is doing well.  Of course, some degree of proof that these people were ahead of the game wil only arrive when it's too late for the rest of us, and even then, everyone makes mistakes or takes views occaisionally - if we're honest this is a hard one to prove a fix with.

5, The players act strangely.  Another difficult one to question, we're all human and prone to bouts of unpredictability.  If everyone was predictable this game would be rather easy wouldn't it.  A few things to consider;

• Players form during the match takes a larger than understandible turn.  Particularly if up already in the match.  Watch for numbers of unforced errors and double faults.
• Strange injuries that are not obvious during open play, with injury time outs taken at very odd times of the match - for example, when the player is winning - why interupt your own rhythm.
• Player body language, looks "bothered" at some points and not at others.  Entering very subjective areas here, it's very tough to call this correctly.

What some of this information should have told you is that it can be very difficult at times to decide whether a match is being fixed or not.  In fact I would go as far as saying that any of these 5 clues on their own is not enough to prove anything, it's when they happen together and in sequence that suspicion is raised.  One might add that a player's nationality could offer further clues.  It would appear players from Argentina, Russia and Italy are more likely to be suspect. 

The timeline of activity is the important factor here.  Money needs to be wagered in size - against the flow of the match or in highly liquid conditions, before the fix is executed on the court.  And even when this does happen - there is always the chance that this is an unfortunate coincidence.  The amount of money and the probability of the action that's taking place on the court has to be weighed carefully.

With so many matches under scrutiny, it's very easy to call "fix" when you are looking for it.  So don't look for it.  When it happens, it's very obvious.  Looking for it will affect your betting actions.  Normal decisions and reasoning won't be happening - you may even be trying to guess the fix.  It's asking for trouble.  If you suspect something, the right course of action is to stop betting on that match and move on.

Comments

[Nina Rota]

Hi Matt,
How does one stay on top of injury information since the ATP doesn't have stringent requirements about reporting injuries? After Nadal's match he said he
wouldn't have gone on the court if it hadn't been the U.S. Open yet in an earlier interview he said he's been practicing four hours a day.

In the NFL there are rules about reporting injuries, I don't know about European soccer. But there don't seem to be on the ATP.

[Matt]

Hi Nina,

It's incredibly difficult, and to be honest I should work at it more than I do. Some players have their own websites and blogs, press coverage and tv media are generally good places.

I'm not sure it's possible to stay on top of all the injuries that are going on. As for disclosure of injuries rules, again I'm unsure there's a rule in our soccer leagues, though they are very reliable about announcing an injury, I'm no soccer expert.

A rule would certainly help us all though, and help eliminate one method of match fixing and inside trading. But then, you could probably argue that the human body is such that something can go wrong at any point, what is an "injury" and what isn't? Everyone feels a bit different everyday. Is this really something you can put a rule on? I'm not convinced it would work 100%.

Only a player really knows how he/she's feeling. We've seen players with injuries come out and win, some get injured during a match and then it goes away again and others get recurances of old injuries.

The idea has my vote though.