Have Betfair set a dangerous precedent?

The Premier Leaugue thing Ballabriggs was so they'd win the bet (when it was in the correct score/position for them to win and the lights would be cut). It was not because the bet was going tits up. That's theory behind it.

Betfairs system itself has crashed in play many times and they generally don't void. This wasn't a crash in play this was something happening that violated the way the markets work, and either left an unsuspecting punter or betfair itself with a massive liability, that actually could've been worse - £600m? I'd think if someone sat and tried OTHER such things to see if they could get similar bad things to happen, betfair might notice and they would be playing with fire - they might lose a lot of their money in the "trying"?

Oddly enough though I do remember something happening a while ago (can't quite remember details) where they did do something like void all bets after a specific point in time and settle bets before, so while I think not paying out after the problem was completely understandable, having a cut off of bets up to the point the problem bet was made would've been reasonable.

This is a huge overreaction. Betfair has been going for 11 years plus...why do you think there is any more chance people wanting to sabotage markets now than in those 11 years? Why should Betfair pay out on this race? They didn't lose the money did they? Surely the rogue account should pay out?

The issue of voiding one market (place) because of an error in the other market (win) also sits a bit dangerously to me.

It's effectively protected the people who are relying on linked bots to create prices.

I have no issue with linked bots, they'll happen whether I like them or not, but I do have an issue with the protection of them.
If I generate a price not knowing a tennis player has an injured leg then I lose my money. I don't see why a bot user using bad information should be able to keep theirs.

jimmy69, you introduced a number of red herrings in your first post (this thread wasn't about (1) whether or not Betfair should pay out on the race overall, nor was this thread about (2) whether or not Betfair or the rogue account are culpable, nor was it about (3) Betfair's own pecuniary position in the market).  All three of your red herrings I dealt with anyway, and you have had clear answers.  Its no problem if you don't want to acknowledge them.

Betfair should have let (1) the pre-off bets stand, (2)the in-running bets before the rogue bet stand, and then (arguably) they should have voided (3) all subsequent bets once the rogue bet had entered the market.  It is in Betfair's best interest to let (1) and (2) stand, and for (3) to be voided.  A decision has been made to void both (2) and (3), instead of just (3), and this has serious potential ramifications to haunt Betfair in the future. 

Everyone sensible who wants the best for Betfair would have liked to have seen bets (2) stand instead of being voided, especially because of the dangerous precedent this sets.  Your desire to seek praise for Betfair is to be commended, you are outnumbered by at a guess 300 or 400 to 1 on this forum, by people who don't think Betfair deserve praise, particulary in light of the recent events in the last couple of years.  If it makes you happy then yes it is wonderful that Betfair have provided a platform where half a trillion bets have been placed with only occasional problems, but that still doesn't take away from the issue highlighted in this thread, which is not about your red herrings, its saying that by voiding the bets (2) placed in good faith between genuine customers, has the very realistic potential to do significant damage to people who have the misfortune to bet on a sabotaged market in the future, and is leaving a ticking timebomb which could do another £70m of damage to the share price.  Singing Betfair's praises is great, and it's great you push for other people to do it, but nobody wants to see Betfair take another £70,000,000 hit to its share price, so maybe they should have a think about why they've decided to void perfectly fair and legitimate bets highlighted in (2).  Have a think about it.

I couldn't care less whether Betfair takes another hit to its share price. I don't own any shares in them and I suspect very few other forumites do.

bets not best ffs

If the bet were treated like a system crash, which effectively they've said it was (techonololoowhatnot failure) then all bets to that point should indeed be honoured.

It's clear they have been economical with the truth but to call the discovery of a system bug gross incompetence is ridiculous.

And reading about betfairs "abysmal", "disastrous", etc, etc handling of affairs is getting very boring. There are people on here who complain whatever happens and however it's handled, usually managing to quote the premium charge while almost never having an actual alternative suggestion.

The voiding of any race is a major decision which should be made only for exceptional circumstances when it is clear that NOT to void the race would be clearly wrong decison.If voided, thst should as a matter of course be extended to derivative markets.

Having made the decision to void, there is then the issue of whether partial or total voiding is the right course.In my view, and I realise that I am in the minority on this, there is such complexity in betting patterns which involves inter-related bets placed by maany players now given the opportunity that an exchange offers, that only a total voiding of both pre and post markets provides the means by which no player is disadvantaged as a result of the voiding decision itself. The loss of a missed opportunity to win is as nothing compared to a forced loss as a result of an administrative decision, imo.

Sandown, your intentions look very noble, but in practical terms I don't think that would work.

Each year Betfair Bob finds a number of new Joe Punters, each looking to place their 'twenty tenners please'.  Imagine if for the Grand National 2012, all these new Joe Punters log onto Betfair place their bets at say 11am or midday, then ponder the day with excitement, talking to their mates about which horse they've each chosen.  It gets to 4.20pm, they're off, and its a wildly exciting race, with many contenders in the running throughout.  With 60 seconds to go, someone then manages to place a £600m bet into the market at 28/1, and that horse then wins.  Those Joe Punters who had their twenty tenners on that horse to win will be sat watching the race, thrilled to bits that they've just won, on probably a 10/1 to 14/1 shot.  They'll tell Mrs Joanna Punter she can have a new kitchen.  They'll promise their daughter Joanna Punter Jr. a little tricycle with pink tassels on it.  Then they'll log back on to Betfair, and find that every single bet on the entire Grand National 2012 has been voided, because of a combination of someone crashing the market (either deliberately or not), and weaknesses in Betfair's IT architecture.  This would include bets at 11am or midday, none of which were anything to do with the new rogue bet.  Your idea is noble, and is perhaps the Corinthian ideal, but the reality would be absolute unprecedented carnage.

Sandown,
A punter who has had a horse refuse to race, rather betting pre-race may wait until they set off then immediately place their bet. Why should they not get paid? No reduction factors in running might also mean people wait until just after the off.

Personally I think all bets should stand. Betfair extended someone a lot of credit that resulted in a negative balance. In the past they have paid out on those. Just because this time the amount is larger shouldn't make any difference.

Anyway this £23m is a phoney figure. I'd knock off at least 33% for commission and Premium Charge. Then bear in mind that the winnings are only loaned to punters on here because PC means they have to pay it back as higher charges on future wins.

I know that I am arguing on a point of principle (noble or not) and that maybe not many people are affected by this decision and perhaps the consequences woukd otherwise  be greater, but that is not the point. As in the law, first establish the point of law, then guilt or innocence, then apply the penalty.

BF has created the means by which it is no longer necessary to limit a bet to who is most likely to pass the post first (or not.) It is also possible to see a race in terms of the price point that a horse (or player) may reach in running. If I decide hypothetically that a horse priced at 10.0 can reach 5.0 in running giving me a 2.0 price if successful, is that any less meaningful than someone backing a horse at 2.0 to win the race? Because I have to say that for the life of me I can't see the difference.

By voiding just the post-off bets BF took an administrative decision that effectivly gives me no chance of succeeding (unless of course the horse wins.) Why should this be case, especially when you consider that i would be making a bet in a near-**** market what with fast pics players etc.

Now what i have used as an example happens in most races i should think, where there are players who follow such a strategy whereas the example that You use Ballabriggs, is an unlikely scenario although perhaps of a slightly higher probability than before.

Most of the negative response to my suggestion is to do with the consequences of winners not being paid out (ignoring the much greater number of losers), the loss of commission etc. Well, for my money that's just too bad and something you have to put up with. If a race is voided because something has occured which makes it necessary to void the whole race (as opposed to a single or small number of runners where a R4 can be applied) then to my mind that is less unsatisfactory than delberately creating a number of losers who have just as much right as anyone else to expect the same treatment as the next man.

What ballabriggs insinuates about BF's motives behind all of this, well I would have thought that none of us would use the "palpable error" rule in the face of a £23m payout. (I find that no palpable error get out for the player is an inescusable ommittance from the T&C - what is sauce for the goose is sauce for thhe gander.)

feck, your point about people who have conditional bets in other markets is a complete red herring with no logical reason to mention it other than to find a negative. Your argument is completely biased against either small players or "traders2 in favour of 2genuine liquidity players" and introduces value judgements about players which is totally irrelevent. We don't usually differ in view but in this I believe that your prejudices are showing. You know full well that I am not a trader but an opinion player and i would have to say that if i had been playing as backer then (on the winner) then I would be worse off under my argument. But that's life. We should be seeking a level playing field all round not arguing just from our own best interests which you clearly do.

ballabriggs, would allowing bets placed in the place market after the rogue bet hit the win market to stand not also be an incentive to mess up the win market in order to profit from the place market.

Would you not be better supporting the suggestion of Rollo's that I posted.

In what way Sandown?

There is a keep bet facility so why not a keep bet trade? In case in running isn't operating.

When someone backs pre-race intending to lay shorter they set the price and stake. If the horse wins it's usually safe to assume the bet was matched.

If someone lays pre-race to back higher, if the horse loses it's usually safe to assume the bet was matched.

The grey areas are lays at a shorter price that didn't win that may have had the price matched or backs that won that could have traded higher. There you could just say they don't count and are void or devise a way to decide prices were hit and bets matched. This could be using prices traded somewhere else or a panel decides on a price for each horse in running and bets are settled on that.

It means Betfair get commission in a situation they don't now. They don't necessarily make a profit because they stand the bets but at least more customers have less to moan about.

Feck
Because the back to lay or LtoB player has his risk reduced, the pre-off player doesn't.

Magician
The situation that occured was supposedly 1 in x million chance and to a level that was bigger in outcome than might possibly beimagined. The safe course of action was to completely void so that no-one benefited, no-one lost. The derivative markets could not be assumed to be uninvolved. A thorough investigation might take ages. Accident or design? Innocent or guilty? I wwould have played safe. hese were exceptional circumstances.

Rollo
The above comments apply.

Because the back to lay or LtoB player has his risk reduced, the pre-off player doesn't.

I don't understand that Sandown. The pre-off gambler gets what he wants the hedger gets nothing as he wasn't given the chance to close out. No advantage there. It doesn't matter to the gambler the race doesn't go in play.

Personally I think Rollo's idea adds further complexity to an already over complex site so I'd be against the idea unless it was something that had to be set in My Account or some equally obscure place.