Politics
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Hi
Betfair voided all bets on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the Democratic Nominee market for the 2020 US Presidentail election. here are the rules for this market:
This market will be settled on the candidate voted to be the Democratic Party nominee as a result of the 2020 Democratic National Convention.
This market will be turned in-play with unmatched bets cancelled at the start of the 2020 Democratic National Convention. Thereafter, this market will not be actively managed. Customers are entirely responsible for their bets at all times. Additional runners may be added to this market upon request. All bets stand run or not. This market will be void if an election does not take place in 2020 or takes place before 2020. If more than one election takes place in 2020, then this market will apply to the first election that is held.
The key part of the rules is,'All bets stand run or not.' By voiding bets on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I believe Betfair has broken their own rules. What is your opinion?
Now, to play Devil's Advocate to myself. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is 29 years old and thus will not be 35 years old - which people must be under the US Constitution - to become president in 2020(actualy January 2021).
Either Betfair added Ocasio-Cortez to the market or a customer requested she be added. Either way that person obviously lacked particular knowledge of her age and the US Constitution. In other words, they made a stupid mistake. I have made hundreds of stupid mistakes betting at Betfair. And all cost me money!
The reason rules exist is to have an unambiguous set of instructions to use when any disputes occur. They are a way of protecting players. It is irrelevant as the rules are written that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortex could never win the Democratic Nominee for president in 2020 due to her age. The fact is she was added and people placed bets on her selection. And these bets according to Betfair's own rules should stand.
I should add it is a triflingly small amont I would have won on this bet. I am arguing about the principle. If players can't trust Betfair's market rules then any sensible player can't continue to use Betfair.
Cheers if you made it this far.
Betfair voided all bets on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the Democratic Nominee market for the 2020 US Presidentail election. here are the rules for this market:
This market will be settled on the candidate voted to be the Democratic Party nominee as a result of the 2020 Democratic National Convention.
This market will be turned in-play with unmatched bets cancelled at the start of the 2020 Democratic National Convention. Thereafter, this market will not be actively managed. Customers are entirely responsible for their bets at all times. Additional runners may be added to this market upon request. All bets stand run or not. This market will be void if an election does not take place in 2020 or takes place before 2020. If more than one election takes place in 2020, then this market will apply to the first election that is held.
The key part of the rules is,'All bets stand run or not.' By voiding bets on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I believe Betfair has broken their own rules. What is your opinion?
Now, to play Devil's Advocate to myself. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is 29 years old and thus will not be 35 years old - which people must be under the US Constitution - to become president in 2020(actualy January 2021).
Either Betfair added Ocasio-Cortez to the market or a customer requested she be added. Either way that person obviously lacked particular knowledge of her age and the US Constitution. In other words, they made a stupid mistake. I have made hundreds of stupid mistakes betting at Betfair. And all cost me money!
The reason rules exist is to have an unambiguous set of instructions to use when any disputes occur. They are a way of protecting players. It is irrelevant as the rules are written that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortex could never win the Democratic Nominee for president in 2020 due to her age. The fact is she was added and people placed bets on her selection. And these bets according to Betfair's own rules should stand.
I should add it is a triflingly small amont I would have won on this bet. I am arguing about the principle. If players can't trust Betfair's market rules then any sensible player can't continue to use Betfair.
Cheers if you made it this far.
Show More
The old adage "if you can't win you shouldn't be allowed to lose either" springs to mind here, Alexandria backers couldn't win as you say so i think it is right for BF to void myself.
I can understand your gripe also,particulary if you were aware of the age limit and were exploiting it(fair play).
I can understand your gripe also,particulary if you were aware of the age limit and were exploiting it(fair play).
Betfair made the correct decision to void all bets.
As above
A bet is only a bet if potential to win exists
A bet is only a bet if potential to win exists
Thanks for replies, guys. I'm a little surpised the unanimous support for Betfair's stance here. However, I respect it.
I remember when i first bet on Flutter/Betfair. The only written rule was basically caveat emptor. Had to look up what it meant. Guess things have softeneed.
Peckard, I get what you are trying to say here. But your point, 'A bet is only a bet if potential to win exists' is not a written rule and could not be without at least some qualifying statements particularly regaring from whose point of view this potential must be seen.
For instance, Michael Gove is among the favourites to become the next Prime Minister. If Michael Gove himself is 100 percvent sure he will never seek or accept the position of Prime Minister, should Betfair void all his bets? From Michael Gove's point of view, he would have zero potential to win this market so his bets should be voided. If you disagree - which you do, i'm guessing - if he called Betfair and stated this or stated this in writing to Betfair would it change your view? Of course, you did not mean from Michael Gove's point of view otr anyone else's but generally. I'm simply pointing out how important unambiguous rules are.
I remember when i first bet on Flutter/Betfair. The only written rule was basically caveat emptor. Had to look up what it meant. Guess things have softeneed.
Peckard, I get what you are trying to say here. But your point, 'A bet is only a bet if potential to win exists' is not a written rule and could not be without at least some qualifying statements particularly regaring from whose point of view this potential must be seen.
For instance, Michael Gove is among the favourites to become the next Prime Minister. If Michael Gove himself is 100 percvent sure he will never seek or accept the position of Prime Minister, should Betfair void all his bets? From Michael Gove's point of view, he would have zero potential to win this market so his bets should be voided. If you disagree - which you do, i'm guessing - if he called Betfair and stated this or stated this in writing to Betfair would it change your view? Of course, you did not mean from Michael Gove's point of view otr anyone else's but generally. I'm simply pointing out how important unambiguous rules are.
The rule isn't ambiguous. Irrespective of Goves wishes one way or another, potentially he could be the next prime minister. Cortez couldn't win the democrat candidate market therefore her bets are void and Goves stand.
There are plenty of instances of "runners" saying they weren't interested, the horse is injured and won't run this season etc and sure enough, a few weeks later they are back at the head of the market.
There are plenty of instances of "runners" saying they weren't interested, the horse is injured and won't run this season etc and sure enough, a few weeks later they are back at the head of the market.
if a 2 year old was added to this years ante post derby field on here then
i would expect betfair would void bets taken on it.
i would expect betfair would void bets taken on it.
Nice analogy, Donny. Clearly everyone believe's Betfair made the right decision. That's good enough for me to change my opinion on this. Thanks all for your input.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539