General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
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
Show More
Yes, you'll always get an un-biased view from major shareholders and ex-founding members.
In much the same way as you'll get such from non-major shareholders and non-founding members.
Anyway I thought in fact that Mark Davies is in fact some sort of folk hero to most on here ?
In fact that is, just in case there were not enough "in facts " in my post !
Was a decent fellow - treated despicably but too polite and loyal to say as much himself.
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.
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.
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.
And the problems started compounding.
Mark Davies has a share of responsibility for the ensuing degradation.
Yeah but Woods died what 4, 5 years ago...what say has he had since then?
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.
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.
"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
no sale
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not I!
All of us know what Betfair's job is.
And Betfair has failed its job through the misleading disclosure about this incident.
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.
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.
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!!
Would you be complaining if your split decision stood to " lose " 6500 quid.
Probably not.
Just heaving a big sigh of relief more likely.
Probably not.
Just heaving a big sigh of relief more likely.
Why haven't all these people gome elsewhere for their betting Froggy?
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.
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.
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 ?
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 ?
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.
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.
Bit like the same PR disaster scenario all the big financial institutions currently have.
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.
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?
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?
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 ?
Come on man, 600 million quid.
Are you on a different planet to me ?
Fafh some people lose far more than 600 million in one bet.
punter error and a betfair error, no where near the samething, hence your
argument has no validity.
argument has no validity.
You're joking surely.
Could you post up a factual example perhaps.
I'm talking sporting bets btw, not financial bets.
Could you post up a factual example perhaps.
I'm talking sporting bets btw, not financial bets.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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 ?
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.
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 ?
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???
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.
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.
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 ?
Or do you guys know something I don't ?
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.
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.
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.
Seems plausable. Maybe they should give the queen her award back.
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.
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.
FAFH - how much do you think the in running cross matcher (operated by BF) makes per day in UK horse racing alone?
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.
must get some shut eye of my own now, so with respect goodnight.
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 ?.
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 ?.
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.
Either way, froggy is dead right about it being so clearly a palpable error.
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.
Because I'm sure that is what would have happened had the horse not won.
TMIAG
Perhaps I should have actually said " ---- a bunch of normal, overpaid, imperfect individuals " ?
Perhaps I should have actually said " ---- a bunch of normal, overpaid, imperfect individuals " ?
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!
How ironic. I think it was aimed at new customers rather than existing ones!
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.
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.
So Catto - the moral of the story - if you are going to make a mistake, make it a fecking huge one?
Seems fair enough -
Seems fair enough -
We know for sure they would have voided all the bets even if it lost - they told us this (after the race) 
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?
If you were running Betfair today can you honestly say you would be advocating full settlement from the Betfair coffers?
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?
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?
*It was still available at long odds in the photo.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539