General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 63 comments are related to the topic:
mark davies view
mark davies view
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 63
|
By:
FAFH, if the horse had fallen at the last hurdle, do you think the 100- 300 k matched on it before that had been voided ?
|
|
By:
FAFH, if the amount available at 29 was smaller in that it all was taken and the Voler Le Vedette was backed down to 1.01 as would appear normal at race end surely Betfair would have had to pay out???
|
|
By:
Off point I think hazel.
Don't let your personal disgust with the customer relations side of BF cloud your judgement on what I think is probably the clearest case of palpable error you'll probably come across ever, at least on a gambling site. I mean anyone could be mistaken for believing from what is being written on here, that individuals bet hundreds of millions of pounds on individual horse races every day of the week. Not millions, hundreds of millions. |
|
By:
I know hyperinflation is being projected by many as being just around the corner, but the last time I looked at the financial markets, it hadn't quite yet arrived in the developed Western world.
Or do you guys know something I don't ? |
|
By:
FAFH - I can and I will.
If they sent me just a Mars bar I would be touched - if they could reply to a mail in less than 5 days (with a meaningful response) - the fact that they don't give the steam off their p1ss annoys me. Take, take take. Then you see all these useless ambassadors appearing - presumably they get a fee for all the non-descript, non-commital waffle that they provide? - blogs, twitter. Who do you think is paying for it all. They seem happy to make p1ss poor investments left, right and centre, throwing good money after bad on their disimprovements to the site while charges go up and customer service goes down the toilet. You can be happy about paying more and more for less and less if you like, I will continue to disapprove. |
|
By:
FAFH - if it was a palpable error, then BF the ONLY Bookmaker that thinks and claims its a technology company - actually has faulty technology!!?? - but it took them 12 years and 18,000,000,000 bet to notice it.
Seems plausable. Maybe they should give the queen her award back. |
|
By:
Eddie/ Mordin.
So now we're all going into the hypothetical ?. BF reacted to the 600 million liability being allowed into the system incorrectly. End of. Would they have reacted the same to a lower figure ?. No perhaps they might have let it go through, paying it out of their own coffers, and quietly fixed the glitch. All for the sake of avoiding the current PR disaster. That could be absorbed as a PR cost. But not at the astrnomical liability level being involved here. Now is that morally consistent or fair ? Probably not ? But what is in the real world of big business ? I will jjust say simply. Get real folks. |
|
By:
FAFH - how much do you think the in running cross matcher (operated by BF) makes per day in UK horse racing alone?
|
|
By:
FAFH if you are happy with customer side of relations at Betfair then we will wont see eye to eye.
must get some shut eye of my own now, so with respect goodnight. |
|
By:
TMIAG
Is the basic difference in opinion between us simply that you think the BF management are a bunch of crooked liars, and I think they are just a bunch of normal, imperfect individuals ?. |
|
By:
Do we know what the actual error was? It seems unlikely that a user actually entered a stake that big even via automation. More likely a number got corrupted somehow in the database.
Either way, froggy is dead right about it being so clearly a palpable error. |
|
By:
FAFH, are you saying that it's ok to void the market when the horse won and not void anything had the horse not won ?
Because I'm sure that is what would have happened had the horse not won. |
|
By:
TMIAG
Perhaps I should have actually said " ---- a bunch of normal, overpaid, imperfect individuals " ? |
|
By:
I remember when their (very clever imo) tag line was: "Betfair - join the revolution!"
How ironic. I think it was aimed at new customers rather than existing ones! |
|
By:
Eddie
Well I suppose we'll never actually know will we ?. But I think they would have voided the market irregardless. After all someone was going to notice and comment on the irregularity of such an enormous potential liability ? These sorts of things don't go unnoticed by all. It's all to do with the size of the error imo. |
|
By:
So Catto - the moral of the story - if you are going to make a mistake, make it a fecking huge one?
Seems fair enough - |
|
By:
We know for sure they would have voided all the bets even if it lost - they told us this (after the race)
 |
|
By:
I don't think their is a moral here. I suspect that is the values had been less fantastic Betfair would have settled the bets out of goodwill like they did for the moneysavingidiots that time.
If you were running Betfair today can you honestly say you would be advocating full settlement from the Betfair coffers? |
|
By:
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.
Sorry to harp back to this again. There was a horse 6 or so years ago where the trainer forgot to saddle the weight cloth and this was stated on C4 during the race. It was available at 10.0 (I think) when looking a certain winner but something got up to dead-heat with it. It was still available at long odds on the photo. Had it won 6 lengths those prices would have still been available. Would anyone who hadn't heard the C4 announcement and backed it be "disingenuous" and have their bet refunded? |
|
By:
*It was still available at long odds in the photo.
|
|
By:
Mordin,
Great minds et al:- Dear XXX One or more of your bets, placed on the market has been voided/lapsed by Betfair. Whilst these bets were all placed in good faith, in order to be fair to all users we have had to void/lapse them. Should you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact us by emailing info@betfair.com or calling our helpdesk on 0870 0110444 (+44 20 8834 8060 from outside the UK). You will find details of the voided bets in "My Account, Betting History". Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience, and we hope you continue to use and enjoy the site. Kind regards www.betfair.com Voided/Lapsed Bets Runner Bet ID Placed Date Category Bid Type Status Stake (€) Liability (€) Odds Matched Voler La Vedette 17677808441 28/12/2011 14:06:16 EX B Matched 222.00 29.00 |
|
By:
To quote from the blog "Suggestions that there is a legal claim don’t get to the starting gate."... "quite clearly falls under the palpable error rule"
I didn't realise he was a legal expert myself. Mark Davies is making his own legal challenge regarding the purchase of Betfair shares which as a layman I thought didn't approach the starting gate. The success of any challenge in both cases I think is not in the wider interests and I hope neither are succesful but.. Since when has Betfair ever gone by the palpable error rule? It's always if you make a palpable mistake tough. I laid the fave. once at 1000. Clearly it was a palpable error but I had no choice but to stand it. There was a high profile case at Wolverhampton where one punter lost over 100k laying the fave at 1000, which was "clearly a palp" and the bets stood. This is a clear precedent. Why, legally, should the ammount of money matter? My belief is the punter stood the liability rather than Betfair making ex gratia payments. I've heard on the grapevine that a group of lawyers are offering a no win no fee challenge. This may of course be unsubstantiated rubbish, but has the share price dropped merely over worries about the robustness over software? Perhaps, more worringly, it's to do with the threat of litigation? I remember Cantor Spreadfair having a palpable error rule and I advocated it for Betfair on this forum. It was to protect the company itself more than its users of course, and I think I was virtually alone in my opinion that Betfair should have something similar, but I think this whole case proves I was right. |
|
By:
I have written this before. I am no legal expert, but I did take a careful look at one point at the legalities of voiding bets under the palpable error rule.
I would love to see this "rule" tested once and for all in the law courts, because I do not think it will be found to have any legal force. And surely whoever is the legal counterparty to the bets would be found to be liable for them so long as the winning parties are not found to be involved in some fraudulent activity. A bet is a legally enforceable contract, and as far as I can see, if somebody has made a bad bargain it will not get them out of their liabilities for losing bets. I don't know much about this case, but I will keep an eye on it with interest. Any big winners are crazy not to have a go at recovering profits from their bets in this case, that is unless their Betfair accounts are worth more to them on balance than the profit they made on the race. |
|
By:
So not only has Betfair never, as far as I am aware, used the palpable error rule before, when there has been obvious palpable errors, the rule itself is iffy in itself.
|