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 5 of 7  •  Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 240
By:
pablo-fanque
When: 15 Apr 16 19:26

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.


is the loaf of bread organic wholemeal , or sunblest white medium cut ?
By:
Wesdag
When: 15 Apr 16 19:26
Magic, I admire you for responding to the nonsense some continue to spout on here.
By:
ima_mazed66
When: 15 Apr 16 20:07
Er, you still seem to be missing the point yet again Magic__Daps that even if I mistakenly hit back when I meant lay at 1.01, then presumably if there was a current back price better than 1.01 then that current better back price would be what I would get matched at, would it? I'm sure I've asked this question already now.

The fact that someone has supposedly asked for 1.01 to back a runner pre-race (which seems highly unlikely and I ask once again, why would anyone do that anyway?) and actually got matched at 1.01 before the off when it most likely wasn't 1.01 at the time, suggests to me that something has gone a bit wrong somewhere. So in other words why take part with in a betting transaction with no retrospective questions asked regarding an artificial/incorrect price and just accept it?

Likewise, why take part in a retail transaction (say for a loaf of bread) with no retrospective questions asked regarding an artificial/incorrect price and just accept it? Er yeah you're right there, that bread analogy isn't even remotely like the particular scenario here! Confused

You not getting this is surely some sort of joke isn't it?
By:
swift-tuttle
When: 15 Apr 16 20:16
Available to back:

40 - 10.00
34 - 8.00
26 - 12.00
17 - 10.00
11 - 20.00
6 - 25.00
3 - 100.00
2 - 200.00
1.5 - 100.00

If you hit back at 1.01 (mistakenly) for 1000 then you would get all the available money from 40 down to 1.5 (485.00) and leave an unmatched amount at 1.01 of 515 for someone to lay, which you wouldn't have to wait too long for.
By:
Brother Mouzone
When: 15 Apr 16 20:27
I agree with Ima, I love Hovis Seed Sensations here (especially toasted with peanut butter) but I deffo wouldn't pay a tenner for a loaf.
By:
Magic__Daps
When: 15 Apr 16 20:30
Er, you still seem to be missing the point yet again Magic__Daps that even if I mistakenly hit back when I meant lay at 1.01, then presumably if there was a current back price better than 1.01 then that current better back price would be what I would get matched at, would it? I'm sure I've asked this question already now.

Pretty sure the answer is in my previous post - a large bet will wipe everything off and leave the rest up at 1.01 (as that is the price you requested). Swift-tuttle has gave you the perfect example above. YOUR FAULT AND NO SYSTEM FAULT WHATSOEVER.


The bread analogy - you pick up a loaf and it is advertised at £1, you scan it and it's £10. You call someone over as it is obviously wrong on their part (not yours) = A COMPUTER ERROR.


FFS - what do you not get.

If it was someone else answering it would be 1.01 a fishing expedition, as it is you it obviously isn't.
By:
pablo-fanque
When: 15 Apr 16 20:34
Grin BM
By:
ima_mazed66
When: 15 Apr 16 20:38
Please accept my apologies Magic__Daps for not giving your previous reply my full attention, as I was posting in between betting on races.
By:
Paul Haigh - Total Respect
When: 15 Apr 16 22:39
Just thought I'd post a quick update.

Smarkets have now accused pilgrim pete of breaching the following term by matching an order placed on their exchange.


28. Our services are provided for legitimate betting purposes only. You agree not to bet on any market with the intention or effect of adversely affecting its integrity. You also agree not to obstruct or hinder Smarkets's business operations.

They haven't as yet quoted their catch-all rule.
By:
Magic__Daps
When: 15 Apr 16 22:49
I thought it was a "compromised account". It seems they are making it up as they go along.


I will send you a pm or email in the morning regarding what we discussed the other night.
By:
Ghetto Joe
When: 17 Apr 16 17:49
How can taking odds offered on their site by another party be considered "adversely affecting its integrity" surely the other party woud have to be considered "adversely affecting its integrity".

They seem to be clutching at straws now and changing the story each time, hopefully it'll go to IBAS and their lies about hacked accounts will be laid bare.

How long do these things usually take before IBAS make any decision?
By:
ima_mazed66
When: 17 Apr 16 18:02
Around 6-8 weeks I've heard.
By:
bettinghelp
When: 17 Apr 16 18:38
I think that perhaps the key sentence in this whole sorry debacle is this one: " You also agree not to obstruct or hinder Smarkets's business operations."

I'll read between the lines here. Smarkets is a betting exchange, but at the same time, it isn't really. It now appears to have been set up as a vehicle for a group of individuals to piggy-back on the exchange betting concept to these individuals' own exclusive advantage.

That's how it looks to me. By the way, are these T&Cs (e.g "we can void any bet at any time", "don't affect the market's integrity", and " don't hinder our operations") being added retrospectively, or did they exist before the event in question?
By:
Magic__Daps
When: 06 May 16 09:00
Any more news on this that can be reported?
By:
Paul Haigh - Total Respect
When: 06 May 16 10:46
It's been submitted to IBAS, not something I would normally do, but there are reasons for choosing this course of action which will become apparent at a later date.
By:
mice_elf_and_eye
When: 06 May 16 13:58
Looks like Smarkets have changed their Terms & Conditions in response to this affair :-

"New Terms & Conditions
We have made some changes to our Terms & Conditions. You must agree to our new Terms & Conditions before accessing Smarkets.

Main Terms & Conditions

Section 2 ‘Account Rules’; addition of point 2.21
Section 5 ‘Betting Rules’; addition of point 5.30 covering clearly erroneous bets"



New Point 5.30 states :-

"In the interest of preserving the integrity and fairness of the exchange, Smarkets retains the right
to void bets we deem to be clearly erroneous."
By:
Magic__Daps
When: 06 May 16 14:49
That rule means they are NOT an exchange then, they can void whatever they want whenever they want? If they bet in running you can claim mistakes non stop and how will they prove otherwise? Or is it just a case of "it's our money" so they void it?

Stay well clear and hope Pete gets paid out and it make it into the press.
By:
s.kenbo
When: 06 May 16 14:56
What would you rate the chance of success, Paul?
By:
Aviboyd
When: 06 May 16 14:59
Magic__Daps
06 May 16 14:49

That rule means they are NOT an exchange then


I would have thought that was blatantly obvious to anyone using the site?
By:
mice_elf_and_eye
When: 06 May 16 15:12
When a request is made to back something for £20,000 pre-event at 1.01,
it's obviously an 'erroneous' bet.

I think everyone on this thread, including the OP, accepts that this was an 'erroneous' bet.

However, Smarkets Terms & Conditions at the time this event occurred, did NOT, in my opinion,
allow them to void the bet.

With the new 5.30 condition in place, I personally would have no problem with them voiding
such a bet in future.
By:
s.kenbo
When: 06 May 16 15:20
Why should one mans mistake cost several punters their winnings? Everybody's fooked up using the exchanges at some point and learn by it. Also where do you draw the line? Would somebody backing for £2 pre race at 1.01 be entitled to there money back?
By:
s.kenbo
When: 06 May 16 15:20
their. Blush
By:
pablo-fanque
When: 06 May 16 15:23
When a request is made to back something for £20,000 pre-event at 1.01

it may well have been an obvious error , but that must be the player placing the bets fault .

2.30 lingfield  ( today )

black bess hit 1000 when about 8-10 lengths off the lead ( not in the picture ) , with about 50 yards to go and absolutely no chance of winning, someone backed it into 1.6ish .

an obvious error , should they get there money back ?
By:
Wesdag
When: 06 May 16 15:26
Where do you draw the line and decide what is an "erroneous" bet?

If it wasn't smarkets own money at stake, why would they care?

We're all adults here and know you can lose money by making errors.
By:
s.kenbo
When: 06 May 16 15:32
Are you taking the piss out of my spelling, Pabs!? Laugh
By:
pablo-fanque
When: 06 May 16 15:35
Laugh kenbo

just noticed

* their
By:
s.kenbo
When: 06 May 16 15:52
Wink It's contagious!
By:
Ghetto Joe
When: 18 May 16 12:21
Did anything come of this or is it still ongoing?
By:
pilgrim pete
When: 18 May 16 19:13
Still ongoing with IBAS
By:
Ghetto Joe
When: 18 May 16 19:58
Thanks, it'll be interesting to see how they rule, could open the door to smarkets getting a load of requests to palp bets if it goes their way especially as they seem to be stepping in to protect their market makers who no doubt don't have a bookmakers licence.
By:
Paul Haigh - Total Respect
When: 25 May 16 10:28
Update - IBAS have stated that they are currently unable to adjudicate on this dispute due to an ongoing police investigation.

Read into that what you like as they refuse to give any more details.

All I know is that pilgrim pete has not been contacted and has no concerns about his actions, so it's not him who is being investigated.
By:
Ted Brogan
When: 25 May 16 10:46
It is surely worth going straight to the Small Claims Court now then? If the police investigation is not related to the punter with the dispute, then it shouldn't stop the courts from forcing them to cough up.
By:
Magic__Daps
When: 25 May 16 11:23
Hopefully a few who have had their money stolen back by Smarkets have filed complaints to the law. We can only hope...
By:
dave1357
When: 25 May 16 12:02
Its obviously a police investigation into the hacking Magic_Daps
By:
Ghetto Joe
When: 28 May 16 18:40
Alleged 'hacking' Dave, I wouldn't believe too much of what smarkets say, tbh.
By:
Wesdag
When: 28 May 16 18:48
If they have been "hacked" then why not inform customers?
By:
dave1357
When: 28 May 16 19:09
ffs  They say the bloke that put up the daft bet was hacked ie his account was accessed by an unauthorised person.

The entire internet gambling world agrees that the account holder is responsible for their own security and any bets made through that account are valid no matter who makes them.  Even smarkets t&c agree on this point.  So unless OP was involved in the hacking, they have no chance of avoiding a payout.

to Ghetto Joe - if you are really think that smarkets have lied to the police about the matter, you aren't very bright.
By:
johnni
When: 07 Jun 16 00:12
I jumnped on panama too. panama canal looking tight and fast.
By:
johnni
When: 07 Jun 16 00:13
wtrong thread
By:
Gin
When: 18 Jul 16 16:27
Any more news?
Page 5 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