There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
28 Dec 11
21:37
Joined:
Date Joined:
05 Jan 10
Fury as Betfair void bets after in-running fiasco
By Paul Eacott racingpost.com
BETFAIR on Wednesday came in for fierce criticism from customers after they made the decision to void all in-running bets placed on a Leopardstown race after an incredible lay bet left a punter facing a theoretical £23 million payout
An internal three-hour long investigation into the fiasco concluded that usersof the site had suffered "a very poor customer and betting experience", after the decision was made to cancel all in-running bets placed on the race, in which winner Voler La Vedette was available to back at a price of 29 (28-1) as she crossed the line four and a half lengths clear.
A total of £1,642,094 was matched at that price after a lay bet of £21.3m was offered on the 13-8chance at 29 - which would have resulted in a whopping payout of almost £600m if it was all matched.
Betfair issued a threadbare statement which said the decision to void all bets was taken after it became apparent the appearance of the bizarre lay bet "was due to an obvious technical failure which allowed a customer to exceed their exposure limit."
Betfair spokesman Tony Calvin said: "It is an obvious error in the fact that the horse was 28 passing the line.
"To offer that kind of amount you would have to have £600 million in your account and anybody backing it at that price knew that something was wrong."
He continued: "It is clearly a technical failure that somebody somewhere was able to place a bet with that liability. Clearly nobody in their right mind would want to strike a bet like that."
The investigation into how the bet was able to be placed was continuing on Wednesday night and Calvin added: "In response to a number of customer questions on this matter, we would like to clarify that the account in question has no commercial relationship with Betfair other than being a customer."
Betfair's share price closed down 3.16 per cent on Wednesday at 781.50p.
By Paul Eacott racingpost.com
BETFAIR on Wednesday came in for fierce criticism from customers after they made the decision to void all in-running bets placed on a Leopardstown race after an incredible lay bet left a punter facing a theoretical £23 million payout
An internal three-hour long investigation into the fiasco concluded that usersof the site had suffered "a very poor customer and betting experience", after the decision was made to cancel all in-running bets placed on the race, in which winner Voler La Vedette was available to back at a price of 29 (28-1) as she crossed the line four and a half lengths clear.
A total of £1,642,094 was matched at that price after a lay bet of £21.3m was offered on the 13-8chance at 29 - which would have resulted in a whopping payout of almost £600m if it was all matched.
Betfair issued a threadbare statement which said the decision to void all bets was taken after it became apparent the appearance of the bizarre lay bet "was due to an obvious technical failure which allowed a customer to exceed their exposure limit."
Betfair spokesman Tony Calvin said: "It is an obvious error in the fact that the horse was 28 passing the line.
"To offer that kind of amount you would have to have £600 million in your account and anybody backing it at that price knew that something was wrong."
He continued: "It is clearly a technical failure that somebody somewhere was able to place a bet with that liability. Clearly nobody in their right mind would want to strike a bet like that."
The investigation into how the bet was able to be placed was continuing on Wednesday night and Calvin added: "In response to a number of customer questions on this matter, we would like to clarify that the account in question has no commercial relationship with Betfair other than being a customer."
Betfair's share price closed down 3.16 per cent on Wednesday at 781.50p.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 769
|
By:
but we allowed trading to carry on anyway,betfair hiding behind the 28,s still being available after the last,but they didnt see an obvious error with 8 to jump or would have suspended
|
|
By:
thats ok the. cheers Tony
|
|
By:
then
|
|
By:
agree poster the fat man should explain why no suspend
|
|
By:
what would hasppen if happened in the usa
|
|
By:
3 simple questions that MUST BE ANSWERED AND POSTED. Not an internal investigation. Everything must be out in the open otherwise Betfair will lose a lot of face.
Q1 Why was the bet not cancelled? Q2 Why was the suspend button not used when it was obvious an error had happened?. Q3 How was someone allowed to place the bet?. |
|
By:
Monkey asleep.
|
|
By:
so when i back a horse at 20/1 before it falls, is that an obvious mistake ?
|
|
By:
basically its codswallop.they should have voided race completely. still would have been wrong but people who bet pre race and trade out have been shafted
|
|
By:
and where would the money have gone had it lost I wonder...
I doubt anyones swallowing the idea that one customer somehow managed to lay the lot under an error. |
|
By:
A horse got beat in a photo at 1.02 that must have been an error too?
A horse looked like falling and went 1000 that must have been an error also? Errors happen everyday during in running except some of us have the haw maws to accept it and move on to the next race knowing that we have done our money. |
|
By:
- and the 'Customer' just blithely sat there, [b]unconcerned - without CANCELLING the "OBVIOUS" 'ERROR' bet."
Pull the other one BETFAIR. |
|
By:
i backed one the other day that had already fallen (with the delays) , can i have my money back please , it was an obvious error
|
|
By:
they should had suspended the race as soon as the £21m lay came up, they chose not to so they some explaining to do.
rather than a couple edited lines on a service fred.. |
|
By:
nobody in their right mind would want to strike a bet like that,reply of calvin betfair, just remember this when an ordinary customer presses a a lay instead of a back etc, your usual reply to that is , youll have to trade yourself out of trouble. bunch of big headed ****s to be honest
|
|
By:
Why is there no explanation as to why it was a 29 after the 1st hurdle. They keep coming out with the same bull, hoodwinking sky sports and others that it was only when the horse crossed the line.
Someone on the TV or in 1 of the papers should be asking that question? |
|
By:
There were no 29's on the place market , about £100 matched around 5 in a total maket of 44k . But it was voided too on "exposure limit " excuse . Patchy logic . Proper explanation please , otherwise Betfair will lose a lot of credibility ( equals liquidity ) .
|
|
By:
if calvin gives people the facts then they,ll be able to decide,at the mo he has the likes of mac,wood millington etc spinning the ,he might be a 10 quid punter thread,if it turns out he,s a high roller who often lays these high risk bets people wont go for the obvious mistake crap,its a mistake but only one of many made everyday,the customers background is the vital ingriedient here,he will be on here tomorrow with his bots wipping up everyone elses obvious mistakes
|
|
By:
Betfair faces backlash after in-running fiasco over Leopardstown Christmas Hurdle
Betfair, the biggest betting exchange, was last night dealing with a public and customer-relations disaster after it voided in-running bets on yesterday’s Christmas Hurdle at Leopardstown following the discovery of what it termed “an obvious technical fault”. The company, which was facing a payout of £23 million, apologised after angry complaints were lodged on its website forum. By Hotspur (JA McGrath) telegraph.co.uk Between 150 and 250 Betfair customers were affected after one account “went crazy,” offering astronomical odds about a winner even when, to most experienced race-readers, she looked certain to collect. The punter concerned did not have the funds to cover the liabilities, but the question outstanding is how it could have happened. The controversy centred on the winner of the race, Voler La Vedette, who was still being matched at 29 (28-1) as she crossed the line four and three-quarter lengths clear of Mourad, the runner-up. She had appeared to have the race in safe keeping a long way out, yet £1,642,094 was bet on her to win at ridiculously extravagant odds offered right up to the finish, resulting in a £23 million payout. More remarkably, a Betfair betting patterns graph showed that the sole punter had offered to take bets totalling £21 million on the mare, which would have led to a £600 million liability for the layer, had all the bets been accommodated. No foul play was suspected, but investigations were at an advanced stage last night on how sophisticated computer systems, with all their safeguards, could have failed in such spectacular style. Tony Calvin, spokesman for Betfair, said: “The lay bet appeared on the account and sat there, even after the race was over. The main area of investigation is how this bet was placed. At Befair, if you attempt to place a bet, and you don’t have the funds to pay out, then it is rejected. “There was still £21 million available [in lay bets] on Voler La Vedette as they crossed the line. Any punter seeing 28-1 about a winner crossing the line would have to say to themselves 'something is not right here’. This has never happened before, and we don’t know yet if it was by accident or design. “The investigation is on how it could have happened. He didn’t have anything near the amount [necessary] in his account, and no person in their right mind would have offered the lay bets [that he did].” Millions have been spent by Betfair in creating a punter-friendly profile, but last night that image was being challenged by irate punters, who called for the matched bets on Voler La Vedette to stand. Betfair has pointed out that the technical fault had permitted a customer to exceed his exposure limit, which is against company rules. Over the years, the firm has been at pains to point out that no credit betting is permitted, hence its decision to void all bets rather than meet the cost of 'the error’ itself. In a statement, Betfair said of the decision to void all in-running bets: “We fully appreciate the dissatisfaction this will cause many customers and apologise for a very poor customer and betting experience.” The news caused Betfair’s share price to drop from 805p at noon to 775p at 4pm. Martin Cruddace, Betfair’s legal director and company secretary, said: “It is clear that a technical fault has occurred, with no foul play suspected. While we have voided the in-running bets on the race following our investigations, we realise that is a hideous customer experience.” Betting in running is an activity that requires race-reading skills, knowledge of a horse’s running patterns, as well as quick reflexes. The remarkable feature in the Voler La Vedette case is that she would have been called the winner by most observers a long way from home. Andrew Lynch rode the most confident of races and the seven year-old, who was winning over three miles for the first time, responded by coming home a very comfortable winner. Voler La Vedette has now won 11 of 18 starts over hurdles and her trainer, Colm Murphy, is looking to suitable possible targets at Cheltenham. “She could go back to two miles or step up to three miles. She’s a different mare this year, as she settles so well,” Murphy explained. |
|
By:
toe the company line tony good luck with share price - new customers aint gonna be coming your way now.
|
|
By:
This is where they are stuck. Nobody believes they would have voided the bets if the thing had lost. Maybe they would but a lot more info is needed off them before a single poster on here will believe that.
|
|
By:
should the punters who laid it on betduck at big prices get there money back.
|
|
By:
I would be surprised if betfair new anything about the bet until the horses had passed the line. Quite probable that the customer new nothing about the bet until they had passed the line also, else clearly the customer would have cancelled it
|
|
By:
Betfair have screwed a lot of punters
|
|
By:
Imagine this had happened in a country where gambling was regulated.
|
|
By:
"Betfair has pointed out that the technical fault had permitted a customer to exceed his exposure limit, which is against company rules."
No it isnt? dont they say that it stands whatever.. |
|
By:
34 replies in 9 years Daz. Not very talkative are you.Surely Betfair don`t employ people who can`t spell knew though.
|
|
By:
This 'explanation' has more holes in it than a Colander.
It makes some of the MP's fairy tales re: their devious behaviours and expenses claims appear plausible. 'PULL THE OTHER ONE' BETFAIR |
|
By:
I don't know, someone or something has to go. To anyone or even everyone on here we knew with 2 to jump this is a major c*** up, no one is going to get paid" but there's a lot of irate punters who aren't going to let it lie.
|
|
By:
The few times I've made an obvious error all I've got is the spiel about caveat emptor.
The only thing different this time is the decimal point. |
|
By:
exceed his exposure limit, which is against company rules."
they just put your account into minus figures don't they, amd expect you to deposit the difference  |
|
By:
it was an obvious error. doesn't mean bet shouldn't stand though. i laid 22/1 about an even money shot last week pre race, another obvious error - that wasn't voided though.
|
|
By:
Betfair T&C's
Minimum and maximum bet stakes Depending on the product or type of market you are betting on and depending on the currency that you are betting in, there are minimum bet sizes that apply. These minimum bet sizes are subject to change and may differ depending on whether you are on our site or using the Telephone Betting Service. You are not permitted to place bets or try to place bets that are below the minimum bet size threshold and doing so may result in your account being permanently closed. Your betting limit is represented by the lesser of: (i) your 'Available to Bet' balance shown in your account and (ii) your ‘Exposure Limit’ (which is available in the “Account Summary” tab in “My Account”). However in the event that we process an offer for a bet or the acceptance of a bet in an amount outside the applicable thresholds, such bet will nevertheless stand. |
|
By:
It is quite clear that betfair do not have the technology to operate the in-running monster with 100% security or foolproofness and it should therefore be discontinued with immediate effect
|
|
By:
Anaglog - I backed the winner at 28's before jumping the 2nd
|
|
By:
hotspur talking his usual shoite,when the 29,s 1st appeared it was a very good value bet but it wernt no go and collect gimmie,it had a walsh ridden fav to beat,8 hurdles to jump and prove it stayed,journo,s letting betfair off lightly hear with this home for all money carp
|
|
By:
hotspur talking his usual shoite,when the 29,s 1st appeared it was a very good value bet but it wernt no go and collect gimmie,it had a walsh ridden fav to beat,8 hurdles to jump and prove it stayed,journo,s letting betfair off lightly hear with this home for all money carp
|
|
By:
didnt see or hear the commentary, what prices should the winner have been with 2 to jump, and what price was freely available then
|
|
By:
id like to bet that if aussie jim had been commentating he wouldnt have been calling it the winner a long way out!
|