'Spread betting' the only way to cash in
Following the allegations of match-fixing against Hansie Cronje and three of his South African teammates, the question has been asked: how can the result of a cricket match be fixed through the influence or actions of a few individuals?
The answer is that it is almost impossible, but that isn't the point when examining the sketchy evidence that has so far been presented by the Indians.
If there is any credence to be given to the allegations, the only form of betting that could have taken place is so-called spread betting.
Take, for example, the case of Herschelle Gibbs. The South African opening batsman had been in prolific form before the third one-day international in Faridabad, before the alleged exchange between Cronje and London-based Indian businessman Sanjiv Chawla took place.
With Gibbs being in such fine form going in to the match, the spread on his runs scored in the game would probably have been from 35 to 40.
As it was, he made 19 and anyone who had managed to place a bet on him, and gone "low", would have cashed in.
In this instance, the punter would have been 16 units (or runs) to the good and would have won 16 times whatever he bet per unit.
On the other hand, those going "high" (as many would have done, taking Gibbs's form at that stage into account), would have lost money.
In that case, they would have been 21 units short of the "high" of 40 and would have been liable for 21 times whatever they bet per unit.
The same applies to bowlers, and the number of runs they concede or wickets they take in a match, or on totals that teams are likely to reach.