The favourite in this race was three and a half years old having its first start, most dogs are retiring at that age. Ill try to have a look to see if it had any trial form leading in otherwise there is no way this dog should have started favourite. Early money and box 1 though will open the flood gates for the "mug" money
-
Comment -
Same its been fun to discuss. Neither Finished Forcer or Octane Moment had been in a public solo trial prior to racing. Of course there is the chance of a private trial but no chance of knowing.
Being a Pure Octane bitch its little surprise that Octane Moment through in the towel when squeezed up and bumped into, it does make it hard to draw a line on how slow the dog actually is though. I would also be tipping we never see Finished Forcer complete that satisfactory trial lol. She is 3.5 years old and clearly doesn't chase, and its suspect whether she would be fast enough evenif she did.
Once again though even if true there is nothing against nominating slow dogs to race and telling your friends its no goodComment -
Compared to other sports and horse racing, dog racing is a whole different level when comes to gambling. Outside of drugging a dog, is there a way to fix a race? Sure, like said above, you can enter a dog you know has no chance, and then bet, or tell others, to bet against them, but with so much contact, even that is no sure thing. It sounds like the guy knew his stuff, put his money to good use, and hit it. If bet365 comes up with any story as to how he shouldn't get paid, hopefully they do get kicked out of the country.Comment -
Look @ Shari
I'm ready for Kangaroos to jump through my screen
She is hard core Aussie'd out
Good thread hozerComment -
Bump!
Story needs more exposure!Comment -
You can lose your shirt betting with these guys but winning fair square is merely impossible for punters as they held your head like a peacock. Pretty pathetic how ordinary gamlbers can be so helpless on this imaginary unregulated world wide web.Comment -
-
Shari can you edit the title to Bet365 stiffs player 73k
Comment -
wow all I gotta say is **** Bet365 what a fking joke pay the man his fking money and stop being little bitches about it. Admit your fking wrong and give him what is hisComment -
There is alittle more to the story, The stewards are holding an inquiry into the race, two dogs, the 2.50 fav and another one at 11.00 bot were suspended for 28 days after the race due to them failing to chase the lure.
The guy who placed the bet , which was at a cost of around $4,000 left both the dogs out of his selections on his ticket. The dogs are also listed as being from a property his brother owns.
Now if we all could have this inside ona dog race im sure we would all outlay the maoney knowing our return would be very profitable.
I have an account with bet365, but they are nowhere near the best around, the do take a few extra days with their payouts to hit my account but apart from that they have good markets and props on most games im interested in. They obviously smelt a rat , and their was a slight loophole in the rules of betting for greyhound racing that the clever punter exploited. My concern is that the othe rpunter who bet on the 2 dogs that refused to chase the lure were robbed by the clever one....Comment -
Comment -
It was in the Herald Sun yesterday. Both of the dogs that failed to chase are kennelled by Matthew Brunker. This guy is Steve Brunker.
Racing Queensland is investigating if the two are related. What do you think the chances are they are?
Comment -
geez, it could be just a coincidence but the odds of that?It was in the Herald Sun yesterday. Both of the dogs that failed to chase are kennelled by Matthew Brunker. This guy is Steve Brunker.
Racing Queensland is investigating if the two are related. What do you think the chances are they are?
It's getting more interesting, what if they are related? What are the rules with that?Comment -
It's not like Brunker is a common last name so I'd think the odds are pretty slim. But still possible of course.
If what Steve did is a violation then I've done the same many times with tennis and horses. Fixed matches, players and horses carrying quiet injuries, etc. And I'm sure others do it quite often as well. If a rule was broken you'd think it would be on Matthew's side, no? But again, short of drugging the dogs, how is he responsible if they fail to chase? There's no guarantee that they will or won't either way when the race begins although he could have a pretty good inclination I guess.
Pretty silly of Steve not to at least have someone else make the bet if it turns out they are related. Doesn't take a brainiac to suspect something's odd when the same surnames appear in a situation like this.Comment -
As far as i can tell he has not broken any rules , but it certainly is dodgy...Comment -
Lets say it is his brother, then there is a fair chance he knows that the dogs are no good. Whats wrong with just betting on something else based on the fact you know they are slow greyhounds? If thats illegal then half the punters in the country are in troubleComment -
It probably is not illegal as it stands, but just say for example this is what happened...
Trainer buys two pups that just won't chase.
Decides to enter the two dud dogs for their first race in the same event without any public trial so no one else knows.
Bets $1000 on the worst one to make it the early fave.
Collects $70,000 betting on all other dogs.
I'm pretty sure there will be an integrity test in the rules that will make that scenario 'illegal' if they can prove it..Comment -
But that would fall on the trainer right? Or in this case the guy who kenneled the dogs. Not someone who was told about it? I can see if it's a human... they can decide to play 100% or not. But unless a dog is tampered with how is that possible?
A very good friend of mine is a pretty big tennis coach. Through him I know a few others and a few players. I'm extremely close to a major horse trainer here. And through friends I often talk to several AFL footy players who are loose-lipped degens. They all talk. Sometimes on purpose and other times innocently. I've even bet for a few of them... not on their matches/races though. They've never asked and even I'm too much of a chicken for that. But in a relatively small country, it's not uncommon if you go to tracks or events to meet people who work in a certain industry, right? So how many of us would get stung if as a 3rd party bettor this was considered a violation? I've bet a few tennis matches that were 100% fixed but still lost... usually because the player's team got a better offer, one player chickened out or because the player was such a dud that they still couldn't win a match being handed to them without raising suspicion of the Tour. No one would give me my money back for those bets... the info I received simply didn't pan out. So unless this Matthew Brunker messed with those dogs somehow, I don't see why Steve shouldn't get paid.
Granted I may just be looking at it from a slanted point of view though.Comment -
I'm just guessing myself Shari. But I don't think the NT commission needs direct evidence to rule against the player. Betting patterns and the circumstantial stuff about the dogs and kennel and family connection would be plenty for them I think,
I'd also assume the trainer is the licensed one that sanctions can be made against by the sporting body in this. He may not have even been involved (although that is a stretch to believe if this was a setup), but if the sport's board decides he knowingly entered dogs he knew would not chase, even without a shred of evidence he was involved in the betting, they could suspend him too I think.
I doubt their rules require a very high level of direct evidence to do something like that.
I was with you to start with that this player will get paid, but the longer B365 hold out, and the longer NT gaming takes to make a ruling, the worse this looks for his chances. If B365 did not fold to stop the bad publicity, some one in there has a very good reason, or an ego problem.
I do think you 'could' get stung for placing any bets for players who are banned from gambling btw. Not that I really think that could happen, as you say. But there is several legal angles that could be used against you if someone had the will to go that way. Incitement to breach their contract as one left field example....Comment -
Also, I suspect the NT Commission would like to be able to rule 100% for B365 in part so they don't look bad for licensing them so recently..Comment -
Pretty straight forward. Tatts first four pool minimum 50%, or ~2k, over standard for meet. Dumped $2k in there on losing combinations including the $2.30ish fave which being stabled at his brothers he "knew" wouldn't go well. Invested $5k at 365 on combinations of first four excluding no doubt the fave and probably the other stable related dog as well. Ensures Tatts divvy is massive ($14k), ensures hits at 365 (5 times).
Knowingly laid a dog(s) that has a stable association with via first four, manipulating tote pool to ensure big divvy at corporate. then gets naive Senator and fact-less current affairs program to buy his story and claims he was investing money from his tax return, $5k on an Ippy dogs race no less, and had to check the combinations to see if he won (when he has backed everything but the non-trier). So a liar at a minimum and a comically obvious one at that.
If you watch the run that fave was ridiculous, couldn't go at all whether through natural or contrived means.
As for 365, probably don't even monitor exotic bets just shovel em through, not used to the dodgy Aussie punters lol.
But before feeling for this punter, who knew exactly what he was doing, try feeling for the punters who invested $15k or whatever it was on the fave which never stood a chance......Comment -
AsapComment -
Like I said before this won't end quickly.Comment -
However if the story was as first presented (which it is not) 100% this guy would get paid. Bookmakers licensed in the Northern Territory of Australia are subject to the most stringent conditions and tightest regulation of anywhere in the world. Trust me we've just looked into getting licensed there and will likely pass due to the costs involved.Comment -
the punters all invested various amounts into the tab pool, they never stood a chance , the 15 k is made up of many hundreds of different bets from many punters. Brunker went to the media, the media will now crucify him and Bet 365 WILL get great free publicity...Comment -
InterestingComment -
Lol the $5 punters who blindly backed a first starter who was odds on dont get ANY sympathy. Its not as if they were betting on a dog which was being hindered not to run to its ability. They just took gross unders because they jumped on the bandwagon of what should have been a 40-1 shot.
btw the guy never bet on heaps of first 4 bets that he thought would lose, thats a stupid way to go about something like this and result in a very limited payout. If anything he would have just boxed up 6-7 dogs who he thought would be in the first 4 to ensure a dividend is paid and not a jackpot in case no one else gets it.
Even if this guy has been a bit shady it makes no difference at how poor Bet365 have been. Changing your story as new information becomes available is ridiculousComment -
How do you think he got the $14k dividend on Tatts? By dumping $2k of losing bets into the Tatts pool and making sure the favourite didn't run in the first four. The only way to ensure a massive dividend like that on Tatts is to ensure there is over and above the usual amount of losing first four bets.
How do you make sure the favourite doesn't run in the first four? Because if it did, they were screwed. Watch the race before you say "its not as if they were betting on a dog which was being hindered not to run to its ability".Comment
