ESSA reveals only 1 suspicious betting incident out of 45 investigated has proved to be real-UPDATED

And while ESSA's Secretary was happy to announce that such figures highlight the importance of sophisticated, transparent and well-regulated security procedures in sports betting, and ESSA members are proud of the lead they are taking in addressing the issue of integrity in sports, 2009 was the year that online bookmakers abused their right to investigate suspicious betting.
At Bookmakers Review in 2009 we received two dozens reports from players who either had bets voided or entire accounts closed for betting incidents ESSA now reveals proved to be not suspicious.
So we want all players who had bets voided or put under investigation by online bookmakers because the "match was fixed" to show them ESSA's own results of the investigations as reported on eu-ssa.org

The following online bookmakers are by the way the only ones who can claim “ESSA is investigating the match”: BetClic, Bet-at-Home, Boylesports, Bwin, Digibet, Expekt, Gamebookers, Goldbet, Interwetten, PartyBets, Sportingbet, Stan James, Unibet and from this month Ladbrokes.

In 2010 if an online bookmaker confiscates your winnings claiming the match was fixed and ESSA is investigating, check if the bookmaker is a member of ESSA in the first place. If it's not, then please submit a complaint to feedback at bookmakersreview.com. Effective immediately if a bookmaker voids bets on match-fixing claims made out of thin air, we will re-consider its rating just like we do for bookmakers abusing the palpable error rule.

UPDATE 07-02-2010: We think it is fair to point out that while ESSA acts as the only trade d'union between online bookmakers and sporting federations, it's not the only organization bookmakers refer to when telling players they are investigating match-fixing and other suspicious betting incidents.
UEFA and FIFA, just to mention the two most important soccer federations, have been using teams of anti-corruption officers and software programs monitoring betting markets to detect betting-related frauds for few years now.
Tennis sporting organizations are known to do the same.

Then there are few specialized companies which provide online bookmakers and sports authorities systems to identify possible betting frauds. One of the leading providers of betting fraud detection technology calls its system scientific, but we don't see much science in the assumption that players placing much larger stakes compared to their average indicate that they know something is going on behind the scenes.

In a rather unique position is the world's leading betting exchange Betfair, which has agreements of its own with all the major sports organizations, and by providing customers the option to lay off bets or bet on a team/player/horse to lose they have all the information they need within their system to call out real and presumed betting scandals.

Bookmakers Review believes that if a match was fixed and a bettor was somehow involved or had knowledge of the fixing beforehand (and this can be proved), a bookmaker must void the player's bets and close his account.
But if the investigation finds no definitive proofs or the event has proved to be non-suspicious after all, players must be re-imbursed and their accounts re-instated.

In the age of social networks and specialized betting forums where online bettors share all kind of information, including rumours about possible matches being fixed, we have personally seen in quite few occasions what rumours can do causing every-day recreational players to place big bets, much larger than their average, on betting events that rarely ended up the way “insiders” suggested (and the ESSA's report for 2009 if anything confirms our direct experience).
So online bookmakers voiding winning bets on suspicious matches are in our opinion walking on a fine line.
What about those players who lost money on the same matches (yes there are punters who are not privy to “inside” information), can they expect to have their bets reimbursed because the match could have been (or maybe not) manipulated?

Date published: 07 February 2010