Spotlight on Jimmy Wang

If you asked someone what linked the tropical Hawaiian island of Maui and the South-Central Mexican state of Morelos, chances are you would get rather more peculiar looks than you would get answers. For the vast majority of people, there is no link between them. For avid lower-level tennis fans, they might mention that both play host to an event on the Challenger Tour. However, for one particular player, the two tournaments might be somewhat more memorable.

That player is the current world #128, Jimmy Wang. A former junior number three and finalist at both the Australian Open and US Open junior tournaments, the Taiwanese number two has career earnings of a fraction over $1,000,000 in a career stretching back almost fifteen years. However, in both Maui and Morelos, there have been major concerns surrounding highly suspicious betting patterns on his matches.

Whilst the two matches are both highly suspicious, the actual nature of the potential fix is different in the two cases and it provides an interesting insight as to different ways of profiting from a potentially fixed match and possibly as to the progressing of the style of fixing.

The first match I will look at was played back on the 22^nd January, 2014 from the Hawaiian island of Maui. The match saw Jimmy Wang, ranked 173 at the time, and having just come off the back of qualifying for the Australian Open playing against one of America’s most talented college players, Jarmere Jenkins, ranked 342, who had only made it into the main draw as a lucky loser having lost in qualifying.

At 7:11am in the UK, Pinnacle had opened up the match for betting with Jimmy Wang as the 1.50 favourite and Jarmere Jenkins at 2.64. In other words, Jimmy Wang had been given a 66.7% chance of winning the match with Jenkins being given a 37.9% chance. A potentially close match, but one in which Jimmy Wang was certainly rated as the favourite.

By 8:00pm when the match was taken down, there had been a strong shift in the odds. Jimmy Wang’s odds had drifted way out to 3.00, while Jarmere Jenkins was now the 1.40 favourite. Having had a 66.7% chance of winning the match in the morning, Jimmy Wang’s chances were now down to 33.3% while Jarmere Jenkins was now 71.4% to win the match. The initial odds may well have been slightly wrong – American college players are often underrated by the market – but it seems unlikely that the odds were that wrong.

Looking at the Betfair historical data for that match also raises several flags. Across the four markets that Betfair offers (Match Winner, Set Betting, Set 1 Winner and Set 2 Winner), there was £19,625.61 matched. The majority of Challenger matches would expect to see up to around £2,000 matched. The table below was compiled for a different article, but represents the amounts matched pre-match on first round matches from the Tampere Challenger last year.

As we can see, the amount matched on this Wang Jenkins match is unusually high. Almost £14,000 of this was matched on Jarmere Jenkins in the match winner market at odds ranging from 2.84 down to 1.31. Interestingly, there were only 163 individual bets matched to cover all of that money, suggesting that fairly large amounts were being staked in individual bets.

During the actual match itself, Jarmere Jenkins was never matched above 1.83 and over £65,000 was matched on Jarmere Jenkins with less than £5,000 being matched on Jimmy Wang. Jimmy Wang never created a break point in the match and was able to win just 11 points on the Jenkins serve throughout the entire match.

Could it be that there was nothing suspicious and Jarmere Jenkins was simply a deserving favourite? As one of America’s top college players, maybe he did have the potential to be a top player and someone simply recognised that and decided to back up their views with a large amount of money. Possible, although the fact that a year on, Jarmere Jenkins is still ranked at 191 suggests that maybe that is rather unlikely.

It is noticeable here that there was a huge amount staked pre-match causing big moves in the odds. While there was a reasonable amount matched in-running, big money was put down before the event.

Jumping forward to today, Jimmy Wang was once again in action. This time, the location was the city of Cuernavaca in the Mexican state of Morelos. The opponent was Giovanni Lapentti, a former world #110 and a career journeyman on the Challenger Tour.

At 7:16am this morning, the Pinnacle odds on Giovanni Lapentti to win the match were 2.85 with Jimmy Wang at 1.43. In other words, Jimmy Wang had a 69.9% chance of winning the match and Lapentti had a 35.1% chance. Throughout most of the day, there was little movement in the odds. However, there was a very peculiar movement at 3:57pm, just three minutes before the match was scheduled to begin. In one single move, the odds on Giovanni Lapentti were slashed from 2.72 into 1.99 – a change from a 36.8% chance to a 50.3% chance. While it takes less money to move a Challenger market with Pinnacle than an ATP market, it would still have required a large sum to move it that much in one single jump. By 4:00pm, it had moved back out to 2.35 presumably as traders and bots recognised an incorrect price and moved it back out to a more realistic price.

In itself, that is not a massive red flag. It is unusual to get a move of that magnitude, but there are big punters out there on tennis. However, the betting patterns during the match itself add weight to our suspicions.

There was also an interesting plunge in the odds on Giovanni Lapentti on Betfair in the run-up to the match. The volume bars at the bottom give us an idea when the match started - there is generally a pick-up of volume once a match actually begins. We can see that from a peak of almost 3.75, Giovanni Lapentti shortened significantly to around 2.25, before a huge drop following an early break of serve. Despite Wang breaking back and actually going ahead a break, we can see that Lapentti barely even returned back to his pre-match price, even whilst a break down in the first set.

The first mention of suspicions on this match came from @TennisPurist on Twitter:

Fix alert, Wang started as the 1.40 favorite. pic.twitter.com/fg4IkvVSnr

— Chris de Waard (@TennisPurist) February 17, 2015

As we can see, at 5-5, *15-30, Giovanni Lapentti is now the 1.22 favourite to win the match and 1.03 to win the first set. This is pretty unlikely given the starting prices in the match. Even if we take the starting Pinnacle odds, which had already been moved by the large bet on Lapentti, Jimmy Wang was 1.61 to win the match at the start. It seems unlikely under any situation that he would now be 5.0 to win the match - a move from 62.1% to 20.0% - simply from being 15-30 down on his serve at 5-5.

One might be able to make a case had Wang gone well ahead in the match before Lapentti made a dramatic comeback. While Jimmy Wang had been 4-2 ahead, the previous three games had all been holds of serve, so there was no major momentum effects at play.

Jimmy Wang was broken in this game and Lapentti served out the set. Another flag here was the amount that was matched on Giovanni Lapentti to win the first set. The set winner markets are generally pretty low liquidity on Betfair, so to see almost £14,000 matched on the market with the vast majority on Lapentti is concerning, especially with reasonable large amounts matched between 1.40 and 1.60. We cannot simply put this down to money buyers inflating the matched figure at short odds.

At the end of the first set, Giovanni Lapentti was into 1.10 to win the match. The same possible reasons for this price apply here as it did in the Denys Molchanov match (as explained here). Realistically, the only possible reason for a price like this given the circumstances was an imminent retirement through injury.

There had been no signs of an injury at this stage, although Wang did call a medical timeout at 0-1* down in the second set. By this point, the market was fully convinced that Lapentti would go on to win and there was virtually no move at Wang getting a break back at 3-0 down. By the end of the match, there was £151,819 matched on the match winner market with the vast majority of Giovanni Lapentti.

Again, is there definite proof that the match was fixed? No. Are there strong suspicions surrounding the questionable betting patterns on this match? Absolutely. Maybe Wang was ill or more injured than he let on. If this was the case, then while the match may not have been fixed, someone was certainly passed the information before the match had started.

Each of these two matches showed suspicious odds movements that corresponded with the actual outcome of the match. On their own, they would both have raised red flags. Taken as a pair involving the same player, serious questions must be asked.

Whether those questions will be asked remain to be seen. There was a decent response from tennis journalists on Twitter in the wake of the suspicious betting patterns on the Molchanov match. However, if the ATP and TIU are not going to show any indications that they intend to seriously tackle the problem of match fixing, it is down to these journalists to ask the difficult questions.

There are people such as myself and many others on Twitter who pay close attention and trade these markets and are very capable of spotting suspicious betting patterns. However, we do not have access to players and officials to ask questions and too many times, we are fobbed off by claims that we have lost bets and are simply bitter and looking for excuses. Alternatively, people simply suggest that betting should be stopped on lower levels of tennis. Put simply, this is just not going to happen. It is a lazy suggestion and does nothing to tackle the problem of match-fixing - betting would still happen on these events, but it would just be forced into the illegal markets where it would be impossible to track.

Instead, the authorities need to target those players and associates that are involved in match fixing. And if the authorities are not going to do it, it needs journalists to question those in authority. We saw in cycling how it was journalists that eventually blew the lid on the Lance Armstrong doping situation. Is there a serious respected tennis journalist that is willing to ask the right questions to the right people?

How To Fix a Tennis Match (by Denys Molchanov)

These days, Dallas is not exactly known as a tennis hotspot. It hosts a Challenger Tour event, but it rarely attracts much attention, particularly for a first round match between a Ukrainian and an Argentine. However, that is precisely where the attention of Twitter was focused on Monday evening.

The match in question was between Denys Molchanov and Agustin Velotti. For this article, we shall focus on Denys Molchanov, a Ukrainian ranked at 174 in the ATP rankings with career prize money of just over $310,000. The tournament in Dallas has prize money of $14,400 for the champion, but a first round defeat earns a player just $1,040.

Let us begin by looking at the pre-match markets. The image below shows the odds movements by Pinnacle, usually regarded as the most reliable bookmaker.

We can see that Denys Molchanov opened at 1.63 in the early hours of Monday morning. These odds give an implied probability of 61.3% of winning the match. As we can see, there was a slight drift on Molchanov as the day progressed, but nothing out of the ordinary. When the market closed at 19:56 on Monday evening, Molchanov was 1.77 to win or 56.5%. Nothing unusual here.

The first concern was raised in a tennis chatroom with someone questioning why Molchanov was as big as 2.36 and why the market appeared not to be moving. When Denys Molchanov clinched the first break and Agustin Velotti's price continued to shorten, further questions began to be asked. At 5-3 down in the opening set, the price on Agustin Velotti was as short as it had been throughout the entire match.

Despite being broken serving for the set, Molchanov immediately broke back and with the second chance to serve for the set, the price on Agustin Velotti continued to fall. Having been priced as 48.3% chance to win the match at the start, he was now priced as a 75.2% chance of winning the match, despite being down a break and potentially about to lose the opening set of the match. In other words, Velotti was apparently significantly more likely to win the match at this point than he was at the start.

Denys Molchanov successful served out the opening set and Velotti's price continued to drop. Now, you do not need any understanding of betting and odds to understand that a player that was given a 48.3% chance of winning a tennis match before the start should not be given a 80.6% chance of winning a match at a set down, unless there is something suspicious going on.

The end of the first set also saw a significantly amount of money hit the market as pointed out in this tweet:

If you like a fixing story, ones taking place now. Velotti underdog to Molchanov, loses first set and £200k hits market. 2-1 velotti?
— Chris Ogle (@ChrisOgle2) February 2, 2015

By this time, there was already close to £250k staked on the match - a surprisingly high amount for a Challenger match. We can see as well that Agustin Velotti had already been matched at 1.09 or a 91.7% chance of winning the match, despite starting the match as the outsider and never having been ahead in the match.

A hold of serve later and the money continued to pile in on Agustin Velotti. He was now 93.5% to win the match, despite being down a set. Under normal circumstances, we would expect Velotti to have roughly about a 20% chance of winning the match from this point. We can also see that there is money looking to back Velotti at 1.5 to win the second set.

Agustin Velotti went up a break in the second set and by this time, there was little doubt as to what was happening.  The prices in the market were no longer reflecting anything to do with what was happening in the match. We can see the money lining up in the market on Velotti and we can also see that his price is exactly the same as it was after the opening hold in the set. One might suggest that someone already knew that the break would happen. In fact, one might suggest that someone knew precisely how the match would end.

Agustin Velotti went on to win the second set and after a brief pretense at putting up a fight in the opening stages of the third set, Molchanov duly gave up a break in the third. By this point, Velotti was guaranteed to win according to the market. The farcical nature of what the match had become was perfectly summed up in this glorious point.

Here it is: Denys Molchanov should be in the running for an Oscar after this performance. pic.twitter.com/Wia1kWdXUJ
— The Tennis Nerds (@TheTennisNerds) February 2, 2015

There was little effort from Molchanov to get back into the match, as demonstrated by the fact that he won just five points on the Velotti serve in the final set, one of which came through a Velotti double fault.

By the end of the match, there was close to £600k matched on the Betfair match winner market - a large amount for a Challenger match. Indeed, it was more money matched than on the infamous Antal van der Duim and Boy Westerhof match last year (article here).

Agustin Velotti had begun the match as the outsider, but had steadily shortened in the markets, independently of what was actually taking place in the match itself. It was as though someone knew from the very start that there was no chance of Denys Molchanov winning the match.

Now, I should stress that there appears to be no suggestion that Agustin Velotti had anything to do with any of the suspicious odds movements that took place in this match. He appeared to be playing his match normally, acting normally, although there were suggestions that he looked a little confused as the match progressed. People watching the live stream of the match reported that there was a number of very strange errors being made by Molchanov off very simple shots and it is understandable that Velotti might have been puzzled by what was happening to his opponent.

However, it is tough not to suspect Denys Molchanov in this situation. The odds movements in the match simply cannot be explained. With a narrow favourite, that player becoming a slight outsider as the opening set progressed is plausible depending on how the players were performing. However, a narrow favourite becoming a huge outsider while ahead in the set and having won the opening set is simply not possible.

On Betfair, the only possible scenario in which these odds movements might happen was if there was a major injury to Molchanov and the market expected an imminent retirement. However, this simply was not the case. The only hint of any possible injury was Molchanov clutching his leg during the second set, but there was no indication of any serious injury and the odds were already way out of line long before this.


The link above shows the full match for anyone that may be interested in following the action. Now that we have shown the odds movements for this match, you can see whether there was anything in the match to suggest that the strange movements may have been justified.

Despite all the evidence in the markets, chances are that nothing will be done. The infamous Meersbusch match last year has so far led to nothing and there is not even any indication that the match is being investigated. However, all we can do is to flag up these matches in the hopes that eventually something might be done.

To finish, I will simply copy and paste the final paragraph from my previous article on this topic. It felt relevant then and it seems just as pertinent now.

If no action or investigation is launched, many fans will lose what little faith remains in the authorities to combat the growing spectre of match-fixing in the sport. For the ATP and the TIU, the ball is now in their court. Do they have a response?

UPDATE

There is now an interview with Agustin Velotti where he is asked whether he had any suspicions about the match. He emphasises that he played no part in any questionable activities involving the match. I agree with him in that there did not appear to be any suspicion surrounding his involvement in any potential fix in this match. As far as I am concerned, he would appear to be an innocent bystander that was caught up in this.

The full interview with Agustin Velotti, conducted by Raul de Kemmeter is available here.