There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 769 comments are related to the topic:
Tony Calvin: "It is an obvious error"
Tony Calvin: "It is an obvious error"
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 769
|
By:
Don't have to join the forum to view you nark.Now get back to the real world !!
|
|
By:
Betfair loses £40m on Leopardstown after 'technical glitch'
More than £40m has been wiped off the value of Betfair since the Christmas Hurdle at Leopardstown on Wednesday, after the peer-to-peer gambling business angered customers by cancelling hundreds of bets because of a "technical fault". Shares in the company fell 20½ to close at 760p today. By Katherine Rushton 8:11PM GMT 29 Dec 2011 Betfair faced a payout of £23m on the 2pm horse race after it offered "obscenely" favourable odds on Voler La Vadette, even halfway through a race it was clearly winning. Bets made on site started at 13-8 and were being matched at 28-1 on as the horse crossed the finishing line. However, Betfair voided all in-race bets 40 minutes after the event had finished, claiming that one of its punters had been allowed to "exceed their exposure limit" because of a technical glitch. According to a Betfair graph, the customer had offered to take up to £21m of bets, leaving themselves potentially liable for a payout of £600m, although just £1,642,094 had been placed on Voler La Vedette by the time the race had finished, exposing the customer to a loss of £23m. Ralph Topping, chief executive of rival gambling firm William Hill, joined furious Betfair customers in suggesting that may have voided the bets to help a customer that had gambled badly. In a blog published under the weblink, "betfair-y tales", Mr Topping said: "This particular cracker begs the question whether a substantial layer (let's call her Widow Twankee, shall we?) got very exposed, and I mean very exposed, and had to be bailed-out by their host with a waiver – of their magic wand or of the contract terms? I leave you to do decide." Betfair declined to respond to Mr Topping's specific comments, but insisted the episode was down to a technical fault, which it is still investigating. "We apologise for a very poor customer and betting experience," it said. Shares in the company fell 20½ to close at 760p today, down from the just above 800p level they trading at at the time of Wednesday's Leopardstown race. |
|
By:
Still no proper news from Betfair Service ( post 4 ) . Cant understand how they can send coherently logical replies to e-mails in this situation when they still , apparently , according to their own posts , cant explain the happenings . But they have been offering a straight bat to queries . Maybe thats the way plcs all operate . Always thought of Betfair as different in that regard . Things change .
|
|
By:
Ralph Topping joins the fray..A fine upstanding citizen..That hole is getting so deep that shortly I will have to go into my Australian wallet to post !!
|
|
By:
even halfway through a race it was clearly winning.
I am getting more and more perturbed.. You are not helping, Katherine.. |
|
By:
Betfair's board meeting today will have had some sort of Risk Management exercise, ignoring the rights and wrongs of the situation. Options:
a) if we don't pay, how much will our share price fall and when will it recover. Will significant customers leave and join another exchange b) if we pay, will our share price suffer from a £20m+ payout and how will it affect our shareholders' dividend payment. Can we increase the Premium Charge to make up for the shortfall without forcing winning customers away No morality or justice involved. Just which option will minimise share price fall and reduction of dividend |
|
By:
Again reiterating my take on this matter
Its not just the people backing Voile who have been penalised plenty would have been backing other horses in race and trading off. All of these in running bets have been voided. Betfair has made commission on a market where only pre race odds were only ever available. They then allow the in running market to stay open all day for other races, they have then mentioned they realise the error and have rigourously tested this over night. They are a Stock Exchange company whose shareholders are losing out whilst they prepare some legal statement on this matter seeing nearly 5% wiped off. Its a complete car crash of an exercise here, FSA will be involved they have no option, customers I could almost guarantee will be getting recompense in some way for this. A logical suggestion would be to honour all bets made pre race on winner, all money back on the losing selections pre race for the other runners, as people had no option to trade positions. All bets free of commission charges as it would be embarassing to charge for this pre race for winner. A suitable form of compensation to the punters who punted voile in running to be decided that. This I would suggest would be the likely outcome of events based on how major companies operate and How FSA would look at this from a TCF treating customers fairly standpoint. |
|
By:
The obvious soloution to this whole mess is to contact the Irish Minister for Finance and ask if he will agree to pay the punters what they are owed. 1.01 he says yes.
|
|
By:
FFS THE DIVIDEND CANT GET MUCH SMALLER 1% just cancelled my buy @ 640p now will buy at 520p
|
|
By:
this company is forcast to make only £33m this year and pays a very poor 1% dividend so will fight tooth and nail to have zero cost, the more I think of it 280p share price might be the target
|
|
By:
Ralph Topping from Hills jumps on the bandwagon, the man who's company close your acc if you back a few horses that shorten, and who's managers are under strict orders to harrass punters and lure them into THE CRACK COCAINE OF GAMBLING by playing on the FOBTS...Not defending BF,Think its an absolute PR Disaster,made worse by sending TC on ATR guessing the answers, Its like asking the cast of TOWIE to
work out a £1.00 win on a 4-1 winner.  |
|
By:
A spokesperson for 'no win, no fee’ solicitors Bolt Burdon Kemp, who were supposed to have advertised their services on the Betfair forum, said they had received a few calls. “As far as we’re aware no one from our office posted anything on the Betfair site,” she said. “It [representing punters in a case against Betfair] is not something we will be dealing with.”
|
|
By:
I had no interest in the race but my confidence in Betfair is further lowered.This is the top of a pyramid of accidents that have occurred in recent months and has dented faith in their software but mainly their management.Only last week a runner had to be reinstated after a race as it was mistakenly taken out of an American race with certain bets voided.Yesterday,if the market had been closed as soon as the malfunction happened the liability would have been minimal.They may have been able to pay out without losing a large sum and with little fuss.The race lasted 6 minutes with 29 on offer for most of that time.If glitches happen they appear clueless on what to do,including how to recover with suitable PR.
|
|
By:
Betfair blame technology and unique set of events for £600 million betting market chaos
On Thursday, a contrite Betfair issued more apologies and stated that it was a technical problem which brought about its decision to void all in-running bets on the Christmas Hurdle at Leopardstown the day before. By Marcus Armytage telegraph.co.uk 10:30PM GMT 29 Dec 2011 However, disgruntled punters were still waiting on Thursday night – more than 36 hours after the race was run – for Betfair to announce the details of why Voler La Vedette, an easy winner, was able to be offered at 28-1 in-running. This trade would have left one 'small-time’ customer with a theoretical £23 million payout and potential liabilities of £600 million had the betting exchange not intervened and voided the in-running market. Tony Calvin, Betfair’s spokesman, ruled out sabotage and said that a technological fault and a unique set of events had allowed one small-time customer to exceed his exposure limits, something which should not happen with Betfair’s software. “The problem,” Calvin insisted, “was specific to one account and unique activity on that account. When anyone places a bet they must have the funds to cover those bets in their account – it’s in our terms and conditions of our business – and he’d have to have £600 million in his account.” Calvin added that Betfair had thoroughly investigated on Wednesday and that a fix had been put in place to prevent a replication of events. This was being thoroughly tested on Thursday. “That specific problem won’t be replicated,” he insisted. “It's very embarrassing. Call it a chain of events, a glitch or a bug, it shouldn’t have happened and a monkey will write the works of Shakespeare before it is replicated. And, contrary to what has been suggested, the bets would have been voided whether Voler La Vedette had won or lost.” A spokesperson for the Gambling Commission, whose aim is 'to keep gambling fair and safe for all’, said that though aware of the problem and in touch with Betfair, it was not the commission’s policy to comment on individual cases. Its website advising online punters carries a large banner-heading 'buyer beware’. This is advice horsemen have been practising when purchasing bloodstock since time immemorial. However, one Betfair punter, who was playing at the time of the problem, challenged the betting exchange to prove it was not a trading programme – known as a 'bot’ – gone wrong. “It has all the hallmarks of an automated trade by a big layer, who made a mistake, and is being protected by Betfair. It doesn’t look like a strange punter with a strange bet as they are saying,” he said. A spokesperson for 'no win, no fee’ solicitors Bolt Burdon Kemp, who were supposed to have advertised their services on the Betfair forum, said they had received a few calls. “As far as we’re aware no one from our office posted anything on the Betfair site,” she said. “It [representing punters in a case against Betfair] is not something we will be dealing with.” |
|
By:
This further delay is so they can double and triple check with their lawyers that they dont put their foot in it any more and word it in such a way as to be as bullet-proof as possible.It doesnt take this long to know what matt chapman put to him,if he/they dont know by now then they cant be taking it as seriously as they should.
|
|
By:
Good to see that the Betfair "Service" (sic) postings are well abreast of the situation.....
29th December 12.28 - "Quite simply, we made the decision (to void) after we were in FULL possession of ALL the facts"......My capitals! 29th December 20.30 - "We are still finalising our investigations"..... AFTER WHICH WE EXPECT TO BE IN FULLER POSSESSION OF EVEN MORE OF ALL OF THE FACTS.....My capitals. |
|
By:
 that is priceless blackbarn.... and may be quite useful to those who may like to take this further.!!!! |
|
By:
IBAS is free you know
That's like going to to St James Gate in Dublin to ask should i drink Gu!ness or water |
|
By:
I think Betfair will in their own time sort it out and make some sort of generous gesture to all the punters affected.
|
|
By:
They are only going to ban them for 3 months instead of 6 for been greedy
|
|
By:
Betfair's £23m betting liability was caused by small-scale customer
• Software glitch allowed account to exceed limit • 'Unique set of events allowed this to happen' Greg Wood guardian.co.uk, Thursday 29 December 2011 The Betfair betting exchange said on Thursdayyesterday that its technicians had identified and fixed the software flaw that caused the in-running betting on Wednesday's Christmas Hurdle at Leopardstown to be declared void. Voler La Vedette, the easy winner, was available to back at odds of 28-1 from early in the race until she crossed the line, causing £800,000 to be staked on the mare worth a total payout, in theory, of nearly £23m. Tony Calvin, Betfair's spokesman, also launched a defence of the exchange's response to the unprecedented betting activity on the Leopardstown race, in an interview with At The Races. While he acknowledged that the episode had been "highly embarrassing and an unacceptable betting experience for people", Calvin said that "there was a unique set of events that allowed this to happen". Calvin speculated that an automated trading programme, or "bot", had almost certainly been responsible for placing the rogue bet into the exchange, but confirmed that Betfair itself operates in-house bots on the exchange. He also said that Betfair, which now operates its exchange via Gibraltar to avoid betting duty, had nothing to hide from Britain's betting regulators. "If the Gambling Commission want to come and have a look, that's fine," he said. "We're always honest and transparent." Calvin's interview also suggested that punters who are dissatisfied with the way that the issue has been handled could take their concerns to the Independent Betting Arbitration Service (IBAS), which resolves disputes between punters and betting operators. Betfair is expected to release an extensive and final report on the incident on Friday, but in a statement issued early on Thursday afternoon, the exchange said that "we have identified the issue and replicated it in a test environment last night. A fix was applied overnight, and is now subject to rigorous testing." The statement added that "contrary to some media speculation, we can confirm that all in-running bets on this market would have been voided, had Voler La Vedette won or lost. There was never any chance of the account in question profiting yesterday. The account in question was also immediately suspended after the Leopardstown race." The identity of the Betfair customer who placed the rogue bet remains the subject of speculation, though the account is believed to have been operated by an individual client with a modest balance, rather than a bookmaker seeking to hedge liabilities or an account linked to the exchange itself. "If you're looking for a £1m-plus customer, you would be barking up the wrong tree," Calvin said when questioned on ATR. "People think we are protecting the customer, but that is not the case." The bizarre betting patterns on Voler La Vedette's race, and the decision to void bets which left a number of Betfair's customers believing they had been denied a generous payout, came at the end of a difficult year for the betting exchange. Its share price has been stuck below £8 for many months, well adrift of the £13 at which the exchange floated in October 2010. A number of senior staff, including Ed Wray, Betfair's chairman and one of its co-founders, and David Yu, its chief executive, have either left the company or are in the process of doing so, while in September, Betfair left a number of customers disappointed when its software failed to process a significant number of bets, including some winners, into the biggest Tote Jackpot pool in history. The most damaging long-term effect of Betfair's latest PR disaster, however, could be a loss of trust on the part of its customers. The phantom money put up against Voler La Vedette was too obvious to miss, but some may now wonder whether the everyday sums too are really what they seem. The events at Leopardstown could also increase awareness of the extent to which the day-to-day activity on the site is controlled by bots, rather than "ordinary" punters with a laptop or a smartphone. And any betting operation that loses the trust of its customers is on a slippery slope. |
|
By:
anag is there a link to the Tony Calvin interview with Chappers please?
|
|
By:
The papers aren't easing up either
|
|
By:
Sorry Elvis, No but i'm sure it'll be on tomorrow morning around 11am-1pm on ATR
|
|
By:
Betfair face storm over bets fiasco as gambling exchange sees share price tumble By Marcus Townend
Betfair say they would be happy to discuss issues surrounding Wednesday’s void bet fiasco with the Gambling Commission. The betting exchange was battling to limit the damage to its reputation as conspiracy theories swirled around the gambling world as to what caused a client to expose himself to a possible £600million pay-out. Betfair said they had fixed the technological glitch that had allowed a lay bet on Voler La Vedette in Leopardstown’s Christmas Hurdle that saw the client offer to lay over £21m at 28-1 on the winner on the ‘in-running’ market as it strode over the line. The nature of the account was the subject of fevered speculation as Betfair denied the meltdown was caused by an in-house automated system. Punters who have not been paid accused the company of hiding behind its terms and conditions in voiding all in-running bets. Betfair spokesman Tony Calvin said: ‘We are an honest and transparent business and should the Gambling Commission contact us and want to discuss this matter, our door is always open but I think we have enough integrity and confidence in our market to deal with this in house. ‘It was a unique set of events. These have been replicated and fixed.’ The urgent need to clear up the issue was reflected in Betfair’s share price. It fell 25.5p on Wednesday and by a further 20p (2.6 per cent) on Thursday. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/racing/article-2080013/Betfair-face-storm-Leapardstown-glitch.html#ixzz1hyCuD9ye |
|
By:
As many have said before if £10 had been matched at the odds nothing would have been said. Thus it is down to the amount pure and simple. Where is this defined? It isn't. So there can be no excuse for Betfair not to payout. Whether they in turn make their client pay out is up to them. If this happened on any of the stock market exchanges throughout the world would they be allowed to get away with this. No way. Betfair say it was obviously an error. Why? simply due to the amount. Betfair has handled bets themselves in excess of £10 million. They have operated a sports betting service for high staking players and have had liabilities in the £££££ millions probably without many internal staff knowing let alone the exchange clients. It is about time they come clean about how they operate. They should pay up and use it as a good PR for the service as opposed to this disaster.
|
|
By:
It was an obvious error - A glitch in something
|
|
By:
FFS........seems like Dugan and Duvet might have a point about the average IQ of BF forumites.Just as well the few keep the numbers in double digits......we can take a bow inono.nap   |
|
By:
gamling commission invited to discuss issues
1 was this client 18 yrs plus 2 was this client aware of GamCare helpline 3 tea and biscuits END OF |
|
By:
Also falling for a second consecutive day was Betfair, down 21.5p at 760p. The online betting exchange, which lets punters bet against each other, suffered a minor public relations disaster after it voided all bets on a race at Leopardstown's Christmas meeting. Betfair had mistakenly offered odds of 28-1 because of a computer error. Cue angry tabloid headlines about Betfair punters being denied a payout of £23m.
Other gambling firms fared better, notably 888 Holdings, up 2.8p to 42p, as analysts reckon it should benefit from the possible relaxation of US online gaming laws by the Department of Justice. The company said it should be a "major beneficiary" and broker Panmure Gordon even felt moved to put out an analyst's note — a rare move between Christmas and New Year — which raised its target price for 888 Holdings to 63p. Fellow online gaming firm BWin Party, which surged more than 20 per cent on Wednesday after the DoJ's news, held on to some of those gains, slipping only 1p to 159p. |
|
By:
This is from another forum who's link or name I'm not allowed to post
 but it seems to be the most plausiable excuse if it's correct cos it's all gobbledygook to me The amount of the lay bet was 2^31-1 pence (2 raised to the power of 31 minus 1). This is the largest number that can represented by a signed 32 bit integer and it is no coincidence that this was the lay amount. My guess as to what happened is that the customer was using their own software via either the API or the web interface. In either case there would be no sanity checks, by the customers software, before submitting bets. On the customers side, their software has mixed and matched signed and unsigned 32 bit and 64 bit integers. When you do this you can start off with -1 and end up with 2^31-1 (2147483647) pence. The program has then submitted this as a Lay at 29. On Betfairs side, the software, has received the bet, checked that the odds are okay and the amount is okay and then calculated whether the customer has the funds to cover the bet. This calculation has multiplied 2147483647 by 28 and compared the result with the customers balance. Unfortunately for betfair they have used a 32 bit signed integer for the calculation and this has resulted in an overflow and so instead of the calculated exposure being £601,295,421.16 it has been £-0.28. Since the customer had a positive balance they allowed the bet through. By assigning and re-assigning between 32 bit and 64 bit signed an unsigned integers the sign bit (the first one) got dropped and the number changed from: 11111111111111111111111111111111 ( -1 in binary ) to 01111111111111111111111111111111 ( 2147483647 in binary ) The fix will have involved a simple check on the exposure calculation to ensure an overflow doesn't occur. |
|
By:
This has already been posted on a forum I am allowed to post - namely the Betfair forum.
|
|
By:
Shhhh dont mention names and sleep with your eyes open.
 |
|
By:
i laid the winner for a place at1.45 and then backed it at 4.6 to make profit in running. when i saw could be backed at 29 i had £11 on it to win 300.RESULT! then the inrunning bets were voided but my original lay bet wasnt so i actually lost on the race! how fair is that?!
|
|
By:
i laid the winner for a place at1.45 and then backed it at 4.6 to make profit in running. when i saw could be backed at 29 i had £11 on it to win 300.RESULT! then the inrunning bets were voided but my original lay bet wasnt so i actually lost on the race! how fair is that?!
|
|
By:
On the basis of being fair to ALL customers it can be argued that Betfair should also have voided the pre race bets as lots of people like the last poster bet pre race and trade in running , particularly in a 3 mile plus hurdle .
From e-mails , Betfair have stated they voided the place market "for consistency" . However there is no reference to rogue amounts being input or appearing . Only comment that could be made is that some in running players operate automatic place market offers based on the win market figures . If they did , tough , offset it against the profits these "sharper minds" have won from those of us who do not operate that way . Caveat emptor is a principle often quoted by Betfair , time to live up to the slogan this time in my opinion . Cant see why those who laid the losers in running have been left with no profit , they did not participate in any sharp practice or seek to gain advantage . Hopefully Betfair will think again re some of the points raised by posters ( even if some of their staff "try not to " read the posts ) . Think the initial shock reaction to the situation by management was incorrect and badly thought out . You cant take decisions when you are not in posession of all the facts , cardinal principle . Not applied so far . |
|
By:
The conclusion is totally dodgy practices, either because of horrendous software delivery (severe lack of testing) or other worse FBI type dodge.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
“That specific problem won’t be replicated,” he insisted. “It's very embarrassing. Call it a chain of events, a glitch or a bug, it shouldn’t have happened and a monkey will write the works of Shakespeare before it is replicated. And, contrary to what has been suggested, the bets would have been voided whether Voler La Vedette had won or lost.”
|
|
By:
I still don't understand why any funds in that account wouldn't have been divvied up between the 100 or so people who took advantage of the error. This is no different than snaffling 1000 when the track announcer calls the wrong faller and should be treated as such.
|