Forums
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Jungle
23 Mar 12 13:50
Joined:
Date Joined: 20 Apr 03
| Topic/replies: 25 | Blogger: Jungle's blog
mustn't be allowed to talk about it now

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
Page 1 of 3  •  Previous 1 | 2 | 3 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 99
By:
pedrobob
When: 23 Mar 12 14:29
amazing the libel that gets put on virtually other thread and just sits their in the archive.....
By:
Nauseating Nigel
When: 23 Mar 12 14:35
HELLO HELLO HELLO whats happened here then Whoops
By:
Rollo Tomasi
When: 23 Mar 12 15:50
mmmmmm.... very interesting has someone pulled the trigger on a legal case? So it's sub judice?
By:
Jack Bauer '24'
When: 23 Mar 12 17:00
What have IBAS said?
By:
Johnnystag
When: 23 Mar 12 17:52
IBAS Laugh
By:
Nauseating Nigel
When: 23 Mar 12 17:57
people will get the letters in the morning
By:
Jungle
When: 23 Mar 12 17:59
taking a long time
By:
themover
When: 23 Mar 12 18:05
from the Guardian 11th Jan :

"We had a long meeting with our regulator, the Gibraltar Gambling Commission, last week, where we gave the commission a full and thorough explanation as to how things went wrong," said the Betfair spokesman Tony Calvin.

So if this was accepted by the GCC (albeit Betfair then paid out an the place market) why does it then take IBAS another 2 months to arrive at a decision, whatever that may be? Was this information on "how things went wrong" passed to IBAS at the same time as it was IBAS that Betfair were referring customers to and if not why not?
By:
Rollo Tomasi
When: 23 Mar 12 18:14
Merry Vic missing the last race just shows what can happen on here. Winner Offshore Account laid at up to 900.
Merry Vic was streaking away there at higher than 29

People were supposed to know there was something wrong with the 29 VLV?

Do Merry Vic backers get their money back?
By:
Percy Filth
When: 23 Mar 12 18:20
People were supposed to know there was something wrong with the 29 VLV?


They'd be pretty naive if they didn't
By:
Nauseating Nigel
When: 23 Mar 12 18:22
1.01 this will end up in court
By:
diddler
When: 23 Mar 12 18:23
Thats not the point percy because of time delays on pics people were betting odds on and getting matched at 100 surely to good to be true and therefor voided.
By:
themover
When: 23 Mar 12 18:23
The price is not the reason they are using to avoid settlements. I've backed plenty of bigger priced horses that have subsequently been found to have run out and lost weights etc Laugh
By:
diddler
When: 23 Mar 12 18:28
calvin said that it was an obvious error as it could not be 29 as it was clear on the run in
By:
rcing
When: 23 Mar 12 18:31
i turned over to watch th VLV race when there was only about half a mile to go , so how am i to know what was the correct price as anything could have happened before i turned over , something fell off his saddle ( weight ) , some horses may have taken the wrong course  , etc
By:
Percy Filth
When: 23 Mar 12 18:32
It was not so much the 29s, more the millions on offer
By:
Banks.
When: 23 Mar 12 18:33
Everyone continually seem to overlook the fact that even if IBAS and the courts rule that the bets stand then the money is owed by the punter not BF. As I very much doubt he has a spare £20m to settle things people would get about a penny in the pound at best.
By:
DOUBLED
When: 23 Mar 12 18:36
What punter ?
By:
Rollo Tomasi
When: 23 Mar 12 18:40
Banks,
You need to brush up on your Betfair terms and look at precedents set in the past. Who stood the negative balances on carling cup football, cricket top batsman first innings, rugby, etc.?
By:
Rollo Tomasi
When: 23 Mar 12 18:41
Anyway Betfair may have liability insurance that covers the "payout" minus comm/PC
By:
freeze_the_secret
When: 23 Mar 12 18:42
Not forgetting the Comply Or Die SP in the National.
By:
Banks.
When: 23 Mar 12 18:47
They were chicken feed discretionaty payments that were made to maintain peoples confidence in the product. No chance they will do the same for £20m. That is more than the BF group profit for 2010!

They will downplay it as a ridiculous mistake that couldn't possibly have been taken seriously to minimise the commercial impact.

I suppose it is different to the FGS, Aus top batsman etc markets as they involved bets at the "correct" price albeit without the funds to cover them after NRs removed.
By:
Brother Mouzone
When: 23 Mar 12 18:49
The poor geezer who accidently laid the bet has had enough stress without this being brought up again.
By:
Stake & Chips
When: 23 Mar 12 18:49
I think the exchange model reloes on there being no such thing as a palpable error. Betfair's systems failed, and they should do the honourable thing and cough up.
By:
Stake & Chips
When: 23 Mar 12 18:50
* relies Mischief
By:
Banks.
When: 23 Mar 12 18:51
Not forgetting the Comply Or Die SP in the National.


Again another which wasn't of the same magnitude of VLV plus in the case of the National many of the "wronged" customers would have been new customers as they did a huge marketing campaign to attract new accounts in the run up to the race and wouldn't have wanted to disenfranchise new customers after 1 bet.

Do you really think they are bothered about upsetting what they probably see as a few in running chancers?

Time will tell.
By:
Jack Bauer '24'
When: 23 Mar 12 18:55
The £600M liability bet was put up by one of Betair's in house trading bots in my very humble opinion. If this can be proven in court, Betfair are in big trouble.
By:
quickoats
When: 23 Mar 12 18:59
Does anyone know what the actually findings are by the IBAS?
By:
Banks.
When: 23 Mar 12 19:01
The £600M liability bet was put up by one of Betair's in house trading bots in my very humble opinion. If this can be proven in court, Betfair are in big trouble.

Bearing in mind the comments they made about the case I would be absolutely staggered if this is the case.
By:
Feck N. Eejit
When: 23 Mar 12 19:12
Bearing in mind the comments they made about the case I would be absolutely staggered if this is the case.

Do you mean the "it wisnae us, we're no bookmakers, we're only middlemen, Sir Fred is innocent" comments? I think you're right Banks, surely a British business wouldn't tell porkies?
By:
guinness2dear
When: 23 Mar 12 19:17
You missed out Calvin's "full explanation", Feck...
By:
Rollo Tomasi
When: 23 Mar 12 19:23
Banks,
There is and never was a £20m payout. You don't really think bets are commission and Premium Charge free do you?

The terms clearly state id an exposure limit is exceeded a bet still stands. It doesn't say "As long as we think it isn't too much for us to stand on your behalf".
By:
Banks.
When: 23 Mar 12 19:28
The terms clearly state id an exposure limit is exceeded a bet still stands. It doesn't say "As long as we think it isn't too much for us to stand on your behalf".

I agree but does it say that BF will take the liability onboard on behalf of the other punter?  (I haven't checked so I honestly don't know the exact wording).
By:
Banks.
When: 23 Mar 12 19:30
Bearing in mind the comments they made about the case I would be absolutely staggered if this is the case.

Do you mean the "it wisnae us, we're no bookmakers, we're only middlemen, Sir Fred is innocent" comments? I think you're right Banks, surely a British business wouldn't tell porkies?


If that were the case surely they would have publically started to try and cover their tracks a little.
By:
Feck N. Eejit
When: 23 Mar 12 19:35
What tracks. "it wisnae us" was as far as the explanation went.
By:
Rollo Tomasi
When: 23 Mar 12 19:38
I assume it means bets stand because now bets are recoverable by law, Betfair could take your house off you for a mis-click.

If that bet had been laid by a Russian oligarch would we have had our money by now and Betfair a hefty chunk of commission and PC?

We know in the world Betfair think exists, mistakes of £100,000's that could cost people all THEY have, are laughed off as a "fat finger error" as long as it makes Betfair money via commission. However anything that affects their bottom line too much is a "technical error".

In the real world if a term is too one sided it isn't worth the paper it is written on.
By:
Banks.
When: 23 Mar 12 19:53
But isn't that the point Rollo that the money would be owed by the account holder not BF. Just because BF made an error wouldn't make them liable for the bet.

BF could laugh this off and give you the name of the account holder and say chase him for the £20m or whatever the amount is.
By:
Rollo Tomasi
When: 23 Mar 12 19:59
Banks,
You need to brush up on your Betfair terms.
By:
themover
When: 23 Mar 12 19:59
No Banks. My account (and contract if you like) is with Betfair and bets placed are with their terms and conditions applied (not those of the person that matched the bet). Whether or not Betfair have collected, or failed to collect, from the other party is not my concern.
Page 1 of 3  •  Previous 1 | 2 | 3 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
‹ back to topics
www.betfair.com