General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
28 Jan 10
20:10
Joined:
Date Joined:
16 Jan 09
The Magician (100) 28 Jan 21:05
As many know I have been in a continuous battle with Betfair to disclose the details of insiders/rule-breakers/cor-rupt individuals that have matched my bets.
Today after more than a month of considering my latest request Betfair made the ground breaking decision to for the first time in their 10 year history to disclose to one punter the identity of a punter taking the other side of their bet.
In brief Betfair today confirmed that my back bets on a horse called Man of Gwent, where indeed matched by the horses owner (or at least by the owners account) which the BHA concluded he controlled.
Firstly I must congratulate Betfair for making this decision and finally giving the cor-rupt/insiders/rule-breakers one less place to hide.
The background of the case can be seen here;
http://www.racingpost.com/news/horse-racing/bha-owner-leighton-brookes-warned-off-for-three-years/661028/
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/inside_horseracing/about/whatwedo/disciplinary/disciplinaryDetail.asp?item=090840
Betfair wrote...
[i]
As many know I have been in a continuous battle with Betfair to disclose the details of insiders/rule-breakers/cor-rupt individuals that have matched my bets.
Today after more than a month of considering my latest request Betfair made the ground breaking decision to for the first time in their 10 year history to disclose to one punter the identity of a punter taking the other side of their bet.
In brief Betfair today confirmed that my back bets on a horse called Man of Gwent, where indeed matched by the horses owner (or at least by the owners account) which the BHA concluded he controlled.
Firstly I must congratulate Betfair for making this decision and finally giving the cor-rupt/insiders/rule-breakers one less place to hide.
The background of the case can be seen here;
http://www.racingpost.com/news/horse-racing/bha-owner-leighton-brookes-warned-off-for-three-years/661028/
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/inside_horseracing/about/whatwedo/disciplinary/disciplinaryDetail.asp?item=090840
Betfair wrote...
[i]
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 67
|
By:
Very well done, and best of luck. It's amazing what a flexing of legal muscle can achieve.
|
|
By:
Was this an Usk Valley Stud horse ?
|
|
By:
^ strange question
|
|
By:
Why Delta ?
|
|
By:
I seem to remember reading Betfair testimony to a Select Committee where they explained that, in reality, they were a conventional bookmaker who happened to use advanced technology to perfectly manage their risk. 'Peer to peer' betting was just marketing speak, and in reality they were the counterparty to every bet.
I'm assuming the Gambling Commission will share that view, and treat your bet as being with Betfair. Because otherwise - if your bet was with Leighton Brookes - it would be unlicensed bookmaking (and presumably illegal). So on what grounds do you expect the GC to void a bet made in good faith between two innocent parties? I'm not knocking your plans - just curious. |
|
By:
Does the guy not have a legal right to lay any horse even if its his own against anybody on here.
I know he can't do it under the Racing board rules but there not the law of the land. As long as he didn't attempt to commit fr@ud and ran the horse on his merits I can't really see any court telling the guy to refund his winning lay. But I'm just guessing....What is the story under the courts not the jockey club does anyone know? |
|
By:
JPL....We seem to be on similar tracks..... I don't know is that good or bad. :^0
|
|
By:
I seem to remember reading Betfair testimony to a Select Committee where they explained that, in reality, they were a conventional bookmaker who happened to use advanced technology to perfectly manage their risk. 'Peer to peer' betting was just marketing speak, and in reality they were the counterparty to every bet.
Exactly what I was thinking. Any legal ruling that undermined this set up could have very serious consequences for exchange betting. I can understand the annoyance at a che@t getting away with it- but isn't there a bigger picture to bear in mind here? Wouldn't it be a bit silly to undermine the entire legal basis of exchange betting (which most of us think is bloody brilliant) for the sake of chasing down a pathetic small time pr1ck an a couple of hundred quid? |
|
By:
Magician - I've just had a look at the Gambling Act, and I fear you may be on to a loser with the GC. Quite apart from the issue of who the other party to your bet is, it looks like they can void a bet "only during the period of six months beginning with the day on which the result of the bet is determined".
Sounds much like the story in the papers this morning about those climate scientists at East Anglia who broke the FoI act. The Information Commissioner can't do anything about it because more than six months have passed, but it's not possible to complain to the Information Commissioner until other routes have been exhausted (which takes more than six months). Catch 22! |
|
By:
Horses are pretty unpredictable beasts even when trainers don't think a ertain horse can run well it still sometimes wins. My question is if the horses had won would you have kept the money, probably you got better than expected odds matched anyway, would you be trying to give the money back to Betfair or would you have kept it?
|
|
By:
if your bet was with Leighton Brookes - it would be unlicensed bookmaking (and presumably illegal).
I'm sceptical about this. If two men make a bet in a pub, is one of them a bookmaker? |
|
By:
Moon Light - IANAL, but the Gambling Act allows private and non-commercial betting. A bet in a pub might fall into that category.
But (agreeing with aye robot) I don't think you could realistically claim that exchange betting with anonymous strangers over the internet falls under those provisions - which is presumably why BF claim to be the counterparty to all our bets for legal purposes. |
|
By:
IANALB surely technically, under BF's logic, they rather than you have a claim against LB, as they are the counterparty to his bet?
|
|
By:
In another statement, Betfair claim to be a bookmaker, explaining that THEY match the bets, that punters don't match against each other. This seems to contradict that statement, or rather digs that little hole a little deeper.
|
|
By:
good point from No Moves. the judgement relates to the guy of laying his own horse, which is no good, but not of affecting the result in any way
|
|
By:
congratulations on this great result
On 10 Sep 2008 in the 21.20 race at Kempton I think I backed this horse heavily in the place market, and I lost £3299 on this race in the place market on this race. Do you think the owner might have laid in the place market as well? |
|
By:
Certainly BF claim to be the bookmaker. The issue is what constitutes making a book.
I think there is a valid point that BF have claimed to Parliament that they match the bets and hedge them. They have got themselves in a fine mess. The Gambling Act may have been influenced by nefarious bookies, who have been trying to spread the lie that laying is bookmaking, as opposed to the real bookmaking features of holding customer funds, advertising a book of prices, and systematically extracting a profit by means either of overround or other charging schemes. |
|
By:
great thread
shame about Deltas typical cynical post .. his only interest is to agitate forumites .. they tell him how it really is ... and he runs off to get them banned by betfair .. |
|
By:
MOON LIGHT....What is wrong in law of a owner laying his own horse? Especially one that ran on its merits that day.
Sure BHA forbid it. But I don't see how any court could have a problem with it. All it was is somebody betting the owner his horse WOULD win today and the owner betting that it wouldn't. As long as he didn't try to make sure it didn't win he just betting on his opinion or some extra information he might have that somebody elses might not have known. Sure thats what lots of us think we're doing everyday betting against a guy who we think has less information than us. So I don't understand why you think Betfair is in trouble or who you think they are in trouble with. Since it was more than likely Betfair who told the BHA the owner matched a bet on his horse that he wouldn't win. |
|
By:
Does this mean that if I have ever lost money on a "next manager" market I can cry too?
It seems ridiculous to me that someone would bet on a horse race and not expect those with better information to be betting against them. Even if the guy concerned no longer lays his own horses, there will probably be people out there who tell their friends when horses aren't in good form. |
|
By:
.
|
|
By:
On behalf of the many punters who are on the wrong side of such corruption every racing day of the year, well done - and thanks, Magician.
|
|
By:
Excellent result Magician, well done.
|
|
By:
I believe the owner of the horse has **ed here but whats to say that he backed his horse many weeks before the race at generous odds and then layed off his own horse on betfair at lesser odds to guarantee a profitt whatever the result of the race or to minimise a loss
|
|
By:
There was a scandal in the Sixties with famous footballers betting against their own teams. I can't remember the details, but they were harshly dealt with.
It's incredibly naive to assume that if an owner is betting against his own animal that it will have no effect on the running of it. Suppose he thinks it has no chance. Why not withdraw it from the race and save money? Because he has laid it of course. |
|
By:
whats to say that he backed his horse many weeks before the race at generous odds
There is no reason at all to think that he did this. |
|
By:
truly laughable the people on here who think betting on your own horses either way is ok, whether that's because you have noticed it running nicely on the gallops and make it a smidge shorter than the market, or have given explicit instructions to the jockey to hold it up and under no circs let it win
once you let owners bet in any manner on their horse (or on the selections around it) it's an absolute cast iron cert they will be stealing money from the market sooner or later, that's just human nature to ** your fellow man provided you think the risks of detection are relatively small |
|
By:
"It's just human nature to ** your fellow man". It may be your nature , but it's not everyones.
|
|
By:
Moon Light
3 sheffield wednesday players got life bans in 60's recently some players did same and only got a few month bans -possibyr Bury (how times change) dont think players were charged with not trying only betting against own team similarly owners rarely charged with fixing races only laying (make your own mind up what instructions were given to jockey) |
|
By:
hardly big lays ?? you would of thought he would of gone for more knowing it was losing !
|
|
By:
imho, it's in everyone's nature artie, including yours. whether you submit to doing it is another matter
i actually like to think i'm pretty squeaky clean, but if i went through every single deed in my entire life there would doubtless be plenty of things there which would put that claim to shame. and i would contest that the same is true of at least 99% of human beings, almost everyone thinks they are morally better than they actually are someone who makes money on here snatching others funds by virtue of having faster pictures for example - nobody who does it seems to think there's anything wrong with it. nobody who has it done to them seems to think there's anything right about it everyone believes their way of winning is "fair" and will often look on others methods as "unfair" which is why we get repetitive arguments which go round in circles for years on end about how this punter only wins by doing such and such, that's so wrong, etc (flies round $hite, market maker advantage, blazer wearing ferengi, hide the queue, hide the queue!) |
|
By:
Chosen® 29 Jan 05:08
On behalf of the many punters who are on the wrong side of such corruption every racing day of the year, well done - and thanks, Magician. What about all the punters who find themselves inadvertently on the right side of such corruption? Can Magician even be sure that his net position is negative as a result of owners laying (and, by implication, nobbling) their horses? Obviously the practice would not exist in an ideal world, but I agree with many on this thread who point out the serious difficulties it poses for Betfair. Perhaps it would be easier to accept that a small amount of it happens and add it to the long list of imponderable variables that effect the running of horses? |
|
By:
that certainly would be easier, no question
in fact it reminds me of this quote: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." |
|
By:
"What about all the punters who inadvertently find themselves on the right side of this corruption ?" Good question.
|
|
By:
Obviously there will be far more people who lose due to corruption then who benefit from it (or some people lose far more than others gain) , unless you think the ill gotten gains come out of thin air :|
The whole episode of betfair arguing that they are different entities depending on who / which body they are in front of is HUGELY concerning imo. At the very least it's deliberately misleading people. At worst....well, I'd better leave it there.... |
|
By:
was this at steepledowns??
|
|
By:
Is it really that different to an owner knowing that a horse is far better than the publicly available information suggests and backing it? Surely the only difference is one of degree, in the sense that horses can be nobbled with greater certainty than they can be got to win.
|
|
By:
JLP66
I have the same concern regarding the 6 month claus in the gambling act. but the GC have wider powers to void bets beyound this time limit.... I just think it is less likely they will use them. When you consider it is not uncommon for the Nic Coward led BHA to take 3-4 years to concluded corruptions cases... and this (simple) case took more than six months... the BHA is really still a major fly in the ointment |
|
By:
Is it really that different to an owner knowing that a horse is far better than the publicly available information suggests and backing it? Surely the only difference is one of degree, in the sense that horses can be nobbled with greater certainty than they can be got to win.
This is truly dire nonsense. Will people argue anything at all on here? Trying to get your horse to win is legitimate. Trying to stop it from winning is very naughty. I accept that the former case depends upon how the owner's horse turns out to be better than the public know. If it is due to previous nobbling, that too is sinister. If it is due to legitimate improvement, there's nothing wrong with it. |