If you just watched that PR disaster, it should make your mind up zaynar..

He's been knocking off his wifes best friend, she found out, she waited for her moment and emtied his account...lol

Betfair know what happened. They should just release the full details. Try to cover it up or fudge it will only make it worse. This will end up in court for sure. The full details will then come out and it will be an even bigger disaster. So you think what about the punter who lost i think 300k when he mistakenly laid a horse at 1000/1. Where does he stand. Punters must have realised (as well as betfair) that it was not intended. Should he be refunded now. Because if i where him i would be straight onto a good lawyer. It was an obvious error but betfair markets are run on the fact its your responsibility.

kriskin i know that re: 4.27,dont come on here & say im thick,i didnt lay or back thew animal in running

i think we should have a forum just for retards like kriskin,i had already said that 21m odd was available to bet and that was the reason it stayed there for so long

i

ive just posted here without having to sign in,must be a software glitch can i have some compensation please

How can it be a your fault if there was a technical hitch..

R.E PREVIOUS POST.,
When I placed my bets at the offered odds I guessed there was a error but placed my initial bet of a hundred pounds with the intention of losing my £100.00 should the horse not have won. As the race progressed my opinion changed from "wonder what happening here " to a more obvious  there is a almighty c ock up. I personally dabbled again for another couple of hundred to win in excess of 7k.

My initial thought straight after the race was a bot has gone wrong, but once calculating the numbers £ at risk my thoughts changed to the following.

1 this is a betfair bot gone wrong, i expect to get paid
2 this is a bookmakers error inputting the wrong price 29 instead of 2.9, i expect to get paid.
3 this is a large bot customer, maybe one of those betting hoovers thingys , i expect to get paid.

Betfair I would imagine sort legal advice before issuing there statement explaining what occurred , and I expect it to be true regarding that it was not a "bot" associated with betfair , and to be honest I think that is true.

However if number 2 or 3 of my initial concerns are true then I want betfair to pay me.

If it was a software glitch allowing someone to exceed his or hers balance by mistake then I dont expect to get paid.

So all I want is for betfair to issue a statement with supporting evidence to back up there statement regarding what happened (i.e) software glitch and that as far as I am concerned will be the end of the matter.

Yes I am suspiscous of this being the first time it happened, yes I am wondering is it one of the big bookies inputting the 29 instead of the 2.9 but until betfair issues the facts those suspiscions will remain.

one statement with full and frank clarity is all this situation needs.

I dont claim to be an expert in the field but i do know a few who are and of a program that floated around awhile ago on the online casino websites.

It let you freeze an action before it got to the sever and change what you had originally entered, a certain algorithm was made which could not really be controlled but crashed/bypass the security system therefore letting you bet absurd amount, even if you didnt have the money in your account. If you won your account went plus if you lost it went minus.

Somebody then devised a controllable algorithm ( they could control how much the bet was over the allowed max bet) it went on for awhile ,the people who had access to this to my knowledge used it and were found out pretty much straight away.

They never gained any money but the websites didnt figure out the problem for awhile then they found out what it was and fixed the security system flaw.

This can be done on small not very secure sites using the add on tampar data ( if used correctly) Anyway im sure it is possible this account in question could have tried a similar thing and it has worked ( im not saying with any certainty that this is whats happened just a possibility) so if it is a hacker or somebody alike with good knowledge and capability it is feasible.

Bascially maybe the account used hacked/crashed/bypassed the system and this is how it happened.

Oh i really hope people dont go down the class action lawsuit route that i have seen some people offer, for example posts which go along the lines of we/i are willing to represent everybody who did not get paid out.

Zaynar - yes - but only after they make it clear that they are not going to reveal any more information.  You then map that totality - whatever it happens to be by then - back onto the extant Terms and Rules to assess the options. Even at the moment they are going to have to be able to prove technical failure, not human - they haven't yet - and even if they do, they then would have to explain why they did not suspend the whole operation to prevent further techical failure until they have closed that glitch.  And the other issue so far, of course is that their terms do hold the customer liable when they go over their exposure limits - as happens for instance if you lay a whole load of relatively short priced runners in an ante post market which end up being balloted out at the bottom of the weights.

so you think, I am confused by your logic.

You seem to be suggesting that it was immoral for backers to take advantage of the 29 available on Voler La Vedette as it was clearly a mistake?

Yet you seem to suggest that those who took advantage of the Peregrine Falcon 999/1 incident (including Betfair taking their £'000's worth commission) should get paid, and it is not immoral?

What has morality got to do with a gambling exchange site? Is there any relevance at all to the Voler La Vedette case?

Pretty sure that if this ever gets to a court of law, the judge will treat with contempt anyone who brings a "morality" argument to to the table, especially Betfair who have as an overriding get out clause for all incidents of "it was a technical glitch, void any liabilities".

Legally, I would imagine this case is going to hinge more on negligence and what duty of care Betfair owe to their exchange users in return for the hundreds of millions in commission and premium charges that they levy on their customers.

As someone indicated earlier, if Betfair cannot guarantee the price and volumes that are up on their screen, what use are they? If a court of law decides they have been negligent and do owe its exchange users a duty of care in providing the correct information, this will be a cakewalk for the backers of Voler La Vedette.

If they cannot guarantee the data on their screen, Betfair are finished as soon as a viable alternative exchange becomes available, because what serious backer will ever want to place a bet on Betfair again?

some interesting Betfair rules:

PART B - GENERAL RULES
1. MANAGING MARKETS IN-PLAY
1.1 General

.... Betfair customers are responsible for managing their in-play bets at all times.




13. MISCELLANEOUS
....Betfair reserves the right to cancel unmatched bets to protect customers at any time.

.... By their nature Special Bets markets are unpredictable so should be treated with particular caution. Customers are responsible for managing their own positions at all times.


CONDITIONS RELATING TO BETTING
T&C's 5. Operation of our Services
You are entirely responsible for the information that you provide to us concerning the offer that you wish to place. We will not enquire into the reasonableness of any offer that you may make. We will not be liable for incorrect entries made by you, including data input errors with respect to the odds, price or stake on offer, or incorrect bet requests communicated by you to a Betfair Telephone Operator



T&C's 6. Cancellation, Termination, Suspension and Breach We may restrict your access to Betfair, suspend or terminate your account, withdraw your offers for bets, void any bets outstanding to your account, cancel any unmatched bets or cancel and void any outstanding or matched bets in our absolute discretion without cause at any time including if:

there is a technological failure;


T&C's 8. Cancellation of an offer for a bet
You may cancel unmatched bets at any time either by:

requesting a cancellation of the relevant offer in the relevant section of the relevant Market on our site; or
by instructing a Betfair Telephone Operator to request a cancellation of the relevant offer.
Your cancellation of an unmatched bet becomes effective once we send you confirmation of the cancellation. In the event that your cancellation request is not received and processed in good time, you acknowledge that your offer may remain outstanding and available for acceptance.

You may not be able to cancel your offer if your bet has been partially or wholly accepted during the interval between your submitting your cancellation request and our confirming your cancellation. In this case, your original offer, or part thereof, will be validly accepted and the bet will be concluded.


Betfair are hanging the voiding of the Voler La Vedette market on a technological failure.
If it is shown that the customer made an input error, then plenty of their other rules suggest that the bets are valid and should be settled.

Interesting the 13. Miscellaneous rules - Betfair are entitled to cancel unmatched bets to protect a customer. They have clearly failed in this instance and this too could be constituted as negligence.

You seem to be suggesting that it was immoral for backers to take advantage of the 29 available on Voler La Vedette as it was clearly a mistake?

I have not said that. In fact, I'd have done the same in the heat of the moment since the offer was there, with plenty of time to consider the bet afterwards.

Now that some more facts are available (that it was a mistake) I do not think anybody who took the 28/1 out of opportunism are entitled to anything.

Please stop all this drivel.

Go to court and lose.

M'Lord I would like my £25,000 winnings for betting VDV passing the line at 28/1.

By the way their was a £600,000,000 up for grabs - and I don't believe there was any technical fault on the system.

Pedrobob I do not think this situation has any precedent. Quoting people who entered incorrect stakes/odds is different to what happened here.

In Wolves, the layer made the mistake. He pays out. Unfortunate though it is, it was his own fault. Anyway, that's neither here nor there as far as I am concerned.

For what it's worth, I would like to see those who have unfairly lost re-imbursed. Those who chanced the 28/1 are not entitled to anything. That is the essence of my argument and the only reason for my presence on this thread. I somehow managed to get sidetracked.

Quoting people who entered incorrect stakes/odds is different to what happened here.

SYT, I have seen nothing from BF to suggest that this isn't exactly what happened here. Zero difference from the Peregrine Falcon error. Do you know otherwise?

Hibore, own bets were timed between 14:01:55 and 14:02:32. Does this mean I am more entitled than later VDV backers? How do you know that the layer's opinion was not to offer 29 on VDV, a doubtful stayer, being held up 10-15 lengths of its main market rival Mourad who was having an easy time chasing its unfancied 33/1 stablemate in front.

These opinions are made everyday on here in-running, 1.01's got beat today, are you saying that the backers at that price should be reimbursed because their certainty got beat?

I don't know otherwise for sure. But I think there was an error in Betfair software - in relation to one, possibly unique, account.

So who should pay? Betfair the middle man with a mistake in his software. The layer who might not have a fraction of the money necessary to pay up. The punters who had a bet in the market. Likely the latter imo.

At least it was clear cut in the Wolves case who owed who money.

The company, whose shares have dived 42pc since last October's £13-a-share float, is investigating why bets from some clients were never placed in the Tote pool.
The issue is particularly embarrassing as the £2.92m pool for last Friday's jackpot – where punters must find the winners of six races – was the biggest in the Tote's history.
Nick Bradley, a high-stakes gambler, placed permutation bets costing £12,000 on the rollover jackpot and thought he had won when 3-1 shot Mahbooba romped home.
"The funds had been taken out of my Betfair balance but when I went to see how much I'd won it said the bet had not been placed," said Mr Bradley, bloodstock manager for Middleham Park Racing.
He quickly found he was not the only one to have lost out after posting on Twitter: "Betfair are a bunch of ------ clowns! bets placed on the tote today by betfair users didnt go on, although funds were taken from accounts."
RELATED ARTICLES
Betfair 'removed £52,000 from account' 23 Sep 2011
Betfair pantomime sidesteps the critics 23 Sep 2011
He told the Racing Post he had paid more than £400,000 in Betfair commissions only to "get treated like this".
Speaking on Monday, Mr Bradley said: "Peer-to-peer betting is the best idea to have come out of the betting industry but the way they [Betfair] run it is a shambles.The site must go down once a week, so everyone who has bets placed and who might want to change them in running can't do it."
A spokesman for Betfair, whose chief executive David Yu and chairman Ed Wray have both announced their looming departures, said it had encouraged "customers to bet early and avoid the last 15 minutes as there was likely to be a large demand on the Tote's systems". He said Betfair had "apologised" to all affected customers and "returned funds associated with failed bets". He could not say whether Mr Bradley would be paid out.
The Tote said the problem had only occurred with wagers placed via Betfair. another FIX