Computer punter makes $30 million rick in HK

(of course when a certain exchange not a million miles away from here made a rick like this no one was paid!!!)

Their Dilithium Cystals probably overloaded,HV.

I have little sympathy with people who rely on computers to do their betting for them.

SS - you are one tough cookie

SS,is correct,HV.
Many years ago when there actually was some liquidity on here,I left "she who must be obeyed" to Lay an "unfancied" one whilst I had to go out for an hour.
The instructions were,"drip in £100 Lays slowly".
When I returned I found that she had "Backed" the hapless creature for the best part of £4,000!
It cost me to straighten it out.
Strangely,I have never asked for her "assistance" in this field since.
The moral is,"do it yourself or face the consequences".

No-one has asked the obvious question.

If it was a computer error would the bet have been voided if it won? (Like La Vodette) or because it lost it doesn't matter?

Also pool only seems to be HKD 7 MLN higher than usual according to OP, so not sure where the HKD 30 MLN comes in?

They most certainly would have been paid,Trusty.

They would have been paid as it is a pool system,but of course it would have been at shorter odds than it should have been.

sorry Trusty, a lapse in concentration, I meant to say the pool would normally have been around $7m but it closed at $37m.

So you don't think the authorities looking into the pool 5 times it's normal size and discovering a computer error would/could have voided the bets?

So as it stands a computer program put an extra ~£2MLN in the pool which was paid out on the correct straight forecast, less deductions.

Why should they ?
Their cut will have been larger but most of it would go to other punters who had presumably for the most part played it straight. Are you suggesting their winning bets should have been voided ?

It was "real money" in the Pool,unlike the "mythical money" that miraculously found its way into the BF Pool.

...of course the funny thing is; all money is now "mythical money"; so much has been printed by so many central banks it is only a matter of time before the population as a whole lose their trust in the bits of papers in their pockets and their bank accounts.

This page puts it in perspective: http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html

And here is the amount just the US is in debt; http://www.usdebtclock.org/

It's all going to end in tears, just a question of when.

Trusty, you are clued up, who is all this debt ultimately owed to?

Saddo use this old link from the BBC, it helps shows you who owes what to whom:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15748696

HV, the computer gambler had HK$30m in his account and it was transferred as real cash onto the Tote?

...and what sort of Tote pool is that when 30m out of the 37m on a single permutation can pay 2/1+?
That would have been a payout of 90m+?

...he is wrong...payout was 1.1

thanks trusty. Punter should appeal to IBAS - bound to get his money back after being ruled a palpable error imo

sorry guys, I had many balls in the air when putting this fred up this afternoon, yes the payout would have been as trusty says, 1.1

and pedro it was a team rather than one individual, though that team may well have a figurehead, and the bet came continuously from a number of accounts belonging to the said team as there is a maximum of 21m for any one account with the HKJC

I think you are joking about IBAS

they are serious gamblers, HV.

(tongue firmly in cheek with IBAS.... or any HK version - do they have one?)

the short answer is no, though the HKJC do have their own internal unit for investigating betting disputes, say if an operator presses a wrong button on a telephone bet.

that said you would have recourse to the courts, for instance there was a time when HKJC employees were not allowed to bet and someone I know who worked for them did successfully bet the equivalent of the Tote jackpot and the dividend came to HK$2m. when a third party went to collect for him, the security dept were there and he never got paid. the legal advice was he should have contested this through the courts and he would have won. but he didn't contest. (maybe he was paid out eventually on the QT but I don't think so)

(employees are now allowed to bet)

An interesting read this story.  Phenomenal pools over there as this $37 million pot only account for 2.5% of the day's turnover

yes turnover for a weekend (usually 10-race card) is regularly over HK$1 billion these days.

1.3 bill last Sunday HV. Shame they didn't put the 30 in the TT pot it's up to 20 for tomorrow night!! Does hkjc still take 5.5% out of each pool as comms with tax to govt of 12.5% too?

HV - I thought they still weren't allowed to bet legally, even Jenny, Clint et al