Voler La Vedette = Steal the Show
How appropriate.
Leopardstown - 14:00 - Christmas Hurdle - Voler la vedette
Wow hoo , 600 million liability, 'balls of titanium', share price of BF down and up like Jordan's knickers etc., all part of the fun 
All it takes is one happening like that and everything can change in an instant.... champagne wishes and caviar dreams to you all...
All it takes is one happening like that and everything can change in an instant.... champagne wishes and caviar dreams to you all...
-
steven1976
- Posts: 1744
- Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 6:28 am
Pretty scary that they say its a customers account that went over their exposure. With the lack of security, someone could wake up with a 600 mil quid debt in their account tomorrow if a hacker decided to have a bit of fun.
All part of the fun. The only rule at Betfair is: there are no rules!steven1976 wrote:Pretty scary that they say its a customers account that went over their exposure. With the lack of security, someone could wake up with a 600 mil quid debt in their account tomorrow if a hacker decided to have a bit of fun.
-
Online Trader
- Posts: 211
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 7:13 am
Morale of the story "don't let your kids play around with your account"
AFAIK, Betfair haven't said whether the guy who placed the lay was using funds in his account, or if a computer error meant that he was able to place orders that exceeded his funds.
If it's the latter, and someone was betting with money they didn't have, you can understand the decision to void all bets...
Jeff
If it's the latter, and someone was betting with money they didn't have, you can understand the decision to void all bets...
Jeff
steven1976 wrote:Pretty scary that they say its a customers account that went over their exposure. With the lack of security, someone could wake up with a 600 mil quid debt in their account tomorrow if a hacker decided to have a bit of fun.
I've been having a good nose around and the most plausible explanation to me comes back to this integer error.
I saw this link which explains how it can cause errors. How many sites out there have a similar error that isn't trapped?
http://weblogs.asp.net/dvravikanth/arch ... sited.aspx
I saw this link which explains how it can cause errors. How many sites out there have a similar error that isn't trapped?
http://weblogs.asp.net/dvravikanth/arch ... sited.aspx
I don't dispute that's the correct explanation, Peter. However, it makes for interesting debate on BF inner workings, because a massive amount of that incorrect lay figure was matched.
Does this show the vast sums of money BF are sitting on, or does it show that all the figures we see are virtually theoretical, until the market has been completed and settled?
Does this show the vast sums of money BF are sitting on, or does it show that all the figures we see are virtually theoretical, until the market has been completed and settled?
Scott Ferguson's take on this - http://www.sportismadeforbetting.com/20 ... thing.html
The big issue is that it could occur in the first place. Now they hole has been exposed I reckon there will be an arms race to exploit it unless Betfair can quickly prove that the door has been slammed shut. As for account balances and exposures you would have thought they would have trapped that error. But computers and coding is notorious for throwing up unusual issues. Much respect to coders that send rockets to other planets!
2147483647
The number 2,147,483,647 (two billion one hundred forty-seven million four hundred eighty-three thousand six hundred forty-seven) is the eighth Mersenne prime, equal to 231 − 1. It is one of only four known double Mersenne primes.
The primality of this number was proved by Leonhard Euler, who reported the proof in a letter to Daniel Bernoulli written in 1772. Euler used trial division, improving on Cataldi's method, so that at most 372 divisions were needed. The number 2,147,483,647 may have remained the largest known prime until 1876.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2147483647
The number 2,147,483,647 (two billion one hundred forty-seven million four hundred eighty-three thousand six hundred forty-seven) is the eighth Mersenne prime, equal to 231 − 1. It is one of only four known double Mersenne primes.
The primality of this number was proved by Leonhard Euler, who reported the proof in a letter to Daniel Bernoulli written in 1772. Euler used trial division, improving on Cataldi's method, so that at most 372 divisions were needed. The number 2,147,483,647 may have remained the largest known prime until 1876.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2147483647
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
I may be wrong but not so long ago I thought in the case against the BHA, Betfair argued that we were betting against Betfair and not other clients. All to do with the argument about if we were being a bookmaker or not.
So if we are in fact betting against Betfair the fact a customer made an iffy bet exceeding their exposure doesn't really come into it as Betfair would have accepted that Bet and then offered up their own identical counter bet in the form of an offer to lay the horse.
So ultimately would it not be down to Betfair being liable for the bet and not the individual who placed the initial bet. Would they argue that there were two cases of Palpable error, one by the individual and one by Betfair.
If we are betting directly against the individual which they seem to be implying, it kind of blows a hole in their argument used against the BHA does it not?
I think this is quite an important point in the whole thing and really needs clearing up.
Furthermore, a lot of these bets would have been matched indirectly not against the initial bet put up by Betfair but in the Cross Matching process hence the other horse hitting 1.04. Who are these bets matched against, Betfair and its Cross Matching machine?
So if we are in fact betting against Betfair the fact a customer made an iffy bet exceeding their exposure doesn't really come into it as Betfair would have accepted that Bet and then offered up their own identical counter bet in the form of an offer to lay the horse.
So ultimately would it not be down to Betfair being liable for the bet and not the individual who placed the initial bet. Would they argue that there were two cases of Palpable error, one by the individual and one by Betfair.
If we are betting directly against the individual which they seem to be implying, it kind of blows a hole in their argument used against the BHA does it not?
I think this is quite an important point in the whole thing and really needs clearing up.
Furthermore, a lot of these bets would have been matched indirectly not against the initial bet put up by Betfair but in the Cross Matching process hence the other horse hitting 1.04. Who are these bets matched against, Betfair and its Cross Matching machine?
Interesting to see Betfair advertising a new role today - Technical Analyst
http://www.linkedin.com/jobs?viewJob=&jobId=2336587
http://www.linkedin.com/jobs?viewJob=&jobId=2336587