The punter sees a price and think's that's value, so has his bet and takes the price on offer, if the odds were only 1/2 or 1/4 of what was on offer he may think no value here, so no bet. How on earth is he to know that they have made an error. Would love to see this go to court.

How on earth is he not to know that 2000/1 was an error.

swift i have said already on here that in certain cases they have hidden behind that rule. in this case i dont think they have, in my opinion top say they should pay out on any errors is a nonsense

I know about palpable errors etc but latterly a point was raised about if the punter made a mistake and say wrote Fav 1.30 and it transpired he meant Turffontein or in France or even virtual (if they have 1.30) but the settlers went with 1.30 at a British meeting. Do they have to split stake or prefer to see some previous that he bets on the overseas. You can't see Betfred getting a result in England and giving up some of it to an overseas filler.

@thedealer -- your examples are correct -- and the palpable error rule is there to protect the bookmakers from errors like the cashier ringing up the wrong price, as you rightly say.

But in the case of an internet bet, the palpable error defence should not apply. As per my earlier post, the system should have safeguards built in (just like in other industries) and this could be done quite easily. For instance, if the tennis match is priced up 6/4 2000/1 then a simple overround calculation would be enough to flag up the error before the prices are published. Other checks are suggested in my earlier post and I dare say any bookies' IT department could brainstorm another dozen before teatime.

And if IBAS rules against the bookies, the systems will be in place by the following weekend. But they won't.

Ramruma 02 Jun 15 17:32 Joined: 11 Dec 02 | Topic/replies: 6,395 | Blogger: Ramruma's blog
@thedealer -- your examples are correct -- and the palpable error rule is there to protect the bookmakers from errors like the cashier ringing up the wrong price, as you rightly say.

But in the case of an internet bet, the palpable error defence should not apply. As per my earlier post, the system should have safeguards built in (just like in other industries) and this could be done quite easily. For instance, if the tennis match is priced up 6/4 2000/1 then a simple overround calculation would be enough to flag up the error before the prices are published. Other checks are suggested in my earlier post and I dare say any bookies' IT department could brainstorm another dozen before teatime.

And if IBAS rules against the bookies, the systems will be in place by the following weekend. But they won't.


so you think betfair should have covered the £600 million or whatever it was on Voler La Vedette?!

They settled his bet at 50/1, 2 1/2 times the correct price as well as offering 2 x £50 free bets. A few others put small amounts on this bet and have accepted WH's offer. This is a non-story and the punter is a chancer.

Or was that for 6-3, 6-3?

That explains the big price then.

He deserves to be on the "Clown list".

Industry News / IBAS News


Ibas calls for change to palpable error wording - Racing Post - Thursday 27th November 2008

THE chief executive of betting’s arbitration service yesterday called for ‘palpable error’ to be removed from all bookmakers’ rules, and a new, clearer ruling inserted in its place.

Ibas boss Chris O’Keeffe was speaking after a Totesport punter received an out-of-court settlement following his decision to take his case to Northampton County Court, after Ibas had found in favour of the bookmaker.

Steve Baker stood to win £700 after making two bets on Northampton Saints to win rugby union’s National League One title with a 100 per cent record last season. However, Totesport refused to pay out because Baker had mistakenly been offered odds on the town’s football club instead.

O’Keeffe said: “As it stands, at the moment we are mindful of the fact we are working against a backdrop of contract law, but we are also mindful of the fact our role is to be expert interpreters of bookmakers’ rules.

“The industry needs to remove the term ‘palpable error’, or its equivalent, from their rules. It has become a mere device lacking true definition.”

He added: “It should be replaced with ‘error, inadvertent error, or obvious error’, qualified through a definition.

“I think the term palpable error has got to be removed from bookmakers’ rules completely. It is something that bookmakers have got to focus on now. I want the rule clearly defined, because at the minute it is so subjective.”

With no precedent to the Northampton bet issue, O’Keeffe said it would be “enlightening” for both the industry and Ibas should a similar case go to court, before adding: “I would have been extremely interested to see how the court would have ruled following our decision, where we judged the case on its merits and made reference to the company’s rules.”

Two of Britain’s biggest betting chains yesterday welcomed O’Keeffe’s proposals, while others have already changed the wording of their rules.

Coral’s director of trading and PR Simon Clare said: “We are always open to reviewing our rules with the prime objective of making them easy to understand for our customers.

“This is the first time that a change has been suggested but it would be sensible to discuss the matter with Ibas.”

Ladbrokes spokesman David Williams said: “We will have to look at any legal implications of changing the wording but if there was a move to provide clarity we would obviously look at it.”

Totesport spokesman Damian Walker said: “Any past references to palpable error have been changed. We now just refer to a ‘right to rectify mistakes’ or ‘right to rectify its errors’, which is fair and in line with Ibas’s suggestion.”

Kate Miller, of William Hill, said: “We already refer to it as an obvious error and have done since August 2007.

“We were never a big fan of the term palpable error, and sought to find a more acceptable one.”

Kenbo, you're making yourself out to be a fool. He clearly knew it was an error and had 50 p on i assume to try and get away with it and not raise suspicion. If he had stuck on 100 quid or 50 or even 10 it's going to be glaringly obvious paying out 20 grand. Whereas 50p to win a 1000 is actually quite clever as he may have thought it would go undetected and get away with it.

it shows how many clowns there is in this forum that this is still being discussed.

Its obvious to even to a broadmoor inmate that it was a mistake and falls under 'palpable error'

Now ffs get to bed you sill leek hunts.

why are you still commenting roida yfsc

the irony

you need to look up the word 'irony' ysfdc

patrick starr   


so you think betfair should have covered the £600 million or whatever it was on Voler La Vedette?! Laugh


Where does the line get drawn though? If it was a punters money matched in running, would the 'winner' have been paid? Of course they would (and should). When someone has layed one that has won, after listening to a commentator saying it has fallen have they had to pay out? Laying at 999/1 on something that is a 10/1 poke in running is surely a palpable is it not?

The VLV fiasco was all down to the volume of money, not the price. I cannot believe that Betfair actually came out with the line 'palpable error' after the race - surely opening a can of worms for in running layers.

Turning down the £100 free bets does, I suppose, strengthen his claim to be an innocent punter who believed Hills odds, rather than a shark trying it on.

roida - of course it was a cover up, it was a BF bot gone wrong (very badly). I would imagine a few got paid some sort of compo after taking it as far as possible without it hitting the courts. I would love to have seen them giving out the account details of the 'punters' account that was over exposed in court....

The first goalscorer market ended up leaving customers with a big minus balance after the reductions, but when the bets were placed they did in fact have the funds in their account.

Don't think anyone on here is disputing the fact that it was clearly a palpable error.
The discussion is still going on because people are rightly saying there should be measures put in to ensure it doesn't happen.
The technology is there to stop it. If the bookies are too greedy to put they steps in, then surely at some point they have to take some responsibility.