Surely Betfair cant let people run up negative balances. I can understand that some layers might have lost a guaranteed say 30% of their balances but if the matching software is so bad that it allows people to lose more money than they have deposited then that is Betfair's fault. This non-settlement of the first round losers has never happened before on a grand slam to my knowledge. It is unsettling for anyone involved because its another instance like the Trump market where they appear to be deviating from the normal way a market is run probably because a few people who've lost have complained about it.
It was perfectly avoidable in a number of ways.
I did try to warn them and this sort of issue is why we have that N/A warning inside Bet Angel. Been in there for 15 years or so. So it's well known problem.
I haven't seen anybody post their bets, so still cant comment with authority on the matter.
Betfair cashed out by laying the entire field which has ended terribly!
There are few cock-ups Betfair could make that would surprise me, but this would be really astonishing. They used to be quite clued-up about these things and remove liability offset when a material runner was known to be doubtful.
They must have known no-vax was doubtful. They didn't remove liability offset, which lead to negative balances. By laying the entire field for cashout purposes, if that's what's happened, they'd be making the very mistake they're trying to avoid.
I had some lay bets on the Aus Open Outright market on Djokovic. The odds drifted out and gave me a positive cash out option. For whatever reason, after I cashed out, betfair laid all the other players for varying amounts to give me say +$100 for all players. Thought it was weird but it was effectively a cash out by laying all players.
I then layed Novak again shortly after and I was immediately given a positive cash out and the same thing happened again (laid all other players). I did this multiple times but wasn’t able to continuously as some of the players had no liquidity so I had no cash option available. Just before Novak got booted (a couple hours ago) I had a completely green book for all players of about $1500. After Novak got voided, my book is now negative $8000 for every player. My balance is negative $3800. I have reached out to customer service but they are still discussing cash outs apparently for the market, what the fuck that means. Any advice would be greatly appreciated, absolutely tilted off my head at the moment. Will have to take this to the Gaming Commission (I’m from Australia) if this doesn’t get sorted.
The term "Cash Out" is very misleading. It gives the impression that you no longer have any risk, unfortunately the terms of the market you were playing was such that Novax's bets were voided leaving you a large loss. I think BetFair should change the name of "Cash Out" or even remove it as an option all together for any markets where bets can be voided.
Hi all - I just joined this forum after having a similar experience to Dylan711 - my cashed out profit stood at £100 but swung to c £700 loss when Djokovic dropped out. Responding to this particular post as Tumby's reply is exactly the point I have been making on another forum, i.e. that "Cash out" is misleading. In the BF T&Cs they describe cash out as a feature that will lock in profit. I would not have laid all entrants voluntarily without studying the rules. I did not expect my "cash out" would do this, but naively trusted that "locking in profit" must be "locking in profit". If they do not remove it is an option completely (for markets where bets can still be voided at that point) they ought to restrict it to a traditional cash out of backing vs. a lay or vice versa. Does anyone think my complaint to BF will be taken seriously or have others been down this road and failed. I might take it to IBAS anyway - even if I don't get any redress they might put pressure on BF to make the changes to cash out we discussed so that others are not tricked in future? But I guess BF might close my account if I take a complaint to IBAS, which I wouldn't want either.
How did you generate the 'profit' in the first place?
I placed a lay bet on Zverev. Then a day or two later saw I was being offered a cash out that would guarantee a profit whatever the outcome. Clicked cash out and saw my profit position "locked in" at that point - but then it went pear-shaped when Djokovic withdrew. Then looked into how the cash out had been applied and saw it had done lay bets on all but Zverev !
Betfair cashed out by laying the entire field which has ended terribly!
There are few cock-ups Betfair could make that would surprise me, but this would be really astonishing. They used to be quite clued-up about these things and remove liability offset when a material runner was known to be doubtful.
They must have known no-vax was doubtful. They didn't remove liability offset, which lead to negative balances. By laying the entire field for cashout purposes, if that's what's happened, they'd be making the very mistake they're trying to avoid.
Very relevant to the way I have been tripped up and am staring at a £700 loss. Are you saying that Betfair would normally remove "lay all" cash outs in this type of market, or do you mean something different by "remove liability offset"?
How did you generate the 'profit' in the first place?
I placed a lay bet on Zverev. Then a day or two later saw I was being offered a cash out that would guarantee a profit whatever the outcome. Clicked cash out and saw my profit position "locked in" at that point - but then it went pear-shaped when Djokovic withdrew. Then looked into how the cash out had been applied and saw it had done lay bets on all but Zverev !
Are you able / happy to list the individual bets and the voided bets on here? I think I know what Betfair did and why this happened, but I need somebody to share the information.
Betfair cashed out by laying the entire field which has ended terribly!
There are few cock-ups Betfair could make that would surprise me, but this would be really astonishing. They used to be quite clued-up about these things and remove liability offset when a material runner was known to be doubtful.
They must have known no-vax was doubtful. They didn't remove liability offset, which lead to negative balances. By laying the entire field for cashout purposes, if that's what's happened, they'd be making the very mistake they're trying to avoid.
Very relevant to the way I have been tripped up and am staring at a £700 loss. Are you saying that Betfair would normally remove "lay all" cash outs in this type of market, or do you mean something different by "remove liability offset"?
Liability offset is where laying a competitor for £20 reduces your liability on all the others by £20, so you can repeatedly lay the field again and again. Betfair used to remove it for horse races with a doubtful runner, so if you lay the field for £200 five times, you would need £1000 in your account, thus, your account can't have a negative balance. For whatever reason, they didn't remove liability offset for the Australian Open when it was obvious Djokovic may not be starting.
No, this still goes on Derek. If the market resolves at a profit then the money can be reused, as there is no liability.
Lots of false markets and you can go negative as you can keep pumping in liabilities till the cows come home. Risk is pretty much open ended in a false market.
What I'm hearing here is the cash out malfunctioned. But of course a cash out is a lay bet, that's how it works. That's why I'm interested in seeing opening and closing positions, because that will confirm if it's a problem at Betfair or with the way customers placed bets. I suspect the latter, as nobody seems to be willing to share that information?
I have provided some suggestions to Betfair to avoid this in the future (in particular for tennis, but it can also work for several other markets).
What I proposed to BF is that in the lead up to tournaments for tennis (golf and other similar events) there a defined "antepost" market - and a completely separate and defined completed/ nominated field market which commences when the first point of round 1 is played (or perhaps once the field is locked just prior to Round 1).
If there is a withdrawal prior to the tournament commencing (ie first point played of round 1), then that player (runner) is of course out and is a loser in the Antepost market. Using Djokovic in my example, Djokovic did not win the AO 2022 tournament, back bets on Djokovic lose in the tennis Antepost, and lay bets on Djokovic win on the Antepost. Djokovic would not have been in the completed field market - which would be a separate market.
Obviously, we all understand the main issue is not someone who has undertaken a back to lay or lay to back solely on the voided player - all those bets being voided end up at zero. It is when other actions have been taken, a person has layed the field in what they think is a 110% overround (but when, say Djokovic does not play they discover they've layed the field in an 80% market and just given money away) or a person has pressed the “cash out” button and doing so does not result in a “simple” back to lay/ lay to back operation but a more complex operation against the rest of the field.
My understanding based on comments here and comments on other forums is that the use of the cash out button with Betfair does not simply back to lay or lay to back a single selection. Cash out takes a more complicated approach (more complicated than the way Bet Angel looks at things when greening). So a person pressing the cash out button ends up with actions on the rest of the field. Those actions are not voided when the relevant player is voided out of the market. Again based on what I have read elsewhere it seems that pet fair maybe assisting people who suffer a loss by pressing the cash out button on the website or in the app. They will not be assisting people who laid the field thinking there was a 110% overround.
Betfair did give a warning in certain communications (eg VIP newsletter) about the Djokovic situation. I don’t look at the BF website and have never used the cash out button so I don’t know if there was anything directly written against the market itself other than of course the rules which are there for all to read and comply with.
Peter/ Dallas - One idea might be that we have a false markets thread which might be particularly helpful to newbies. We could then take some of the posts out of this thread and move them over to the false market thread. I remember wayback in my early days reading about the false market on the first goalscorer markets for soccer and people racked up huge liabilities thinking they were all green against an overround.
How did you generate the 'profit' in the first place?
I placed a lay bet on Zverev. Then a day or two later saw I was being offered a cash out that would guarantee a profit whatever the outcome. Clicked cash out and saw my profit position "locked in" at that point - but then it went pear-shaped when Djokovic withdrew. Then looked into how the cash out had been applied and saw it had done lay bets on all but Zverev !
Are you able / happy to list the individual bets and the voided bets on here? I think I know what Betfair did and why this happened, but I need somebody to share the information.
Sorry I did reply earlier but something went wrong and the reply disappeared. It would be a very long list of lay bets that were generated by the cash out. I will give you a summary first and then follow up with more detail if you need it. In summary then the only individual bets I placed were lays against Zverev. The cash out thengenerated lay bets against every other competitor it seems. The only bets voided were the cash-out-generated lays on Djokovic (which amounted to over £700 of stakes, so my position on any other competitor winning worsened by £700). Of course if it were racing then rule 4 would have scaled down the remaining liabilities and compensated largely or fully). Let me know if more detail would help you to help me !
If you put a lay on one and then cashed out. The book was overbroke so XM and cash out would have gone for a cashout by laying everything else. So that would be Betfair's fault. If you did that on Bet Angel it would have reversed your position to cash out and not tried to be 'clever' about it.
If you want to drop a note to support with the bet history from Betfair we would be interested in looking at it to confirm.
If you put a lay on one and then cashed out. The book was overbroke so XM and cash out would have gone for a cashout by laying everything else. So that would be Betfair's fault. If you did that on Bet Angel it would have reversed your position to cash out and not tried to be 'clever' about it.
If you want to drop a note to support with the bet history from Betfair we would be interested in looking at it to confirm.
I remember from my match betting days on football where i'd use the cashout button on a team 2up, and i remember frequently the exchange used to lay draw & opposition, always confused me back then, why it didn't always just back the layed team...
If you put a lay on one and then cashed out. The book was overbroke so XM and cash out would have gone for a cashout by laying everything else. So that would be Betfair's fault. If you did that on Bet Angel it would have reversed your position to cash out and not tried to be 'clever' about it.
If you want to drop a note to support with the bet history from Betfair we would be interested in looking at it to confirm.
Very good point Peter. Now it makes perfect sense to me that BF would use XM for the cash out calculation. And when the book is over broke you get all sorts of problems because an AI calculator greening via overbroke is a no brainer - of course this also demonstrates why AI has limitations - it can’t deal with rules that lead to a mistake and situations that can be avoided by a human brain.
