There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
IRE / Leop 28th Dec / 14:00 3m Grd2 Hrd Voler La Vedette Back 17677815078 28-Dec-11
14:06 C 29 5,000.00 29
-
IRE / Leop 28th Dec / 14:00 3m Grd2 Hrd Voler La Vedette Back 17677808158 28-Dec-11
14:06 C 29 20,000.00 29
-
14:06 C 29 5,000.00 29
-
IRE / Leop 28th Dec / 14:00 3m Grd2 Hrd Voler La Vedette Back 17677808158 28-Dec-11
14:06 C 29 20,000.00 29
-
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 435
|
By:
did you really think you would be paid out
grow up you should be fined for waisting court time imo |
|
By:
So I could have backed it coming up to the 2nd hurdle as I have bets of this size frequently. If it had fallen would I have got my 25k back I don't think so.
|
|
By:
do you really think it would have been voided had it lost?
|
|
By:
don't think going to court as an individual is the way forward though
|
|
By:
No agreed I know a couple of others. However I have the finances to do so and will over this. It isn't about the money it is the principle and the truth.
|
|
By:
I too have backed it in play. Not for as much as you Zaynar but 12k odd, I too am considering my options and would like to converse with people in the same boat.
|
|
By:
you have no chance in a court room, thou i do think you deserve a better explanation than the one given
|
|
By:
You are wrong fashion, what are your grounds for such absolutism?
|
|
By:
I'm getting on the phone first thing in the morning to a QC so for those that are interested let me know and we can go from there.
|
|
By:
Zaynar your point about the horse falling later and you not getting your money back is very relevant. In fact for all you knew the horse could already have fallen when you made the bet - time delays etc.
|
|
By:
Count me in Zaynar.
|
|
By:
Great first ever bet makeyourownrules! Joined yesterday and struck instant gold!
|
|
By:
Its relevant right up to the point of the horse reaching the line as anything can happen we've all seen enough to know that.
|
|
By:
I used to be a lawyer and have experience reviewing contractual terms and whether the actions of companies in said situations comply with those terms. I am confident that for a number of clear reasons, voiding this market is illegal and would be deemed to be so by any sound and reasonable person
|
|
By:
Terimon good observation. Perhaps Make was in on it or perhaps he is a plant.
|
|
By:
both the price being 29 instead of 2.9 and the price not moving at all to the wire plus
the ridiculous amount on offer clearly point to a bot error, what is impressive is the amount of hawks on betfair that will jump on a clear value bet, we are swimming with sharks. |
|
By:
What makes you think I joined yesterday Terimon? Very presumptuous of you, wrongly so. Also, having my bets voided doesn't seem to me very much like striking gold. At least the quality of your determinations is consistent.
|
|
By:
wil be trying to get some legal advice tomorrow, zaynar, be interesting to hear what feedback you get too
|
|
By:
thought date joined was date u joined the forum not date u joined betfair?????
|
|
By:
all betting companies are not liable if the price was a mistake, which in this case it was clearly, cant seeing any sensible lawyer taking this to court.
|
|
By:
bf, the palpable error rule has no application in this scenario, has anyone got a clue here...Anyhow, Zaynar, as a fellow disaffected party I would be most keen to liaise. Let me tell you, our case is laden with credence.
|
|
By:
just imagine though, it must go down in history as the biggest voided amount ever 21 million
and shows how shrewd the market makers, the customers trully are and how effective internet betting can be. |
|
By:
On that note Zaynar, how can you be contacted? Other than via Nick Williams.
|
|
By:
Makeyourownrules , will you be charging a nominal fee for services or shall you be doing it on a legal aid basis
|
|
By:
I think the odds of anyone having a leg to stand on who bet on
the horse in question winning a case in court are far, far greater than 29  |
|
By:
Well makeyourownrules joined on the 28th and his first post was at 01.20 on the 29th. But its not important, so ill shut up! Just seemed weird to me.
|
|
By:
Zaynar, I was only a small time punter today (big by my standards) but would still like a better explanation than the one given today. Would not be worth my while going to court but feel the numbers involved is far higher than the media reports of 150 - 250 accounts affected and you could surely form a group that should consider legal representation.
If said individual who posted that price had only offered a few hundred the race would not have been voided. I backed VLV as soon as the price went to 29 at 14:02 and again backed it 14:06 when the risk was far less. I don't understand how they can void the bet 2 miles still to travel. Plus if it was dodgey why was it not suspended asap? Betfair Ireland Twitter even tweeted about it like it was kosher. How often to we see a horse hit ridiculous odds in running offered for the horse to go on and win? And vice-versa, on Monday we saw Gigalo in 2.55 Leop beat at 1.01. Somebody took a big risk on that 'obviously' and knew the risk. Also I don't understand how they voided the other bets in the race on other horses? These people/bots were surely operating blindly so anyone who got 30 or bigger on VLV, why was their bet not honoured? They did profit directly from the 29 price. Or the punters who were laying Mourad at 1.05? Those backing Mourad at that price should be liable too betting on a horse that was not winning. It's just very frustrating. Reading this blog all day, so if Betfair would also like to refund me 6-8 hrs of my time too please  |
|
By:
Its clear that BF's decision based on a "Technological Failure" is an inadequate explanation in this scenario and clearly a full explanation with detail is needed at this stage. I can inform that more than 1.2 K was matched in excess of odds 30.
|
|
By:
I actually hope you take em to court and win.
|
|
By:
hello, I am not offering legal services. I am simply pointing out to disaffected parties that I can fully appreciate the legal grounds upon which this decision can be successfully challenged, it's slightly disappointing that there appears to be very little understanding of the matter in hand from posts so far.
|
|
By:
I had £111 myself @29
its a fair point where cash wouldve gone if beat does the mystery punter cop it The other thing I dont understand how can 23 mill be paid out if the cash dont exist ? |
|
By:
|
|
By:
I reckon the technical proftable loophole has been closed but the hole in the fabric of confidense in exchange accoutabilty will widen.
|
|
By:
something not right about the whole sorry episode if horse had fell nothing be said about it other than mad price offered
|
|
By:
makeyourownrules is to clever to stir it up with his normal username imo ,
For what its worth a precedent has been set regarding mistakes if you can simply prove your mistake was well outwith your normal betting pattern . unless betfair make this situation clearer |
|
By:
BF need to justify in detail the "Technological Failure" in this case.....makeyourownrules can you add any further information?
|
|
By:
you cant justify a bet standing just on the premise that many horse drift inplay as a 2nd favourite in this case that is leading would never drift to 29 from 2.9 and stay that price unless there was a serious error, machines and programs do fail as we all know they inherit failure from there designers, humans.
|
|
By:
six gun, you are right to consider whether a court would deem that fair. I think the answer is obvious. A company can write any term they wish in their conditions it doesn't mean it will be deemed equitable and the courts have frequently have displayed there willingness to uphold fairness. There are several intriguing precedents that bear close resemblance to this case. Personally I don't think they have a leg to stand on.
|
|
By:
the fact betfair only make commisions and topical charges by acting as a broker means they can they be liable for mis-represented trades between 2nd parties, even in the best court in the world, law is law.
|