Higgins Third Installment - Tried To Bet Against Himself
- Thread starter Scaramouche
- Start date
Why is he still just suspended? This ass clown needs to be banned for life NOW!!!
"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.'"
Come on guys, you can't blame the man. He's Scottish.
(AKA If he really had intentions to dump, he would have used a confederate to lay down the bet. It's really is a tragedy though, 'cause Higgins is such a tremendous talent.)
Come on guys, you can't blame the man. He's Scottish.
(AKA If he really had intentions to dump, he would have used a confederate to lay down the bet. It's really is a tragedy though, 'cause Higgins is such a tremendous talent.)
I wasn't aware it had been documented that Rose ever bet against his own team while he was in a position to affect the outcome as a player or manager. Say it ain't so, Joe.
Last edited:
Rose didn't bet against his own team. He just would not bet on his team if he thought they couldn't win. I don't see a problem with what he did.
I'll tell you one thing, this whole Higgins deal is turning into a real train wreck.
Ok without trying to defend John Higgins, you guys do realize this is a tabloid paper, right? I mean, this isn't unbiased journalism.
The only thing that will be worth discussion is the official findings, not tabloid articles.
FWIW, they are reporting this based on their "sources" word, and assurance there are records (which the writer hasn't seen). Didn't we learn in grade 9 how to properly research? Can this writer explain the difference between primary and secondary sources? He probably thinks it's the order in which you use them.
I'm betting if I called them and insisted John intentionally lost a match against me because I paid him $200, that would be the next headline.
The only thing that will be worth discussion is the official findings, not tabloid articles.
FWIW, they are reporting this based on their "sources" word, and assurance there are records (which the writer hasn't seen). Didn't we learn in grade 9 how to properly research? Can this writer explain the difference between primary and secondary sources? He probably thinks it's the order in which you use them.
I'm betting if I called them and insisted John intentionally lost a match against me because I paid him $200, that would be the next headline.
Last edited:
It's interesting that a lady who recently lost her job has some news to sell about something that happened last year.
Well, from reading that article 1st place was like 250k and 2nd was 125k. Then he tried to call in a bet when he was way ahead of the match. It said something like he would just bet small like 1k, the odds would be phenomenal since he was way ahead. This way he only risks 1k to potentially collect the same amount if he still wins or loses. It's a smart bet. So you risk 1k of 250k to make 125k extra or whatever the odds were at the time. I would absolutely do the same thing. I would place a small bet with great odds, in case the other guy came back so i collected great money either way. He probably would still make more from winning, but it's just hedging your bet.
A lot of people will disagree with me, but it's all about getting max money anyway possible. And about Pete Rose, he never bet himself to lose, he just didn't bet when the weaker pitchers were pitching. It's too bad what happened to him.
A lot of people will disagree with me, but it's all about getting max money anyway possible. And about Pete Rose, he never bet himself to lose, he just didn't bet when the weaker pitchers were pitching. It's too bad what happened to him.
So does anyone know the line at the the very moment Higgins was actually trying to make the bet.I suspect the line to be substantially less than anything approaching 125to1.Maybe 10to1?
A 1k bet, with an an established government regulated betting service that most everybody probably recognizes that their transaction is being recorded,seems out of place for a man who is aware of most angles.
This is hinting at someone with an axe to grind against Higgins or possibly the snooker establishment and maybe even the gambling industry.Follow the money.
The source for this story seems questionable.What are the police saying?
Iknow we had different views on the other thread, but I think wethink the same direction on this . Something about all this just stinks to me!
if youhave at minuimum $125,000 coming, why worry bout alittle $1000 bet. Makes nt sense to focus on the $1000 when you should be worriedor focused on the $125,000 you could leave on the table. Imean he sttod to gain 225,000 by simply finishing strong. WIth 1000 at 10-1 or even at 15-1,,,,,,so what? This just doesn't make sense to me.
It just seems tome someone as you suggest, "has an axe to grind"! I don't buy all this yet!
Does the video they provided in the "First Installment" not buy them any credibility with you? Newspapers routinely don't/can't give away their sources. They could be making it up, but I see no evidence of that either.
Snooker isn't alone
http://www.weekendpost.co.za/sport/article.aspx?id=563366
Former Pakistan fast bowler Sarfraz Nawaz claimed that former Proteas coach Bob Woolmer was murdered at the World Cup in 2007 by gangsters because he was about to reveal intimate details of alleged match-fixing.
“Now corrupters are using women to lure the players into match-fixing,” an ICC source said.
“They are used for making contact with players, whether through sexual favours or whatever, and once these guys are hooked, they make their move. It’s a honey trap.”
http://www.weekendpost.co.za/sport/article.aspx?id=563366
Former Pakistan fast bowler Sarfraz Nawaz claimed that former Proteas coach Bob Woolmer was murdered at the World Cup in 2007 by gangsters because he was about to reveal intimate details of alleged match-fixing.
“Now corrupters are using women to lure the players into match-fixing,” an ICC source said.
“They are used for making contact with players, whether through sexual favours or whatever, and once these guys are hooked, they make their move. It’s a honey trap.”
It's edited and out of context. I'm not going to pass judgement until I hear it from someone reputable. If the town drunk told you taxes were being raised you'd confirm with a better source (even if he was right), wouldn't you?
It's not the fact the source is unrevealed that makes me question it, it's that there is no proof other than this persons word.
They are milking a story.
This is well stated. It certainly appears someone at the tabloid has a hard on for this guy. It will be interesting to see what shakes when the truth comes out, if it does. Regardless of what is real, with this rag all over him this has become a train wreck. At this point he's been damaged no matter what he did or didn't do.
With all the smoke surrounding the game over the last few years I am inclined to believe there is fire. I think higgins is guilty and should be punished, however I reserve my hatred for the media. I think its about time for fans to stop buying these rags. If the media meant well they would be going after the organized crime structure that is the source of all of this and that is casting a large cloud over international sports in general.