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 6 of 7  •  Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 240
By:
blink87
When: 28 Jul 16 16:01
Apparently not. Legal case perhaps?
By:
Paul Haigh - Total Respect
When: 28 Jul 16 22:55
No legal case needed.

The dispute was submitted to IBAS, and we are expecting a favourable ruling within the next 7 days.

In my opinion, the only way IBAS can rule in favour of Smarkets is to allow them to invoke the following, unlawful (imo) T&C of theirs which states:

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

Can't see this getting anywhere near a court, somehow.
By:
JML
When: 29 Jul 16 07:30
Hope I'm wrong on this but IBAS only needs one way to rule in favour of the bookmaker,especially for £34K.

Is it possible to make a claim against an overseas company through the small claims court?

I remember that when the bald knocker refused to honour his bets, Barney Curley had to take legal
action in a Gibraltar court.
By:
dave1357
When: 29 Jul 16 08:44

Jul 28, 2016 -- 4:55PM, Paul Haigh - Total Respect wrote:


No legal case needed.The dispute was submitted to IBAS, and we are expecting a favourable ruling within the next 7 days.In my opinion, the only way IBAS can rule in favour of Smarkets is to allow them to invoke the following, unlawful (imo) T&C of theirs which states:"We reserve the right to void any bet, for any reason, before or after the event has started."Can't see this getting anywhere near a court, somehow.


If IBAS do uphold a blatantly unfair term, you should launch an appeal for crowdfunding a judicial review of the IBAS decision.  The Gambling Commission shouldn't be allowed to outsource its statutory obligations to a bookie's PR department.

By:
JML
When: 29 Jul 16 19:44
They'll say that they don't adjudicate about the fairness of any T&C.
Didn't Betfair once void all bets when there were thousands on offer at 1000.

Paul--this is your post from April 12


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.


Why the change of tactics?
By:
Paul Haigh - Total Respect
When: 29 Jul 16 22:39
@JML - The ruling on this case is likely to be of huge significance in terms of the future role of IBAS as an ADR entity - that's why I decided to submit it to them for adjudication rather than go straight down the legal route.

I'm not willing to expand on that statement at this stage, other than to repeat from my my posting above:

In my opinion, the only way IBAS can rule in favour of Smarkets is to allow them to invoke the following, unlawful (imo) T&C of theirs which states:

"We reserve the right to void any bet, for any reason, before or after the event has started."
By:
Magic__Daps
When: 08 Sep 16 15:39
Anything to report on this at the moment?
By:
The Sawyer
When: 08 Sep 16 16:33
Having read thru most of this, and I apologise if it's already been suggested, but money laundering is always the first thing that springs to my mind in such cases - although difficult to do in an active horse race market!

If the police are involved then this is a possible scenario.

Wasn't the VLD case down to differing computers using 32 and 64 bit integers and a negative liability turning into a £500K+ liability - hardly the same.
By:
Magic__Daps
When: 08 Sep 16 20:37
If it was laundering though I would guess they would put the money up to lay first, and then the other account would take the 1.01?

The police should be involved and arresting the burglars who literally "stole" the PPs money imo.

We never had a full explanation of the VLV (I assume that's who you meant), apart from it was a skint account that placed the bet - of course it was!!!
By:
Paul Haigh - Total Respect
When: 08 Sep 16 20:44
We are expecting the IBAS ruling any day now....
By:
garychesterrrr
When: 09 Sep 16 00:14
I would imagine at court a judge would deem the term "We reserve the right to void any bet, for any reason, before or after the event has started." to be that much in smarkets favour that it would need to be subject to the 'red hand rule' in order to be incorporated into the contract.
By:
Big Boss
When: 09 Sep 16 07:18
I think the VDV incident opened up all of our eyes to the current automated state on here.

The Bots on the site must be an eye watering number/percentage, increases of "in house" software activity and "tweaks" to market software a possibility.

Cross Matcher and the 1 sec delay on in running bets, who and what are they there to serve ?

The Gambling Commission and IBAS, I wouldn't give tuppence for, from my dealings with them on a personal level.
By:
Paul Haigh - Total Respect
When: 30 Sep 16 18:29
I think pilgrim pete may be along later to post an update on this - I don't want to steal his thunder......
By:
bettinghelp
When: 30 Sep 16 18:32
Sounds encouraging. I'd have been 5's on that he'd win a court case, and 25's on that it'd never get that far.
By:
s.kenbo
When: 30 Sep 16 18:32
You already have with that post! Well done again, Paul, I presume! WinkCool
By:
Dan Chipowski
When: 30 Sep 16 18:37
I've only read the first few posts and the final few, but it's a fking disgrace if he's had to wait 5 months or so to get paid.
By:
pilgrim pete
When: 30 Sep 16 23:17
First of all , I'd like to thank all the people on the thread who supported me. Also big thanks to the people who told me about Paul and advised me to contact him.
   
With Paul's advising me at every step for the last six months at last we won the case and IBAS has made a ruling in my favor for the full amount to be paid.

During this time Smarkets have changed their story of what had happened several times. At this stage I can not go into too much detail without Paul's advice.

How I found out today that IBAS has ruled in my favor was due to an email from Smarkets telling me that money has been put back on my account, without a word of apology.
   
  I am still  waiting for the IBAS report which should be with me in the next few days. I will update you with the details of IBAS findings.
By:
flukes
When: 30 Sep 16 23:28
Great news Pete and brilliant work Paul Happy
By:
pablo-fanque
When: 30 Sep 16 23:31
well done pete and paul

I do hope you give paul a good drink for his efforts Happy
By:
pablo-fanque
When: 30 Sep 16 23:33
sorry , I thought it was for 30k

I should have said a drink ( not a good drink )

Crazy
By:
pilgrim pete
When: 01 Oct 16 00:01
Yep pablo giving Paul fair share of the moneys, as without hes help taken far longer ..
Very lucky to have someone like Paul to be around to help , and to be honest never been a money issue , its the way Smarkets have behaved lies lies and more lies ..
By:
Lee Ho Fooks
When: 01 Oct 16 00:05
Good on you, the result we all wantedHappy
By:
s.kenbo
When: 01 Oct 16 07:36
A fair result finally achieved.

I wish I had Pauls strike rate!
By:
Magic__Daps
When: 01 Oct 16 10:09
Nice one - get it in the media now and expose them for what they really are if you can. If that can be achieved it may open the doors for a good for more punters who have their money stolen by Smarkets, there are numerous stories online of the same practice.
By:
DStyle
When: 02 Oct 16 09:45
well done peter and paul (sounds biblical doesn't it Mischief)

three grand for yet more damage to their already tarnished reputation. And your account paints a very VERY shady picture.

I'm intrigued pete, if immediately after settling the market, they called you, explained their mistake and offered you a flat grand and a reduced commission rate for a year would you have taken it?
By:
Big Boss
When: 02 Oct 16 10:11
Congratulations both on a cracking result, allegedly Smarkets do not contribute enough to the IBAS hierarchy (kidding, lol).

BOTs are ruining exchanges, they should be peer to peer, man to man, not man against the machine.

Their BOTs were happy hovering up ricks and fleecing customers, but boot on the other foot when they were mismanaged and tried to wriggle out of it.

Again well done to both, hopefully a bosman type adjudication moving forwards.
By:
JML
When: 02 Oct 16 11:09
Great result Paul.

Don't know why I thought it was for £30K in my earlier posts.

I think the reason why it took so long is because when IBAS find in favour
of the punter they give the bookmaker every chance to find an arguement to
make them change their mind,which is unfair because the punter is only allowed
one chance to state his case.

We'll probably never know if smarkets returned money to the accounts that didn't
go to IBAS.
By:
pilgrim pete
When: 02 Oct 16 11:20
Dstyle
No after the race they paid me , then 30 mins later I found out that money had been stolen  my winnings disapeared from account..and a very poor email from them..

When i rang to discuss the issue I was passed around to many people some saying the bet should stand , some knowing nothing, but someone would ring me back..

About 30 mins later I got a ring back from David offered nothing apart from closing my account and a few flannel stories why bet cancelled , and very rude to me when we talked on the phone..

After that we talked only through emails ,and even then after a while they refused to talk to me no more either in email or on the phone. Story changed many times, hacked account, police investigation etc ..They even changed their terms and conditions when they realized that I was going to IBAS!

Once i contacted IBAS I sent them all my correspondence with Smarkets , also asked Smarkets if they could send my conversion I had with David , but no surprised was told NO as it was not recorded ..
By:
DStyle
When: 02 Oct 16 11:43
yep, but i probably didn't make myself clear.

what i meant, is that if they'd said to you, for example, look sorry, that was one of our bots, it made a mistake, we use them on illiquid markets, would you be prepared to have it voided, and will comp you £1k in return and offer you 0% commission for a year, would you have taken the offer?

This has been a shocking PR exercise for them, still cost them the value of the bet they tried to void, and presumably cost them plenty in employee hours as well.
By:
pilgrim pete
When: 02 Oct 16 13:06
Dstyle

Well to be honest guess i may have taken a cash offer, But then never use them again .

But been a long wait 6 months , and time dealing with the scam , but not a penny for it all a sorry letter ..

But while i was using that place ,  I bulls up laid a horse to be place in a 5 horse race at 175-1 yep thought it was 1.75 , 2nd fav trading at 5s , i matched a bot , but i cant ring up asking it to be voided ..
By:
DStyle
When: 02 Oct 16 17:29
thanks for the reply. it's pretty amazing, because it seems unlikely that this wouldn't have been escalated higher up the organisation, prior to your going to IBAS.

That no-one on their side was prepared to seek a conciliatory offer speaks volumes, particularly given that it's not THAT much money and how damaging this sort of thing is to how exchange users perceive an organisation.

I'm almost certain I've read of something like this happening in the early days on betfair/flutter, and an agreement being reached.

I'll be interested to know what comes out in the IBAS verdict.
By:
Paul Haigh - Total Respect
When: 03 Oct 16 18:42
Here's some more detail about the IBAS ruling on this case:


https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/oct/03/ibas-bet-declared-void-should-be-paid-out
By:
Magic__Daps
When: 03 Oct 16 18:48
Good work - hope the others that got voided go and ask for their stolen money back.
By:
Paul Haigh - Total Respect
When: 03 Oct 16 18:59
You'd like to think Smarkets would contact those people and give them the good news....
By:
Magic__Daps
When: 03 Oct 16 19:06
Seeing as Smarkets changed their T&Cs after the event it is 1.0000001 that they won't be contacting anyone about it.

If you google "smarkets void bet" you will find many other examples of picking and choosing what to pay or not after the event has ran. What a lovely story that would make to expose them for what they really are.
By:
TheFear
When: 03 Oct 16 20:08
Well done all concerned. Idiotic from Smarkets they have to take the hit for incidents like this. Worst possible advertisment for an exchange.
By:
Paul Haigh - Total Respect
When: 04 Oct 16 00:10
Here's an interesting line from an email from Smarkets to a customer:

"We have on numerous occasions voided bets where prices far out of line with the prevailing market price have been matched"

In light of the IBAS ruling on pilgrim pete's case, I'd suggest anyone who has had a bet voided by Smarkets drop me an email to betdisputeadvice@gmail.com
By:
Magic__Daps
When: 04 Oct 16 09:42
That really is shocking - shame it wasn't in The Guardian piece.

I hope plenty get in touch, but many probably don't even visit this forum.
By:
Baby Jesus
When: 04 Oct 16 11:51
Well done to Pete and Paul for seeing it thru to the end, smarkets behaviour has been shocking so good to see IBAS have seen sense and ruled in their favour.

It'll be interesting to see if smarkets change their 'erroneous bets' t&c's that appeared on the site in light of this IBAS ruling, somehow I doubt they'll take it down.

https://smarkets.com/erroneous-bets/
By:
Ted Brogan
When: 04 Oct 16 12:47
From the Guardian report:

“Ibas obliges all parties to keep its dispute process and decisions confidential,”

This is something which definitely needs to be changed. I personally feel that IBAS is a pointless, bookmaker-funded organisation that should be dispanded and replaced with a fully independent panel (perhaps an extension for the GC). But given that IBAS are what we currently have, it is surely only fair that ALL rulings should be made public?
Page 6 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