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:
I've also exceeded my exposure limit. The account froze, but the market wasn't voided.
It might help a little if we heard from Mr Fat Fingers. |
|
By:
£1000's offered on every horse :@ 1.01 early doors all horses waiting for the ricket, some get matched, can backers claim technical error.
NOT LIKELY. |
|
By:
I wish they would stop feeding us this crap about everyone backing the horse as it crossed the line
I backed the horse after 2 hurdles. Ive also backed plenty of horses down the years at big prices which have been going well and its turned out theyve taken the wrong course etc. If you see a big price you no the risk you are taking. Now please stop patronising us about the everyone backed the horse as it crossed the line garbage |
|
By:
home for all money
 |
|
By:
Explain the PLACE market and the horse trading at 5.1 when still second last???
|
|
By:
i backed the horse at 2.02
fed up with the people that think everyone backed it near the finish. |
|
By:
I missed the first 3 hurdles, so only had a fraction of my bank at 29s. Always the possibilty the horse had lost its weightcloth or missed a hurdle, but I was prepared to take that risk. Shame the layer never had to take any risk.
|
|
By:
Name the layer? Another Nick Lee............
|
|
By:
indeed
|
|
By:
fat man calvin would you say that in court i think not
|
|
By:
for someone who cant spell knew, Daz7 actually makes a decent point.
|
|
By:
We must vote with feet until Betfair learn???
|
|
By:
The biggest joke about it is, if this person for some reason isn`t a phantom punter (sorry customer) and is actually real (stay with me for a second) he has been ripping everybody off for years and now caught he gets off Scot Free.
|
|
By:
who gets credit????
|
|
By:
http://www.sportismadeforbetting.com/2011/12/its-all-gone-pete-tong-at-betfair.html
|
|
By:
if it was a fat fingered joe punter i think he would have been on here by now explaining where he went wrong,its prety obvious it was a high roller ,bot using,fast pics pro ,who preys on joe punters above
|
|
By:
Didn't warrick Hunt do his conkers on a silly mistake, they didn't void those bets
|
|
By:
what if this bet was made blindly, listening to irish comm, etc might have said that voler was well held etc, or made bad mistake, personally i admit i have backed blindly by just looking on i/ r on here, i might well have backed mourad if it was 1.04, thinking it was weighed in
|
|
By:
Voler La Vedette (IRE) 13/8 7 11-3 t C A Murphy 151 * *
A E Lynch Held up towards rear, headway into 3rd before 3 out, travelled best to challenge entering straight, soon led and shaken up to assert before last, kept on well run-in, comfortably (op 11/8) « 2 4¾ Mourad (IRE) 4/5F 6 11-8 W P Mullins 156 * * R Walsh Tracked leader in 2nd, headway to lead after 3 out, strongly pressed and headed early straight, soon no impression on winner, kept on same pace (op 11/10) |
|
By:
http://blog.highclassequine.com/2011/02/i-wonder-if-he-feels-any-better-about.html
Famous losing bet. This is an old post from 9th June 2007 but quite a strange story so a good read. The betfair forum is an unforgiving place and there was not a lot of sympathy for the prohibitive odds-on, in-running big-hitter “Warwick Hunt” after he claimed to have laid of £150 at 1000 (999-1) about the 17-2 winner Metal Detector – that is risking £149,850 to win £150 - in the 8.40 at Towcester last night. And, with a staggering £332 (£166 backed; £166 laid) matched at the Betfair ceiling 1000 price on the winner of the 3m handicap chase, many were inclined to believe he did in fact suffer the six-figure loss he was claiming. While you can never second guess punters reasoning for backing at the price extremities on betting exchanges, the forum pointed the finger firmly in the direction of the commentator, who called the horse a faller at the first. However, a £149,850-lighter Warwick was quick to start a thread entitled ‘yes it was me….and no blame to tommo”. The much-maligned regular poster is renowned on the Betfair forum for backing in-running “sure things” at 1.01 (1-100) and laying “no-hopers” at 1000 – and letting his fellow forumites know in no uncertain terms afterwards by cutting and pasting his bets for all to see. But as is always the case on betting exchanges - where this is a winner and a loser on every bet matched - two men’s in-running pain (there was another £16 layer at 1000) was others gain, as three Betfair backers scooped a small fortune as Metal Detector raced to an 18-length win. One £138.96 Betfair backer netted an astonishing £138,821.04, and another £24,975 for just a £25 stake. However, Betfair always gives punters the best price at the time of the bet placement, a process called best-price execution, and the story of the third winner was arguably even more heart-warming. One Canadian punter asked to back $4 at 12 (11-1) about Metal Detector, but he certainly struck gold as his bet was matched at 1000. He ended up winning $3,996 when he would have been willing to settle for just a $48 return!!! |
|
By:
Warwick lost £149k on a horse called Metal Detector in 2007 after Thommo called it a faller.
|
|
By:
"IF it was a far fingered joe punter"
------------------------------------ Still think it is far more likely to have been an 'in-house' BOT ... 'Cross-Matching', et al. ANY Human would NOT just simply sit there - and let the LAY RIDE..... But a BOT could - or WOULD - If it 'thought' it was complying to programing. |
|
By:
Bugsy they gave credit b4 this disaster. Only to the so called Golden boys though (allegedly)
|
|
By:
typical arrogance from betfair & its hierarchy.
|
|
By:
Here's another one of those simple errors where the punter had to pay
A BETFAIR player lost £237,000 on Saturday night when laying winning favourite Peregrine Falcon at odds of up to 1,000-1 in a maiden race at Wolverhampton. The punter was taken on by three others - including one who traded £209.79 - before the Mark Johnston-trained two-year-old landed the 1m contest. That transaction cost the layer over £200,000, having been confirmed and authorised inside the opening furlong, yet Peregrine Falcon was returned at an SP of just 15-8. Betfair spokesman Tony Calvin said on Sunday: "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." Betfair punters have to lodge sufficientfunds in advance to cover the trades they make, a fact which suggests the layer concerned is a large and regular player. Calvin added: "Obviously, I cannot reveal the names of any of our clients, but nothing untoward is considered to have taken place,other than a genuine error on someone's part |
|
By:
If they are lying and it was them not a customer,surely they risk an employee who is leaving anyway flogging the story.
|
|
By:
Betfair spokesman Tony Calvin said on Sunday: "It looks as if the layer simply made a mistake, as all prices matched have to be confirmed before they are traded
|
|
By:
Pick and choose who to pay and who to void, koo also backed one that was called a faller (which didn't fall, same colours) at 1000 for a couple of hundred - they didn't help that layer out either did they?? Neither should they....
|
|
By:
Going to bed, wake up in the morning and it'll be all gone, no posts on the subject... it was just a weird dream
|
|
By:
The press preview is on Sky News now, i'm sure it'll be brought up.
|
|
By:
If you have the funds then you pay, if you dont then its void.
Its not really picking and choosing who pays or doesnt. |
|
By:
Sadly, Anaglogs - It would only get on the Sky News Press Review ...
If it turned out to be Simon Cowell's account. |
|
By:
The difference between the the examples stated above and today is that the layer had the money in his account to cover the liability. The problem today is the layer doesn't have the money in his account to cover the liability. And I don't for a second believe this is an 'individual' but a coropration (i.e. large bookmaker) automatically hedging liabilities and Betfair are covering for them because they do not want to admit that certain corporations are allowed to trade on credit.
|
|
By:
the layer should lose their account balance, wheather thats £10 or 23m so be it.
|
|
By:
i'm not sure whether some small countries could cover 600m let alone laddies deep
|
|
By:
Tony Calvin is one 2 faces BARSTEWARD. What's the difference Tony today and the quotes u made above regarding mistakes??? I for one will be getting my legal team involved. I want answers from Betfair. I've got a bit of finance behind so I'll go a bit to get the truth. Punters/Traders on here should be asking questions
|
|
By:
this 23 million is very probably small fish to the customer, bookies etc, how many on here have lost by doing a genuine error and lost a small fortune, with the reply , sorry its your own fault by betfair
|
|
By:
this 23 million is very probably small fish to the customer, bookies etc, how many on here have lost by doing a genuine error and lost a small fortune, with the reply , sorry its your own fault by betfair
|
|
By:
The issue is the size of the lay bet rather than the odds. If £100 or even £10,000 had been put up in error @ 29 by a fat fingered layer or bot then fair enough, hard cheese to them.
I won't claim to have any understanding of how or why Betfair may bet into a market (cross-matching, in-house bots etc  ) but combine the ridiculous odds (anything bigger than 5/2 would have been generous at any stage of the race) with the ludicrous liability (doubt anybody has ever had £600 million in their Betfair account not even Ladbrokes etc) and clearly a monumental error has occured somewhere. |
|
By:
I'm not saying they had it in the account but that they are allowed to automatically trade with an undefined limit ... I am waiting for them to explain what technical fault allows only one account to breach it's limit. I think it must have something to do with a rogue bot that belongs to a high profile customer (read plc) that would keep Betfair in court for years if they forced them to cover the loss. Trust me if either you or I exceeded our account they would have their solicitors issuing writs in the morning not voiding races.
|