good to see its not just poker players getting shafted

not funny.

ihad 66 quidon it during the race.

peoplewho backed it early in race really  should get true market price[ofaround 13/8],and notjust a voidbet.

ibet iwouldnt of got my stakebackif it had lost2 the fav.

Take them to court, I would if it was my money defrauded.

What you fellas discussing ? The thought police appear to have intervened again.

Ah right, seen it on the horse racing page. Gotta feel for anyone who laid it before the race and traded out in running.

Exactly, I'd love to see betfair explain in court how they could void a transaction two parties willingly entered to.

"Gotta feel for anyone who laid it before the race and traded out in running"

How about people who backed it on here in running and laid it on purple?

Not the sort of thing I expected to hear on Sky Sports News.

ANYONE who bets regularly knows that bookmakers are under no obligation to honour a price offered in error, so no idea why they think the exchanges would operate any differently. Its happened loads of times to me in the bookies where I've tried to back something when I know the price is wrong because they haven't suspended a market. One high street bookie is notorious for not updating Greyhound Derby Outright prices after each round for instance, I've also backed a tennis player recently with another, to win a game half an hour after it finished.

If you walk into Laddies and see Man United are beating Spurs 2-0 with 5 minutes to go and the screen is showing them at 25-1 to win the match, you know its an error, and even if you get the lassie behind the counter to write the price on and initial it, you know you are unlikely to get paid out. Anyone with half a brain would have a cheeky fiver on and hope for the best. You wouldn't have 2 grand on, then pop next door to c0r@ls and have a 200 quid saver on the draw.

Obviously there has been no complaint from the thousands of punters who backed a loser in running in the race and got their dosh back, and to be honest I don't see that BF had any option but to void everything.

Its also obvious that both parties did not willingly opt in, as one didn't have £600 million to wager in his account.

The most obvious questions to ask are :

Why wasn't the market suspended by someone during the race

How did the fella get to wager with money he didn't have ? Whether its the work of hackers, or whether its a software glitch, the companys credibility has nosedived, so I very much doubt they will be over the moon with the situation. 

I do like to back to lay horses I think will get an uncontested lead, I also like to lay to back hold up horses, so I deffo wont be doing that any more for a while.

"Its also obvious that both parties did not willingly opt in, as one didn't have £600 million to wager in his account"

1) What about the two parties who willingly opted in to the other bets which did not involve the error?

2) Who says a punter would have needed £600m in his account? Why couldn't it have been one of the major bookies who are allowed unlimited credit in the same way that the big names on full tilt were allowed advances without having to put the funds up front? Why couldn't it have been betfair themselves who were trying to hoover bets on no hopers but got it spectacularly wrong? Bit convenient, this "computer error" or "software glitch" isn't it?

3) To compare betfair to a bookie is stupid. Punters make mistakes every single day of the week on here, they get punished and rightly so. There is no "palpable error" rule here. What are you supposed to do if you see a price that is clearly wrong for huge sums - just ignore it?!? How about that horse that was 15/8 which was accidentally laid at 1000 for £250 as soon as it came out of the stalls and cost the person who made the error a quarter of a million - should anyone who saw that just have said "Ah, someone's made a mistake, it could be voided, I'd better not bother

For these reasons and many others, I would make anyone who took the matter to court to be a 1.00001 shot to win (especially because under their terms and conditions, all bets stand in the event of a person accidentally being able to bet more than their balance) Betfair should cough up the money and make sure it can't happen again, in the same way they did with that first goalscorer glitch on the Carling Cup Final which allowed people to continually lay overounds despite the fact that non starters were voided. Betfair make the error, they should pay, in the same way that applies to every other user on the site.

Without all the facts - it is not easy to comment on whats the right or wrong thing to do here.

If the horse lost, would bets have been voided?

It certainly does feel that some sort of "credit" facility was enabled on the account. Would some sort of liability insurances not exist to cover these sort of technical issues that result in loss and if so - can punters can actually make a claim against betfairs insurers ?

If you went to the bank and tried to withdraw £100 from an ATM and it accidentally issued you £1000. You noticed the error - and keep withdrawing £100 and collected £1000 - is it then a criminal offence? Are you effectively stealing. If the police turned up and asked you questions - would you return the money or keep it?

Sorry I stopped reading at :

"Why couldn't it have been betfair themselves who were trying to hoover bets on no hopers but got it spectacularly wrong? "

I cant believe anyone would be daft enough to even type this let alone believe it.

Perfectly logical explanation, actually. Mentioned by plenty of others on various threads.

It's well known they employ traders to operate in the exchanges, and that they, like others, make mistakes. They wouldnt have to fund the bet in advance either.

Why do you find it so hard to believe?

There are plenty of people think the CIA flew planes into the Twin Towers, or that Elvis is still alive. The world is full of crackpots and thicketts. And lets face it, you would have to be uber thick to think Betfair would deliberately lay a 13-8 shot that was never off the bridle, at 28-1 for £600 million EVEN AS IT WAS CROSSING THE LINE, then not pay out.

I have a massive amount of sympathy for anyone who legitimately backed the horse in running during the first half of the race, likewise anyone who backed a winner in the place market, who should be compensated, and have a strong case for reimbursement.

No sympathy whatsoever for anyone who backed it at the rogue price though, and who have zero chance of  getting paid out.

To suggest Betfair should cough up the entire £26 million is rank stupidity. What if it was a hacker who did it again and this time the whole £600 million got matched ? You reckon they should pay out again, bankrupt the company, and go down the Full Tilt route ?

Sorry to disappoint all the crackpots, but the logical explanation is the one they have given.

It's also a fact that they have covered things up before when they have made errors, and voided markets on spurious grounds without even telling the customers involved. As well as telling their helpdesk staff to give explanations which fly in the face of the facts (call it not telling the truth if you like)

Given all this, am I prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt on this matter and accept it was a "technical glitch"?

Quite frankly, no.

"And lets face it, you would have to be uber thick to think Betfair would deliberately lay a 13-8 shot that was never off the bridle, at 28-1 for £600 million EVEN AS IT WAS CROSSING THE LINE"

Where did I say they did it on purpose? Is that something you imagined?

"No sympathy whatsoever for anyone who backed it at the rogue price though, and who have zero chance of  getting paid out"

The "rogue price" as you put it was available for most of the race. So who deserves to be paid out? What is your cut off point

Should whoever backed that 15/8 shot at 1000 as the stalls opened get their money? After all, that was clearly a "rogue" price, wouldnt you say?

"What if it was a hacker who did it again and this time the whole £600 million got matched"

Any hacker now has a green light to try and replicate this if they are in a losing position, and try to crash the market and get it voided, has that occurred to you?

Okay, you state :

Why couldn't it have been betfair themselves who were trying to hoover bets on no hopers but got it spectacularly wrong

Please explain your reasoning behind this thinking, and in particular how a company could accidentally trade on a market, and how a 13-8 shot never off the bridle constitutes a no-hoper.

They could have been trying to lay horses who had either fallen or were so far tailed off that they had no reallistic chance of winning. Instead of which they clicked on the wrong one in error.

Hardly a far fetched scenario, is it, given that normal punters do it every single day of the week

The whole point of operating an exchange is that you win every single time irrespective of the result, it's a licence to print money. Why risk killing the goose that lays the golden egg by employing an army of traders to lay fallers, who lets face it would have no advantage over anyone operating on track or using fast pics in an exchange shop.

They have already given a perfectly rational explanation as to what happened, and also stated in plain English that the account involved is not owned or operated by anyone connected to the company.

"Why risk killing the goose that lays the golden egg by employing an army of traders to lay fallers"

Greed I am sure you could have asked simmilar questions of the owners of full tilt as to why they wrecked an incredibly profitable company! They have done numerous things which are designed to screw ever more money out of their customers with zero benefit to them, cross matching skimming, arcade, casino, awful price multiples, continuing increased commission hikes, premium charges, etc, etc, etc. They have a faltering share price which has crashed since the float to prop up, don't forget!

"who lets face it would have no advantage over anyone operating on track or using fast pics in an exchange shop"

Unless of course they operated with the fastest possible pictures and, even more importantly, zero delay

"They have already given a perfectly rational explanation as to what happened, and also stated in plain English that the account involved is not owned or operated by anyone connected to the company"

Again, given that I have personally been lied to about a market as stated previously, and they have history for voiding markets and not informing customers, also as stated previously I am not naive enough to swallow every bit of PR that I am told with zero evidence, even if you are!

So you ARE saying they acted deliberately by trading their own market.

Fair enough, yr entitled to an opinion. Presumably you have withdrawn every last penny from your account, and will never use the site again.

Of course if you are right, it wouldn't be PR would it ? It would be blatant lying.

"So you ARE saying they acted deliberately by trading their own market"

Yes, they trade their own markets, this is well known. I've stated that they made an error in this instance. I think I've made that perfectly clear.

"Presumably you have withdrawn every last penny from your account, and will never use the site again"

You presume incorrectly. Given that I make a profit here, albeit a very modest one, why would I do this given I very very rarely bet on the horses just to make a rather futile point? I believe the phrase would be "cutting off your nose to spite your face"

"Of course if you are right, it wouldn't be PR would it ? It would be blatant lying"

First thing you've said that I agree with on this subject

Your opinion on this will differ greatly with any financial interest you had on the race.I had none and  the logical thing is to believe there was a glitch in the software, although betfair couldnt have handled it much worse and Tony Calvins interview with Matt Chapman on Attheraces to me wasnt far short of a pr disaster.If a similar thing had happened in a big poker tournament im quite sure there would have been the odd person screaming blue murder if theyd finished in the big money and it had been voided.

Okay, you state :

Why couldn't it have been betfair themselves who were trying to hoover bets on no hopers but got it spectacularly wrong

Please explain your reasoning behind this thinking, and in particular how a company could accidentally trade on a market, and how a ???? shot never off the bridle constitutes a no-hoper

lol, see K.Fallon/Lingfield/Ballinger Ridge.

I think they are very lucky they have a virtual monopoly when it comes to the Exchange. People who trade for a living have no option but to carry on , though as you say Eagle it has been a PR disaster and will surely have a negative impact when it comes to retaining/recruiting your average fiver and tenner punters, who will only have seen the headline/interview.

They really needed to get a full explanation out there ASAP detailing not only what went wrong, but more importantly what they have done to prevent it happening again.

As far as poker is concerned the " IT'S ALL R1GG3D BRIGADE " will simply use it as ammunition every time they get a bad beat or have a losing session.

Aye charly, but if you thought you were laying a non trier you wouldnt :

a) Need to put up 28/1
b) Make your intention obvious by asking for £600 million to be matched
c) Still have it at 28/1 as it passed the post
d) Wait till they had gone a mile and a half before sticking the bet up

If you look at Paul Blockley, the trainer who got warned off, his non buzzers used to always trade about half a point to three quarters of a point above the course show, and continue drifting after the off, but never anything like this.

You seem to have completely missed the point I was making. I'll try again.

They were attempting to lay something that had no reallistic chance of winning - because of the fact that it had either fallen / was about to be pulled up / tailed off etc. They simply picked the wrong horse / entered the wrong stake or both. Normal punters make such mistakes every single day of the week. So why couldn't this happen to betfair's own traders? Maybe the keyboard stuck and this resulted in the extra digits - who knows?

And I again repeat, it could even have been a bookmaker with a credit facility (and therefore would not have to have had the £600m or however much would have been needed) who did it if it was not betfair themselves.

Either of those explanations is far more likely than a "computer glitch" imho.

I understand perfectly the point you are making- I just happen to think you are away with the fairies.

Bookmaker, emperor of China, or sultan of Brunei is irrelevant. No-one should have £600m exposure.

Bookmaker, emperor of China, or sultan of Brunei is irrelevant. No-one should have £600m exposure.

Well if you follow the flawed logic put forward by Masked Avenger, bookmakers and Betfairs hidden army of traders all have the facility to lay a horse for at least the £29 million that was matched, and probably the other £571 million that wasn't.

I'm gonna get a bookmaking pemit and have myself some of this unlimited credit.