search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
BERNARD JOSEPH (BARNEY) CURLEY


A so-called coup rather than a scam (as there was nothing illegal about it), this deserves a mention for its sheer inventiveness. Bernard Joseph (Barney) Curley, an Irish professional gambler, philanthropist and former trainer, pulled off one of the most celebrated betting coups in the history of horse racing on June 25, 1975 at Bellewstown, an obscure racecourse in Co. Meath in the Irish Republic. Curley enlisted the help of 100 punters to put small bets on a chestnut gelding called Yellow Sam.


Curley instructed the horse’s trainer to train Yellow Sam specifically for the somewhat obscure annual National Hunt race at Bellewstown, featuring mostly amateur jockeys. To ensure that the horse would run at least once with a much lighter handicap than would normally be the case, Curley first put the horse against superior horses, running at distances to which he was unsuited, so he would be considered a no- hoper. However, Curley knew that the horse was capable of winning a moderate race on firm ground with a good jockey and poor opposition.


Bellewstown had been chosen for one important reason: there was only one public telephone at the track available to communicate to the course bookies who determined the starting prices for the participants. A close friend of Barney's, Benny O'Hanlon, was told, to get on that telephone at 2.30pm and keep it busy until just after the race had begun. Pretending he was talking to his dying aunt he managed to hog the phone while off-course bookies, desperately trying to lay off their liabilities, struggled in vain to contact their counterparts on the course. But it was already too late.


In all, Curley invested just over £15,000, his entire life savings, in the gamble. Yellow Sam won the 13-hurdle race by two and a half lengths and Curley collected his winnings: a sum that would today amount to almost two million pounds. Since nothing about the coup had been illegal, the bookmakers were forced to pay out the full amount, which they did by awarding out the winnings in single notes, filling 108 bags.


MONIQUE LAURENT


Also the subject of a film “Les Tricheurs” (“The Cheaters” 1984) Monique Laurent and her two associates, her brother a croupier in the Deauville Casino in France, and her husband, were able to cheat the casino out of US$1m in less than a week. In 1973, Monique’s brother began to switch the casino’s roulette ball with his own with a radio receiver inside it. Monique Laurent carried the home made transmitter in a pack of cigarettes and, standing at another table, would press the button after receiving a signal from her brother.


Laurent’s husband was responsible for placing the bet on all six possible numbers that the roulette ball could land on. The signal would make the ball slowly stop spinning with an accuracy of 90 per cent, after which it would fall in to a group of six numbers.


However, the casino owner, who had apparently taken an interest in the striking looking Laurent, noticed that she was always alone and made very low wagers while the person who was playing at the nearby table was wagering and winning large amounts.


A debugging team was called in. Later, accompanied by the Deauville Police Chief, the owner of the casino approached Monique and asked for a cigarette. When she couldn’t produce one, the packet was confiscated and the transmitter was found. The cheaters agreed to return their winnings and, incredibly, none of them were prosecuted.


RITZ CASINO STING


A group of gamblers who won over one million pounds at the Ritz Casino in London, by using laser technology, were told by police they could keep their winnings in 2012.


A Hungarian woman and two Serbian men used computerised scanners and software to pull off the alleged sting.


The laser scanner linked to a computer was used to gauge numbers likely to come up on the roulette wheel by judging the speed of the ball on the roulette wheel and hence the number most likely to come up.


On the first night the trio won £100,000 and on the second took home another £1.2m.


The equipment allowed them to do the calculations quickly enough to place their bets as required before the roulette wheel had rotated three times. After declining offers of free caviar and champagne, the trio departed soon afterwards.


The three were questioned and released on bail and were later told that they were free to leave the country. Police sources said that there was no proof they had “technically" interfered with the equipment.


In all, Curley invested just over £15,000, his entire savings, in the


gamble. Yellow Sam won the 13-hurdle race by two and a half lengths and Curley collected his winnings: a sum that would today amount to almost two million pounds. Since nothing about the coup had been illegal, the bookmakers were forced to pay out the full amount which they did by awarding the winnings in single notes, filling 108 bags.


WIRE / PULSE / INSIGHT / REPORTS P59


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118