Forums
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
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
Pause Switch to Standard View Voler La Vedette thread gone?
Show More
Loading...
Report pedrobob March 23, 2012 1:29 PM GMT
amazing the libel that gets put on virtually other thread and just sits their in the archive.....
Report Nauseating Nigel March 23, 2012 1:35 PM GMT
HELLO HELLO HELLO whats happened here then Whoops
Report Rollo Tomasi March 23, 2012 2:50 PM GMT
mmmmmm.... very interesting has someone pulled the trigger on a legal case? So it's sub judice?
Report Jack Bauer '24' March 23, 2012 4:00 PM GMT
What have IBAS said?
Report Johnnystag March 23, 2012 4:52 PM GMT
IBAS Laugh
Report Nauseating Nigel March 23, 2012 4:57 PM GMT
people will get the letters in the morning
Report Jungle March 23, 2012 4:59 PM GMT
taking a long time
Report themover March 23, 2012 5:05 PM GMT
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?
Report Rollo Tomasi March 23, 2012 5:14 PM GMT
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?
Report Percy Filth March 23, 2012 5:20 PM GMT
People were supposed to know there was something wrong with the 29 VLV?


They'd be pretty naive if they didn't
Report Nauseating Nigel March 23, 2012 5:22 PM GMT
1.01 this will end up in court
Report diddler March 23, 2012 5:23 PM GMT
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.
Report themover March 23, 2012 5:23 PM GMT
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
Report diddler March 23, 2012 5:28 PM GMT
calvin said that it was an obvious error as it could not be 29 as it was clear on the run in
Report rcing March 23, 2012 5:31 PM GMT
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
Report Percy Filth March 23, 2012 5:32 PM GMT
It was not so much the 29s, more the millions on offer
Report Banks. March 23, 2012 5:33 PM GMT
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.
Report DOUBLED March 23, 2012 5:36 PM GMT
What punter ?
Report Rollo Tomasi March 23, 2012 5:40 PM GMT
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.?
Report Rollo Tomasi March 23, 2012 5:41 PM GMT
Anyway Betfair may have liability insurance that covers the "payout" minus comm/PC
Report freeze_the_secret March 23, 2012 5:42 PM GMT
Not forgetting the Comply Or Die SP in the National.
Report Banks. March 23, 2012 5:47 PM GMT
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.
Report Brother Mouzone March 23, 2012 5:49 PM GMT
The poor geezer who accidently laid the bet has had enough stress without this being brought up again.
Report Stake & Chips March 23, 2012 5:49 PM GMT
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.
Report Stake & Chips March 23, 2012 5:50 PM GMT
* relies Mischief
Report Banks. March 23, 2012 5:51 PM GMT
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.
Report Jack Bauer '24' March 23, 2012 5:55 PM GMT
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.
Report quickoats March 23, 2012 5:59 PM GMT
Does anyone know what the actually findings are by the IBAS?
Report Banks. March 23, 2012 6:01 PM GMT
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.
Report Feck N. Eejit March 23, 2012 6:12 PM GMT
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?
Report guinness2dear March 23, 2012 6:17 PM GMT
You missed out Calvin's "full explanation", Feck...
Report Rollo Tomasi March 23, 2012 6:23 PM GMT
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".
Report Banks. March 23, 2012 6:28 PM GMT
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).
Report Banks. March 23, 2012 6:30 PM GMT
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.
Report Feck N. Eejit March 23, 2012 6:35 PM GMT
What tracks. "it wisnae us" was as far as the explanation went.
Report Rollo Tomasi March 23, 2012 6:38 PM GMT
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.
Report Banks. March 23, 2012 6:53 PM GMT
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.
Report Rollo Tomasi March 23, 2012 6:59 PM GMT
Banks,
You need to brush up on your Betfair terms.
Report themover March 23, 2012 6:59 PM GMT
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.
Report Banks. March 23, 2012 7:03 PM GMT
Banks,
You need to brush up on your Betfair terms.


I did say I hadn't read them. Please can you point me to the part where it states that BF are liable even if the other party doesn't have the funds? I always thought it said that the punter was liable even if you went over your available funds limit through some quirk or other. I may be completely wrong as I haven't read them closely.
Report themover March 23, 2012 7:11 PM GMT
9 . Minimum and maximum bet stakes
Depending on the product or type of market you are betting on and depending on the currency that you are betting in, there are minimum bet sizes that apply. These minimum bet sizes are subject to change and may differ depending on whether you are on our site or using the Telephone Betting Service. You are not permitted to place bets or try to place bets that are below the minimum bet size threshold and doing so may result in your account being permanently closed.

Your betting limit is represented by the lesser of: (i) your 'Available to Bet' balance shown in your account and (ii) your ‘Exposure Limit’ (which is available in the “Account Summary” tab in “My Account”). However in the event that we process an offer for a bet or the acceptance of a bet in an amount outside the applicable thresholds, such bet will nevertheless stand.
Report Rollo Tomasi March 23, 2012 7:12 PM GMT
Banks,
I think there is something in there somewhere.

It boils down to this, Betfair think if something goes wrong on here, if it's Betfair +£ we can have your money. If it's Betfair -£ you cannot have ours. That doesn't seem "fair" to me.
Report homefortea March 23, 2012 7:30 PM GMT
Banks..Bon Viveur..You can quote facts about every pro-Bookmaker argument that you address.And yet you state that you have not read the terms and conditions of Betfair ? Come on big boy !!
  What really ticks me off is what happened if the animal in question had been given the poor ride that it had at the Festival and actually lost !! Any chance of a refund !!
Report pedrobob March 23, 2012 7:57 PM GMT
Banks.     23 Mar 12 17:33 
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.


Banks, already had legal advice to the contrary - that the customer would indeed be sued as you suggest, but when they have been emptied of their assets, legally Betfair would then be sued and have to stand together with the customer against VLV backers.

As well as misinforming people about the law, you are also misleading them about:

a)Betfair profits - No chance they (Betfair) will do the same for £20m. That is more than the BF group profit for 2010!

Yet “underlying profits rise 36% to £42.4m in the six months to October 31” according to this website:

http://www.nebusiness.co.uk/business-news/latest-business-news/2011/12/15/phone-betting-gives-boost-to-betfair-profits-51140-29956220/


b)will (Betfair) take the liability onboard on behalf of the other punter?

Are you not aware that Betfair’s TC’s say they are a bookmaker to all customers not based in the UK and your bet is matched with them, not a third party?
Report homefortea March 23, 2012 8:00 PM GMT
pedrobob..I could not agree more.However Banks. loves an arguement...even when he has not read the rules !!
Report guinness2dear March 23, 2012 9:34 PM GMT
Anyone got a letter yet ?
Report ykickamoocow March 23, 2012 9:40 PM GMT
i would love to know whos bot did the so called damage.where is this guy in all this.did he come forward.if it was me i would come forward big time.in house bot no doubt.there has been so many issues with this site it makes a lot more sense that they messed up themselves...this will go on and on no doubt..its a bertie
Report pedrobob March 24, 2012 9:02 AM GMT
has anyone received any notification from IBAS today?

Surely in the interests of good customer relations, Betfair would be willing to post the decision to all VLV backers as presumably the decision is binding on them and with all their customers?
Report clouded leopard March 24, 2012 9:51 AM GMT
good customer relations ?

bit early in the day for magic mushrooms isn't it pedro ?
Report pedrobob March 24, 2012 10:00 AM GMT
surely in Betfair's interests to publicise the outcome for the benefit of shareholders, the City and any would be investors with a potential multi-million payout hanging over them?

leopard, have sent you a pm
Report Rollo Tomasi March 24, 2012 10:42 AM GMT
I received a letter today IBAS have unsurprisingly backed Betfair 100%
Report punchestown March 24, 2012 10:42 AM GMT
With the time delay on some peoples TV any price on betfair at any stage on any horse is believable,to me, that fact is unescapable by betfair,I was watching the Cheltenham Festival flicking between Chan4 & RTE (Irish TV) and the pictures on RTE were ahead of the Chan4 pictures by about 3-4 seconds allowing for anything to happen and flick over to see it again "live",then factor in fast pic boys and trackside players.

The king has no clothes.
Report Virgin March 24, 2012 10:44 AM GMT
agree with that slow picture angle as well as the wrong call / colours angle

plenty of overpriced horses when I place an IR 'live' bet Sad
Report martin118 March 24, 2012 10:55 AM GMT
Letter just arrived. IBAS adjudicate in favour of Betfair.
Now what?
Report punchestown March 24, 2012 10:56 AM GMT
I meant to state that the two TV chanells were showing the exact same footage (C4 just a straight feed through RTE).
Report Aviboyd March 24, 2012 11:04 AM GMT
martin118
24 Mar 12 10:55 Joined: 07 Jan 02 | Topic/replies: 131 | Blogger: martin118's blog
Letter just arrived. IBAS adjudicate in favour of Betfair.
Now what?

Well knock me down with a feather, who would have thought...
Report Virgin March 24, 2012 11:08 AM GMT
1.01 Sad
Report martin118 March 24, 2012 11:13 AM GMT
I was fully expexting it but what to do next?
Report pedrobob March 24, 2012 11:15 AM GMT
martin, pls check your pms
Report Jungle March 24, 2012 12:20 PM GMT
did ibas give a full explanation of why?
Report themover March 24, 2012 12:54 PM GMT
The letter is a lengthy one and goes into quite a bit of detail which is a good thing. Far too much to post here but here is the summary :

"Ultimately all we can conclude is that this was a bet accepted in error as a result of a technological failure, which fundamentally affected the market into which it was placed. For that reason we believe Betfair acted reasonably and in accordance with their terms and conditions, in voiding all bets matched in the win market after it was posted. We therefore adjudicate in favour of Betfair."
Report pedrobob March 24, 2012 1:00 PM GMT
"a bet accepted in error as a result of a technological failure"

Any lemming can see that and can't understand how it took 2 months to come up with that line.

But did IBAS consider the cause of the technological failure? Namely a Betfair programmer, human person, who failed to code in the correct algorithm?

This was not a technolgical failure. It was human error. ie corporate negligence for which Betfair should be held accountable.
Report Jungle March 24, 2012 1:01 PM GMT
Thanks 'themover', are you happy with the full explanation? or are there still questions that need further answers?
Report No_BS March 24, 2012 1:04 PM GMT
Ha ha ha you thieves expected to win, no chance as for what now, well nothing because you have no legal rights to pursue the matter any more, win for betfair.
Report Gerry Gallbladder March 24, 2012 1:09 PM GMT
Preumably IBAS have seen evidence to support the 'technological failure' that occurred on the customer's account? Perhaps if they and / or Betfair would publish a couple of really basic details relating to this account - date it was activated and a record of the bets placed by the account holder in the week or month preceding the VLV incident - we'd be more inclined to accept the explanations provided.
Report pedrobob March 24, 2012 1:12 PM GMT
themover, please check your pms
Report themover March 24, 2012 1:12 PM GMT
@Jungle I think the letter is very good and goes into a good explanation as to what occurred.

Point 27 :

The Panel are aware that many businesses and their websites have similar disclaimers, but we are not a legal entity and so offer no opinion as to whether such disclaimers would be in breach of the reasonableness test specified in the Unfair Contracts Terms Act (1977).
Report pedrobob March 24, 2012 1:14 PM GMT
gerry, you too, please check pms
Report Nauseating Nigel March 24, 2012 1:15 PM GMT
DOES THAT MEAN U SHOULD LOOK AT LEGAL ACTION THEN ?
Report Nauseating Nigel March 24, 2012 1:15 PM GMT
DOES THAT MEAN U SHOULD LOOK AT LEGAL ACTION THEN ?
Report themover March 24, 2012 1:17 PM GMT

Mar 24, 2012 -- 2:04PM, No_BS wrote:


Ha ha ha you thieves expected to win, no chance as for what now, well nothing because you have no legal rights to pursue the matter any more, win for betfair.


Firstly I'm not a thief, secondly are you a solicitor? If so please feel free to mail me your reasoning behind your claim we have "no legal rights to pursue the matter"

Report Jungle March 24, 2012 1:19 PM GMT
Lets see what happens next
Report themover March 24, 2012 1:21 PM GMT
I don't think anyone thought IBAS would find in favour of the claimants. As they correctly state in the letter they are not a legal entity and therefore have offered no opinion other than to state "Equally we do not believe that there is any case law which says software providers are responsible for any errors which may be undetected within the products they offer."
Report pedrobob March 24, 2012 1:46 PM GMT
"Equally we do not believe that there is any case law which says software providers are responsible for any errors which may be undetected within the products they offer."

amazed that IBAS are even daring to offer themselves up as experts on "software case law".

Are they saying that if an EPOS system had a software fault in it resulting in a supermarket correctly coding a product for sale on the shelves at £1.00........ but the software somehow read that as £0.01p and it was sold to customers for that amount..... that the EPOS supplier would not have to pay compensation to the supermarket if a technological fault was found?
Report themover March 24, 2012 2:05 PM GMT
presumably they missed the RedSky case in 2010
Report redferrari March 24, 2012 2:06 PM GMT
A month at Jumby Bay cancelled :(
Report themover March 24, 2012 2:07 PM GMT
Laugh
Report pedrobob March 24, 2012 6:43 PM GMT
have had a chance to read the report and it's an embarrassing document imo.
Have to severely question the competence of IBAS as most of what they state and interpret won't hold a candle in court.... in my limited legal opinion
Report Nauseating Nigel March 25, 2012 1:34 PM BST
get it on pedro
Report No_BS March 25, 2012 2:37 PM BST
There is no case to answer it was a software error and you lost nothing there fore nothing to claim, end of story
Report Virgin March 25, 2012 2:38 PM BST
you keep saying it's end of story

nothing more to say

so go away Plain
Report Feck N. Eejit March 25, 2012 3:36 PM BST
If it goes to court most of those who lost out will be able to hold up their lifetime account statement and say "if you think the odds about VLV were unbelievable take a look at this".
Report Rollo Tomasi March 25, 2012 5:17 PM BST
IBAS appear to have decided the amount is more important than the actions. With this ruling black is black but in future black could be white or grey depending on how much is involved.

By suggesting it would cost Betfair £23m it seems to imply they think all bets on here are commission and Premium Charge free!
Report Jack Bauer '24' March 25, 2012 5:33 PM BST
IBAS were always going to find in favour of Betfair. The matter must go to court if there is to be any chance of the truth being revealed.
Report Rollo Tomasi March 25, 2012 5:47 PM BST
IBAS "the huge sums involved"

So what they are saying is the more a betting firm refuses to pay you the more right it is!!Laugh
Report The Betting Thief March 25, 2012 5:50 PM BST
Just a point form someone not involved but clued up on litigation (Though not qualified)

The IBAS ruling is a massive setback as, both parties have agreed to abide by IBAS as an Independant Arbitrator. However, from just reading the snippets I have, it would seem that IBAS have admitted they have no legal knowledge and as such it is a weak ruling as your arguements are basically about contract law.

What is interesting is, if someone did sue Betfair, they could put in a request for further information which could include a request for the account details of the account that did the transaction. A judge could also deem this persons testimony as essential to the case and issue a summons for his/her attendance to be cross examined by any claimant.

If anyone would care to email me the ruling to edrpool at yahoo co uk I would happily look at it.
Report Rollo Tomasi March 25, 2012 5:59 PM BST
An IBAS decison is not legally binding. If it were, nobody would have bothered wasting their time with them.

They have even mentioned things like "if the £600m had all been matched....". It wasn't. They should only be making decisions on what actually happened. They may as well say "if a punter hadn't backed this horse" or "if the football team hadn't won" or "if it had been a different jockey it might not have won".

I wasn't expecting much from IBAS but am genuinely shocked how poor their letter is. It defies belief that they think they are capable of making decisions in cases where lots of money is at stake. Personally I'd take my chances with a set of chimpanzees next time.
Report Feck N. Eejit March 25, 2012 6:03 PM BST
Could've been worse Rollo. The GC would have adjudicated on it but not informed anyone of their decision. At best they would've spell checked "Fk off".
Report unitedbiscuits March 25, 2012 6:04 PM BST
What "truth" do you think will be revealed in court?

Betfair have already told anyone who had a bet at 29.0 that the counterparty had £700 in his account.
Report themover March 25, 2012 6:15 PM BST

Mar 25, 2012 -- 6:04PM, unitedbiscuits wrote:


What "truth" do you think will be revealed in court? Betfair have already told anyone who had a bet at 29.0 that the counterparty had £700 in his account.


yeah and Calvin is going to provide us with a full technical report!

Report unitedbiscuits March 25, 2012 6:20 PM BST
the mover - If a full technical report revealed how to louse-up the site via a technical glitch, then their reticence is justified. Don't you beleive them? Do you think a user risked £600 million in this instance?
Report Rollo Tomasi March 25, 2012 6:28 PM BST
In their letter there is no mention that I could request the adjudication be reviewed.

In the Racing Post today IBAS managing director Richard Hayler is quoted as saying:

"As with every IBAS case either party is entitled to request that the adjudication be reviewed"

So we have to buy a newspaper? Why is that not in the letter?

Enough said about IBAS....
Report Jack Bauer '24' March 25, 2012 6:29 PM BST
I find it totally implausible that a customer is able to bypass all of Betfair's systems and submit a phantom £600m bet. A far more plausible explanation would be that one of Betfair's in house trading bots operating without a limit had malfunctioned.

The fine details of what actually happened and how active Betfair are in their own markets will only be revealed in a court of law, imvho.
Report themover March 25, 2012 6:30 PM BST

Mar 25, 2012 -- 6:20PM, unitedbiscuits wrote:


the mover - If a full technical report revealed how to louse-up the site via a technical glitch, then their reticence is justified. Don't you beleive them? Do you think a user risked £600 million in this instance?


why go on TV and tell everyone that's what they are going to do if they aren't?

Report unitedbiscuits March 25, 2012 6:50 PM BST
I guess it will be decided in court. IBAS are hopeless anyway.
Report ER WHAT HAPPENED THERE March 25, 2012 7:30 PM BST
As I said prior under a different guise,. no one is saying IBAS is legally binding however, if it did go to court, you would be up against a judge who probably had £1 EW on the National. He would put alot of weight onto an INDEPENDANT (We know it isnt but the judge doesnt) ARBITRATIONS findings. It would be deemed as expert witness testimony and it is also, as per the terms and conditions, one that you have agreed to abide by.


Personally I think anyone who sues WHO HASNT gone to IBAS are in alot stronger position than anyone who has.
Report pedrobob March 25, 2012 10:08 PM BST
He (a judge) would put alot of weight onto an INDEPENDANT (We know it isnt but the judge doesnt) ARBITRATIONS findings. It would be deemed as expert witness testimony and it is also, as per the terms and conditions, one that you have agreed to abide by.

First of all, presumably a jury would decide not a judge (?), and secondly are you aware that IBAS place no weight on the law in coming to a decision?

They also explicitly state in the report that they have no knowledge of the Unfair Contract Terms Act and whether Betfair's terms are indeed fair.

So would a judge place any weight on this independent arbitrator? A categorical no.
He will be far more interested in doing his job ie that of applying the law of England .....

As for suggesting customers have "agreed to abide by" Betfair's TC's, that sounds awfully similar to the confession that IBAS made this weekend - that they have never heard of the Unfair Contract Terms Act.
Report ER WHAT HAPPENED THERE March 25, 2012 10:54 PM BST
Jesus, A JURY

I stopped reading the rest of your post after that.
Report marc1013 March 25, 2012 11:39 PM BST
ibas will rule who ever pays them enough just remember if you gamble its bent expect no diffrent
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.

Wonder

Instance ID: 13539
www.betfair.com