Big Brother Betting Bent

BrianH

At the Start
Joined
May 3, 2003
Messages
6,108
Location
Banstead, Surrey
BB bets stopped after 'leak' fears

Press Association
Saturday January 22, 2005 8:58 PM


Bookmaker William Hill closed its book on Celebrity Big Brother claiming there was "overwhelming evidence" that "sensitive information" about the show was being leaked.

Hills said its suspicions had been aroused by betting for the last two evictions, where punters were still trying to place large sums despite odds as short as 1/14.

But the "final nail in the coffin" came when four or five unknown punters called asking about placing bets on a shock double eviction - shortly before model Caprice and actor Jeremy Edwards got the boot.

"There has never been a surprise double eviction before and this is highly unlikely to have been an inspired guess," Hills spokesman Rupert Adams said.

A spokeswoman for the Channel 4 show dismissed claims of a leak however, saying such sensitive information was kept strictly confidential and was only known to a few senior production executives.

Mr Adams said he believed someone had seen figures showing how the public were voting for a winner and was using them to predict which celebrity would be out next.

"We think somebody somewhere has got them and has been trying very hard to take us to the cleaners," Mr Adams said. "All our odds compilers say it defies all of the basic patterns they expect to see."

He said the number of people who called about bets on a double eviction, when none had ever asked previously, also suggested they must have somehow got inside information. The company did not know where the punters were calling from and none had accounts already, he added. The bets were not taken.

Mr Adams said he did not want to criticise Endemol, the makers of Big Brother, and did not imagine any of the "big players" within the programme was responsible for the leak. Nor did he think anyone from the company or Big Brother was trying to place bets themselves.

But he added: "They need to look at how many people are privy to the sensitive information."
 
And Hills certainly don't take any big bets on it - notice they haven't mentioned any sums to which bets were actually laid.

(Though the did lay me £1,200 to £800 that time that Gareth gates would have more number ones than Will Young in the year following their Pop Idol - I was amazed!)
 
They never advertised the bet through the normal channels. My son told me that his radio station had received a press release giving odds on a number of Pop Idol performers to have the most number one solo singles in the coming year and that Gareth Gates was a good bet to beat WillYoung, while the others mentioned wouldn't even enter into it.

I phoned and asked for a price and was told that they had no such bets. I said that their trading department and their PR people should get it together and eventually someone above the rank of supervisor - I know no titles - gave me a phone number for the publicity depatment. I phoned them and they did know all about the bet. They took details of my account and promised that someone would get back to me. The whole thing was going on over about three days. Then someone from Leeds phoned me. They apologised and said that there had been "a lack of communication internally" and what bet was I after. I was going to ask for £600 to £400, which I didn't think I would get as I'm well aware of the limits imposed on these "special" bets, but after all the hassle I said something like "Only £1,200 to £800". As I said above, I was amazed to be laid the bet. I never did see any official advertisement for it either.

It was a winning bet, but not as good as it could have been - Gareth's December release "What My Heart Wants To Say", tipped originally to be the Christmas number one, only made it to five behind Girls Aloud. So Gareth and Will dead-heated and I was paid out accordingly - but only after I received a statement showing the bet as a loser and I had to point out to the settlers that the score was two all.

Since then I understand that they are still tied, both having had one more number one single each.
 
Funnily enough, on talking to our compiler who has the dubious pleasure of covering the "novelty" bets, he said that Hills are only about 4 years behind in realising that BB is bent; he says it was obvious from the first one that people know what is going on which is why we don't bet on the evictions.
 
I don't know about the people who wanted to bet on the "double eviction" but our very own terry discovered some time ago that there are various websites with polls on them that tend to mirror the votes of those people who do participate in the official vote. So, in that instance you couldn't call it crooked, but it would still be folly to bet on it. Which explains why you can get no more than a pony on with most bookmakers.
 
I'd agree with you in principle, but they could offer up in their defence the example of the McCririck eviction, there was a plunge on Bez to be evicted and he was a short priced odds on favourite to go, you know the rest, Big Mac is evicted and clearly so, some 69% to 31%.

Surely if there were these hard cored insiders trying to win their fortune on the events they would've cashed in on such events?

It doesn't explain why these people were phoning up about thedouble eviction though, quite suspicious.
 
Back
Top