I 'saw' anecdotally that it was trading at 5's in the place market so there did appear to be some linkage.pdupre1961 wrote:OK Peter, in this case was the place market affected???
Leopardstown - 14:00 - Christmas Hurdle - Voler la vedette
-
JollyGreen
- Posts: 2047
- Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:06 am
I believe the place market was affected; one person allegedly backed VDV at ~5.00 on the place market when it looked the likely winner.pdupre1961 wrote:OK Peter, in this case was the place market affected???Euler wrote:You can create a synthetic place price from the win odds so I imagine quite a few people play on both at the same time, so I had expected both to be voided.
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Something that occurred to me was: when did the technical fault happen, it seems obvious but imo it isn't:
It seems to me that it happened in accepting the initial bet as the person should never have placed it as they didn't have the exposure for it.
BUT
Depending upon who offered the bet to others (the one which showed on the exchange) which is yet to be clear there is an argument that no technical fault happened when the bet was shown on the exchange and matched by the backers.
If Betfair offered the bet up to the exchange, which I believe is the case, in its method of managing risk perfectly then there was no technical fault here. They did exactly as they planned. Betfair offered a lay exactly as they planned to. The technical fault was in accepting the initial bet from the individual. So was the right T&C used to void the bets?
Also who is claiming the palp and to which bets, Betfair accepting the initial bet or Betfair offering up the counter, or the individual in that they never should have placed the bet in the first place. Also who is liable for the bets matched? Betfair or the individual.
This seemingly meaningless point is actually the key to me and has implications way outside of this case as I referenced earlier in the thread.
If it is the individual that sets a precedent and could in theory open the flood gates as Sean highlights in his piece. I just backed a faller by mistake at 1000.0 a clear error as I could never win....also the individual being able to claim palp. increases the chances of the individual being able to be classed as a Bookmaker which is what the BHA are arguing.
There are some other implications whihc I won't bore people with
Also I figured out last night finally why I thought at first the stake on offer was only £21,000 not £21m. My screen setup is different for inrunning and only is able to show a stake of 5 figures. So claims the stake size made it obvious it was an error don't always hold tight. A £600,000 liability is not out of the realms of all possibility in someone making a fat finger.
It is all very interesting....
It seems to me that it happened in accepting the initial bet as the person should never have placed it as they didn't have the exposure for it.
BUT
Depending upon who offered the bet to others (the one which showed on the exchange) which is yet to be clear there is an argument that no technical fault happened when the bet was shown on the exchange and matched by the backers.
If Betfair offered the bet up to the exchange, which I believe is the case, in its method of managing risk perfectly then there was no technical fault here. They did exactly as they planned. Betfair offered a lay exactly as they planned to. The technical fault was in accepting the initial bet from the individual. So was the right T&C used to void the bets?
Also who is claiming the palp and to which bets, Betfair accepting the initial bet or Betfair offering up the counter, or the individual in that they never should have placed the bet in the first place. Also who is liable for the bets matched? Betfair or the individual.
This seemingly meaningless point is actually the key to me and has implications way outside of this case as I referenced earlier in the thread.
If it is the individual that sets a precedent and could in theory open the flood gates as Sean highlights in his piece. I just backed a faller by mistake at 1000.0 a clear error as I could never win....also the individual being able to claim palp. increases the chances of the individual being able to be classed as a Bookmaker which is what the BHA are arguing.
There are some other implications whihc I won't bore people with
Also I figured out last night finally why I thought at first the stake on offer was only £21,000 not £21m. My screen setup is different for inrunning and only is able to show a stake of 5 figures. So claims the stake size made it obvious it was an error don't always hold tight. A £600,000 liability is not out of the realms of all possibility in someone making a fat finger.
It is all very interesting....
-
JollyGreen
- Posts: 2047
- Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:06 am
I have to agree having seen someone sit with a £700,000 liability in running! I was having kittens and it wasn't my money!!andyfuller wrote: A £600,000 liability is not out of the realms of all possibility in someone making a fat finger.
It is all very interesting....
The main issue with this story and the reason it just will not die is the ammount of venom there is around for betfair.
This is fully justified imo and as they have lied in the past i can see why some people think they are lieing now.
in this instance though i really do belive it was a simple software glitch and whether it's right or wrong no other bookmaker would have pay out either, it would be immpossible.
for me it will have no different an ending than in this story, except it was as simple human error instead of a computer one causing the problem.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... y-out.html
those that saw c4 news last night wil see the irony in them using ladbrokes as an example of the hero's of the betting industry
This is fully justified imo and as they have lied in the past i can see why some people think they are lieing now.
in this instance though i really do belive it was a simple software glitch and whether it's right or wrong no other bookmaker would have pay out either, it would be immpossible.
for me it will have no different an ending than in this story, except it was as simple human error instead of a computer one causing the problem.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... y-out.html
those that saw c4 news last night wil see the irony in them using ladbrokes as an example of the hero's of the betting industry
and as for the idea that it was betfair who placed the bet themselves,
well legally speaking i think this would have been better for them , they are bookmakers so are alowed to trade in their own markets and there has already been many legal precidents set like the example above,
that when clear mistakes are made bets get voided.
Obviously with it being a supposed punter that placed the bet then there are no other examples of this happening but the result must surely be the same.
well legally speaking i think this would have been better for them , they are bookmakers so are alowed to trade in their own markets and there has already been many legal precidents set like the example above,
that when clear mistakes are made bets get voided.
Obviously with it being a supposed punter that placed the bet then there are no other examples of this happening but the result must surely be the same.
Last edited by freddy on Sat Dec 31, 2011 1:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
AFAIK, Betfair doesn't have anything in its rules that allows palps to be voided.
And if someone's bot messes up and backs a horse at 5.0 for thousands all the way down to 1.2 pre-off, as happens occasionally, there's no way Betfair would be willing to void the bets.
So the palp argument just doesn't stack up...
Jeff
And if someone's bot messes up and backs a horse at 5.0 for thousands all the way down to 1.2 pre-off, as happens occasionally, there's no way Betfair would be willing to void the bets.
So the palp argument just doesn't stack up...
Jeff
freddy wrote:clear mistakes are made it ger voided.
The story will die as soon as people find something else to bark about. It's only the huge figures involed that caused such attention, if it was all about a tenner nobody would be looking for this implication or that implication.
Some of the comments in various places make me laugh. You almost get the feeling that some people who use betfair to either make a living or are trying to do so want betfair to find themselves in a load of trouble and end up down the tube
Some of the comments in various places make me laugh. You almost get the feeling that some people who use betfair to either make a living or are trying to do so want betfair to find themselves in a load of trouble and end up down the tube
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
I think you miss my point.freddy wrote:and as for the idea that it was betfair who placed the bet themselves,
I am not saying Betfair placed the intial bet, they have said it was placed by a UK individual, that I am not disputing.
What I am asking is more the technical aspects of how the exchange works which seem meaningless but are very much not.
Betfair have in the past argued both cases, in that the orders you see are those of customers but they have also argued that they are offers made by Betfair who only accept a bet when they can accept the exact counter bet at the exact same time.
In the dispute with the Levy and BHA about if we act as bookmakers if I remember correctly they argued the later. Basically we only ever bet with Betfair so when we matched bets they are actually being offered by Betfair not individuals.
-
pdupre1961
- Posts: 410
- Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 8:01 pm
If anything happens to Betfair, will everyone go to BetDaq automatically. That will create liquidity at BetDaq will it not.
Betfair gone and good customer service for all, what could be better.
Maybe, I should start working on my new BetDaq API bot.
Betfair gone and good customer service for all, what could be better.
Maybe, I should start working on my new BetDaq API bot.
Yes but we are not bookmakers or do we have the costs associated with being oneFerru123 wrote:AFAIK, Betfair doesn't have anything in its rules that allows palps to be voided.
And if someone's bot messes up and backs a horse at 5.0 for thousands all the way down to 1.2 pre-off, as happens occasionally, there's no way Betfair would be willing to void the bets.
So the palp argument just doesn't stack up...
Jeff
freddy wrote:clear mistakes are made it ger voided.
and it would be the end of betfair pretty quickly if we could all palp our bets when we felt we had made a mistake .Betfair in resent years have made it quite clear they are going away from the original exchange concept and heading backward imo towards a traditional bookmaker and will have the same rights as they do or any business for that matter.
Maybe it not fair but that not what im saying.
I wasn't particualy aiming my reply at you Andy, just people in general who have implied that it was Betfairandyfuller wrote:I think you miss my point.freddy wrote:and as for the idea that it was betfair who placed the bet themselves,
I am not saying Betfair placed the intial bet, they have said it was placed by a UK individual, that I am not disputing.
What I am asking is more the technical aspects of how the exchange works which seem meaningless but are very much not.
Betfair have in the past argued both cases, in that the orders you see are those of customers but they have also argued that they are offers made by Betfair who only accept a bet when they can accept the exact counter bet at the exact same time.
In the dispute with the Levy and BHA about if we act as bookmakers if I remember correctly they argued the later. Basically we only ever bet with Betfair so when we matched bets they are actually being offered by Betfair not individuals.
who placed or took part of the rouge bet,
the betfair forum was full of them
.
Last edited by freddy on Sat Dec 31, 2011 2:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
In any industry a monopoly is unhealthy. Competition is what drives improvement and value for money.pdupre1961 wrote:Betfair gone and good customer service for all, what could be better.
If Betfair disappeared we would be in a much poorer place.
Imagine if the only place you could buy milk was Tescos. It would be £4 a pint.
Freddy
If Betfair want to say 'We now consider ourselves to be a bookmaker as well as an exchange, and we therefore reserve the right to palp bets when we've screwed up', then fair enough.
But they should first ask customers to agree to revised Terms and Conditions...
Jeff
If Betfair want to say 'We now consider ourselves to be a bookmaker as well as an exchange, and we therefore reserve the right to palp bets when we've screwed up', then fair enough.
But they should first ask customers to agree to revised Terms and Conditions...
Jeff
Im pretty sure It's just normal contract law Jeff, that applies to any buiness, the bookmaker argument doens't really come into it i dont think.
If you go into a shop and see am item that should be worth 100-00, priced for 10p,
then the shop, if they notice their error can refuse to sell it to you for that price.
you may have a few happy moments thinking you have got a bargin while it's in you hand walking around the shop, but you probably will find yourself disapointed.
like the winners the other day
any contract with clear errors can be voided i belive and in this case it's clear it is with betfair.
If you go into a shop and see am item that should be worth 100-00, priced for 10p,
then the shop, if they notice their error can refuse to sell it to you for that price.
you may have a few happy moments thinking you have got a bargin while it's in you hand walking around the shop, but you probably will find yourself disapointed.
like the winners the other day
any contract with clear errors can be voided i belive and in this case it's clear it is with betfair.