Betfair

restingpilgrim

Own up. Which one of you took my price of 29 on VLV today. Could of been worse might have cost me 600 million.


LOL BETFAIR what a screw up !!:D


See some people were actually suckered into laying higher prices WTF. Good article on the racing post website showing the market .

Long live the bots

-gilly-09-

They wont get away with voiding all bets. I had a 400/200 at the off before the glitch never mind what the business done after that.

Not the first time its happened either. 2500000 million was the initial amount put into lay when i first looked at it. 2.2 mil matched it total on VLV of the 3.1 held on the race and 1.96 million was at the 28/1 price. Traders using both betfair and betdaq that were laying it at 10/1 and having the bet back at 28's have to pay the bets they laid at 10s so betfair surely have to pay the matched bets.

RichieLawlor

Of course they will get away with it.

All gambling contracts/bets are legally unenforceable.

Super Sidious

Its just like a bank glitch, if the ATM gave you 10,000 when you have 20 euro in your account, you still owe them the rest of the money.

Just like the ATM disaster with BOI, they still got the money back from customers, regardless if they had spent the money, just like betdaq layers.

mikemac1

Article here
http://www.racingpost.com/news/horse-racing/leopardstown-voler-la-vedette-betfair-void-in-running-bets-after-voler-fiasco/968454/

All bets are voided

And companies have risk departments to manage these errors and protect themselves
Technical error and while it's embarrassing and getting coverage in the racing post these things happen and it'll likely happen again some day
With millions of transactions, the odd mistake is inevitable

-gilly-09-

Well put it this way if VLV doesn't win or fails to weigh in what happens then? Are all bets voided? No chance

Shane732

So the punter actually offered a lay bet of £21.3m at 28-1?

Findlay must be back on the scene and having a bit of fun with his All Blacks and Black Caviar money!

ebbsy

Sorry for asking a stupid question, but how did a 13/8 horse end up at 28/1 ????

mikemac1

In the article

was due to an obvious technical failure

Panrich

Looking at that RP article it seems strange that although there was 21M available at 29 there was also 1000 available at 21 and a small sum at 23. This is not a single error as there was never a time that VLV should have traded at those prices in running. Were the smaller amounts also from the same customer? Very strange all round.

abouttobebanned

There's a lot more to this than just a "technical error". Gambling firms really do get away with murder at times.

TheMilkyPirate

She was available at 5's in the place market the whole way around as well.

Shane732

baraca wrote: »

She was available at 5's in the place market the whole way around as well.

I assume place market bets were voided as well?

Colonel Sanders

Shane732 wrote: »

I assume place market bets were voided as well?

Yes as far as I know but only in running bets.

hucklebuck

Pity Betdaq has so few users, I would close my Betfair account and move over otherwise.

They should have paid the backers out of their own coffers as it was their fault and nobody elses. Very bad PR move.

UrbanSea

If they did pay them out it'd be the most expensive PR move ever

Juwwi

UrbanSea wrote: »

If they did pay them out it'd be the most expensive PR move ever

I dont think it would be a PR move tho I think people are genuinely entitled to their money.

The odds where up from before the 2nd hurdle so people backed a 13/8 shot with no chance of winning.

If the horse had of lost I'd say nothing would of been said all losing bets would of been settled as losers and everyone would of taught some mad man put up millions.

I read recently just before the off of a wolverhampton race a few years ago some poor chap made a mistake and laid the 6/4 for 1000 by mistake
and the bets were just settled as normal.

I'd say there will be court cases over this.


Edit I also meant to say they should of suspending the market during the race then there would be no argument
but betfair let the race run with the market open until the line.

UrbanSea

Betfair will have every single possible discrepancy covered in their T&C'S.

Not to mention gambling debts are not legally enforceable

UrbanSea

Something that got me thinking:

Does anyone know if legally,trading is classified as ''gambling''?

I'd imagine this could be the only argument that any lawyer/solicitor would have in bringing BF to court if they were to be successful,if they could argue that trading is in fact different to gambling.

Huntey

There couldn't possibly be anybody who took 28's about Voler thinking it was the correct price.

Betfair aren't blameless but I personally don't see the fuss of voiding the bets apart from people who may have played on a different exchange aswell.

Juwwi

Huntey wrote: »

There couldn't possibly be anybody who took 28's about Voler thinking it was the correct price.

Yea I agree there that it was never a 28/1 shot but every day of the week people make mistakes on betfair.
Commentators call the wrong faller and suddenly a horse goes 1000 thats still in the race.

I never had a bet on it but feel sorry for the people who did.
Aparently there was lots of money available at around 10/1 on betdaq as people tried to lay off their money.

Huntey

robbie1977 wrote: »

feel sorry for the people who did.

I don't, it was an opportunistic move that didn't work out.

I would however feel sympathetic to those that may have played on another exchange though but obviously it would be impossible to compensate such people.

Juwwi

Huntey wrote: »

I don't, it was an opportunistic move that didn't work out.
.

But every day theres horses being offered at 100/1 that win.
People back them whats the difference.

Anyone who backed at 28/1 took a chance that their pictures were'nt 10 seconds behind live and the horse would fall at the next hurdle.
They took the chance that someone had spotted something fall out of the saddle that they did'nt see.
They took the chance it was'nt an inside job and the jockey would deliberately lose the race.

Its not as plain as your making it out to be that they backed a 100% dead cert at 28/1.

Huntey

robbie1977 wrote: »

But every day theres horses being offered at 100/1 that win.
People back them whats the difference.

The difference is that those prices are probably correct that the horse would have been viewed as a 100/1 shot in-running at the time. Voler La Vedette was never 28's in-running as it was obviously a massive error.

robbie1977 wrote: »

Anyone who backed at 28/1 took a chance that their pictures were'nt 10 seconds behind live and the horse would fall at the next hurdle.
They took the chance that someone had spotted something fall out of the saddle that they did'nt see.
They took the chance it was'nt an inside job and the jockey would deliberately lose the race.

Its not as plain as your making it out to be that they backed a 100% dead cert at 28/1.

I would think that 99% probably took a chance that the price was wrong and had she won or lost was irrelevant as they had gotten value on a horse that shouldn't have been near that price.

Colonel Sanders

Guy in the post saying he's a 50 quid punter. Had 500 on a horse last year by accident, tried to get Betfair to void (said going through his account it was clear he didn't play to those stakes). Betfair said suck it up

Interestingly:

BETFAIR T&C

Minimum and maximum bet stakes
Depending on the product or type of market you are betting on and depending on the currency that you are betting in, there are minimum bet sizes that apply. These minimum bet sizes are subject to change and may differ depending on whether you are on our site or using the Telephone Betting Service. You are not permitted to place bets or try to place bets that are below the minimum bet size threshold and doing so may result in your account being permanently closed.

Your betting limit is represented by the lesser of: (i) your 'Available to Bet' balance shown in your account and (ii) your ‘Exposure Limit’ (which is available in the “Account Summary” tab in “My Account”). However in the event that we process an offer for a bet or the acceptance of a bet in an amount outside the applicable thresholds, such bet will nevertheless stand

http://www.betfair.com/aboutUs/Terms.and.Conditions/#section6

Also found this on the Betfair forum:

A BETFAIR player lost £237,000 on Saturday night when laying winning favourite Peregrine Falcon at odds of up to 1,000-1 in a maiden race at Wolverhampton.

The punter was taken on by three others - including one who traded £209.79 - before the Mark Johnston-trained two-year-old landed the 1m contest.

That transaction cost the layer over £200,000, having been confirmed and authorised inside the opening furlong, yet Peregrine Falcon was returned at an SP of just 15-8.

Betfair spokesman Tony Calvin said on Sunday: "It looks as if the layer simply made a mistake, as all prices matched have to be confirmed before they are traded. "The only alternative I could imagine is that the layer was using an automatic trading system and that there was some kind of problem with it."

Betfair punters have to lodge sufficientfunds in advance to cover the trades they make, a fact which suggests the layer concerned is a large and regular player.

Calvin added: "Obviously, I cannot reveal the names of any of our clients, but nothing untoward is considered to have taken place,other than a genuine error on someone's part."

What's the difference?

A lot of people on Betfair and elsewhere suggesting that this was a Betfair bot gone wrong (apparently they seed some markets to provide liquidity) and that's the reason that bets are void.

My balance through the mobile app is often 1c over the balance shown on the website. Have often tried to have what I thought was my balance on a bet/lay and not been able.

The whole thing stinks. Betdaq are very quiet, if they had any cop on or marketing know how at all they'd be making hay here. A lot of people are seriously p!ssed off with Betfair (premium charges, site outages, alleged slow paying big winning customers) but due to the absence of liquidity elsewhere are snookered

Whoever markets Betdaq should be fired :mad:

Juwwi

Huntey wrote: »

The difference is that those prices are probably correct that the horse would have been viewed as a 100/1 shot in-running at the time. Voler La Vedette was never 28's in-running as it was obviously a massive error.

Yea but exchanges are all about opinion but I'll agree with you here.




I would think that 99% probably took a chance that the price was wrong and had she won or lost was irrelevant as they had gotten value on a horse that shouldn't have been near that price.

But they did'nt get value because they never had a chance of winning,and in my opinion if the horse lost they would of done their money.

Heres a question anyone who backed the horse at 29 yesterday and has ever layed a horse for 1000 that they taught had fallen only for the horse to win should they have been paid out?

Colonel Sanders

Betfair defend position as Voler storm rages on

Betfair customers heard Calvin confirm that Betfair ran in-house bots (robots, or automatic betting systems)

As a customer I'd be interested as what exactly they are used for (eg only seeding) and what their P&L is since they began being used

and also apparently seek to blame a junior staff member, while falling short of explaining in detail what actually happened more than 28 hours after the incident despite "an in-house investigation".

Weak.....

Calvin said: "We immediately launched an investigation into what happened and it transpired a technology fault allowed a customer to exceed their exposure limit, so in accordance with our terms and conditions we voided the market.

As I posted earlier the stance actually contradicts their terms and conditions....

He ruled out the possibility of sabotage and denied that any customers were betting on credit

People on Betfair forum seem to think/know otherwise....

On the subject of the integrity of Betfair, Calvin said: "If the Gambling Commission want to come and have a look that's fine, we're always honest and transparent."

Let's hope they do

Apparently a London firm of solicitors have offered to take the case against Betfair on a "no win, no fee" basis

Huntey

robbie1977 wrote: »

Heres a question anyone who backed the horse at 29 yesterday and has ever layed a horse for 1000 that they taught had fallen only for the horse to win should they have been paid out?

These are two total different situations. You are talking about a singular persons error as opposed to a full scale site error.

Backing a horse because you think he fell and then wins is only the fault of the commentator or person relaying the info and any anger should be directed towards them. Personally I think that anybody who is laying a horse at 1000's should have first hand viewing as you see yourself mistakes can happen.

Juwwi

Huntey wrote: »

These are two total different situations. You are talking about a singular persons error as opposed to a full scale site error.

Backing a horse because you think he fell and then wins is only the fault of the commentator or person relaying the info and any anger should be directed towards them. Personally I think that anybody who is laying a horse at 1000's should have first hand viewing as you see yourself mistakes can happen.

But there not different situations.
It was only a full scale site error because of the amount of money involved.If the person who had of put up the 29 had only of put up a €500
nothing would of been said.

I think the person tried to lay the horse at 2.9 and the dot did'nt register.

I'd love one of those 1000 layers to bring his case in front of a judge tho and explain his mistake which he took on the chin against betfair and the 29 layer case mistake man and let the judge decide if he should get paid or not.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one tho or we'll be here all night .

Harry Angstrom

Looks like Betfair are now putting the blame on a "junior employee", which to me is a complete cop-out. Personally I find it hilarious that this has happened. I've never been a fan of betting exchanges. Anything that encourages horses to lose cannot be a good thing for racing. I know that there's a strong argument for giving the punter more choice and flexibility but the fundamental integrity of horse racing should not be sacrificed as a result.

UrbanSea

Never thought of it like that Harry, good argument.

restingpilgrim

Does the arguement that the horse should never have been very big in running lose some credence when people got double figure odds on betdaq and were paid out with the race not voided. Good luck with explaining the arb bit to a judge, who would just wonder why only betfair voided the race when other exchanges did not.

hucklebuck

I would go to court and make betfair prove that I was watching the race. Voler could have planted herself or almost unseated or jockey lost his irons and that was why I thought she was 28, simples.

I work for the third biggest bank in the world and reputational risk is drummed into us. What I say and do could be very damaging to the company both by perception and financial loss.

Powers regularly pauout when they dont need to as it puts them in a good light.

UrbanSea

It may put them in a good light hucklebuck,particularly such as the Crystal Palace case.

However,that would have been less than 100k, this is 50 million euro.
Any chief exec that authorises a PR stunt worth 50 million is going to be getting his P45

Colonel Sanders

Betfair have released another statement

Juwwi

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

Betfair have released another statement

I think these betfair statements are a load off rubbish because if there was a technical hitch why did they not suspend a few races or the rest of the day's betting untill they checked out their system to be sure it would'nt happen again.
They did'nt tho they carried on as usual.


I think it was one of two things that happened.

1. The most likely a customer who is allowed unlimited credit (which people on betfair forum claim does exist ) made a mistake when trying to lay at 2.9.He did'nt have that sort of money so betfair decide its either pay out themselves and sue Mr X for the money or void the race.

2.Or A cumputer whiz kid hacked into betfair and put imaginary money in his account.but if this is the case they would'nt of continued on for the rest of the day they would of suspending until checking out their security.

Howjoe1

It was a shambles.

But out of interest can someone explain to me, excuse my ignorance in advance,

while v la v was on offer @ 29s

why does the betfair graph show people looking to back it at 30a 32s 38s ?

surely they would all snap up the 29s ???

UrbanSea

Howjoe-Perhaps they thought it'd go bigger given it was that big to begin with.

UrbanSea

I think people using bots to do their bets deserve to lose like that

Starokan

While i appreciate that gambling bets are in essence legally unenforceable & therefore anyone who backed at 29's on betfair will never got paid I wonder would someone who layed off at 14's or similar on betdaq have any recourse through the courts.

gambling aside it was an error on betfair's behalf that caused them to lose potentially a lot of money. Would there be any legal grounds for a punter to sue.

NaiveMelodies

100% sure that she was 29s on Betdaq at one point, I was cursing my luck as I had her backed and thought the stream on RTE was way behind.
Is there any affiliation between betdaq and betfair or whats the craic?

hucklebuck

UrbanSea wrote: »

If they did pay them out it'd be the most expensive PR move ever

True, I did not realise Betfair was so small, their net profit is only £21M, I thought they would have been in the hundred millions.

restingpilgrim

I think Betfair hoped to contain the damage to their share price knowing it was an early closing day on the stock exchange on Friday. They knew this would give them some breathing space and I hope the authorities are looking to see who has sold large chunks of shares in the last few days and whether any are management of Betfair, they were lucky the stateside news broke at same time to make the fall not look too bad but it is a bad performance when compared to moves of other gambling companies quotes on the stock market in the uk. I have not looked at their p/e ratio but if the 21m profit is true it is quite high and share price will head down rapidly in new year at the low prospect of profits expanding after this debacle. Surely they have shot themselves further in the foot by refusing to disclose what happened and by refusing to make any further statments.

They may not just have to worry about court cases from people who were not paid on this race but from disgruntled shareholders who may feel they have been mislead , I also read that thy were doing a share buyback and would imagine they have been fairly active on this over last few days to restict damage.

Think the next month could signal whether the company can even survive in the long term.

Harry Angstrom

restingpilgrim wrote: »

They may not just have to worry about court cases from people who were not paid on this race but from disgruntled shareholders who may feel they have been mislead.

Just like the Anglo Irish Bank shareholders after AI did that cosy little Balance Sheet deal with Irish Permanent?? If you ask me, company law is weighted entirely in favour of the companies themselves, although seeing as this Betfair issue will probably play out in a UK jurisdiction, the disgruntled shareholders might get some degree of satisfaction, unlike this banana republic that we're living in.

restingpilgrim

Betfair now paying out some of the money won before "software glitch" and all of the place market money from their own pocket.

hucklebuck

Egg on their face, big disgrace, somebody better put them back into their place.

It only just occurred to me that Betfair should carry errors and ommissions cover for software glitches which would pay out in the event of a programming error.

Maybe their limit was too low to payout on this or they don't carry the insurance :eek:

Hulk Hands

Did anyone honestly expect them to pay out? If they pay out its probably the end of Betfair and they have the legal small print to cover themselves? What would you do in a similar position faced with saving your business?

mikemac1

If the account holder was used a third party software bot then Betfair shouldn't pay a cent in compensation
I don't know a lot about them on betfair but I've seen them on ebay when you instruct them to outbid with a second to go. I guess it's sort of similar

Betfair still had their reputation damaged so a limited payout probably was the best option.

I was surprised too to see how small Betfair was so a full payout would ruin them

Juwwi

BETFAIR T&C

Minimum and maximum bet stakes
Depending on the product or type of market you are betting on and depending on the currency that you are betting in, there are minimum bet sizes that apply. These minimum bet sizes are subject to change and may differ depending on whether you are on our site or using the Telephone Betting Service. You are not permitted to place bets or try to place bets that are below the minimum bet size threshold and doing so may result in your account being permanently closed.

Your betting limit is represented by the lesser of: (i) your 'Available to Bet' balance shown in your account and (ii) your ‘Exposure Limit’ (which is available in the “Account Summary” tab in “My Account”). However in the event that we process an offer for a bet or the acceptance of a bet in an amount outside the applicable thresholds, such bet will nevertheless stand


But thats in their terms and conditions hulkhands.

Sounds to me like they are afraid of court cases and are trying to clean up the mess as best as possible.

hucklebuck

robbie1977 wrote: »

However in the event that we process an offer for a bet or the acceptance of a bet in an amount outside the applicable thresholds, such bet will nevertheless stand

Shocking stuff really.

To clarify I was talking about Errors and Ommissions Insurance, this policy would spefically cover a coding error that ended up causing people to lose money.

UrbanSea

Betfair site down yet again. What a shambles