No Oppo Supporters General AFL and other clubs discussion thread. **Opposition fans not welcome** Part 4

[Nick the Pig]

So much distraction from the footy at the moment. Every second article is about someone's scripted apology dribbling on about how remorseful they are. It would be nice to be able to get back to the actual footy.

 

[thejockey]

Knew it was wrong still did it 3 times and a month after the last bet suddenly comes forward by him self yep checks out, I'm so no one tapped him on the shoulder or anything.

That’s the bit to me that just doesn’t add up at all.
After all the training and warning they get it was after the 3rd time it clicked that it might be the wrong thing to do ?

Got a tap on the shoulder for sure imo

 

[grumbleguts]

Stephenson banned for 10 weeks

Poor bugger, he isn't banned, apparently he has to spend all ten serving his sentence in Hawthorn's forward line.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

The AFL saturates everything in gambling advertising, which targets Stephenson's demographic as much as anyone.

The heavy handed response is the right approach - and I know given he's a player so different rules apply - but to both promote and punish gambling at the same time - sheesh. Do they think they're the vic government or something?

 

[Jaeger]

Jarryd Roughead talks about meatball subs, grand final celebrations and his VFL stint

Jock and Journo's Scott Pendlebury and Jay Clark discuss, (01:00) Roughy intro, (02:00) Tips for Reuban, (03:30) The time Cyril caught Scott, (05:00) Roughy the midfielder, (05:30) The term ‘basketball background’, (08:00) When Scott meet Jarryd, (09:00) Junior basketball politics, (10:30) “I...

player.whooshkaa.com

 

[Rioli magic]

Poor bugger, he isn't banned, apparently he has to spend all ten serving his sentence in Hawthorn's forward line.

 

[Birdofprey]

The AFL saturates everything in gambling advertising, which targets Stephenson's demographic as much as anyone.

The heavy handed response is the right approach - and I know given he's a player so different rules apply - but to both promote and punish gambling at the same time - sheesh. Do they think they're the vic government or something?

Couldn't agree more with this.

From The Age...

"The AFL integrity unit were satisfied that Stephenson’s bets had no impact on the games in which he placed wagers, despite the player himself admitting that he checked the results of his bets on his phone in the rooms soon after the game."

Full article:

The throwaway line that led Jaidyn Stephenson to confess

It was in the rooms at the MCG after the Magpies had just beaten St Kilda by 41 points in round nine that the 20-year-old made a passing comment to a senior teammate.

www.theage.com.au

Its another interesting one to me. How can AFL say they say this player's bets had no influence on the outcome of the game? I suppose it was 41 point victory, so his actions/contribution are not seemingly the determining factor in the Magpies winning the match. But I think he kicked a number of goals (3 goals) that is consistent with one of his bets. What did he do, or not do, as part of that match that did have an impact on other aspects of the outcome? A thousand questions could be asked. The reality is, we do not know the counter-factual, and cannot be certain how the match would have transpired if he had not made the bets.

I am not looking to give the kid a harder time - he messed up and he is getting a strong penalty. I am more interested in how the AFL look a little ridiculous given how they have such a strong connection to gambling (Bet Easy sponsorship). In fact, if you read his account in the article, it reads a like a script for one of the online betting ads: "young dudes sitting on couch, being cool, make bets on phone, have a laugh... win money, all good."

I guess AFL players can be just "regular punters" like the rest of us.

 

[B&GBlood]

Gambling is not the issue per se, integrity is the issue.

 

[Off The Couch]

The AFL refers a player to the integrity unit for a small time bet and at the same time it is openly acknowledged that more than a few players have a gambling problem with two allegedly having million dollar debts and yet one of its major sponsors is a betting agency that promotes having a variety of bets during every moment of every game.

Not sure it’s the players whose integrity is in question here

It would be like my workplace (AOD service) promoting the responsible use of drugs and alcohol while having zero tolerance with drug tests

Makes no sense whatsoever.

Feel sorry for the kid tbh even if it is just plain stupid

 

[Rushed_Behind]

Nick Riewoldt and Jason Dunstall. The only 2 people all week who have articulated a logical and reasoned opinion on the Stratton issue. Much to the surprise of Whateley and Sheahan.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

“This torp could earn me a little extra match payment”.

 

[Viddiot]

Just a thought after too much wine....What's so wrong about betting on your own success?
It's obvious betting on failure is wrong....But winning matches and kicking goals is kinda out of the individuals hands?
Or can we just kick 3 goals anytime? (maybe he could coach the Hawks forward line in his time off?

 

[MightyHawks]

Just a thought after too much wine....What's so wrong about betting on your own success?
It's obvious betting on failure is wrong....But winning matches and kicking goals is kinda out of the individuals hands?
Or can we just kick 3 goals anytime? (maybe he could coach the Hawks forward line in his time off?

Well the one bet that shouldn't be too much of an issue is your team to win

But if you bet for your team to win by a margin or a range of points or for you to have more than a certain number of goals or possessions means you could be deliberately trying to do something that isn't simply helping your team win

Imagine if he bets on Pies to win by 40+ and they are 20 points up half way through the last quarter he could take unnecessary risks to attempt to win by a particular margin when the best thing for the Pies might be to take a minute or two off the clock

What if Collingwood had been 2 points down against the Saints and instead of passing to a player in a better position he tried a big torp and failed...? Because he was trying to win and kick 3 goals

 

[Brant]

Wonder what this will cop in the way of a fine

There is something NQR about Little Libba

I reckon things are 100% as they should be with him - about as classy as his dad...

 

[Hawthorn United]

Well the one bet that shouldn't be too much of an issue is your team to win

But if you bet for your team to win by a margin or a range of points or for you to have more than a certain number of goals or possessions means you could be deliberately trying to do something that isn't simply helping your team win

Imagine if he bets on Pies to win by 40+ and they are 20 points up half way through the last quarter he could take unnecessary risks to attempt to win by a particular margin when the best thing for the Pies might be to take a minute or two off the clock

What if Collingwood had been 2 points down against the Saints and instead of passing to a player in a better position he tried a big torp and failed...? Because he was trying to win and kick 3 goals

I think the AFL Integrity unit have shown they have none of it and will find outcomes to suit the image.

Needs to be some proper investigation into his bets and the games. Other people who had money in those games may have lost their bets due to Stephensons onfield actions to win his own bets.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[Wandering Hawk]

Apart from the AFL inquiry, isn't it a crime?

 

[Brishawk]

Just a thought after too much wine....What's so wrong about betting on your own success?
It's obvious betting on failure is wrong....But winning matches and kicking goals is kinda out of the individuals hands?
Or can we just kick 3 goals anytime? (maybe he could coach the Hawks forward line in his time off?

If the probability of kicking 3 goals in a game is the same wether or not he bets on himself then on purely rational terms it makes no difference. If the probability changes then it’s a market distortion. And as betting companies are proud sponsors of the league you can appreciate why they wouldn’t want any thing distorting the market that they didn’t control! But also other punters are not aware of this information so are unfairly disadvantaged for not knowing about the change in probabilities.

But it gets worse. Let’s say fat tony approaches Stephenson and says we want to put a bet on you to kick exactly 3 goals and we will give you a cut of the winnings if you make that happen. Suddenly Stephenson’s incentives are changed. His employer has paid him to play in the team’s best interest while a third party has provided an incentive to go against those interests. If Stephenson has kicked 3 goals and has an opportunity to win the game with another kick for goal but deliberately misses to ensure his payment from fat tony is protected then the agent (Stephenson) has acted against the interests of the principal (Collingwood). This is an agency problem. Clearly, even if it is Stephenson making the bet himself rather than fat tony the agency problem still exists but you can see where allowing this kind of behaviour would lead.

So allowing betting causes a market distortion and an agency problem. Neither are desirable.

 

[grumbleguts]

Just a thought after too much wine....What's so wrong about betting on your own success?
It's obvious betting on failure is wrong....But winning matches and kicking goals is kinda out of the individuals hands?
Or can we just kick 3 goals anytime? (maybe he could coach the Hawks forward line in his time off?

So he's on the boundary, impossible angle, a guy in the goal square on his own and 30 seconds to go 3 points down. Does he take the shot if he needs one more goal to call in on his bet?

 

[B&GBlood]

Nick Riewoldt and Jason Dunstall. The only 2 people all week who have articulated a logical and reasoned opinion on the Stratton issue. Much to the surprise of Whateley and Sheahan.

What did they say.

 

[B&GBlood]

The AFL refers a player to the integrity unit for a small time bet and at the same time it is openly acknowledged that more than a few players have a gambling problem with two allegedly having million dollar debts and yet one of its major sponsors is a betting agency that promotes having a variety of bets during every moment of every game.

Not sure it’s the players whose integrity is in question here

It would be like my workplace (AOD service) promoting the responsible use of drugs and alcohol while having zero tolerance with drug tests

Makes no sense whatsoever.

Feel sorry for the kid tbh even if it is just plain stupid

Not sure what your analogy is Couchy, but if you mean having work place zero tolerance and drugs test then I think you can have a responible use of drugs and alcohol policy and tests. Surely the purpose of the test is to ensure you are fit for work and not a danger to others?

While I am sure the AFL care players have gambling problems, my point above is that is not what the AFL are concerned about, they're mainly concerned that games are not rigged (well not by anyone else but them)

 

[Off The Couch]

Not sure what your anology is Couchy, but if you mean having work place zero tolerance and drugs test then I think you can have a responible use of drugs and alcohol policy and tests. Surely the purpose of the test is to ensure you are fit for work and not a danger to others?

While I am sure the AFL care players have gambling problems, my point above is that is not what the AFL are concerned about, they mainly concerned that games are not rigged (well not by anyone else but them)

no longer sure myself after reading it back

In a nutshell, the integrity department needs to look at itself (the afl)

 

[StillAtLarge]

Ridiculous that Stephenson wasn't stood down from the moment he came forward.
Was always gonna be a cushy outcome, Bucks and supreme overlord Gil are very tight

 

[Hawthorn United]

I highly doubt he only started doing it this year.

Have they even asked or looked into last year?

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[Pessimistic]

Im reading significant numbers of hawks fans have threatened to tear up memeberships at the players decisions to wear #39 fo goodes on warm up jumpers

While some of us have strong opinions, im not sure this would be that widespread among hawks fans

I mean, ive thought some of the indigenous jumpers werent as easy o;the ey as others, but i still support the concept

 

[Dinsdale]

Im reading significant numbers of hawks fans have threatened to tear up memeberships at the players decisions to wear #39 fo goodes on warm up jumpers

While some of us have strong opinions, im not sure this would be that widespread among hawks fans

I mean, ive thought some of the indigenous jumpers werent as easy o;the ey as others, but i still support the concept

It's #37? Dunno where you're reading that mate, but the cynic inside me says the boys wearing Goodes number is a scramble by the club to try to win back some love after this week's media frenzy.

Myself, I could care less what they wear, Goodes will always be a dirty sliding sniper in my memory.