We imagine that a fixer is a person who scripts every detail of cricket matches: the toss, wickets, fours and sixes and even the win or loss. We assume that he bribes, coaxes, cajoles and threatens cricketers into following his 'written' script. With his granular knowledge of what is going to happen, he then fixes the odds to favour the book and wins.
But the world of 'crime' is not black and white. It is multi-layered. Prem Panicker's article, quoted below, has brought this out beautifully.
Structure of the system
So the structure of betting system is something like this: Super Punter and Punters at the top, Tier A bookies ( 10-12 in Nos) below them , thousands of Tier B Bookies, based in small and big towns, affiliated to Tier A bookie who in turn work with small gamblers.
The bookies are computerized, with each Tier A bookie having a central repository of all information. Big bets, such as bet over 1 lakh, taken, are flagged by any bookie in the system. When a flag about a major bet goes up, the Tier A bookie is automatically alerted; in turn, he shares the information with his fellows. By assessing the bet and evaluating it from the information of the punters, the bookie is able to make an educated guess so that he can use the odds in favour of him.
So who are punters and superpunters? These are big celebrities and well known rich people who are part of rich social network of actors, models, cricketers, businessman, advertisers and players. The bookie, who is part of the underworld, is watched by police and CBI. But the punter, such as Vindoo Dara Singh, is not as readily identifiable as such. The punter, too, is a celebrity himself, and has easy access to big parties.
How does the system work
The system works in three steps:
Step 1: Initiation
These punters invite themselves in the parties where cricketer is present. The cricketer - young and drawn from villages and small towns- gets blinded by this glamour and revels at the attention he gets from these celebrities. He likes these parties, because he gets introduced to Bollywood starlets and model, or business man, or important people.
Once the cricketer becomes comfortable with these parties, he is asked innocuous looking information about the composition of team, the strategies, and others. Cricketer shares this without knowing its implications.
Step 2: Grooming
Suddenly one day, the punter shares some gifts with the cricketer with a statement like 'Hey, because of what you told me, I bet big on XYZ happening - so here's a Rolex for you, just a token of my gratitude and thank you so much for helping, you are a true friend.' It is all very jolly, all done with a nudge, a wink, a chuckle. **
The cycle repeats a couple of times, until it is taken for granted by both parties. From then on, it is not even necessary for the punter to meet the cricketer in person - a late phone call before a big game, to ask pertinent questions and gain actionable information, becomes routine, as does the post-game 'gift' - in kind or in sum.**
Almost without knowing it, the cricketer goes beyond merely answering questions, and begins to volunteer information - anything he thinks will give his friend an edge in the betting market. After all, if a nice fellow, a good friend, makes some money off of the underworld, where's the harm?**
Step 3: Instigation
And then, one fine day, a question is asked to extend the boundary. 'Can you bowl a over to give 10 runs?' Or 'Can you manage to get out before reaching the double figure?'
By now, the cricketer is fully primed and ready. For him, extending the boundary is easy because he is just asking another question to himself, 'where's the harm?' What does a bad over, an indiscreet shot, matter if there is a party, a big car, a foreign holiday, or a helicopter trip to his native town, waiting on the other side of it? And who would ever suspect? And so he bowls that short one outside off. The earlier step of grooming has slowly enabled him to 'explain his conscience'.
Summary
Harvard psychologist, Lawrence Kohlberg, believes that our moral reasoning is developed in three levels. Because of the above mentioned interlinked social systems, most of us get stuck at the second level of morality. Psychologists claim that very few manage to adhere to behave morally: a behaviour by which we resist temptation even when the possibility of detecting and punishment is zero.
Principles of morality are easier to adopt when we have no 'opportunities' and when we are likely to be detected, but they are mighty difficult to adhere when the social systems offer us easy opportunities with no possibility of detection. We blame the cricketers or the politicians or the civil servants who cross the boundary, but we forget that, given the same amount of opportunities we perhaps would have done the same.
It is very easy to 'explain' the breach of morality to ourselves. One Engineer, whom i know, claims that he never takes money from 'poor farmers'. Another builder claims that he only robs money from 'rich people'. A police offer claims that he 'takes money' only because he has paid for his 'posting' and so on. Enron and the Accenture cases seem to prove that even well paid corporate executives tend to behave 'immorally', when they see the possibility of detecting their behaviour is zero. So none is spared. neither the civil servants nor the well paid corporate executives. If you are not convinced that breach of moral behaviour is rampant, read this book of Jonathan Macey, The death of corporate reputation.
The act of breach - whether betting or taking money - is not black and white. It does not happen at a single point of time. It is a steady extension of boundary which happens due to the surrounding opportunities of the social system in which we are. And it also happens because our parents unknowingly have not drawn stricter boundaries of rules for us and punished us for breaching those boundaries in our childhood.
But we can now prevent our children to fall in the same trap? However, are we doing anything about it?
** I have liberally used this Prem Panicker's article in Times of India to build up the logic. I hope Prem Panicker does not mind it.
But the world of 'crime' is not black and white. It is multi-layered. Prem Panicker's article, quoted below, has brought this out beautifully.
Structure of the system
So the structure of betting system is something like this: Super Punter and Punters at the top, Tier A bookies ( 10-12 in Nos) below them , thousands of Tier B Bookies, based in small and big towns, affiliated to Tier A bookie who in turn work with small gamblers.
The bookies are computerized, with each Tier A bookie having a central repository of all information. Big bets, such as bet over 1 lakh, taken, are flagged by any bookie in the system. When a flag about a major bet goes up, the Tier A bookie is automatically alerted; in turn, he shares the information with his fellows. By assessing the bet and evaluating it from the information of the punters, the bookie is able to make an educated guess so that he can use the odds in favour of him.
So who are punters and superpunters? These are big celebrities and well known rich people who are part of rich social network of actors, models, cricketers, businessman, advertisers and players. The bookie, who is part of the underworld, is watched by police and CBI. But the punter, such as Vindoo Dara Singh, is not as readily identifiable as such. The punter, too, is a celebrity himself, and has easy access to big parties.
How does the system work
The system works in three steps:
Step 1: Initiation
These punters invite themselves in the parties where cricketer is present. The cricketer - young and drawn from villages and small towns- gets blinded by this glamour and revels at the attention he gets from these celebrities. He likes these parties, because he gets introduced to Bollywood starlets and model, or business man, or important people.
Once the cricketer becomes comfortable with these parties, he is asked innocuous looking information about the composition of team, the strategies, and others. Cricketer shares this without knowing its implications.
Step 2: Grooming
Suddenly one day, the punter shares some gifts with the cricketer with a statement like 'Hey, because of what you told me, I bet big on XYZ happening - so here's a Rolex for you, just a token of my gratitude and thank you so much for helping, you are a true friend.' It is all very jolly, all done with a nudge, a wink, a chuckle. **
The cycle repeats a couple of times, until it is taken for granted by both parties. From then on, it is not even necessary for the punter to meet the cricketer in person - a late phone call before a big game, to ask pertinent questions and gain actionable information, becomes routine, as does the post-game 'gift' - in kind or in sum.**
Almost without knowing it, the cricketer goes beyond merely answering questions, and begins to volunteer information - anything he thinks will give his friend an edge in the betting market. After all, if a nice fellow, a good friend, makes some money off of the underworld, where's the harm?**
Step 3: Instigation
And then, one fine day, a question is asked to extend the boundary. 'Can you bowl a over to give 10 runs?' Or 'Can you manage to get out before reaching the double figure?'
By now, the cricketer is fully primed and ready. For him, extending the boundary is easy because he is just asking another question to himself, 'where's the harm?' What does a bad over, an indiscreet shot, matter if there is a party, a big car, a foreign holiday, or a helicopter trip to his native town, waiting on the other side of it? And who would ever suspect? And so he bowls that short one outside off. The earlier step of grooming has slowly enabled him to 'explain his conscience'.
Summary
Harvard psychologist, Lawrence Kohlberg, believes that our moral reasoning is developed in three levels. Because of the above mentioned interlinked social systems, most of us get stuck at the second level of morality. Psychologists claim that very few manage to adhere to behave morally: a behaviour by which we resist temptation even when the possibility of detecting and punishment is zero.
Principles of morality are easier to adopt when we have no 'opportunities' and when we are likely to be detected, but they are mighty difficult to adhere when the social systems offer us easy opportunities with no possibility of detection. We blame the cricketers or the politicians or the civil servants who cross the boundary, but we forget that, given the same amount of opportunities we perhaps would have done the same.
It is very easy to 'explain' the breach of morality to ourselves. One Engineer, whom i know, claims that he never takes money from 'poor farmers'. Another builder claims that he only robs money from 'rich people'. A police offer claims that he 'takes money' only because he has paid for his 'posting' and so on. Enron and the Accenture cases seem to prove that even well paid corporate executives tend to behave 'immorally', when they see the possibility of detecting their behaviour is zero. So none is spared. neither the civil servants nor the well paid corporate executives. If you are not convinced that breach of moral behaviour is rampant, read this book of Jonathan Macey, The death of corporate reputation.
The act of breach - whether betting or taking money - is not black and white. It does not happen at a single point of time. It is a steady extension of boundary which happens due to the surrounding opportunities of the social system in which we are. And it also happens because our parents unknowingly have not drawn stricter boundaries of rules for us and punished us for breaching those boundaries in our childhood.
But we can now prevent our children to fall in the same trap? However, are we doing anything about it?
** I have liberally used this Prem Panicker's article in Times of India to build up the logic. I hope Prem Panicker does not mind it.
No comments:
Post a Comment