Forums
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 240 comments are related to the topic:
Smarkets

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
Page 3 of 7  •  Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 240
By:
Magic__Daps
When: 12 Apr 16 08:46
FFS ima - it's an exchange. We have all clicked on the wrong horse, typed in the wrong odds adding a zero etc. It's tough sh1te, and you learn by the mistake and double check everything before actually hitting place bet in the future. Nobody would be happy paying 10 times the price on a lay etc, but that's an exchange for you, you cannot complain about it - well you can but you won't get anywhere whatsoever.

Your loaf of bread scenario is ridiculous and has absolutely nothing to do with it at all. No doubt you will be come back to argue that though.
By:
dave1357
When: 12 Apr 16 08:46

Apr 11, 2016 -- 3:20PM, bettinghelp wrote:


This was tweeted today..."Hi @smarkets I think this rule is a tad unfair:We reserve the right to void any bet for any reason before or after the event has occurred."Is this a new clause they've inserted in their T&Cs to wriggle out of pilgrimpete's  claim? And even if not, who in their right minds would ever place a bet with them ever again?This industry is now swamped with spivs and scammers.


someone should tell their lawyer to read the consumer rights act.  A clause like that is the quintessence of an unfair contract term.

By:
lumponlarge
When: 12 Apr 16 09:05
OP ... this is quite simple to resolve. All you need to do is take them to the small claims court yourself (you can do this all yourself online for < £100). You will find that the matte will be resolved in your favour.
By:
Magic__Daps
When: 12 Apr 16 09:13
What needs to be done here is to win the case and then get the newspapers involved. Then everyone who has been conned the same way can claim against them.
By:
dom888
When: 12 Apr 16 09:25
Great. There is an exchange without premium charge and small commission and you wanna get rid of it.
You like to pay big charges or are you a loser?
By:
Magic__Daps
When: 12 Apr 16 09:37
No, I don't like firms who try it on and hope you just go away with your voided bet. If they have never done it before there wouldn't be any other people to come forward would there? But as stated on here there are plenty that this has happened to - therefore it surely is no coincidence and just ran by a bunch of scammers who void when they want (after the event and result is known). Shouldn't be allowed to trade imo.
By:
dom888
When: 12 Apr 16 09:52
What happened with the voler la vedette case?
Ironically voler means steal in French.
By:
Magic__Daps
When: 12 Apr 16 12:29
And with the VLV case it hit the newspapers. Smarkets by the seems of it tend to void quite a lot when it suits them, claiming whatever they want (if they think they can keep getting away with it they will carry on doing it). I am glad I have read this thread as I would never open an account with them in the future, and hopefully others won't.
By:
dave1357
When: 12 Apr 16 12:42
dom888 BF claimed that VlaV was a software error and covered by their T&C.  No one had the bottle to test their claim in court.  With this smarkets case, the bets are clearly valid under their T&C.
By:
Dr Crippen
When: 12 Apr 16 12:49
Although I've argued that smarkets is at fault here.
I can't see why anyone would boycott them on the strength of this matter.

As pointed out their commission charge is very competitive.

And if your account was hacked and you were the victim.
How would you feel if you couldn't get your money back with such a large amount involved?
By:
pablo-fanque
When: 12 Apr 16 13:32
Really pablo-fanque? You must be a very relaxed and understanding type and no doubt then you are happy to pay 10 times the price of everyone else for everything in any stores too? 

Call me old fashioned but when I click on lay odd of 5.0 for a tenner then that's the amount of liability I want and expect to be risking, or else I'd have clicked on odds of 5.0 for £100. By the same token if I pick up a £1 loaf of bread in a shop and they ring it up as £10 on the till, oddly enough I don't just hand over a £10 and walk out with it.



ima

1) if I go into a shop , I look at the price before I buy it first . if it is too much I won't buy it . if it roughly the right price, I buy it .

2) if you are using 1 click software to place your bets, you are gambling that at the time you click on 5.0  ( in your example ) the price won't move a fraction of a second before you actually click , so don't expect to lay at the price shown , the market can move price that bit quicker than when you click.

if you place a lay bet using a custom column or filling out the betfair betting slip to lay a horse at 5.0 for £10 , that is exactly the bet that will be put into the market , and then it is upto the market whether to take or leave your bet . in this example , you can guarantee that your liability will be £40 , or , like you say , expect to be risking said amount

2 totally different ways of placing bets. one you know what to expect , the other you can't guarantee what to expect
By:
Magic__Daps
When: 12 Apr 16 14:00
Dr Crippen
Date Joined:    16 Apr 02
Add contact | Send message
12 Apr 16 12:49
Although I've argued that smarkets is at fault here.
I can't see why anyone would boycott them on the strength of this matter. It isn't the first time it has happened though is it.

As pointed out their commission charge is very competitive. Yes it is if you get paid and they don't void the bet you have won.

And if your account was hacked and you were the victim.
How would you feel if you couldn't get your money back with such a large amount involved? If I was the victim of a hacked account Smarkets would be paying me, as one would assume that a Smarkets account has been hacked due to a fault with their poor security. Let's also be fair here, that they only came out the the "compromised account" long after they refused to pay.
By:
pablo-fanque
When: 12 Apr 16 14:08
if it was smarkets security fault , I think it's fair for the bets to be voided , but then that is very bad publicity .

if it is the users fault then the bets should stand .

if compromised account bets are to be voided , what's stopping someone :

placing crazy bets , if it wins they say nothing , if it loses they say to smarkets that they want their money back as their account was compromised
By:
WFT
When: 12 Apr 16 14:30
I must say that I've been using smarkets for quite some time, without having a problem with them.

However, it's very disappointing to see them act in such a way.

I will, no doubt like many others, reconsider using them in the future unless this affair is settled favourably.

Sad
By:
dave1357
When: 12 Apr 16 14:31
if it was smarkets fault, that is between them and the account holder, it is nothing whatsoever to do with counterparty.

As I said before, I have read numerous times about online poker accounts being hacked and money is never recovered from innocent 3rd parties winning the funds.
By:
ima_mazed66
When: 12 Apr 16 15:38
dave1357    12 Apr 16 08:43 
ima_mazed66 - you are presumably describing a software error.  There was no software error.  The bets (if smarkets are to be believed) were properly placed but the account was hacked.


I'm describing any form of error where the price was never an option, so then what if your account was hacked or someone else's was that matched your bet with theirs when it wasn't in your favour, as in you were willing to lay at 5.0 but due to that hacking, you ended up laying at 50.0?

Do you just accept that and move on, knowing you have lost 10 times the liability you were prepared to?

Magic__Daps    12 Apr 16 08:46 
FFS ima - it's an exchange. We have all clicked on the wrong horse, typed in the wrong odds adding a zero etc. It's tough sh1te, and you learn by the mistake and double check everything before actually hitting place bet in the future. Nobody would be happy paying 10 times the price on a lay etc, but that's an exchange for you, you cannot complain about it - well you can but you won't get anywhere whatsoever.

Your loaf of bread scenario is ridiculous and has absolutely nothing to do with it at all. No doubt you will be come back to argue that though.


We're not talking about a mistake that we personally make though are we? We're talking about a bet being matched when the mistake isn't down to the individual and other factors are at play, such as a software glitch or an account being hacked. Either way though my point was if we are happy to take any anomaly that just happens to be in our favour, should we then be happy to take it when it goes against us and ends up costing us money?

By the same token, if I pick up a loaf of bread that's well in date that should be £1.00 but when I scan it on the self service till it rings up as £0.01, then I think I'd have a good idea something has gone wrong there somewhere.
By:
Magic__Daps
When: 12 Apr 16 15:46
such as a software glitch Well that is the users fault then so should pay up regardless (that is why most are saying we have all made mistakes and it happens)

or an account being hacked I will believe that when I see it, and if the account was hacked Smarkets should still pay the person on the winner of the trade imo.


if I pick up a loaf of bread that's well in date that should be £1.00 but when I scan it on the self service till it rings up as £0.01, then I think I'd have a good idea something has gone wrong there somewhere.
But that isn't the case here, someone was willing to sell you the bread for £0.01 and you then bought it, it was there on offer in front of you.
By:
dave1357
When: 12 Apr 16 16:23
ima_mazed66 • April 12, 2016 3:38 PM BST
dave1357    12 Apr 16 08:43
ima_mazed66 - you are presumably describing a software error.  There was no software error.  The bets (if smarkets are to be believed) were properly placed but the account was hacked.

I'm describing any form of error where the price was never an option, so then what if your account was hacked or someone else's was that matched your bet with theirs when it wasn't in your favour, as in you were willing to lay at 5.0 but due to that hacking, you ended up laying at 50.0?


Do you just accept that and move on, knowing you have lost 10 times the liability you were prepared to?

For reasons that should be glaringly obvious, bets placed on a p2p platform from a hacked account must be honoured.  And if my account was the hacked one, I wouldn't consider that voiding bets was in any way realistic.

The options for the hacked account holder are to uncover how his account was compromised and if smarkets are responsible to hold them to account and to ask for an investigation into the activity on the account and details of the apparent beneficiaries of the bets to be sent to the police on request.
By:
jamesdean
When: 12 Apr 16 16:32
I'm sure if we all agreed he shouldn't be paid out, you know who would be arguing he should. If you say black he'll say white.
Don't let the thread become about him..
By:
ima_mazed66
When: 12 Apr 16 17:02
I think the problem here is that I'm arguing from the stance of it being a hacking issue and no fault of the account holder who was hacked (and I'm assuming that is the case, whether that's true or not) whereas others are arguing as if the mistake was down to the account holder themselves.

So yes, or course if it is the latter than there isn't really an issue but that's not what Smarkets are now claiming, after initially terming it as "clearly the result of a significant user error."
By:
dave1357
When: 12 Apr 16 17:13
I think the problem here is that I'm arguing from the stance of it being a hacking issue and no fault of the account holder

LOL

You are still 100% wrong.  It should be obvious to the most dimwitted why a claim of a "hacked" account would be an easy way to perpetuate frauds.

The T&C of every online gambling site are crystal clear that any activity from a logged on account is the responsibility of the account holder.
By:
dom888
When: 12 Apr 16 17:49
If everything is so obvious, then the case is already won, isnt it. But Never forget all people are the same but some are samer.
Ask dodgy Dave.
By:
ima_mazed66
When: 12 Apr 16 17:52
ima_mazed66    11 Apr 16 23:57 
Sorry to put a dampener on things but if the OP (or any of us for that matter) had been trying to lay a bet at say 5.0 for a tenner and for some reason it matched it at 50.0 for a tenner and won, would we just accept that?


It's actually quite hard to be wrong when asking a question dave1357. HTH.
By:
Ghetto Joe
When: 12 Apr 16 17:55
Betting accounts are prime targets for hackers that's why every betting company makes it your responsibility to keep your account secure.


15) You must keep your login credentials secret at all times, and you remain solely responsible for the security and confidentiality of your account.

17) If a bet is placed using your username and password, the bet will be considered to have been made by you and therefore once accepted by us, it shall be considered valid.

If we believe the fairytale it was hacked then,  it's either down the account holder to take the hit for their lax security, or if the fault is with smarkets security they take the hit but certainly not the innocent party on the other end of a bet. I can't imagine Betfair would void a bet in these circumstances and certainly not for a measly £3K. It'll end up like eBay with people using any old **** and bull story to shirk their responsibilities if this is how they run an exchange. 

Also they seem to have determined this is a hacked account very quickly so either it's a known hack within their poor security or Pinnochio is in charge of their fraud team and they're protecting their market makers errors yet again.
By:
pablo-fanque
When: 12 Apr 16 18:02
had been trying to lay a bet at say 5.0 for a tenner and for some reason it matched it at 50.0 for a tenner and won, would we just accept that?

never heard of putting in a lay bet at 5.0 and being matched at 50's . never .
By:
BlazingWalker
When: 12 Apr 16 18:31
They probably thought the OP would just lie down and die , obviously not so and this is now a PR disaster especially if any media outlet take it up.

I for one have thought about taking an account with them , but not now no way. Well dodgy imo.
By:
stu
When: 12 Apr 16 20:13
I agree Blazingwalker - I now have two reasons I wouldn't touch them, they won't honour bets and sounds like the security is also rubbish - great, please have my large deposit of money....not.
By:
Paul Haigh - Total Respect
When: 12 Apr 16 20:41
I'd just like to post an update on what's happening, and why pilgrim Pete has not posted on this thread recently.

I have agreed to assist with this dispute, and at this stage it appears likely the matter will be going to court unless Smarkets change their position.

I've advised pilgrim pete not to make any more postings about his dispute at this time as I want him to keep some of the facts of the case to himself and not post them on here.

What I would say is that I have serious concerns about the behaviour of Smarkets in this matter, and I would advise people to exercise caution if choosing to bet there until this dispute is resolved.

Don't forget they have the following in their T&Cs:

"We reserve the right to void any bet for any reason before or after the event has occurred."

Quite looking forward to that term's fairness being considered by a judge.
By:
hulk23
When: 12 Apr 16 20:51
all of these "we can do whatever we want, when we want, how we want .... and once we've done it we don't even need to tell you what we've done" clauses should be outlawed. 

quite outrageous and open to all sorts of skulduggery.
By:
Magic__Daps
When: 12 Apr 16 21:17
Paul - will pm you
By:
Ted Brogan
When: 13 Apr 16 09:30
hulk, they already are outlawed under 'Unfair Terms of Contract'
By:
Dr Gonzo
When: 13 Apr 16 10:40
Smarkets: "We reserve the right to void any bet for any reason before or after the event has occurred."

Consumer Rights Act 2015: "A term is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer."

Open and shut case.
By:
TheVis
When: 13 Apr 16 11:23
Well done Paul. I'm sure many of us look forward to reading in due course how this case concludes.
By:
dave1357
When: 13 Apr 16 13:35

Apr 13, 2016 -- 4:40AM, Dr Gonzo wrote:


Smarkets: "We reserve the right to void any bet for any reason before or after the event has occurred."Consumer Rights Act 2015: "A term is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer."Open and shut case.


And another embarrassment for the hopeless Gambling Commission that ignores it statutory obligation to ensure fairness.  It doesn't even bother to review its licencee's terms, far less monitor their activities.

By:
Wesdag
When: 13 Apr 16 14:08
Scandalous behaviour from Smarkets.

I'm surprised that some on here are of the view that because it was an error by the backer, then it was right to be voided.

How many times have we all clicked the wrong button?

Tough sh!t imo, and the bet should stand.

If Smarkets claim the account was hacked, why haven't the police & the relevant authorities been notified?
By:
Magic__Daps
When: 13 Apr 16 14:18
Just googled smarkets void bet and found the following (one for Paul to contact)??

http://arbusers.com/index.php/topic,3912.0.html


Only for nearly 34 grand (euros)


The 10th of March I spotted some juicy odds on lay side in one market. I wouldn’t touch it in any bookie but my logic was suggesting me that Smarkets wasn't a bookmaker, but a betting exchange.  It’s a nature of each of exchanges (not only betting ones) and prices anomalities happen in low liquidity markets. I decided to matched these orders. All my bets were settled correctly.

I was very surprised when a week later (March the 19th) I noticed similar anomalies in the other markets. In one hour I took positions in 4 markets. After that my account was suspended and I was informed that all bets from these 4 markets will be voided. Smarket’s system settled bets correctly but they took winnings manually from markets they mentioned (33483 E).

After exchanging some emails with Smarket support I knew the reasons : the prices were outside fair market boundaries and they don’t feel bets were made in good faith.

I read carefully Smarkets' T&C:
“25. You are fully responsible for the bets placed on Smarkets. Smarkets will never question you about the relevance of the bets you wish to place and will not be held responsible for mistakes that could have been made during the placing of such bets, including the stake amounts, price or side of the bet.”
In my case Smarkets acted against rule 25. They started asking questions about the relevance of the bets and they felt responsible for client's mistake. Intervention in the market and voiding my bets prove, that they reduced the risk of a client who miscalculated his risks.
“15 A mistake regarding the details of a bet placement will not influence the validity of the bet.”
No comment needed here.

I tried to guess why theirs decision were different (bets from 10th were settled and one from week after voided) They answered that they felt that there was a significant difference between both situations. No more details. And I cannot see any logical consistency in their behaviour.At the same market's anomalies they operate in different ways. In this way we never know which bet will be valid and which won't and you perfectly know how important it is. Especially if it comes to arbitrage activities and the exchanges.


I don't think I will bother opening an account with this mob.
By:
Dr Crippen
When: 13 Apr 16 16:06
That abusers site puts a different complexion on matters, and Betfair has form  as well in this regard according to one poster.
By:
Dr Crippen
When: 13 Apr 16 16:12
It's pretty obvious they're trading their own accounts with bots now.

So it stands to reason that if you're betting large amounts and taking it from their account they're going to stop you.
By:
Froggitt
When: 13 Apr 16 19:28
whether they are or not a low commission outfit that we should support is irrelevant. if they cant be trusted not to welch on their bets, they should be avoided. their t&cs look cut and dried in this case in favour of the OP
By:
swift-tuttle
When: 13 Apr 16 20:17
This argument is so difficult imo.
The possibility exists that an exchange user's password can be obtained (by whatever means, it does happen) and money can be placed in a weak market at odds that are ridiculously short so that the villain (the person obtaining the password by foul means) or his accomplice can greatly profit by matching the false odds just offered.
That is theft, pure and simple, and there must be some kind of responsibility on the part of the exchange operator to protect against this kind of thing but it is not easy to come up with a satisfactory protective scheme.
Page 3 of 7  •  Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 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