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:
BTW "Night Alliance" in the 12:20 @ Newbury is top rated - it'll be up the top of the betting so I might have a little go on "Present To You" Pulled Up Pulled Up any price. Be Pluckier ;)
|
|
By:
Betfair may lose out by not explaining how £600m lay bet was accepted
If the betting exchange is confident of no repeat glitch, surely it has nothing to lose by revealing the technical problem Greg Wood guardian.co.uk, Betfair failed to address the question of how a £600m lay bet was accepted from an account with a balance of £800. Photograph: Graham Turner for the Guardian For a statement that Betfair hopes will be the "full and final" explanation of the bedlam that gripped the in-running market on Wednesday's Christmas Hurdle at Leopardstown, Friday's communication from Stephen Morana, the exchange's interim CEO, still seems to leave obvious questions hanging in the air. The statement contains as much of the "who?" and "why?" of the affair as the Data Protection Act will allow Betfair to reveal, though the answers may not be ones that many of those whose bets were declared void will want to hear or, indeed, believe. The client whose rogue "bot" caused all the chaos, Betfair says, was a small-time player with less than £1,000 in his account, a pretty ordinary Joe Punter, by exchange standards at any rate. The real significance of this is who he was not. This was not a hedging account operated by a bookmaking firm with unlimited credit, or an account connected to the "bots" which Betfair itself operates on the site. In either of those cases there might have been something for a smart lawyer to get stuck into regarding the £23m that around 200 Betfair clients appeared to "win" on the race. But the truth is that the £21m worth of 28-1 offered about Voler La Vedette was a mirage. Wishing it otherwise will make no difference. You cannot win – or lose – what is not there in the first place and even the most opportunistic ambulance-chaser is likely to take one look at this fact and point to the door. As for the "why", it cannot be a complete coincidence that – as was pointed out on Betfair's own forum within a few hours of Wednesday's race – the initial sum offered against Voler La Vedette was the highest possible in a 32-bit binary computer system. It may be that this is simply, by definition, a power of two, and that the rogue "bot" was operating a variant of the doubling-up "Martingale" system that has ruined so many roulette players down the years. But in some respects, how the bot arrived at its particular choice of bet and stake is much less important than the question of how on earth Betfair's system was able to look at a bet risking £600m against an £800 balance and cheerfully wave it through. There are plenty of Betfair customers using bots, after all, and their potential to do some very strange things if their code is not sufficiently tight is well known. Even non-automated Betfair punters – which numerically must be the great majority – get things wrong from time to time. Indeed, there are probably dozens of people every day who try to put through a huge bet that they cannot afford, just to see what happens. In all there may well be thousands of bets each week that get rejected because the account concerned does not have the funds to cover it. Yet this one got through. This is the "how" question, the one that really matters, and it is scarcely acknowledged in Friday's statement. Betfair says commercial sensitivity about its systems – and the possibility that some might look for other loopholes if it broadcast the exact reasons for Wednesday's debacle – means that it cannot go into any more detail. But this comes with a significant PR cost attached, since it may suggest to customers – as well as Betfair's many vocal critics – that it has something to hide. If it truly has confidence that its systems are robust, and that Wednesday's events can never happen again, why not be more forthcoming about the detail of how it managed to get this one bet so horribly wrong? The question that some customers of the exchange will be asking themselves now is: why should I trust Betfair, if Betfair does not trust me? |
|
By:
As SB's other blog on this was posted i think this should be on here as well..
springy 31 Dec 11 10:44 Sean Boyce's latest offering.... A Palpable Hit? Posted on December 31, 2011 More than 48 hours, and four statements, after the events during the Leopardstown 2.00 race on the 28th what do we know of what happened? Betfair has told us that the error has been identified, replicated, fixed and rigourously tested but they are still no nearer to actually describing it to us. Which is a shame. The account holder, we are told, has less than a grand in his account and no commercial link to Betfair. That’s fair enough and of course will be verified once the first cases arrive with IBAS. I would still strongly urge Betfair to open its books to an independent third party. They’ll have to do so with IBAS I’d have thought but they could win a lot of credibility by voluntarily bringing in a body like IBAS or the Gambling Commission to verify their own findings immediately. We are talking about more than £20 million of consumers’ ‘winnings’ which won’t be paid after all. At least though we can put to bed some of the theories that were circulating. The ‘glitch’ theory was always the most convincing. It does look like we’re dealing with ‘**** up’ rather than conspiracy here. Personally I’m most convinced so far by the 32 bit vs 64 bit miscommunication of code between customer bot and Betfair. It does not however resolve the situation. We know (very roughly) what happened but we don’t yet know what should happen next. It is likely that adjudication, negotiation and perhaps legal action will be required to do that. The most curious aspect of acting CEO Stephen Morana’s statement was this line; At 4.41pm on the 28th of December, we announced that the in-play markets associated with this race would be voided due to technological failure in accordance with our terms and conditions. This is similar to the “palpable error” rule enforced by other bookmakers in the past. It’s a fascinating choice of words. Partly for its inaccuracy – Betfair’s clause relating to technological failure appears to bear no resemblance at all to standard ‘palpable error’ rules as they normally appear. Partly too though for the departure it marks from Betfair’s entire settling history and what it tells us about where this story might lead next. Betfair has always resisted any attempt to apply the ‘palpable error’ rule to what happens on its site. That’s why no such rule, nor anything like it, appears in their rules or in their terms and conditions. I’m sure that every customer that has ever offered a palpably incorrect price on Betfair would love to see a palpable error rule applied in their favour. For example the layer who inadvertently offered 1000 about a short price favourite at the cost of £200,000. That’s before we even get to the correct score markets that are allowed to be traded even once they have become impossible to win on. As an error it only explains the amount staked. Not the price. We’re being told the customer’s bot made an error in its staking but that the price also constituted something obviously wrong. Which is it? There are other issues with Betfair’s reference to a ‘palpable error’. Plenty of people (and their robots) trade markets without even looking at the race. It’s the numbers that matter to them, not what’s happening on the track. In such an environment the idea of an error relative to what is happening on course is undermined. How is 29 obviously wrong when the favourite is trading at 20′s on? And of course, such traders are not alone. Betfair plays too. Betfair’s own cross matching robot does not watch the race but it does bet on it. Might the Betfair bot not in fact have been at least partly responsible for ensuring the overall percentages on the market remained apparently sensible? It may prove a little tough to claim ‘palpable error’ if you’ve been a backer and layer at those odds yourself. Besides which if 28/1 about a 13/8 shot is a rick how about the countless other errors offered by players on the site every single day? Errors that are quickly gobbled up by ever vigilant robots, including potentially those operated by the exchange itself. None of which is to prejudge how such a claim might be dealt with in the future. That would depend on how the case is made and supported but it is an interesting development nonetheless. A development which suggests Betfair is thinking along similar lines to me as regards the challenges they still face regarding this issue. Why, when they have the technological failure clause in their rules, would Betfair be looking to draw upon a rule that they don’t have but which most bookmakers do? I’ll look at the most serious challenge of all in my next post. Grab a beer and some popcorn. This story’s only just begun. http://boyciesblog.wordpress.com/2011/12/31/betfair-palpable-hit/ |
|
By:
Metinks Greg Wood believes the spin more than he should..
|
|
By:
You don't leave holes in your software application which can then be exposed via it's API. The bot did what bots do. The Betfair API allowed the bot to do what it did. Don't blame the bot, blame the idiot who left the hole - That's the Betfair technical people. Simple and the truth with no BS
|
|
By:
Make a mistake and phone up Betfair and tell them to cancel the bet and see what you are told....It wont be 'ok we'll do that'
|
|
By:
Betfair will not reveal technical glitch details
By Paul Eacott 8:21AM 1 JAN 2012 BETFAIR on Saturday said they would give no further details regarding the exact nature of the "technical glitch" which resulted in the exchange voiding bets worth £23 million. One Betfair customer, who had less than £1,000 in their account, was faced with that potentially massive payout after an automated betting system, or bot, attached to their account was able to place the rogue bet. Betfair promised that a "highly technical" explanation of what occurred would be published after internal investigations were completed but the Racing Post has been told that will no longer be the case. Interim chief executive Stephen Morana said in a statement on Friday that the decision to void all in-running bets placed on the Leopardstown race was taken in accordance with their rules and said it was "similar to the palpable error rule enforced by other bookmakers". That resulted in some of the exchange's users questioning whether they were liable for their errors. Clarifying Morana's point, Betfair spokesman Tony Calvin said: "Certain legal provisions are needed to protect online businesses such as ours, otherwise they would not be viable. "Stephen mentions ‘palpable error' because it is a concept many punters will be familiar with. We aren't specifically invoking that same rule but we are saying a business such as ours needs to have the ability to protect itself - legally and contractually - to be viable. "This is why our terms specifically say we can void markets/ bets if there is a technological failure. It is clear, concise and obviously very much needed." Calvin continued: "In our case, in our industry, Stephen - and we - thought a reference to the traditional bookmakers' equivalent of ‘palpable error' would help people to understand the point." .... |
|
By:
ttt
|
|
By:
It's not "technological failure" if your technical team don't fully test their software or their release processes, we call that "procedural failure" otherwise known as poor software delivery or in non-techie speak "p*ss poor".
Say what you wish it's p*iss poor. |
|
By:
Who's using bots, how many? A select few people? Bots sound like they are for people very much into Betfair, would a bot user only have a float of 1'000???
|
|
By:
Hooof
|
|
By:
Thousand percentage there are thousands...Just put Betfair Bot into Google or You Tube and you'll get a fair idea how may are on site.
|
|
By:
percentages1 - yes i instinctively find this very suspicious. anyone with the brains to have a bot working on their behalf would surely have a betting bank far in excess of a grand
|
|
By:
some old familiars on here. Did anyone ever get any recompense?
|
|
By:
I believe Powers never had Mr Smith priced as a runner in the 2:45 at Galway today.-20 minutes after he won the race the shops couldn't put up the full result on their screens.Needless to say Powers are doing the right thing for themselves and telling punters to fcuk off.
|
|
By:
They still do it to this day Eddie on here - spoke to Willie about chasing fc bets up when a late n/r resulted in bets being voided - if you backed a winning f/c its always voided but a losing one 9/10 times settled as a loser and you spend a day or so chasing it up as per their rules to have it correctly settled .
All the main betting companies have accounts on here - a business within a business- and thats one of the main reasons that Betunfair started charging PC IMO of course - but this very thread showed up "what was going on in the background"  |
|
By:
someone asked about this not long ago bap, a considerable time after the event I got a credit of a few hundred maybe 5-600 ish perhaps, I can't rem the exact amount, I also can't rem how much I stood to take out of vlv but is was a fair bit more than a few hundred
|
|
By:
hows health wiv g/f elise - hope shes doing ok wiv treatment
stay positive cos thats half the battle re this fiasco i was just voided on every bet and was around the time i lost my "shearer" status due to red tape  |
|
By:
cheers smirf, yes ok just drags on a bit but we'll get there, trust you're ok too?
|
|
By:
re the vlv thing, the biggest regret was that I knew it wouldn't pay out as it was happening, but the opportunity lay elsewhere because the cross matchers were screwing up daq and I never hit it hard enough, if i'd ditched bf and just done it all through daq i'd have bought a small island
|
|
By:
Off Zodie?
|
|
By:
was playing on no news is gud news theory but had a recent blood test for type 2 diabetes and results were all ova the place so checked on results from Nuffield - a private hossy from up here - and no report has yet been made some 3mths later
 - spoke to my surgeons secretary who is now chasing up ffs gotta phone back Thurs ps Stevies a gud lad as im sure ya know and he does respect ya even if ya give him stick for his pink porch  |
|
By:
steve's sound, he just doesn't like chancers and tbh nor do i
|
|
By:
even if he does drive a girls car
|
|
By:
anyway, gl with the results, going to get some kip as we're hoping to get away tomorrow if heathrow don't screw it up
|
|
By:
mouse - had this argument wiv Stevie regards forum these days
you and him were regulars on Zodies threads and othas were on Marts threads we are creatures of habit and we always go back to where "it happens" if ya get my drift i seem to hav become embroiled in a spat btwn you and Denz where he now has me as enemy number 1 but as long as........ itsme/denz https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7n53nIBb3g |
|
By:
sorry elise i was busy elsewhere. I too wish you both the very best & love to all. As for VLV, i'm glad you got something mucker, i was in contact with Rollo for a good while & i know there was legal steps taken by some including Zay. I got zilch, just an apology
Betquack was a godsend for me though |
|
By:
smirnoff you must be fishing/sh!t stirring this is beyond embarrassing how many times have you done this now?
Surely a stranger can't genuinely be niggling you this much,why are you making up spats with people please? Very poor,imagine if I was posting this sort of shyte to you who are you trying to kid? Hope your potential diabetes improves drop all animal products and all fats for starters that will help. |
|
By:
Denz as ive said elsewhere in a pm you are easy to smoke out cos you hav followed me about
im sure you are aware of following comment " on it like a car bonnet " cos thats wot you are wiv me giv ya sel a tick for that as for being obsessed about Mart well heres the thing - me and him go back 10 yrs on here at very least - ive even spoken to the nutter on the phone so please divnt embarrass yasel anymore as to who is obsessed cos its him who thinks im a barney putter on in his own words - you pull me up for questioning the dog bet - did you not think for a minute that i knew wot odds the dog was but "like you" i cant get a penny on wiv the books - his behaviour ova last mth suda cottoned ya on to wot he is and if ya think those fodo shopped bets from greggy are real then i doff my cap ydc |
|
By:
you are 2 yrs old on here and trust me its much calmer waters nowadays.......
but i stand to be corrected as always  |
|
By:
You never stand corrected,all things to all men one minute then somebody points out your error and you go off,that is fact it is still on here.
After which you go on about stalking,cancer,past forumites etc. why? You could've just looked and said 'aye the price is there but I think it's bolox'. As I put on another thread but now it's every day mentions,fake spats and allsorts of bolox to a stranger,you aren't kidding anyone you know it I know it and anyone who's read the other threads know it. Your ego is damaged if you want it this way that's fine but stick to truths rather than making things up. You haven't been pulled up like you could've been because you have been out of line from day dot on this one that is fact that can be retrieved and posted. FWIW my ego doesn't stretch to being bothered about arguing with strangers on anonymous forums it doesn't have much effect but waste time,life's too short but suit yourself no doubt you'll give me a mention to retaliate to again. |
|
By:
Almost forgot any news on the made up spat?
|
|
By:
We need a few more rucks on here, especially since Grimmy was last seen sneaking into the lifeboats on the Titanic with the women and children
|
|
By:
Well Richie some find it easy to make them up once their ego takes a rattle which says plenty,they seem to think others are equally bothered by strangers online hence lines like;
smirnoff2therescue • August 5, 2019 12:48 AM BST you are 2 yrs old on here and trust me its much calmer waters nowadays....... It is cringeworthy that a grown man would post this to a stranger online. |
|
By:
you are all ova me like a rash as is swad ova Stevie
i divnt lie on here bonny lad was called out by the daddy and answered affirmative i get it that gamblers hav egos but how can you that twists about getting on wiv books hav a go at someone that cant get on wiv the books and yet support a dreamer that mekks up on the spot - i assume you have read the recent MD posts - a lad i know well- regarding how PP works - i will say once again HE DIDNT TELL ME OR GLASGOW TO GET ON DOG FOR CHAMPION HURDLE UNTIL SEMI FINAL COS HE DIDNT EVEN KNOW IT WAS RUNNING -VARIOUS PMS WILL SUPPORT THAT FACT HTH Surely you aint that thick are ya - well clearly ya are cos you were burkoed |
|
By:
and wot happened to Grimy Kod
who was right and who was very wrong in all ways ooooooossssss |
|
By:
i divnt lie on here bonny lad
That is a lie there i get it that gamblers hav egos but how can you that twists about getting on wiv books hav a go at someone that cant get on wiv the books and yet support a dreamer that mekks up on the spot - i assume you have read the recent MD posts - a lad i know well- regarding how PP works - i will say once again HE DIDNT TELL ME OR GLASGOW TO GET ON DOG FOR CHAMPION HURDLE UNTIL SEMI FINAL COS HE DIDNT EVEN KNOW IT WAS RUNNING -VARIOUS PMS WILL SUPPORT THAT FACT HTH ShockedShockedLaughLaugh I never said I supported anyone over anyone else or the likes,all I showed was the date when the market went up and bookmakers were betting on it THAT IS IT. It was you who took a personal offence your posts changed very quickly which as was said was a surprise and you've continued since,read the posts back as I keep saying they are all there it is you who is at me which is undeniable. |
|
By:
Denz i read practically every thread on here -its my facebook/instagram woteva - -i retired in 2012 b4 illness got me
wots your story |
|
By:
Who mentioned Paddy Power? the only 'proper' bookmaker showing on Oddschecker priced on that date was Coral,as has already been established on that day.
|
|
By:
|