General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
From Gaming Intelligence:
In a landmark move, the UK Gambling Commission has issued voiding orders for the first time under the Gambling Act 2005, after concluding an investigation into suspicious betting patterns involving three employees of media channel Virgin Media during last year's series of the popular weekly TV talent show The X Factor.
The Commission has voided bets totalling over £16,000 which were placed on The X Factor, and follows an investigation into a report of suspicious betting activity brought to its attention by Betfair’s Integrity Unit.
The investigation established that three individuals employed by phone line operator Virgin Media were misusing their access to Virgin’s data on voting patterns to place unfair bets on which contestants would be eliminated from The X Factor. The employees have since been sacked by Virgin.
“There is no evidence that the integrity of the public voting or the TV shows involved were compromised,” said the Gambling Commission in statement. “However, the Commission has consulted with Ofcom, which has been working with Virgin Media and other relevant stakeholders, to ensure that firm steps are taken to prevent a repeat of such activity.”
The voiding orders mean that any contract or other arrangement in relation to each bet is void and that any money paid in relation to each bet - whether by way of stake, winnings, commission or otherwise - shall be repaid to the person who paid it, and repayment may be enforced as a debt due to that person.
The voiding orders also indicate that Betfair should, to the extent that it may be in its power to do so, cause affected Betfair customers to be repaid.
“Following a multi-agency investigation led by the Gambling Commission, we are satisfied that the bets placed were substantially unfair as the individuals involved had inside information,” said Nick Tofiluk, director of regulation for the Gambling Commission.
“We have worked closely with all the bodies involved to ensure that those individuals do not profit from their activity and that appropriate action has been taken to prevent a recurrence of such activity in the future.”
In a landmark move, the UK Gambling Commission has issued voiding orders for the first time under the Gambling Act 2005, after concluding an investigation into suspicious betting patterns involving three employees of media channel Virgin Media during last year's series of the popular weekly TV talent show The X Factor.
The Commission has voided bets totalling over £16,000 which were placed on The X Factor, and follows an investigation into a report of suspicious betting activity brought to its attention by Betfair’s Integrity Unit.
The investigation established that three individuals employed by phone line operator Virgin Media were misusing their access to Virgin’s data on voting patterns to place unfair bets on which contestants would be eliminated from The X Factor. The employees have since been sacked by Virgin.
“There is no evidence that the integrity of the public voting or the TV shows involved were compromised,” said the Gambling Commission in statement. “However, the Commission has consulted with Ofcom, which has been working with Virgin Media and other relevant stakeholders, to ensure that firm steps are taken to prevent a repeat of such activity.”
The voiding orders mean that any contract or other arrangement in relation to each bet is void and that any money paid in relation to each bet - whether by way of stake, winnings, commission or otherwise - shall be repaid to the person who paid it, and repayment may be enforced as a debt due to that person.
The voiding orders also indicate that Betfair should, to the extent that it may be in its power to do so, cause affected Betfair customers to be repaid.
“Following a multi-agency investigation led by the Gambling Commission, we are satisfied that the bets placed were substantially unfair as the individuals involved had inside information,” said Nick Tofiluk, director of regulation for the Gambling Commission.
“We have worked closely with all the bodies involved to ensure that those individuals do not profit from their activity and that appropriate action has been taken to prevent a recurrence of such activity in the future.”
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 167
|
By:
Betfair should surely refund all losing bets automatically.
|
|
By:
Difficult one.
Leans towards a "class action" that perhaps betfair would have to undertake on behalf of the punters. I can only see any bets matched by the "insiders" would be the easiest so if you were matched by them, then pretty straight up. Beyond that, it becomes pretty convoluted. The money is obviously there since betfair would have seized their accounts. The other side of the argument is that if you put up a lay at, say 1.30 and these guys matched you, then you "got what you wanted". If anything, it is the opposite: someone that wanted to get a bet on but chased the price down because these guys crushed the market. - - - I remember two years ago when Elbow won the Mercury. I was on API and the volume was growing towards the event but all backs. While other artists were getting fives and tens put on at most, they were 20 and more and steady. Then, just before the announcement, a massive plunge. Blatantly obvious. |
|
By:
So, when are they going to retrospectively void the Portsmouth Manager Market? That was the biggest fix ever.
|
|
By:
seems to me that the 16k was money wagered by the 3 virgin employees the counter parties should have already be repaid if the bets are voided.
|
|
By:
While I welcome this, it's a bit of a joke when you consider betfair originally claimed it was fair to allow betting right up to the announcement of the result until DJ reported them to the sc.um-of-the-world (insiders were cleaning up at the time). The GC's stance is also funny given they think laying fallers is just like two people betting down the pub on who won the 1980 cup final. You get the impression they'll say anything betfair wants them to in exchange for a bit of 'wining and dining'.
|
|
By:
A good result. I suspect that in the next few days Betfair will issue a statement saying that they have refunded losing clients, and reiterate the effectiveness of their integrity team.
|
|
By:
DJ also thought it was fair until he did his brains and lost his contacts Feck.
|
|
By:
I lost a bit on the lay of Matt Cardle
 I was obviously in a minority thinking he couldn't sing...at all. |
|
By:
I guess that I must have had a punt on this. A bit of a result this is:
Dear Mr Alex van wrinkle, On 7 April 2011, under section 336(1) Gambling Act 2005, Betfair received a voiding order from the Gambling Commission to void winning bets placed by a number of accounts on X Factor 2010 betting markets between 10 October 2010 and 21 November 2010. The circumstances behind the voiding order are detailed in this Gambling Commission press release, (http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/gh-media/latest_news/2011/gambling_commission_voids_bets.aspx). Your account, username ‘awrinkle’, lost a total of £28.67 matching bets with one or more of these accounts on one or more of the relevant X Factor 2010 betting markets. Therefore, £28.67 is owed to you as a debt by at least one other Betfair account holder. We have now requested that the relevant Betfair account holders provide to us the funds necessary to cover the total amount owed to you and other customers who were betting in the relevant markets in good faith. We will provide you with an update on this matter within 28 days from today’s date. Kind Regards Betfair Integrity Team Betfair Helpdesk |
|
By:
Anybody fancy putting together a book on how many pennies in the pound will be refunded? This must be a nightmare for betfair.
|
|
By:
get betfair to edit that post imo and remove your details [;)]
|
|
By:
You should get everything back, you bet was voided? or am i missing something?
|
|
By:
I don't mind people knowing that my real name is Alex van Wrinkle Brendan.
It looks as if betfair are not liable but the cheats are. I am not holding my breath especially as I don't recall taking a loss anyway so anything I get will be a bonus. |
|
By:
While I welcome this, it's a bit of a joke when you consider betfair originally claimed it was fair to allow betting right up to the announcement of the result until DJ reported them to the sc.um-of-the-world (insiders were cleaning up at the time). The GC's stance is also funny given they think laying fallers is just like two people betting down the pub on who won the 1980 cup final. You get the impression they'll say anything betfair wants them to in exchange for a bit of 'wining and dining'.
Complete rubbish. The reason these bets were voided is because the information used by the Virgin Media employees was not in the public domain hence the bets were unfair. Fallers are a different matter as anyone could get the faster pics if they were so minded to do so. Also if you look at their website you will see that they have never had any hospitality from BF in fact they don't appear to have any from any betting firm. Must be the rules as I can imagine they get offered plenty. |
|
By:
You should get everything back, you bet was voided? or am i missing something?
It is the people who matched your bet that owe you not BF. I would guess that the majority of the money has long gone. This means you will need to take action against the person(s) rather than BF. I assume all BF need to do is provide you with their details. |
|
By:
So, when does the Portsmouth Manager Market get refunded for the people who lost money due to the deliberate lies told by the main players involved to rig the market? Come on Betfair, what are you waiting for?
|
|
By:
It would surely be seen in a very bad light if customers of betfair did not get their stakes returned in full following the decision of the gambling commission to void relevant unfair bets; particularly as the decision was based on information that betfair had in their possession at the relevant time of the event and knowingly paid out to unfair winners who at the time they suspected may have been acting unfairly.
|
|
By:
Does DJ still bet?
|
|
By:
Did DJ work for Virgin Media?
|
|
By:
Complete rubbish.
The reason these bets were voided is because the information used by the Virgin Media employees was not in the public domain hence the bets were unfair. Fallers are a different matter as anyone could get the faster pics if they were so minded to do so. I suppose any silver spoon could travel to the racecourses for the faster pics but it's not an option for most people. You might as well argue anyone could get a job on the Virgin Media phones. Also if you look at their website you will see that they have never had any hospitality from BF in fact they don't appear to have any from any betting firm. Must be the rules as I can imagine they get offered plenty. |
|
By:
One is insider trading Feck, one isn't.
I'm sure Betfair would prefer no fast pic merchants but the economic and pratical reality for Betfair is that the status quo is the best option. The PFA Awards fwiw. although a small market are picked off by insiders every year. Horse racing in general is a quagmire of inside info. but the bounadaries are very grey and generally unenforceable and unprovable. I still think back to my bet on the nobbled Uhoomagoo at Redcar. It's hard to know where to draw the line and difficult to prove. Betfair could on this occasion and the line wherever it is was definitely crossed. Well done to them. |
|
By:
Can you imagine a racing lad or jockey getting sacked for passing on inside racing info to a punter or bookmaker?
|
|
By:
If you can't win then you can't lose Clydebank. That rule was written in stone until the GC was brought in to ensure "fairness in betting". Somehow they don't strike me as the sort of organisation that's packed with people with the know-how to make such a call. Their indifference to the tote's failure to implement transparency in their pool running on totals and the constant "errors" in these suggests they are a bunch of gravy train clowns.
|
|
By:
Feck, surely you must know that there have been a few fallers that have gone on to win ?
|
|
By:
I believe the rules have changed now Eddie...you can no longer remount a faller.
|
|
By:
Oops, don't follow horses so didn't know that.. [:x]
|
|
By:
If you can't win then you can't lose Clydebank. That rule was written in stone until the GC was brought in to ensure "fairness in betting".
The law was changed by Parliament. Nothing to do with the GC. The GC were created after the legislation was written. If you disagree with it you need to lobby govt. They administer the Gambling Act in much the same way as HMRC administer Treasury rules. If you think tax levels are unfair you would not lobby HMRC you would need to speak with the Treasury. Feck you seem to be the sort of person who thinks everyone else is useless unless they agree with your points. You seem very misinformed on many of the issues you comment on. |
|
By:
What law was changed by parliament? Give me a link. Did parliament also state the tote could hide &
manipulate pools in any way they wished? Banks you seem to be the sort of person who thinks everyone else is useless unless they agree with your apologist views. You seem very misinformed on many of the issues you comment on. It's no wonder you're with the GC. |
|
By:
Parliament introduced the Gambling Act. They are the only ones who can change it not the GC.
No idea about your Tote issue. I'm no apologist for anyone least of all Govt or the GC however I do understand how things operate. Your comments merely confirm my view that you dismiss everyone who doesn't agree with you. Please can you highlight where I have been misinformed on issues I have commented on? |
|
By:
The "if you can't win you can't lose" rule wasn't changed by the gambling act.
Your comments merely confirm my view that you dismiss everyone who doesn't agree with you. Please can you highlight where I have been misinformed on issues I have commented on? See above. HTH. |
|
By:
Yes it was.
Read s9. |
|
By:
Feck you are a barrack rooom lawyer and a pretty rubbish one at that I'm afraid.
|
|
By:
Section 9 does not override the "if you can't win you can't lose" principle. The word "may" which is used throughout it allows for an interpretation such as (e.g.) 2 people betting on who won the 1980 cup final, although betting on something that's already happened, are actually betting on who has the best memory. That hardly applies to someone at the course laying a faller to someone unaware the horse has fallen or someone aware of the intracicies of the bet placement delay taking advantage of someone who mistakenly thinks it's there to protect them.
If, as you claim, it gives carte blanche to anyone who knows the result to take advantage of anyone who doesn't then on what basis are these x-factor bets cancelled? Insider trading? If that's the case, would the bets have been legal if virgin media set aside a room for x members of the public and allowed them access to the same data? What value of x would make it legal? Must the possibility exist for anyone betting ir on an event to attend i.e. x must be greater than the number of people betting? If that's the case would that not bar ir on many events where the bet placement delay is less than the feed delay? I'm afraid that the input of you at the GC into this amounts to nothing more than doing what betfair tells you to. What I'd like to know is why? Is it down to nothing more than stupidity and / or laziness or is it more sinister (probably the wrong word as what I'm referring to is now the norm in this sh1thole of a country). To be perfectly blunt with you Banks, as apologists go, you're a bit of a f@nny and a pretty dried up one at that. PS Re your "No idea about your Tote issue" point earlier, you're lying. On my original thread (where I posted some lengthy correspondence between myself and the tote on the matter) you made several posts defending their position. I take it you're backing out now because some time after starting that thread I appended a racing post story regarding a tote "error" which resulted in them having to "revise" the number of "winners" of one of their pools. |
|
By:
It is probably safe to say that Feck N. Eejit and Banks are not planning to "go out" in the near future. [;)]
That aside the Gambling Act failed to define "cheat" if I have understood this properly, so we rely on the old precedents. I know we have lawyers here, so would they care to shed some light on what could be considered as a cheat and what is not? |
|
By:
Alex, if that questions directed at Banks, he (and the GC) would have to first consult betfair before being able to answer. Since betfair's morals are city based, the answer would probably be there's no such thing as a cheat.
|
|
By:
Feck where do I start?
Firstly not sure what "the input of you at the GC into this amounts to nothing more than what BF tells you to do" sentence is aimed at. I am nothing to do with GC,BF or any other bookmaker for that matter as I have stated on many occassions. I have an interest and an understanding of law and bookmaking hence why I have commented on this and other issues. Your interpretation of s9 is too narrow. Essentially a bet is a legal contract even if one side knows the outcome. You could try , as in the X Factor case, to prove that the bets were unfair and get them voided. Being unfair ie using inside info is not the same as another punter not being bothered to get the info that is available to them. In the X Factor case if Virgin Media had a publically available website with the latest voting figures on them (unrealistic I know) then any bets placed by Virgin Media staff would have been fine. The problme was that they were using info that non employees could not get access to under any circumstances hence the voiding on fairness grounds. As regards the Tote issue it probably would have been more accurate for me to say I couldn't be bothered commenting on it as I disagree with your stance and have explained the reasons before. |
|
By:
Alex, if that questions directed at Banks, he (and the GC) would have to first consult betfair before being able to answer. Since betfair's morals are city based, the answer would probably be there's no such thing as a cheat.
BF are regulated in Gib so nothing to do with GC. Having said that my understanding of Cheating is that to prosecute the offence you would need to prove that the accused had manipulated and event or a result to profit from betting as opposed to just using inside info. Again using the X Factor case the employees used inside info in an unfair manner hence the voiding. If on the other hand they had tampered with the phone polls to change the result in their favour then I would argue they could have been prosecuted under a cheating offence. As the legislation is still comparatively new I doubt this has been tested in court yet. |
|
By:
Ooer, I had you down as mildly balanced Feck but I need to scew my judgment just a teeny bit.
The question was aimed to the world and especially Lawyers that might be able to hint at the answer. I guess there are no plans for a Feck/Banks early announcement. |
|
By:
Alex why ask for professionally qualified lawyers to comment?
Feck knows everything! |