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 have always heard it been used in terms of professional punters but i never seen it until yesterday when it was the first time i ever seen telephone numbers been bet
 |
|
By:
OH WHAT A WICKED WEB WE WEAVE WHEN WE PRACTICE TO DECEIVE
|
|
By:
Froggitt 29 Dec 11 11:16
Questions we need answering..... 1) What odds did the punter mean to enter when he entered odds of 29? duh probably 2.9  2) How much did he mean to lay when he entered an amount of £21m? don't know, but his api obviously went wrong and laid 21,474,836.47 brendanuk1 29 Dec 11 00:12 clip ends at 20652365 with 1642094 matched. 1642094/2 + 20652365 = 21,473,412 only 1424 missing this is a magic number for computer programmers, and can cause all sorts of chaos. refer here for explanation .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer_(computer_science) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer_overflow |
|
By:
LOL ANOTHER BETFAIR EMPLOYEE
|
|
By:
It easy to make mistakes even if your experiecened on here a few weeks ago I intended to make a bet before the markets were fully formed for £2 at 1000/1 but put them in the wrong way and actually had £1000 @ 2/1 on what was a 50/1 shot, luckily only £8 was matched before i realised in a split second and canceled the bet, you just have to take mistakes on the chin, I wonder if i can claim my £8 back as that was an obvious error also.
|
|
By:
I am amazed at the amount of speculation on this issue......even here in darkest africa we have a govt.regulatory body called the gambling board and this situation would be fully investigated so any stakeholders spin would be eliminated and decisions regarding litigation would/could possibly be averted as the gambling board would make a ruling based on their findings.
Surely the UK has some form of independant regulatory body on issues of this nature? |
|
By:
Yes GVL but that the customers BOT not betfair technical fault - the issue is (probably) the scale of the error and them NOT HAVING AN EXPOSURE LEVEL. Happy to be proven wrong with independently verified check. If you have unlimited accounts then you can get this situation - esp with Betfairs woeful IT record
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
yer ma, the exposure level checking was clearly compromised by whatever chaos the duff value caused. it doesn't mean he didn't have one.
|
|
By:
WHAT ODDS PUNTERS GETTING PAID OUT NOW? IMPROVING IMO
|
|
By:
a point already mentioned but worth reiterating in light of the last 50 posts or so, the fact that betfair didn't close down the in-running market or the whole kit and kaboodle for an integrity check, suggests to me that there was something other than a technical glitch at work and there's going to be a liability payout if punters pursue it
|
|
By:
Your being disingenuous GVL - i think you know that decent systems do not go to pieces at the introduction of a 'duff value' theses are trivial issues for a financial trading platform that the exchange is presumably based on. Far more likely that the lay was allowed because the exposure is no defined in code but rather in an agreement with this 'innocent customer'
|
|
By:
If it was one of the 'big' 4, then that would explain the total media dumbness over all this. Including the Belfast Telegraph..
|
|
By:
NO HIDING PLACE ON THIS,ALL WILL BE REVEALED
|
|
By:
Just read the racing post. Say no more
|
|
By:
ANYBODY GOT A RELATIVE WHO DIDN'T ARRIVE HOME LAST NIGHT
|
|
By:
Still no facts from Betfair . Plus the place market was voided and there was no 29 there , or anything like it . If Betfair treat the win and place markets as both having glitches , input error seems unlikely , but logically thats what they have smokescreened so far .
Regulatory action seems in the offing , but knowing the way Governments are incompetent I would not be hoping for satisfactory answers . Betfair had to scrap hard to convince people they were not a bookmaker , this occurrence will require explanations at macro level . I worked in the financial sector for a while some years ago , the government efforts to run a proper ship were completely pathetic . One of the biggest insurance companys was not subject to the same ( inadequate ) regulations the others supposedly had to adhere to . Different set of criteria for them --but size decreed they were sound practitioners , bye ball etc . Sound familiar ? |
|
By:
yer ma
I think you are overestimating the competance of BF programmers. Pound for pound this has to be one of the worst websites in the world. Plus there is a precedent for exposure limits being breached due to BF error before |
|
By:
Betfair is a Betting Exchange not a bookmaker, those who had the winning bets are entitled to be paid, it cannot be classified as palpable error.
To use Tony Calvin's phrase its "obvious" no customer has £600 million in their account but there is no such thing as an endless credit limit. All Betfair accounts are managed by a back end system and there has to be a physical number input into the back end system allowing this "customer" to place bets on credit. Simply put, The Betfair in house system works off a huge number of spreadsheet type customer screens which have boxes which are filled or ticked. These include Acccount Username- Joe Bloggs. Password ****** (employees can’t see passwords for security) Address etc etc etc but there is also a box for Credit Limit and I would suggest it’s is very plausible that on an unlimited account the limit was input by a Betfair employee as 123456789 or 100000000 for e.g. (would be 9 digits). When that "customers" computer programme malfunctioned it was enable to lay such a big bet as the limit was incorrectly input to the in-house system. There is a follow on problem from this as once that robot (computer programme) went wrong others followed most of which are interlinked to ****. Betfairs excuse is a disgrace but what is ****s excuse for them voiding peoples bets??? They dont have a rogue customer like Betfair claim and their case is weakened by the fact they settled the race before voiding it. There are several possible reasons why yesterday happened but none are acceptable to those who had winning bets nor should they be. The fact is Betfair have made this mistake whether it be their own computer programme which malfunctioned or whether an individuals account was incorrectly managed by them. Betfair excuses are pathetically amateur and whoever wrote the official line of explanation yesterday has actually made things worse. As for Tony Calvin he has to defend the company and as such will be made a scapegoat but the facts are that the winner was available at 29.0 long before she was coming up the run in on her own and its a disgrace that it is being portrayed in the main stream media this way. Additionally his historical comments on similar matters totally undermine his position on yesterdays events. |
|
By:
definately a bf trader ****ed up everything they r telling us is bull shi t, spoke to them on the phone yesterday and they were trying to tell me it was 1 punter who had £800 in there account with exposure limit of £1000 and meant to lay it at 2.9 absolute nonsense, if someone had put that bet into there machine they would of had to be sitting at there computer at time as it happened when market went inplay so there for would of realised something eas wrong and cancelled the bet instead of leaving it up there for entire race, can only be a bf trading bot gone wrong!!
|
|
By:
1.if it was a betfair bot gone wrong betfair should payout
2.if customer had a credit agreement betfair/customer should payout 3.if it was a malfunction customer should lose balance (doesnt matter if its £10 or 23m) money should be split to winning punters or put back into racing/given to charity |
|
By:
Calvin says 'obvious error' but what if the horse had lost - you would hope that the race would have been voided but I don't think so, for then the huge layer would have been vindicated in taking his extreme view and all betfair backers would have done their dough with no recourse.
|
|
By:
Surely time for all BOTS to be banned
|
|
By:
TEDDY P 29 Dec 11 12:00
OH WHAT A WICKED WEB WE WEAVE WHEN WE PRACTICE TO DECEIVE If you're going to quote lines - do try and get them right !! [i] ''Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive''[/i] |
|
By:
It's plainly obvious that BF are quite happy that the media are not disclosing the true facts, after all it was one of their own who made the ridiculous comment in the first place..
|
|
By:
I think that there is some very valid points made by punters about this matter. If the amount had been only 10-15-20 or even 100 pounds laid at 28,betfair would have said "TOUGH". What if the horse had fallen,would he have been paid out and nothing said ????. We have all seen massive amounts at 1000 to be backed and laid,so a couple of thousand pounds on back and lay doesn't raise eyebrows anymore!!. If i don't have the funds in my account,i can't back or lay.It should have declined the bet.
What is the outcome for the future,do we have a claim that if we lose that we made an obvious error by doing the opposite of what the result was?. Sounds silly i know,but this is what Betfair are really saying. As a punter at golf,only the other week i wanted someone to lay me a bet of £10.00 at 2.42 on someone who was 1.01 and i put it in to back,if that bet was matched(i cancelled in a nano second of making the error)i would have been liable. The using of "BOTS" could be the real problem.Punters use these so they can still bet and try to make money when out shopping,at work,or even making a cup of tea.Betfair can see which accounts use BOTS and have never questioned the use of them until now,this one failed,surely they should consider the banning of these,or the customer should sign an agreement saying that Betfair accepts no liability from the usage of external computer programs.This customer by using a BOT is backing and laying loads of bets,I.E a proffesional punter. My own personal view on the payout is that betfair should be liable for some compensation to the punters who backed this horse. Either by the way of comission free bets,or the free issue of shares,or even offer a percentage divedend as a goodwill gesture. |
|
By:
LOL THANKS. I;M SO FRUSTRATED OVER THIS, HOWEVER I'M GOING NOW, BLOOD PRESSURE RISING, GOING TO LOOK FOR SOME 30s AT DONNY AFTER LAST FENCE
|
|
By:
You haven't seen the Irish Mirror then ****ss. The Front page. Big black lettering
In red LEOPARDSTOWN SENSATION In black €53M BET BLUNDER FURY Then the story and at the bottom in black BETFAIR(it's done in the company logo) refuses to pay out after in-running fiasco |
|
By:
dotsy thank you for that excellent and most informative post
|
|
By:
I don't buy it no, AD. Is it online ?
|
|
By:
Excellent post dotsy
|
|
By:
well done dotsy.
|
|
By:
yep good stuff, dotsy
|
|
By:
Facts
Date Joined: 05 May 03 Add contact | Send message When: 29 Dec 11 12:24 Joined: Date Joined: 05 May 03 | Topic/replies: 8,005 | Blogger: Facts's blog TEDDY P 29 Dec 11 12:00 OH WHAT A WICKED WEB WE WEAVE WHEN WE PRACTICE TO DECEIVE If you're going to quote lines - do try and get them right !! [i] ''Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive'' [/i] Practise. Shakespeare was English. |
|
By:
Watchit there is no out for them. Even if i worked for Betfair i couldn't even think of a plausiable excuse to say they shouldn't have to pay. Apparently(according to the RP) a chap who bets in 50s mistakingly put 500 on and when he phoned up and said check my records you'll see it was a genuine mistake and he was told It was his own fault he should be aware of what he was doing...So whats good for the goose is good for the turkey
|
|
By:
if horse had lost according to post above,someone with 800 in account would have won 800,000,
 , strange the police are yet to be involved jt swears on a football pitch and the full weight of scotland yard and the cps is on it within hours, i,m glad my full stop button doesnt work like my w button or i,d be in deep shoite |
|
By:
Latest statement quotes "this market" , not "these markets" . Think about the place market . Supposedly fixed , this market problem . Still no proper explanation as to what went on .
|
|
By:
Here's a piece from that article in the Mirror, AD..
Instead, bets were offered at 28/1 even though the highly-fancied mare led from start to finish – and punters rushed to slap down more than €1.9million More total bollox.. |
|
By:
So the account in question has been suspended. Could this mean some kind of hacker palying silly-buggers?
|
|
By:
Further update to 2pm Leopardstown race
Further update to 2pm Leopardstown race Firstly, we would like to re-iterate that anyone betting in-running in yesterday’s Leopardstown race clearly received a very poor customer service and betting experience. We apologise once again for this. 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. A further update on this will be made today. Contrary to some media speculation, we can confirm that all in-running bets on this market would have been voided, had Voler La Vadette 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. There has been some criticism from customers, and in the press, that Betfair took too long to void. Quite simply, we made the decision after we were in full possession of the all the facts and input from the relevant internal departments. A decision was then made to void in accordance with our terms and conditions. We will update when more information is available. |