General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
A major technical glitch occured, the reasons for which and how it came about, I'll leave to others best qualified to answer.
I'm concerned with the decision to void only in-running bets, which BF did in line with their current terms, but are these terms fair and just?
I believe that the fairest decision and therefore the best would have been to voided ALL bets placed including the pre-off market. Here is my reasoning.
1. The bets made in the pre-off market are netted off against bets placed in-running and settled as a single market, with commission taken on the net outcome, unlike the distinction made between AP bets and day of race bets. For the purposes of definition, BF already assume one market not two markets. Yet they choose to ignore this distinction when voiding all bets placed after the off.
2. BF have encouraged the development of in-running, encouraging players to both back to lay and lay to back and many people have adopted this strategy. Why should someone who places a bet one nano second after the off be treated any differently to someone who plays one nan second before the off. I would say that there is no difference other than that the player making his bet in-play has the added advanatge of not losing his stake should the selection not get off. He now has another advantage, inasmuch as he is not penalised if there is an in-running glitch whereas the pre-off player is.
3. In other cases where the whole race is voided, it is assumed that the fairest outcome is that the first priority is fulfilled which is that no-one should lose as a result of whatever occured. This principle must have greater importance than the loss of an opportunity to win. BF have created a situation where many players have been encouraged to perhaps over-stake initially as a prelude to laying/backing running and if not winning then not necassirly losing all their stake. The losrs in this decision to void just part of the market are those that played this strategy.
The consequence now is that for anyone to play this strategy they must wait until after the off if they wish to avoid the risk of not being given the chance of reducing liability as a result of a glitch which having occured once could be repeated at anytime.
I'm concerned with the decision to void only in-running bets, which BF did in line with their current terms, but are these terms fair and just?
I believe that the fairest decision and therefore the best would have been to voided ALL bets placed including the pre-off market. Here is my reasoning.
1. The bets made in the pre-off market are netted off against bets placed in-running and settled as a single market, with commission taken on the net outcome, unlike the distinction made between AP bets and day of race bets. For the purposes of definition, BF already assume one market not two markets. Yet they choose to ignore this distinction when voiding all bets placed after the off.
2. BF have encouraged the development of in-running, encouraging players to both back to lay and lay to back and many people have adopted this strategy. Why should someone who places a bet one nano second after the off be treated any differently to someone who plays one nan second before the off. I would say that there is no difference other than that the player making his bet in-play has the added advanatge of not losing his stake should the selection not get off. He now has another advantage, inasmuch as he is not penalised if there is an in-running glitch whereas the pre-off player is.
3. In other cases where the whole race is voided, it is assumed that the fairest outcome is that the first priority is fulfilled which is that no-one should lose as a result of whatever occured. This principle must have greater importance than the loss of an opportunity to win. BF have created a situation where many players have been encouraged to perhaps over-stake initially as a prelude to laying/backing running and if not winning then not necassirly losing all their stake. The losrs in this decision to void just part of the market are those that played this strategy.
The consequence now is that for anyone to play this strategy they must wait until after the off if they wish to avoid the risk of not being given the chance of reducing liability as a result of a glitch which having occured once could be repeated at anytime.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 12
|
By:
Sandown
You make very good logical points ( as you always do ). But the whole process of betting is a bit caveat emptor. I believe you should always place your wagers assuming worst case scenarios. As Warren Buffet has been quoted along the lines as saying " You should only invest in any particular share if you would be prepared to hold onto to it for ( say) 10 years or so, if all the markets in the world crashed for that long " But having said that, in the case where this was just one race in thousands per week, perhaps it would have been best and fairest to void everything associated with it as you say. If anyone's betting programme/ strategy is seriously materially upset by one event being voided, then I would suggest that their strategy is seriously flawed, and this is a good wake up call on that fact. |
|
By:
BF have created a situation where many players have been encouraged to perhaps over-stake initially as a prelude to laying/backing running and if not winning then not necassirly losing all their stake. The losrs in this decision to void just part of the market are those that played this strategy.
Sandown, on that basis you'd have to void any pre-race market for no other reason than betfair failed to turn it in play. It would also be an incentive to make the site crash during ir. Suppose the guy who put up the 21 million knew what he was doing. He could've had a million on something pre-race and then put up the 21 million on the run in if his horse was beat thus voiding his pre-off bet. |
|
By:
Feck/FAFH
To void or not to void, that is the question. Where it's possible to limit voiding fairly, say to one horse that is supported after it is known to some that it is incapable of participating, then that course of action is acceptable not only to those involved but to the rest of the market, too. But when the whole market is affected, why should what is an arbitrary decision to void after a certain time (the off) be acceptable when there are clearly players disadvantaged and others advantaged purely because of that decision? In this instance, if a single player was/is found to be the cause then presumably account action (penalties/banning)and software action should be possible to prevent further market manipulation. I certainly agree that an individuals play should take account of the risk which is why I suggest that playing pre-off is now even further higher risk than it was and this decision can do nothing but encourage players to delay placing orders until after the off, so further weakening the pre-off market. If the whole market had been voided there would have been no losers. No winners to be sure, but no losers. And the level of disgruntlement would be much less. Voiding markets is not a frequent occurrence and one race missed with thousands run every year is far less painful. I feel for those who may have lost substantially as a result of the decision. |
|
By:
But when the whole market is affected, why should what is an arbitrary decision to void after a certain time (the off) be acceptable when there are clearly players disadvantaged and others advantaged purely because of that decision?
No pre-off bet was at an advantage or disadvantage Sandown. Certainly there would've been those who wanted to trade out ir but they'd have been a low percentage of pre-off backers. If the whole market had been voided there would have been no losers. Apart from the winners? The outcry would've been times 100 what it is now and any gambling authority (the useless GC included) would have no choice but to tell them to pay out on the pre-off bets. I can't believe you're coming away with this Sandown. It is very badly thought out. |
|
By:
Don't think I've said this before, but there'a first time for evrything :
I agree 100 % with Feck on this one.. |
|
By:
Feck
There will have been players (winners) who will have been made losers as a result of BF's arbitary decision to void only IR bets. Many of these players will not have played either of the 2 horses primarily concerned. This to my mind is grossly unfair. Even those that play the two horses must be included nevertheless. It matters not whether they represent a small or large % of the market (you can't know what that figure is, only guess at it) but even it if were only one player I would still argue the point that it is unjust to make that one player carry the can. As I have explained, there is no real conceptual or practical difference between the pre-off period and the off period other than the rule about horses starting. BFR certainly treat the market as one. In practice it is not even easier to use the off as the dividing point because BF can identify beets to the micro second, should they wish. You cannot possibly know whether the outcry would have been greater if they had voided the whole market, that is sheer suppossition, not fact.As is, the view that the GC would have no course other than to force BF to pay up on pre-off bets. BF's T&C's allow them to void the whole race. There is a mile of difference between losing a winning opportunity and losing your stake or part of your stake and the priority should always be to ensure that no-one but no-one suffers from a fault or error whether technical or criminal over and above ensuring that some players collect at others expense. By the way, you should know by know that I do not make points that I have not thought through. |
|
By:
As I have explained, there is no real conceptual or practical difference between the pre-off period and the off period
Of course there is. Just because betfair lump them together for commission reasons wouldn't give them the right to void bets that were all placed fairly and no regulator in the world would have the kneck to allow them to regardless of the thickness of the brown envelope. You cannot possibly know whether the outcry would have been greater if they had voided the whole market, that is sheer suppossition, not fact. I'm starting think you're drunk or someone's hacked your account Sandown. This protection of traders at all costs is the sort of sh1te you'd expect from the Ferengi. There are many circumstances in which traders don't get to close out but, long run, you'd expect those one sided trades to cost them nothing more than commission. It's a pain for them but fk them. |
|
By:
This has nothing to do with traders in the way that you are using the term. Players who wish to limit their liability because of what they see or expect to see in-running are not to be confused with players have no conception of horses or form but only prices.
In such extraordinary circumstances as those that occured in that race, BF would have every right to void the whole race. Who knows whether there are pre-off plays that have been involved. Do you know for sure that there aren't? The safest course would have been to have voided the whole race. The world has moved on from pure single plays pr-off whether you like it or not. In this world I should think that many if not most players have some kind of mixed strategy, which includes IR. |
|
By:
I would have what you call a mixed strategy. One of them is working out the potential frontrunner, and backing pre-race with a view to lay off at shorter in-running.
Now and again the market suspends but does not re-open, or does not go in-play. Very rare but it can and does happen. I know the rules/procedures and the risks and that there is a 0.001% chance of being stuck with that bet. Voiding the whole market would be wrong imo although I take some of your points. I did not bet pre-race in this race as I was betting at Leicester, but I have lost out in the past. I am sure it happened at Hexham around 2 years ago and it cost me. It could of course have worked in my favour. |
|
By:
Nah, it's definitely not you Sandown. In this world that allows some players half a furlong advantage over others I'd be surprised if anywhere remotely near "most" were that brain dead. Hardly any would be a lot nearer the mark.
If the site went down would you void all bets placed on races that took place during the outage in case some poor unfortunate sh1te bag was unable to close out? What about all the poor unfortunates whose closing odds weren't met in races that did go ir? What you're suggesting would be suicide for betfair. Imagine anyone who had a bet matched had to check not only the result but whether the race went in play and wasn't voided. |
|
By:
As I said, you could have been turned into a loser even if you had not been involved with the front 2. That does not require you to be "brain dead" as you put it. Perhaps BF could have made an exception for those players by way of compromise.
In any case, I am not using the argument of "what someone MIGHT have done " had they been given the opportunity. That clearly can't be covered. I am concerned however about what DID happen and bets made in all good faith which in particular were not on the the 2 principal horses. This was clearly an EXCEPTIONAL circumstance and if this does not warrant a void race then I don't know what makes for one. No-one should have lost on that race. And if that means no-one would win, then so be it. |
|
By:
Stop digging Sandown (or should that be fishing).
|