Anyone Been Watching The Snooker ?

[Fenster]

Trump was 40/1 after winning in CHina. I had a small bet on him at 35/1. I had a better bet on him to beat Robertson and win his quarter. However, I had much bigger bets on Ding (especially Ding) and Williams in all sorts of combos. Fucking gutted yesterday. Gutted. Gutted.

As for Higgins - Maybe i'm a bit naive, but I think you guys are being a bit harsh. There's a big difference between intentionally throwing a game and SAYING it's possible to throw a game.

ok but he never answered two questions (at least I never saw them answered)

i) why was he there

ii) why didn't he report it

had he not been the world number one I am certain the consequences would have been much harsher. And his manager will have just agreed to take the fall

1. To meet rich business men about promoting exhibition tournaments in East Europe.

2. That's why he got a six month ban and fined £75,000.

Had there been any evidence that he ever threw a WPBSA sanctioned match, as opposed to saying it's possible to miss a ball in an exhibiton match, i'm sure the consequences would have been much harsher too.

Quentin Hann got an eight year ban for supposedly agreeing to throw a match in the China Open. He didn't even try to defend himself, he didn't go to the hearing. Also Neil Roberston informed the WPBSA that Hann approached him about fixing a match for £30,000.

Big difference.

I thought the video footage was pretty clear, he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Plus that match he played against Steve Davis, was an obvious fix i've never seen him play that bad. Yes players have off days but that was ridiculous he was missing balls all over the place.

Oh by the way what a knob Quinten Hann was, i always hated him.

That is utterly pathetic. Bookmakers are the first to expose suspicious betting patterns. They have the right to NOT payout on anything they deem suspicious/corrupt. There's not one single shred of evidence anyone greatly profited from Higgins losing to Davis. The bookies never mentioned a single suspicious bet. So please explain how Higgins gained from intentionally blowing his chance to win £250,000, plus the virtual £1million guarantee that comes with being World Champion, when there was ZERO amounts of money won that wasn't out of the norm? Do you not realise how pathetic that is? You are saying Higgins PURPOSELY lost for NOTHING!!! Come on now, that is beyond silly..

Having your hand caught in the "cookie jar" means there's clear evidence of wrongdoing. There is ZERO evidence Higgins has ever purposely missed a pot in his life let alone thrown a game/match. The NOTW footage showed Higgins talking about how you can miss balls it didn't show him actually missing balls.

And If you think it's corrupt that a six-times world champion, one of the greatest players that's ever lived, a man who was still ranked in the top 20, can win a match, then you must think every upset that happens in boxing is fixed, right?

Upsets happen in every sport.

Steve Davis is nowhere near as good as he was, when's the last time he won a ranking event ? and how is it pathetic ? did you see the match ?

John Higgins said himself he can miss balls my fraction's, or purporsely mess up on positional play. Sorry but i do think he threw the match, and you say why would he do it, wasn't he getting offered 300k ? to throw frames ?

Even if you don't think he done it against Steve Davis, which is fair enough think what you want. It makes no difference he got a pass because of who he is, which is not fair in all honesty.

He was so bad against Steve Davis probably the worst he's ever played in a ranking tournament, i think for certain there was something fishy.

Lastly it would be no different than a boxer willing to take a dive for money, even if he didn't get a chance to do it. The fact he was willing to do it, like John Higgins was he should still get the same punishment.

Why i'm even bothering fucks knows..

For someone to win HUGE amounts of money someone has to LOSE. Higgins and his cohorts were planning to con bookmakers. There is NO evidence any bookmaker LOST money on the Higgins-Davis match. That means no bets were made outside the ordinary. That means Higgins had NOTHING to gain from purposely losing.

There's not a single sportsman in history that hasn't performed way below their best at times throughout their career. You're basically saying everyone in history that has underperformed is doing so on purpose.