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 4 of 7  •  Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 240
By:
bingo bongo
When: 13 Apr 16 20:27
Well betfair has 2 step authentication, which I know can be beaten but it sounds very hard to do so. I guess smarkets does not have this. Not that I believe their version of events anyway.
By:
Froggitt
When: 13 Apr 16 20:28
maybe there is an onus on smarkets to repay the other party if their weak security was breached. but that shouldnt be at the expense of Pete.
By:
Magic__Daps
When: 13 Apr 16 20:31
If someone has had their account "compromised" that would have been the first response for starters from smarkets imo. If so, they would find out where it has been compromised, ip addresses etc, could have been a user given out his username etc. Regardless of how it has happened it should not be the person on the other end of the trade that loses out. The T&Cs as they stand should protect the innocent layer here, yet the company cannot even abide by their own T&Cs and void a bet that they clearly shouldn't.

Hopefully he will get paid out in full, because if bets on an exchange are getting voided frequently it is surely going against the whole point of an 'exchange'.
By:
YOMOMMA
When: 13 Apr 16 20:39
They aren't really exchanges though. Smarkets, Matchbook, Bet daq and botfair are all seeded by the exchange themselves and market makers.
By:
swift-tuttle
When: 13 Apr 16 21:02
But the person on the other end of the trade is not a genuine layer, even if it is not the villain.

It is a person who realises that the odds are ridiculous and are only there by virtue of a mistake or whatever.
By:
Magic__Daps
When: 13 Apr 16 21:18
Mistake or not it doesn't matter. An exchange is there for someone or something (bots) to put up backs and lays to get matched, or take what is available at the time. I have made mistakes on here, along with probably every other user, you cannot cry foul and get your money back as and when you want - as per the T&Cs pointed out earlier in the thread. The similar stories are all over the net about this mob, so why should they be able to do what they want when they want??

Just after this one thread, I would never open an account with them, and expect others are the same. It will cost them far more in the longterm rather than taking the hit and getting a customer base who will stay there and keep paying the commission to them (and trust them).
By:
Wesdag
When: 13 Apr 16 21:50
You've got to laugh at some the nonsense spouted on here.

Oh, let's void the market and give a punter his money back because he's made a mistake?
By:
bettinghelp
When: 13 Apr 16 23:02
The way it looks to me is that smarkets is a bunch of guys looking to take on the world with their own money and voiding when they lose big-time. We've been down this road before, and it generally doesn't end well.
By:
ima_mazed66
When: 14 Apr 16 14:24
pablo-fanque    12 Apr 16 18:02 

never heard of putting in a lay bet at 5.0 and being matched at 50's . never .


Neither have I under normal circumstances, but if Smarkets are saying that a user's account was hacked then that's not normal circumstances.

That's not to say I'm taking it as gospel that that was actually the case, but for example purposes when looking at it, I did so from the perspective that it was for the sake of argument.

Some punters will always have the bookies as being in the wrong regardless, whereas I prefer to flip the coin and see if the roles were reversed would I still feel wrong and if so then that's fair enough and I'll stand my ground on the matter.
By:
Magic__Daps
When: 14 Apr 16 14:37
Some punters will always have the bookies as being in the wrong regardless

Therein lies the issue with your points, they are not BOOKIES they are an exchange. Plus if YOU put in odds to lay at 5.0 it will NOT get matched at 50 will it (hacked or not), it is impossible for the bet to show up at 50 unless you have submitted the bet wrong or the exchanges software is faulty.
By:
dave1357
When: 14 Apr 16 14:48
Neither have I under normal circumstances, but if Smarkets are saying that a user's account was hacked then that's not normal circumstances.

It may not be normal circumstances, but it is not a valid reason to refuse to pay.  The T&C are quite clear on that point.

I doubt that you are so stupid that you don't realise why a bet from a "hacked" account shouldn't be voided, so why don't you just stop trolling?
By:
breadnbutter
When: 14 Apr 16 15:06
Sounds like a crime has been committed here
By:
ima_mazed66
When: 14 Apr 16 15:29
Even as I typed that I kind of knew someone would focus on the finer detail as opposed to the overall point being made and so I should have said betting companies then instead of bookies, considering I was speaking generally and not specifically to this case alone, my basic point being the other side are always wrong regardless seems to be the stance of some.

I'm sure if some punters went into a bookies and asked for 3/1 and 33/1 was written on their slip then they would expect to be paid out at 33/1 regardless, spouting the "well you wrote that on the slip, so you have to pay out at that price" line. Yet flipping the coin, if they had asked for 33/1 and 3/1 was written then would they just accept that if the bookie used that same line?

How do you know Magic__Daps it won't get matched at 50 when hacked? Presumably someone's account being hacked isn't an everyday occurrence and so whilst you're understandably going by what is normal, being hacked isn't normal and then you also go on to say it's impossible and then add a caveat of how it might not be.

Bottom line is I'm not particularly taking Smarkets at face value for their reasons and the onus is on them to prove what they are saying, I was merely suggesting if hacking or a software problem caused an anomaly which someone benefited from as it was in their favour this time, would that same person (or anyone for that matter) accept being matched at a price they didn't intend to be because it was never there to begin with?
By:
Mavis "Hacksaw" Handbag
When: 14 Apr 16 15:44
Can't believe there are people defending this shady company.  Firstly, it wasn't a software error, so what's all this nonsense about a hypothetical technical error trying to lay at 5s and laying at 50s? Red herring.

They've got previous form and this is clearly a Betfred-style attempt at robbing your customer assuming there will be no comeback.

And their argument that it was an account hack?  Doubt it.  Hopefully in court they get asked to prove what happened with the money that they confiscated back off of Pete...

Pete will be paid out - NAP.  Hopefully it makes them clean up their act.
By:
JML
When: 14 Apr 16 16:08
Since Smarkets are a Maltese company what are the legal
options?
By:
dave1357
When: 14 Apr 16 16:31
I'm sure if some punters went into a bookies and asked for 3/1 and 33/1 was written on their slip then they would expect to be paid out at 33/1 regardless, spouting the "well you wrote that on the slip, so you have to pay out at that price" line. Yet flipping the coin, if they had asked for 33/1 and 3/1 was written then would they just accept that if the bookie used that same line?

Another completely irrelevant hypothetical as we are all familiar with palpable errors and fixed odds books.

They said the account was hacked.  Their terms and conditions deal with that scenario.  Their terms and conditions say the bet stands.
By:
YOMOMMA
When: 14 Apr 16 16:51
Can't believe there are people defending this shady company.

I have used them heavily for 3 years and never had a problem. They are the best exchange. 2% commission is as cheap as chips and they beat botfair and the PC hands down.
By:
ima_mazed66
When: 14 Apr 16 16:52
Nobody is saying that it was a software error Mavis "Hacksaw" Handbag but if (key word there) a Smarkets customer's account was hacked so that they were wanting to back a horse at 1.01 even before the race had stated (and who would realistically be wanting to do that anyway?) then is it beyond the realms of possibility that the same hack could have someone matched at 50.0 when only wanting to be at 5.0 instead?

It was an analogy dave1357 relevant to the point I was making that some punters think bookies (sorry, betting companies) are always in the wrong regardless.

Terms and conditions tend to account for everyday occurrences rather than exceptions to the rule and I would say if (key word there again) somebody's account has been hacked then that is an exception to the rule, considering it's not always possible to cover every possible eventuality when drawing up terms and conditions, which is why when something like this comes up, it becomes a test case and might well lead to additions and/or amendments of any T&Cs

Like I've already said though, if Smarkets are claiming another customer's account was hacked then the onus will be on them to prove that to be so.
By:
pablo-fanque
When: 14 Apr 16 17:03
ima

if someone places a £10,000 bet at all odds from 3.5 to 1.6 and the horse loses , can they say "sorry smarkets, my account was hacked, I want my money back" , should smarkets give them their money back and void all bets .

?
By:
Magic__Daps
When: 14 Apr 16 17:22
ima - WTF?

How would a hacked account place a lay at 50 instead of 5? You said if you placed a bet at 5 and it got matched at 50 - that is how I interpreted it anyway, so you tell us how it can physically be matched at 50? Unless it has gone into the system at 50?

You will not get paid at 33/1 if a horse is 3/1 in the BOOKIES at its clearly a palpable error, you know that and I know that. Only the clueless would asked to get paid on your scenario. This bet was on an exchange - the BOOKIES platform has nothing to do with it. But then again you only respond because you have to have an argument back, even when everything including the T&Cs are all covered in the pilgrim petes favour here.
By:
Magic__Daps
When: 14 Apr 16 17:22
pablo - of course they cannot, and their answer would be "it's covered in our T&Cs" (NAP).
By:
dave1357
When: 14 Apr 16 17:27
Terms and conditions tend to account for everyday occurrences rather than exceptions to the rule and I would say if (key word there again) somebody's account has been hacked then that is an exception to the rule, considering it's not always possible to cover every possible eventuality when drawing up terms and conditions, which is why when something like this comes up, it becomes a test case and might well lead to additions and/or amendments of any T&Cs

"Hacking" isn't the exception to the rule.  Unauthorised access to an account is precisely the situation that the rules quoted are intended to cover.
By:
ima_mazed66
When: 14 Apr 16 17:34
Define hacked first because maybe I have a different idea to what is possibly meant by that term or whether there is more than one definition.
By:
Magic__Daps
When: 14 Apr 16 17:50
ima - have you ever come on when someone has made a point and then thought "oh yeah, I understand now". Or do you read something and automatically think "I can argue against that with some analogy that has nothing to do with said topic"?
By:
swift-tuttle
When: 15 Apr 16 11:09
If smarkets story is true, they are not seeking to profit themselves but are seeking to protect the wronged party (ie the person who had his account compromised).

If the story is true - we may never know this but I think what ima_mazed is trying to say is

exchange operators cannot simply shed all responsibility if a crime has been committed to the detriment of one of their customers. Ideally the software should not allow this type of thing to happen but the hackers in the internet financial sphere do seem to get plenty of success

remember that all this exchange software is relatively new and the security aspects have probably never been tested in court
By:
Magic__Daps
When: 15 Apr 16 16:09
swift - I get that, but the T&Cs cover Pelgrim Pete whatever way they look at it.

If someone compromised my account on here, number one I would want to know where it has been accessed from, and if it isn't my IP address, what country etc. They do not want to give him any of the details at all.

My opinion is if this was the case they would have told pilgrim pete in the first email, not the "human error" reply he got firstly that then changed. Asking him to close his account etc shouts "cover up" as well, then take in the fact there are plenty of other users who have had the same experiences regarding voided bets it must be 1.01 (coupled) that it was either A) Smarkets money, or B) a large liquidity provider who wants his money back or he will leave them. All in my opinion of course.
By:
ima_mazed66
When: 15 Apr 16 16:21
Yes I often agree with others on here Magic__Daps or alternatively at times read posts and have no particular view either way. If you like, in future I can post that I agree or let you know I have no particular view if it helps balance matters regarding my views, it's just that I don't really feel the need to do that as such if I'm not really adding anything new to the debate. Maybe if there was a Like system on here as with Facebook, then I might be more inclined to use that to show that I agree, but there isn't.

So anyway, back to the points of the thread itself and bearing in mind posts get made and then follow up ones occur all the time as a result of further information, pilgrim pete the OP stated:

"Bot goes wrong on their site, 20k plus wanting to back at 1.01, before they even start the race."

So first off let's look at all possible ways things this could have played out, where I'm not aware of any third part software/bot that can be used with Smarkets, so maybe the problem was with their own interface/software. Let's say that I'm the punter on the backing side of any matched bet in the scenario here, well for starters who in their right mind would be looking to back any runner at 1.01 even before the race has started? So OK, let's say I've made a mistake and actually wanted to lay at 1.01 instead of back but submitted my bet into the wrong column, then presumably wouldn't I have been matched at better odds than 1.01 pre-race anyway if they were available?

If later on in the thread we get told it wasn't a software/bot problem and that the backing punter's account was hacked, well all I'm asking is as a result of that if it was pilgrim pete who ended up getting matched as a layer at a far higher price than 1.01 so that the bet wasn't in his favour, would he or anyone else in the same position just accept that and move on?

Like I'm saying for the third or so time now though, Smarkets are the ones claiming the hack and so the onus is on them to prove it but just because you don't agree with the relevance of any analogy I make, doesn't mean they are irrelevant. No analogy is going to be identical to the actual circumstances but it can still be along similar lines.

Thank you swift-tuttle and that's all I was really trying to get at, by looking at it from the opposite viewpoint, as nothing here to me looked like merely a case of user error by the backer.
By:
Wesdag
When: 15 Apr 16 16:28
I guess smarkets relies on gullible mugs to keep them in business as indicated by those taken in by their "version" of events.

Even though their own t&cs contradicts their subsequent actions.
By:
swift-tuttle
When: 15 Apr 16 16:46
wesdaq you seem to think by the above comment and others that smarkets are a bookie
they aren't, they are an exchange and they earn their money via commission regardless of the result
By:
Wesdag
When: 15 Apr 16 17:09
Where did I say they are a bookie?

Being an exchange is exactly why they should pay out.

Or is it because their own bot/seeding took a hit why they refuse to?
By:
swift-tuttle
When: 15 Apr 16 17:14
You didn't say anywhere that they were a bookie, please re-read my comment

however you may be right with the question in your last post but I don't suppose that we will ever find out
By:
Wesdag
When: 15 Apr 16 17:18
I've re-read your comment and no I don't seem to think they are a bookie.

Hth.
By:
swift-tuttle
When: 15 Apr 16 17:21
so when you say gullible mugs you are talking about anyone that chooses to bet with an exchange
By:
Magic__Daps
When: 15 Apr 16 17:37
So ima - you are saying that nobody wants to back at 1.01 pre race - we can all agree with that. But if for instance the backer at 1.01 wanted to lay at 1.01 but backed it wrongly should they accept it and move on. Well the answer to that is a resounding yes, number one it is tough sh1te if you make a mistake on an exchange, and number two if the person wanted to lay at 1.01 it is obviously trying to trap a mug, they then got more than they deserve (imo of course).


but just because you don't agree with the relevance of any analogy I make, doesn't mean they are irrelevant

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.
Point me where there is one ounce of relevance in that and I will be amazed.
By:
Magic__Daps
When: 15 Apr 16 17:38
swift - I think what wesdag means is they expect people to swallow any void bets and keep betting with them after.
By:
Wesdag
When: 15 Apr 16 17:41
Exactly.

Thank you Magic.
By:
swift-tuttle
When: 15 Apr 16 17:42
Yes I realise that Magic_Daps but I think people are forgetting that the same thing happened on this exchange. It is in my opinion an untested legal area and will undoubtedly happen again on this exchange
By:
Magic__Daps
When: 15 Apr 16 17:49
The only one I know of is the VLV one. If that is the case we are talking about I would guess if that went to court there would be a paper trail actually proving that is was a technical error, I do not believe like many the old "someone with nothin in their account" line.

I do think this is a completely different situation, and the T&Cs are all in pilgrim petes favour, and in a court I don't think smarkets would have a leg to stand on. We shall see, but they have basically set a precedent that CANNOT stop anyone claiming "user error" and getting their money back. I would guess anyone that tries that gets given the Spanish archer.
By:
ima_mazed66
When: 15 Apr 16 18:41
Prepare to be amazed Magic__Daps.

You seem to have overlooked my point in my previous post that if pre-race I had meant to lay at 1.01 but clicked the wrong box and put in a pre-race request to back at 1.01 and that price was never available/it never was that price at that time, then wouldn't I get matched at the correct current price that is was instead? I assume that's how it works on Smarkets, considering they follow Betfair's prices and that's how it would work on here.

So in other words I should never have to accept a price that wasn't actually the real price because for whatever reason, whether it be a software glitch, a hacking issue or anything else that threw up an artificial or wrong price, I shouldn't just have to accept it because the computer said so.

By the same token if I go to buy a £1 loaf of bread on a self scan and somehow the price I'm mistakenly asked to pay is £10, I wouldn't expect to have to pay that because of a barcode software glitch or because the computer said so.

The bottom line being that in both scenarios is you would go by what you know to be right and not just accept what a computer says is.
By:
Magic__Daps
When: 15 Apr 16 19:21
If you meant to lay at 1.01 but hit back by mistake that is your fault, you do not get refunded. To say you should have got matched at the bigger prices is fair enough, but if the bet was 25k it would have wiped the poor liquidity off the whole selection and left at 1.01 (pretty simple to do) wouldn't it. You would not be expecting to get matched the whole sum at the price are you? Therefore you SHOULD have to accept it because it was your fault in the first place - that is how an exchange works. You only have to read their T&Cs to see you do not have a leg to stand on if you actually do what you say you have done. Therefore no software glitch.


The bread scenario is surely some sort of joke isn't it.
Page 4 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