Does anyone think I should go to court?

It's quite easy to see (well for most people)

If i was under the influence, i would have called you imhotep..

Pedro,
How could the backer of VLV at 29.0 as it approached the line lose ?

What about the backers after the second or third hurdle with 4 minutes of the race left - why are they in the wrong racingstar?

I seen the "mistake" like everyone else but again like most others they were probably waiting for it to just disappear. If it was a couple of grand that got put up by "mistake" which would have been taken within seconds - should the backers have been paid for that?

Find a Lawyer to take the case on no win no fee basis there is nothing to lose ........ all to gain !!!!

Sometimes there law, sometimes there decency..........this is a time when IT failure is the reason for the problem and decency should prevail.

Maybe hard to take if you took a punt on such a large price certainty but sometimes youve just got to be man enough and take on the chin.

Another race coming soon................

Maurice,
I have some sympathy for the backers who stepped in at 29.0 one minute into the race.
Any bet made from a "funded account" could and would have had to pay out (rogue Bot or otherwise).
What should have been clear to a chimp was a genuine £21M Lay @ 29.0 was an impossibility,especially as it approached the line.

I own a Garden Centre (thats my identity revealed) but there are more plants on this forum than in my 30 acres !! Yorkie 1 you have been doing the rounds.Please post as someone else because as I have told you there is a claimant who is making a note of new posters.

I dont understand why people keep saying 28/1 was impossible as it approached the line, to me this is totally irelevant.The amount was impossible but that is all, an eagle eyed punter could have spotted something amiss during the race and knew a stewards would be called and the winner thrown out so would have happily layed it all day, unlikely but still possible. . .

At the risk of boring everyone to death...It is up to the punter to manage his position.There cannot be any mistakes on a trading platform or else ...it would not be a trading platform.In a court of law there is no way Betfair will be proven in the right.They might employ the best legal brains in the country (although I doubt that judging by their statement) but even I as a lay person would beat them in Court.....

Homefortea,
I can absolutely assure you that you would not beat BF on this case.
Feel free to try.

So if a bet popped up for a couple of grand at 29 after the last and got matched (as it would) should those backers not expect to be paid out, or is it ok for betfair to say it was a mistake and void it?

I honestly reckon if it got to court Betfair would not be getting away without paying something out, T & C's or not.

Will you give me 28/1 on that racingstar???

Maurice,
Most of the Backers will not go to Court on this matter.
Do you know why?

Id like to know why. .

racingstar Joined: 22 Oct 08
Replies: 306 31 Dec 11 21:46   

Pedro,
How could the backer of VLV at 29.0 as it approached the line lose ?

a) jock could have fallen off
b) horse could have broke a leg
c) horse could have swerved (for any number of reasons) and hung away his lead
d) horse could have put a foot in a hole and fallen
e) saddle could have slipped and weight cloth fallen out
f) stirrups could have broken and jock unseated
g) bridle could have snapped and horse unsteerable
etc

Lest anyone think these are made up, they haven't watched enough racing yet.


Homefortea,
I can absolutely assure you that you would not beat BF on this case.

Are you a lawyer, star, you sound rather confident?
Problem for Betfair is that winnable or not, they are faced with something that no other bookie / exchange has faced in betting history, namely a "punter" with a £21m bet and plenty of barristers probably willing to fight his case.

The more publicity the case gets, the more the share price falls. If Betfair want to see this in court, they potentially risk their whole company as the fallout on a whole host of issues highlighted by this case could see them with an even bigger liability.

Because most of the "Backers" on the run in were PC Payers.
What does a PC payer fear above all else ?

Is the answer prostate cancer???

Because they couldn't afford the legal fees racingstar - and bf know that. That is why there needs to be a group to take them on, each and every punter who bet the horse in running get together. They would then also get plenty of press coverage and backing imo

best outcome for the PC payers would be if Beftair go into administration.
Then everyeone would have to go purple.
Where they don't have ..... errr hemmm  ..... premium charge

racingstar..Fortunately for Betfair I was having a nap at the time of the race and anyhow I have long given up betting "in running." How the whole rancid system is still allowed to operate when some people are as much as nine seconds ahead of others is something only the regulators (!) in Gibralter can explain.The amount layed to lose (23 miliion) to me is an irrelavance.You manage your own positions.If the alleged 600 million had been layed then perhaps Betfair might have a defence.What if the layer had wanted to lay say £24 million ? I honestly cannot see how an English Court would rule in favour of the "machine."

even if the layer didn't want to lay £24m, ie a mistake, but had it in his account, bets would have been settled

All of your list could have happened,Pedro.
However,put up £1M to back at 1.1 in any race and see if it is taken on the run in.
It will be.
The Stake and the odds told anybody except a plebian that they could never be paid (if they had an IQ higher than a chimp).

What the answer to the question racingstar im dying to know, what do pc payers fear above all else??? If not prostate cancer is it Lorraine Kelly???

Racingstar...I have funded the next Tarzan film and you have been cast as "Cheetah...."

Maurice and Bridgey,
Wrong.
What In Runners fear most of all is account closure (it is BF's absolute right to close any account without reason being given).

"monkeys will rewrite the works of Shakespeare before this ever happens again", or so were Tony Calvin's words to that effect.
Though I suspect he probably thought that before the dreaded Voler La Vedette set foot on a racecourse

Horses won today matched at over 100, star, why is 29 so unusual?

The amount yes was even more unusual, but that is Betfair's responsibility to report the correct volumes available. Or are they unaccountable and not responsible for anything in return for the hundreds of millions they earn in commission and premiun charges?

What In Runners fear most of all is account closure

correction, what they actually fear is being barred from the only viable exchange with available liquidity

Oh dear thats just not on, if any bf employee even suggested an account would be closed due to the fact that the customer is taking the company to court i would think that might be percieved as intimidating/threatening witnesses(to many s's)gotta be a criminal matter then. . Never mind the really bad pr. . . .

"To be or not tobe,that is the gzorningplaka".
That's what you get when you employ monkeys.

Pedro,
Is that not what I said ?

maurice lester 31 Dec 11 22:24
So if a bet popped up for a couple of grand at 29 after the last and got matched (as it would) should those backers not expect to be paid out, or is it ok for betfair to say it was a mistake and void it?

I honestly reckon if it got to court Betfair would not be getting away without paying something out, T & C's or not.



racingstar 31 Dec 11 22:45
[b]Maurice and Bridgey,
Wrong.
What In Runners fear most of all is account closure (it is BF's absolute right to close any account without reason being given).
[/b]

How do you know? Have you asked each and everyone of them? It all seems to be FACT whatever you say on here - whereas it really is only your opinion.

Maurice,
Whether you choose to accept what I said about In Runners is up to you.
I never mentioned "fact",did I ?
I do know a lot of the On Course In Runners and I have merely repeated their fears.

star, I presumed you were suggesting IR players were afraid of being barred by Betfair.

But what if BF were no longer the leading exchange player? Would they be that concerned then?

Betfair have voided the race on the basis of "technological failure"

But who programmed their computer and wrote the software that failed to check the volume requested for VDV? A monkey? A chimp? Another machine?
Sadly for them, it appears a **** sapien did it.
Does that make it human error or computer glitch?

I can remember a dog race at Wimbledon (live on Sky so was in play) where every dog was matched at 20 (19/1), I had 80 sheets thinking I was betting the fav at 2.94 or so dead on the off.

It got up on the line and very quickly I had the winnings in my account  at 19/1 - I was shaken to be honest, was in an Office and had all the lads around me straight away as I just could not suss it out. Came out via the graph and the forum that every dog had been laid at 20 and must of been an accident by a bot or a layer wanting to lay them all at 2.00 (evens).

That bloke never got his back and although that is very different to what Betfair are saying happened here that was clearly a major error but that bloke would not of had a leg to stand on had he of complained.

Joke really, one rule for one and one for another.

Diamond Joe, people who backed VDV could still lose.

No they couldn't have.....you and everyone else knows betfair would void no matter what

Pedro,
I have absolutely no time for the "attempted thieves" who backed VLV on the Run In.
However,I am concerned how this "mythical £600M" found its way into the "system".
An Independant Investigation must be had (with at least one specialist racing channel observing) to ensure that BF's Statement is the truth.
A simple statement from BF is nowhere near enough.

Caddy,
The absolute criteria on BF (quite rightly) is that you must have the funds in your account when placing your bet.
Clearly,in the VLV case the account did not (less than £1000 in the account).

Racingstar you do seem quite learned when it comes to law , but your last statement calling valued customers of bf "attempted thieves" does seem to be boardering on libel, with all the talk of court procedings you might want to proof read your posts, only in my opinion of couse. . . .

star, personally think an even bigger question is not so much how or what happened, but are BF responsible for showing the correct volumes available on the screen?
If they are, then what goes before will be irrelevant as they will then be found to be negligent. As previously on this thread, TC's saying they are not responsible for computer glitches of their own making will be laughed out of court.
Just a matter of how much the payout should be then. As the layer "intended" to lay 29, then difficult to see how BF will escape anything other than the full payout.

The absolute criteria on BF (quite rightly) is that you must have the funds in your account when placing your bet.

.... and BF's own terms state that if you do not, matched bets will still be valid.....

Bridgie,
Let us be fair here.
I do bet In Running,daily.
Did I place a penny on this race?
Not on your life (I reasoned that I could not be paid).
I will repeat,anybody backing VLV as it approached the line are no better than legalised thieves.

I am still convinced that betfair would not be a straight walkover if it went to court. I dont really see why players are worried about having an account shutdown - it's not as if it's impossible to open up another is it?

racingstar

Oh yes I agree with you - just pointing out that a mistake was made by Betfair here, I wonder if the IT department will be doing anything about it? Will anyone be fired for it? Should the site close as this could possibly happen again as they have no idea why this happened themselves?

Let's face it the main issue here is the fact that it was such a huge amount and a hell of a lot of clients are involved, if it was a low sum they would probably of paid out the wagers or offered a free bet etc.. depending on the value of the client and also his/her ability to complain.

It happens daily in Bookmaking this kind of stuff - especially online and in play where the Bookmaker makes an error. I take my hat off to any Firm who stands by errors they make and pays out without complaint - there are not many about. The factors that make this unique is the amount of cash involved and the amount of people involved.

Maurice,
Many BF account holders shared your views when they introduced the 40% PC.
Many of those have had to pay "retrospective PC" on their "new" accounts.

Betfair make money from all of our accounts on a daily basis. They make this by providing a service. When the service is crap as it was on this occasion they should make good any bets that are struck in error which their system has allowed. I hsd no bets on this race but have payed betfair roughly £10,000 per year in commission for the past 5 years. What am i paying for if not to guarantee that my bets stand and will be honoured?

Cadizza,
Unfortunately,there was just one account involved that was able to place the hideously priced Lays.
Forget about people being paid out here,it will never happen.
What responsible BF users want to know is,"how did this unfunded bet get into the Market"  and,can it happen again ?

You have a fantastic chance of winning in court. I'm not saying you're going to get paid the winnings of your bet. But winning the case, yes, it's a near certainty.

I almost feel the need to tell everyone that I don't have an account online and so am not biased.

Some people who said "they don't deserve their winnings" would also have said "they don't deserve their money back" if the horse had fallen or lost. They're completely clueless.

racing

Yes, fair reply. I would say this has happened before though but to a lower amount and they have just thought "sod it, we can't find the reason but we will just keep going" then this pops up the other day and the heat is on.

So personally I think it will of happened before and if that was to come out - boom, that is when the real problems start for Betfair.

BF have said it can't happen again. But what if it does or something similar, star?
Will you think that the race should not be voided because maybe only a £21,000 liability is involved instead of £21m? The £1k account holder still can't pay.

star, have you never made a key input error on either value or odds?
And if you have, did Betfair recompense you for any subsequent losses (or void the event)?

Pedro,
When we place any bets on this Site it is vital to know that they are "secure".
Therefore,I think that the need for an Independant Inquiry is paramount to avoid this happening again.
After all,Internet Crime is rising daily.

Zaynar hope following passage will help u in deciding wether to go to court

Unclean hands, sometimes called the clean hands doctrine or the dirty hands doctrine,

[1] is an equitable defense in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy on account of the fact that the plaintiff is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint—that is, with "unclean hands".

[2] The defendant has the burden of proof to show the plaintiff is not acting in good faith. The doctrine is often stated as "those seeking equity must do equity" or "equity must come with clean hands".

A defendant's unclean hands can also be claimed and proven by the plaintiff to claim other equitable remedies and to prevent that defendant from asserting equitable affirmative defenses. In other words, 'unclean hands' can be used offensively by the plaintiff as well as defensively by the defendant. Historically, the doctrine of unclean hands can be traced as far back as the Fourth Lateran Council.

In D&C Builders v. Rees (1966), a small building firm did some work on the house of a couple named Rees. The bill came to £732, of which the Rees had already paid £250. When the builders asked for the balance of £482, the Rees announced that the work was defective, and they were only prepared to pay £300. As the builders were in serious financial difficulties (as the Rees knew), they reluctantly accepted the £300 'in completion of the account'. The decision to accept the money would not normally be binding in contract law, and afterwards the builders sued the Rees for the outstanding amount. The Rees claimed that the court should apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel, which can make promises binding when they would normally not be. However, Lord Denning refused to apply the doctrine, on the grounds that the Rees had taken unfair advantage of the builders' financial difficulties, and therefore had not come 'with clean hands'.

If you prove BF have unclean hands you have a good chance

Happy New Year

Pedro,
As a professional punter I have made mistakes over the years on here (almost all have cost me).
I accept this as a fact of life.
Nevertheless,I,like you,do not like it.

Can't believe this is still going, as I said before, take betfair to court, if they are stupid enough to let it go to judgement, you will be 1.00000001 to win the case, simple as that. Racingstar is either clueless beyond belief, or, quite likely, a betfair plant.

The terms and conditions clearly state that if a bet is accidentally placed which brings you over your balance, it stands.

As a result, Betfair are liable. End of.

"You saw an obvious mistake, tried taking advantage and were rightly told to go jump......"

Yeah, because nobody on here should ever try to take advantage of an obvious mistake, should they

So nobody should have tried to take the 1000 on the 15/8 shot which was mistakenly offered as it came out of the stalls, clearly

bf_fananatic     29 Dec 11 01:31 
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.

to be honest we have had our little tiffs over a couple of points but i must agree with this post and the rest of yours on this one

Judging by Betfair's limited and slow communication, I suspect that Betfair are not so convinced that will end up in court. I would be very happy if Betfair give me the same money as they have already spent on legal costs on this matter.

Not end up in court that should have been.

goggles, how do you know or why do you think that the layer's input of 29 was a mistake?

horses get over and underpriced on here every minute of the day in running.

Yesterday, winners were matched at 100. Were these mistakes on the part of the layers? SHould Betfair void these races

Yesterday, losers were backed at 1.01. Were these mistakes on the part of the backers? Should Betfair void these races?

Have you never added a digit to the price you were willing to lay?
Have you never left a digit off the price you wanted to back at?
Have Betfair voided races when customers complained (if they were silly enough to do so) that they made this type of mistake?

if Betfair are now refusing to reveal details of the "glitch", having categorically stated they would.........

.....and aren't using any palpable error defence for declining to pay backers of VDV, where does that leave them now?

Where does that leave their customers if a similar problem arises again?

would one of the major bookmakers accounts be capable of such a liability?

Betfair daren't use palpable error as that could open a can of worms. Their interim CEO made a mistake in using the term as can be seen by the backtracking.

goggles, how do you know or why do you think that the layer's input of 29 was a mistake?


What an absolutely boring argument......a brick dressed as a clown can see it was an error, both palpable and technological. Only desperate and embarrassing losers are trying to argue otherwise. Its tragic the lack of dignity these guys are showing. I'm surprised when a Granny drops her purse in the street, they dont walk off with it ffs

People saying the amount to lay is irrelevant are clueless. If it was a lay of 29 for £1000 or £100, it would have been matched at 2.9, 2.92, 3.00, 4.00 and whatever other lays were already up there before it got to 29, so if it was £100, it wouldnt have got anywhere near 29.

It's an exchange - palpable error does not come into this for one single second. If that is their defence in a court of law they would lose 100%, unless they are then happy to take on every single palpable that has been layed on here in the past - which would close them down indefinitely. There is 1.01 put up on every market on here (horses) as soon as the market is put up and many get matched - all of these are palpables are they not?


I agree if VDV was layed in the bookies ie wh/lads etc at the price they have their palpable error to protect them, but this is an exchange and that rule will not wash at all.

posted by 'Diamond' Joe Quimby
Joined: 14 Oct 05
Replies: 7857 01 Jan 12 11:12   
goggles, how do you know or why do you think that the layer's input of 29 was a mistake?


What an absolutely boring argument......a brick dressed as a clown can see it was an error, both palpable and technological. Only desperate and embarrassing losers are trying to argue otherwise. Its tragic the lack of dignity these guys are showing. I'm surprised when a Granny drops her purse in the street, they dont walk off with it ffs

joe - how much have Betfair given u to come on to every thread and spout the same piosh?

My idiot topic didn't reach 11 pages

This is beyond belief

Fantasy land at its worst

SOMETHING NOT QUITE RIGHT WITH BETFAIRS HANDLING OF THIS, OPENED UP A MINEFIELD I THINK WITH ONE THING TO COME OUT OF IT SHOULD BE TO TAKE A LOOK AT PEOPLE ON COURSE BENEFITING FROM LAYING HORSES THAT HAVE FALLEN. YOU COULD ARGUE VLV HAD SLIPPED UP ON FLAT SO PRICE OF 29.0 WAS REAL TIME PRICE IF THIS HAD HAPPENED?

BLOGGER1 - Millions of pounds? Please

Everyone who backed it thinks they're right to want their money or some compo, everyone who missed it or didn't back it thinks they're not entitled to anything. Those who didn't back it shouldn't be angry at those wanting their money, they should be angry at Betfair. If something happened to them they'd want people on their side but instead they side with Betfair who couldn't give a crap about any of you!

Those who backed it, go to court. You'll win, plain and simple. Those who didn't back it, don't get all snarky cause you're jealous. You should be by the side to make Betfair Fairer, not against them so this place never changes and you keep getting a **** deal. You could all use this to make this place better, in all aspects of betting.

Don't miss your chance.

philiplecornu - that's not correct. I don't think the squealers have a case for full payout.

However in Betfairs Rules it states

13. MISCELLAENEOUS

. Betfair may, in the interests of integrity and fairness and at its sole and absolute discretion, suspend or void part of any market or the whole shebang in its entirety!!!!

So it looks like they're covered, and quite right too!

It'll be interesting to hear how BF defines "integrity and fairness" in Court.

united, are you suggesting that all the key input errors made by customers in the past should be refunded? (including the £240k lost on Peregrine Falcon?)
btw, I clicked on the wrong horse today, took 6/1 on a fancied horse when the layers were busy at that instant hoovering up the 20's and 30's as it started weakening in the straight.
My mistake, not asking Betfair to void the market.... or maybe you think I should?

pedrobob - if you clicked on one thing and your bet presented itself on site as something else entirely, of course I don't think that you should be liable. And if you were, to the tune of £21 million, good luck to the counterparties trying to get paid. Betfair have indemnified themselves against their own demise through such a malfunction as happened with VlV.

do you think the Peregrine Falcon layer should be refunded?

unitedbiscuits 01 Jan 12 18:40 
Betfair have indemnified themselves against their own demise through such a malfunction as happened with VlV.

I suspect the Courts will ultimately decide if this is the case.

No I don't pedrobob, and if he made the further mistake of laying VlV for £21million I shouldn't think he merited a refund for that either. But there was no-one standing behind the bet with a huge tank in this instance.

Gerry - it would be a sad day indeed if Betfair went to the wall as a consequence of such an incident. I hope it doesn't happen.

I bet you don't.

And there is zero chance of them going to the wall, even if they paid out in full.

But there was no-one standing behind the bet with a huge tank in this instance

United, if you read Boycies blog, there is an argument for suggesting Betfair are sitting on a "huge tank in this instance"

so i have understood your logic correctly - you are saying that the Peregrine Falcon backers should keep the money they gained by a palpable mistake of the layer in offering 1000 about a favourite out of the stalls.... but the VDV backers who backed at 29 should not?

Betfair wouldn't go to the wall if a court instructed them to pay out the 21m simply because ultimately, the majority of it would be funded by one or more of the following

- new super-premium charge
- new super-skimbot
- change in the commission structure such as an increase in the minimum rate or decay rate
- cost cutting across the board resulting in a worse site

i.e. we will pay more than they will. Maybe these things are coming regardless but they'll be accelerated

pedrobob - you keep comparing this case with others where customers won or lost against others, and the loser paid the winner. The losing account had £1,000 in it.

Although Betfair wouldn't go to the wall for £21 million, the priciple is the same whether the glitch figure is £600 million, £60.50 or £60 billion, so if Betfair lost this case in court, they may as well draw stumps anyway.

Well seems like a lot of you will find out in the course of time.

Looks like steps are being taken to seek legal advice by most of the bigger punters who were on this horse. As I understand arrangments are taking place to form a group to test the decision by betfair legally.

Today in the Mail On Sunday re the possible de-regulation of the online US Gaming market.

"American companies will be looking for parners who are whiter than white to get past the strict regulatory environment.They want no skeletons to emerge"


No need for a direct flight between Gib and the US then on two counts !!

*partners it is New Years Day !!

30 Sep 2007 - £25.3m profits, Morana told The Sunday Telegraph that Betfair has £200m in the bank

14 December 2011 - big increase in profits for the six months to the end of October. It said underlying profits after tax rose by 43% compared with a year earlier to £20.6m.


just a couple of extracts, £21m a dip in the ocean presumably compared to their reserves and hardly "go to the wall" stuff....... with 6 monthly after tax profit of £20.6m in latest report. That looks a suitable nice round number to me.

united - How do u know this was a customer who had £1000 in their account?  This is the story BetLiar are telling us.  Until a proper investigation is done by an independent adjudicator

Zayner I dont think you are any the wiser from much of the foregoing. I dont believe the amount involved has anything to do with the rights or wrongs of the case. I dont believe 20m would be considered too much for a publically quoted company like BF to have to pay if they are found negligent in providing this service. I had no bet on here on the race but genuinely hope you take and win your case. Danger is you lose and have to pay their costs. From reading the thread I am surprised at the number of plants on here.

its unreal isnt it,people punt on here but dont trust the site or betfair,why bet on here just go to ****,if you dont trust what they tell you bet somewhere else it isnt hard,for me theyve come out and said  weve nothing to hide and so take a look,the only thing theyve done wrong is letting this sole account go way above his account limit,the customer clearly doesnt hold these funds so betfair are the only option which i very much doubt will happen,punters who took that price knew something was up and were trying to profit from it,in court betfair will win ,its in the terms & conditions where they will get you and costly court fees for the punters,you really cant hope to profit from a software glitch joe korals or will wouldnt pay you so why should betfair.

anyway who in their right mind would lay 28/1 for a almost certain winner for that amount of money,you wouldnt be on here if you had 22m would you

jaja how much do they pay you.

Not enough

Apart from the decimal point similarity to SP , no one has been able to explain the 29 odds . Any possibility the inputter was on the wrong horse  , the volume being a seperate issue ?

Surprising the bot operator concerned has not been identified by the media . Sitting on a good book or payola from some of the tabloids , and they wont even need to hack his mobile . So far he / she/it has been very good about not cashing in his chips . Reckon he might do well financially out of this , and not even be charged for his initial ( assumed) potential lays . That equals winning , coming and going !

Are we going to hear anymore from BF on this matter.

It may well be sub judice soon, so i doubt it..

Can we have a market on whether BETFAIR wins or loses the pending court case?

Anything happening

Have it all at 1.01............OP is a friend of phaugutfraudboy..............loser.nap

Hoooof.

Some MIA posters and comments from ere..

in 20yrs ive never seen or heard of enniwon being able to exceed their exposure limit..