General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
29 Dec 11
18:56
Joined:
Date Joined:
15 Dec 04
2006 Bellsouth Classic golf tournament. At the time BF did not list all runners of a golf tournament, with any lesser lights moving into contention being added as and when. There was also a software glitch (that persisted for some time) that whenever a new golfer was added to the bottom of the screen the betslip that came up was for the name at the top of the screen. So Billy Mayfair was added, but when you clicked his name the name on the slip was Phil Mickelson, the tournament favourite.
A layer clicked on Mayfair and laid him at 65 for a liability of thousands. Mickelson was trading about 10 (his 1st round hadn't started), and so the layer because of the glitch cleared the queue on Phil and still had a big chunk up on offer for Phil at 65. I was playing and took the chunk. While it was obvious something was a bit amiss, you don't turn that down. The numbers on the screen are all you have to go on.
Turned out both myself and the layer (who I believe is still about) posted about it on the forum, so got both sides of the story. Naturally, he complained. And the resolution Betfair took was the correct one, since they were to blame: the bet stood and I got paid out, but not from the layer, from Betfair themselves.
Now, it's not exactly what happened yesterday, but it's fairly analogous. Clearly at the time what mattered to them were the two principles to uphold: that bets struck honestly should be upheld as a fundamental principle of the exchange, and that no user should lose as a result of a BF technical error. Clearly, those principles, like most principles Betfair have ever had, have now disappeared.
That said, it's pretty harsh to expect any company to swallow a £23 million hit on a glitch, and I think anyone who expects them to is dreaming. But it seems to me that they should be doing SOMETHING to uphold a fairness principle here: perhaps even paying out those bets themselves at Betfair SP rather than the 29 matched would be a small compensation, and a far smaller hit for them, but at least it would be something.
Amazes me how much BF has taken a dive in 5 years, in terms of the way they treat their customers, but also in terms of how their customers view them: I think 5 years ago people would have been far more understanding that this was a huge error, and wouldn't have expected them to take such a big hit. Now, though, after years of contempt, the difference is customers and the media are just waiting for reasons to crucify them. You reap what you sow.
A layer clicked on Mayfair and laid him at 65 for a liability of thousands. Mickelson was trading about 10 (his 1st round hadn't started), and so the layer because of the glitch cleared the queue on Phil and still had a big chunk up on offer for Phil at 65. I was playing and took the chunk. While it was obvious something was a bit amiss, you don't turn that down. The numbers on the screen are all you have to go on.
Turned out both myself and the layer (who I believe is still about) posted about it on the forum, so got both sides of the story. Naturally, he complained. And the resolution Betfair took was the correct one, since they were to blame: the bet stood and I got paid out, but not from the layer, from Betfair themselves.
Now, it's not exactly what happened yesterday, but it's fairly analogous. Clearly at the time what mattered to them were the two principles to uphold: that bets struck honestly should be upheld as a fundamental principle of the exchange, and that no user should lose as a result of a BF technical error. Clearly, those principles, like most principles Betfair have ever had, have now disappeared.
That said, it's pretty harsh to expect any company to swallow a £23 million hit on a glitch, and I think anyone who expects them to is dreaming. But it seems to me that they should be doing SOMETHING to uphold a fairness principle here: perhaps even paying out those bets themselves at Betfair SP rather than the 29 matched would be a small compensation, and a far smaller hit for them, but at least it would be something.
Amazes me how much BF has taken a dive in 5 years, in terms of the way they treat their customers, but also in terms of how their customers view them: I think 5 years ago people would have been far more understanding that this was a huge error, and wouldn't have expected them to take such a big hit. Now, though, after years of contempt, the difference is customers and the media are just waiting for reasons to crucify them. You reap what you sow.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 18
|
By:
Interesting, good post.
So would the guy have had Mayfair's name on the screen where he hit confirm  That is pretty shocking |
|
By:
Not so long ago their bot made a mistake on a football market.
It was one where all the selections were not quoted. The bot was backing all the available selections when the % went below 100. That left them in the position of winning a small amount if one of the named selections won and losing about 60 times that amount if an unquoted selection won. They suspended the market some hours before the start and waited for the game to finish. The winning selection was quoted and Betfair decided not to void the market. IMO if the winning selection had not been quoted they would have almost certainly voided the market to save themselves a sizeable loss. |
|
By:
amonth or 2 back backed a horse for a place in running -offered at1.5 it was 3 lengths clear and they were strung out behind .not only did i get the bet on but i was amazed that the price paid tome was not1.5 but 15 yes 15 to one . waited a couple of mins and was paid out .so what happened there was not much different than yesterday and, yes i did back that horse before at2.98 and in running at 29-1 when it was 15 lengths behind
|
|
By:
so what we need is the gambling commission to come in and sort it out we should get some payment as we bet in good faith. many times i backed a horse at 25 30 or even 50 to 1 if it was behind. so where is the difference
|
|
By:
TB-the thing that amazes me is that this £23million is kept being quoted.
If BF did own up Id estimate £20 million would be subject to PC....id be amazed if the total was greater than £13million in actual loss |
|
By:
BF has categorically stated that the player/account in question was not under their control in any form or manner.
It seems to me that if anyone does not believe this very basic, unconditional statement, that is they alternatively believe or suspect BF is blatantly lying on the matter, then they should immediately close their account with BF. |
|
By:
the difference though TB, as with the mummy shaving experts in 2007, is that BF would have classified taking the hit themselves as goodwill,thus solving the immediate problem without creating precedent.
|
|
By:
I think 5 years ago people would have been far more understanding that this was a huge error, and wouldn't have expected them to take such a big hit. Now, though, after years of contempt, the difference is customers and the media are just waiting for reasons to crucify them.
This is the key. |
|
By:
Even if they are bad reasons.
But you're correct Lori. This is a PR disaster, no matter how they spin it. Either they are incompetent or dishonest ? Can't win either way. But I go for the incompetent angle personally. |
|
By:
You are ruling out that they are both then FAFH? - Just incompetent iyo?
|
|
By:
I have got a border collie that could have handled their PR and their communications better.
|
|
By:
What amazes me is tha you people are all continuing to use Betfair...or are you?
|
|
By:
Jimmy,
20% better odds, only 10% commission points decay each week, commission points decay holidays at xmas & easter, no middleman, super fast site (none of that arcade and casino stuff to slow it down like a normal bookmaker), the amazing cash out button, the brilliant Rule 4 deduction, pretty little jockey silks, early bird horse racing markets sloshing with opinionated liquidity. Jimmy - surely it's a no brainer? |
|
By:
 |
|
By:
Jimmy
Perhaps there's an overload of hypocrites on here ?. Or to be kinder, perhaps they're just fair weather friends. |
|
By:
Betfair is still the best, even with super PC. However, I do move a sizable chunk of my betting away from Betfair due to PC. In January 2011 I turned over £60k with non-exchange bookies. In February £46k.
In March - December 2011, I only turned over £15k outside of Betfair, and this is purely due to the fact that my natural activity here has kept me above 20% comm generated. As soon as I hit super PC, I'll be turning over 100k a month+ outside of Betfair, but don't worry I'll still be here too  And if anyone is wondering... this turnover is obviously not achieved with British books! Here's a graph of my monthly turnover just with pinny. In February I had a big loss on Betfair, so my turnover outside of Betfair drops to virtually zero. http://oi41.tinypic.com/2j1ab9c.jpg |
|
By:
Didn't Warwick Hunt do his cods laying the winner at 1000 at Wolverhampton a while back, the difference there was he had that money to lose
In this case, the layer didn't I think they should do the following to grasp back some PR 1) Payout on the place market, if someone's bot takes prices from the win market then that's their fault 2) publish what the layer at 29 intended lay amount was (say 10k @ 2.9) and take that 19k off into a fund to pay those that requested odds at less than 29 3) Betfair make up some sort of compo package for those that genuinely tried to back the winner ie, those that laid pre off and those that requested anything under 5.00 4) Try to come out of this wit ha new PR man and a new stance and don't blame the suspend monkey |
|
By:
...
|