Betfair's 'ex gratia' payments

The GC have just confirmed that's what they would've done as well. A spokesman said the only thing they would've done different was they wouldn't have told anyone their decision.

As defined only "winning" bets pre-fault are covered. Are those players who may have reduced their losses through their IR bets excluded? If so, why are they not treated equally?

Why are people who merely put up an IR hedging bet pre-race, which got taken, excluded when they would not themselves have knowingly taken advantage of the distorted market?

Why are people who played IR any of the other horses i.e other than the front 2, also excluded from the ex-gratia payment?

Is this ex-gratia payment possible only because the cost to BF is small or has a principle been established which would have been covered irrespective of the sum involved?

Sandown, my understanding of the above is they are paying out on all winning bets pre-glitch. i.e. lays of all losing horses as well. And why shouldn't they? These were indisputably fairly struck bets.

"In-play winning positions" will be interpreted as "net" position, won't it?

Good decision by Betfair imo.

Good that they're paying out on the place, that was always the worst part of the decision imo.

Shame in took the GGC to make this happen and not something Betfair were proactive about.

What this latest ruling means for bets a minute or more in, is:

People who laid VLV pre-race to back in running - Penalised
People who wanted to back VLV in running at any price - Penalised.
People who thought 29 VLV in running was worth chancing - Penalised.
People who backed any of the loser pre-race to lay back in running - Penalised
People who laid any of the losers in running - Penalised.
Betfair cross matching bot, if it backed losers or laid the winner - Very happy
Betfair who should stand all bets - Very happy.

In the earlier announcement it said:

"An investigation has revealed that this was due to an obvious technical fault which allowed a customer to exceed their exposure limit."

Their terms say bets over an exposure limit stand so why isn't any technical glitch that caused that to happen, totally irrelevant?

Morana's statement: "This is similar to the “palpable error” rule enforced by other bookmakers in the past." Wouldn't a “palpable” settle bets at best other market price not void them? That would be the 29 laid VLV in running on another exchange.

Betfair were quite happy to profit from the publicity and commission on this error:

“Fat fingered gambler loses £237,000.
Betfair spokesman Tony Calvin said: 'It looks as if the layer simply made a mistake, as all prices matched have to be confirmed before they are traded. 'The only alternative I could imagine is that the layer was using an automatic trading system, and that there was some kind of problem with it.”
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/26101-fat-fingered-gambler-loses-237-000

How can we know for certain what would have happened to the money gambled on VLV if it had lost? People who say punters should have known the 29 was wrong obviously haven’t seen what can happen on here. What if VLV had done a Topless or Capricho?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDFbu6tLlGI
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/horse_racing/2123534.stm

I do like the "We would like to take this opportunity to thank our customers and the GGC for their feedback" quote.
In an email, Betfair just told me to stop asking questions and that they wouldn't answer any more of my queries about the event.

Still, the latest announcement is an improvement. Betfair should never have voided the place market. I think the other arguments raised about "what if's" about back-to-lay players, people with positions etc are all a bit moot. It's similar to the inevitable arguments when the site crashes and people can't trade out of in-play bets.

What Betfair should have done IMO is paid out VLV backers at SP. It would have cost them little, and kept everyone happy.


(n.b. I had no bets on VLV. I had losing bets in the place market and actually saved money through the voiding of that market.)

How can bets over an exposure limit stand? that's not fixed odds betting as I know it and somnething akin to spead betting - which as we know is governed by the FSA. That clause in the t&c's needs serious re-evaluation.

john23,
Imagine a wealthy punter good for the money had exceeded their exposure limit and lost. Betfair would honour bets to the winners but want to chase the money from the loser, hence that term. The only difference here is that the amount is larger than the layer might be good for, or what they have honoured before.

So that means if anybody misclicks and it gets through BF can come for your house due to software error their end - they have two hopes.

People who laid VLV pre-race to back in running - Penalised
People who wanted to back VLV in running at any price - Penalised.
People who thought 29 VLV in running was worth chancing - Penalised.
People who backed any of the loser pre-race to lay back in running - Penalised
People who laid any of the losers in running - Penalised.
Betfair cross matching bot, if it backed losers or laid the winner - Very happy
Betfair who should stand all bets - Very happy.

There's a few of them wrong Rollo. What's happened is, betfair have effectively settled all place market bets and all win market pre-fault bets and then refunded losses to anyone who lost money in either of those two markets.

Feck,
I said "for bets a minute or more in"

Betfair said
"Bets matched in the ‘win’ market after the technology failure will remain void."

Apologies Rollo

So people who had £1k on Mourad in the first minute get their money back on a loser.

People after the minute who clicked to have £1k on the winner VLV (expecting say 2.9) don't get anything just because their bet came back matched at 29, through no fault of their own.

Betfair, Betfail or Betfoul?

I know it's a mess, but it is impossible to please everyone when any sort of fu occurs.

The amount refunded IR in that race to the void point will be minimal in the extreme. I would barely consider it as even a token gesture.
All along the decision to void the place was ridculous so again thats hardly a major concession.
All of this "in the interests of fairness"....hmmmmmmmmm

Does any one know where to find the official start time for the race please?

trevh is correct- you can't please everyone - the only other option is to ban all in running racing ,so make a decision as to  what you really want

Pleasing everyone isn't the issue imo. It's about how mugs are supposed to differentiate between everyday, seemingly spectacular ir odds and betfair c0ck ups. It's one thing your average mug only getting his ir tennis bet matched when his player loses the point but it's quite another when his ir horse racing bet is only settled if his horse loses.

The way you differentiate is now what Betfair's P/L looks like on the race in question. Gone are the days when Betfair was just the middle man taking a commission from the winner. In those days the more bets matched the better, voiding produced no income for them.

Now it could be, who won the money, how much PC do they pay, what's the cross matching bot's bottom line, how much will it cost us this time to stick to precedents about exceeded exposure limits we have set before, etc. It could take about 2.5 hours for the figures to be churned after a race.

It may stop a few court cases, the vast majority of people who were unaffected by the "concession" I expect will go ahead.

The moral of the story is, next time a VLV happens don't just back it, lay it as well. It's just like the city, you can only win.

Sorry, "lay it as well" should read "back all the others as well".

Why wouldnt the place market get voided? The prices in there are directly seeded from the win market -it's a pure derivative which was obviously being affected by the rogue bet. If it WASNT voided, can you imagine the amount moaning in here? Personally I disagree with paying anything out on that race, I would have stood by the void.

It was one race out of the whole day, the whole week, the whole month, the whole year(s) where something went seriously wrong beyond the odd dodgy decision by a steward or bent jockey. In any other industry, that kind of level of service would be considered impossibly good. I would certainly never expect it from my bank or sky or any other company I deal with.

Just don't mention Saturdays!

Just out of interest......

Did the guy whose account caused all this trouble lose his £1k balance?

I guess not as all bets matched after that bet was placed were voided.

Why wouldnt the place market get voided? The prices in there are directly seeded from the win market -it's a pure derivative which was obviously being affected by the rogue bet. If it WASNT voided, can you imagine the amount moaning in here?

Would you be in favour of voiding then if e.g. the racing post put up the wrong form for a horse then?


In any other industry, that kind of level of service would be considered impossibly good. I would certainly never expect it from my bank or sky or any other company I deal with.

While banks are renowned fraudsters I doubt they'd have the brass neck to have savings accounts where the interest rate was -100% but, if they did, would you be singing their praises if they refused to pay interest on an account they mistakenly listed as 2800%.

The one decision that means anything is the un-voiding of the place market. Why bf _ever_ thought that a market in which a rogue offer had not been put up shd have been voided is beyond me. Of course bot and derivative-pricing players are hurt, but they take that risk as a corollary of a mechanical, penny-scraping strategy.

Surely their risk management is good enough to be able to take a few pricing ricks in its stride?

Whatever the position of the skimmer, bf's default is apparently to favour people running just-better-than-breakeven algos, and to suppose these players their desired liquidity providers.

The final decision doesn't strike me as bad and was perhaps inevitable once the analogy with a palp was made. Every bf punter knows you never get the benefit of a palp if an out-of-line price goes against you in funny circs. Once you raise the spectre of that injustice, the decision to void in its entirety was never going to stand.

Bf need to get into a situation where more styles of winners (however they win) are in the position of providing them liquidity. At the moment they are doing a reasonable job accommodating late now-you-see-it-now-you-don't-winners. They are doing much less well with tissue and skill-based winners, even tho' on balance and in principle these people wd provide huge liquidity, given that prices on average move towards their estimate of true value. In other words, were it possible for tissue-players maximally to deploy their bank, it is likely that they wd be providing genuine liquidity to, and losing to or breaking even on, bf.

But bf are not interested in these players. All their decisions benefit people whose allegiance is more to winning than to the sport.

Eddie the eagle
13 Jan 12 11:15
Joined:
01 Feb 04
| Topic/replies: 4,559 | Blogger: Eddie the eagle's blog
I guess not as all bets matched after that bet was placed were voided.


It could be argued that the first £1k (or whatever amount was in his account) of liabilities should stand.

You're assuming "he" exists Gin.

Yes that's the thing isn't it, when the trust has gone it's a long road back.