General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
http://www.markxdavies.com/
interesting to read always think he gives a good perspective on things as one of the old guard
interesting to read always think he gives a good perspective on things as one of the old guard
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 63
|
By:
Yes, you'll always get an un-biased view from major shareholders and ex-founding members.
|
|
By:
In much the same way as you'll get such from non-major shareholders and non-founding members.
|
|
By:
Anyway I thought in fact that Mark Davies is in fact some sort of folk hero to most on here ?
|
|
By:
In fact that is, just in case there were not enough "in facts " in my post !
|
|
By:
Was a decent fellow - treated despicably but too polite and loyal to say as much himself.
|
|
By:
Indeed...the man was a gent.
|
|
By:
Interesting comment to the Davies article by ascot implying that the 'customer' was the betfair cross matched.
It's the most logical explanation. The only thing with unlimited exposure is betfair itself. Perhaps one of the developers tweaked the bot and it went crazy. |
|
By:
Betfair problems started very early on when they allowed Alan Woods to gain a stake and start influencing the company to further his self interest.
And the problems started compounding. Mark Davies has a share of responsibility for the ensuing degradation. |
|
By:
Yeah but Woods died what 4, 5 years ago...what say has he had since then?
|
|
By:
Woods may have died but his cronies are kicking.
Anyway my point was that Betfair problems are not recent. Transaction charges were the next big public problem. Then skimming and the retrospective Premium Charges. |
|
By:
...and still the punters continue to use Betfair...
|
|
By:
"my view is that an unhappy coincidence of circumstances has resulted in a 1 in million occurrence occurring in a particularly high profile way on a particularly high profile race..."
no sale |
|
By:
Mark Davies: The £600million liability that was offered on Voler La Vedette quite clearly falls under the palpable error rule, and anyone who argues otherwise is talking cobblers. The horse was crossing the line, and being offered at 29. People can argue all they like that they were backing it there and laying it off elsewhere, such that voiding the Betfair side means that they lost out; but they cannot possibly have been backing the horse at that price without realising that a mistake had occurred, and to try to claim to the contrary is disingenuous.
Whereas anyone who's ever backed a loser at 29.0 that was 6 length clear on the run in must surely have known they were backing a loser and anyone who argues otherwise is talking cobblers. They cannot possibly have been backing the horse at that price without realising that a mistake on the run in had occurred, and to try to claim to the contrary is disingenuous. This is effectively what you're saying Mark. If you lie down with dogs you'll get up with fleas. |
|
By:
With ATR's delay the majority of punters wouldn't have a clue what was really going on in the race anyways, feck
 Got to love the way they continually spout the line these odds were offered in the last furlong not a minute or so into a 3 mile race.It'll be intersting to see if they ever release details of the actual bet the 'punter' wanted submitted and if he had meant to lay @ 29's albeit for a lesser stake. |
|
By:
Feck
MD's point is that there was a situation involving a 600 million pound liability on one horse in one race, which clearly was a palpable error. Or is that a minor liability to you ? The alarm bells were, or should have been, ringing everywhere for anybody who cared to stop and think for a minute. And no, that is not hindsight. |
|
By:
FAFH,
what rot. There may have been a palpable error. But the most possible scenario was that it was an error by a well-heeled punter. Rather than a Betfair technical issue. He who stops and thinks, hesitates. |
|
By:
The whole principle is that you get to play against other people that make errors (palpable or not) - it is not BFs job to determine which ones are palpable or not. Despite their adverts to the contrary - they are merely the middleman.
|
|
By:
Davies, then FAFH, concocted the required punter code of behaviour for palpable errors.
Not I! All of us know what Betfair's job is. And Betfair has failed its job through the misleading disclosure about this incident. |
|
By:
agreed.
|
|
By:
I will just refer to you to the definition of palpable.
That is obvious. If a 600 million pound liability is not obviously wrong to you, then you're betting on a parallel planet to me. |
|
By:
I started the day with a £100 Premium Charge deduction from my account. For someone who trades in running on ATR pics if I see a value price I make a split second decison like all Betfair users and decide to take it and trade out. Betfair cant blame their clients for taking a piece of the 29 as thats what we have evolved to do in the last 10 years. So i stood to "win" £6500 to see this voided and in the same day have PC deducted leaves a very bad taste. Some quality betting experience!!
|
|
By:
You'll be here again tomorrow Mordin
 |
|
By:
Would you be complaining if your split decision stood to " lose " 6500 quid.
Probably not. Just heaving a big sigh of relief more likely. |
|
By:
Why haven't all these people gome elsewhere for their betting Froggy?
|
|
By:
You are letting the liability influence your view and get in the way of the principle.
1)Horses that win get matched at 29.0+ many times per day. 2)People make mistakes every day In both 1 & 2 above - all bets stand. This is no different. |
|
By:
Sorry TMIG.
That's just stretching it too far for me. It's like a bank crediting 100 million quid to your account and you withdraw it and go out and spend it. That's ok for you ? |
|
By:
I know it's Xmas and all that.
|
|
By:
It's all about perception
Too many people now have the perception that if the punter makes a mistake the punter loses, and if betfair make a mistake the punter loses. It's been one pr disaster after another, which only adds to the poor perception. |
|
By:
Bit like the same PR disaster scenario all the big financial institutions currently have.
|
|
By:
Hi Jimmy, I sure will, but paying this PC really annoys me. Puts me off big time and awful invention. FAFH I always leverage small stakes to hit high earning R multiples.
|
|
By:
I bet in £500's Fafh laying at odds up to about 23.0 so £11k max liability.
If one day I lay one for £5000 in error (or £50,000) at 23.0 (or lay at 230 for that matter) - and it goes on to win - should it be void? |
|
By:
No that is not an error of clearly palpable dimension ( maybe it is for you but not in the broader context of what can potentially go down gambling wise).
Come on man, 600 million quid. Are you on a different planet to me ? |
|
By:
Fafh some people lose far more than 600 million in one bet.
|
|
By:
punter error and a betfair error, no where near the samething, hence your
argument has no validity. |
|
By:
You're joking surely.
Could you post up a factual example perhaps. I'm talking sporting bets btw, not financial bets. |
|
By:
You guys just seemingly what to believe whatever it suits your purposes to believe.
Hard reality means nothing in your little worlds it would seem. If that's the mentality to be a " top " gambler, then I'm wasting my time quite obviously. |
|
By:
ok - so next time I see a value price, probably better to leave it on the basis that it's a mistake?
I am not advocating that they (BF) should be liable - but it seems likely that they are at fault - be it their account, their bot, one of their traders, their lack of suspension, or even what they are dubiously claiming it is. Whichever - they are at fault. Their way of dealing with that - some p1ss poor communications, some falla that looks & sounds like a hitman for w0ngy.com on ATR - and yep - you guessed it the customer suffers. No compensation, no redress. They are running a customer driven business ffs. |
|
By:
TMGIA
Now clearly some have received compensation in that their losing bets were voided. And that is inequitable to a degree. But from a practical viewpoint I cannot see a fair way round that. The important precedent that must and is being set here, is that if the basic exchange operating model has a technical glitch in it and fails, it must be fixed immediately or closed down, and any and all wagers affected either way by that glitch should be voided. I can procedd on that basis fairly comfortably, why can't you and apparently many others ? |
|
By:
Betfair will only tell you what they want you to believe. Their response to their loss of our personal data, and the fact that they hid it from us sum up Betfair. No wonder nobody believes or trusts them when things like this happen. They treat their customers with disdain.
|