Betfair / Voler La Vedette void race

[jasonbourne]

Surely if a bet is made at " mistaken & exaggerated" odds then common sense should prevail?

Michael, are you suggesting that all customer "input errors" resulting in the "wrong odds" should be voided?

If so, you would probably remove the whole edifice that is the betting exchange, would you not?

Every exchange user who has ever lived has probably committed a whole host of errors including wrongly backing rather than laying and vice versa, clicking the wrong selection, the wrong amount....... let alone the wrong odds.

The IBAS report was shocking on this point. They fully accepted Betfair's argument that the wrong odds were offered by a bot..... when of course, there is no such as the "wrong odds" on a betting exchange. The odds are always "right" of course. Whether the customer intended to offer them is another matter and not relevant to the voiding of a market on a betting exchange - a principle Betfair have upheld in their whole history to date.

There are many well known customer disasters where customers have lost fortunes relative to their own banks, and none ever even asked for the market to be voided, let alone expected it.

In this case, Betfair clearly had responsibility for processing the so-called rogue transaction and failed. Is it right that because they failed to perform their main agency duty of processing the "rogue" offer onto the exchange platform, that they pass liability for the error onto the winning customers that were the VLV backers?

Add to that, Betfair's appointed market watcher failed to void the market during the race when he noticed the bet come onto the platform. He (ie Betfair) clearly didn't think it was a mistake and allowed the market (and customers to place bets on other exchanges dependent on accepted referenced transactions from Betfair) to continue unfettered and approved subsequent bets matched.

It is not the responsibility of the exchange customer to validate any offers put onto the platform. That is 100% the duty of Betfair. If a customer had to stop and think "is the counterparty of this transaction genuine or bona fide" every time he struck a bet on Betfair, I can assure you that the turnover of Betdaq and others would skyrocket tomorrow..... and Betfair would be dust in the Sahara.

[mak]

jasonbourne
hi there. never had a bet there, but out of curiosity. did you have?
if yes, how much you supposed to win?

[jasonbourne]

mak, I did have a very small interest in the race

[kiint]

Hang on a sec.
I haven't really followed this so don't know the details but wasn't it something along the lines of someone putting up a ridiculous price for a huge liability that everyone jumped on to?
If this is so and we follow your logic, then shouldn't this chap be forced to honour the mistake and so be bankrupted?
I'm sorry but there was an obvious palp and Betfair's system erroneously let it through. If I'd lumped on in the hope of a huge win, I would be saying c'est la vie and be thankful that at least I had my stake returned.

[jasonbourne]

shouldn't this chap be forced to honour the mistake and so be bankrupted?

Those are the rules in Betfair's TC's, kiint (bets with a liability exceeding customer's account balance shall stand) .

In what way is the massive £237k loss suffered by the Peregrine Falcon layer or the Towcester "faller" laid at 1000 different?

Just two examples where customers lost fortunes but markets were not voided even though an "obvious palp" patently occurred..... and Betfair enjoyed their commission from the mistake.

Where do you want to draw the line, kiint. £100k? £237k? £1m? £23m? £600m?

As long as there is enough money in the customer's account, Betfair really don't care about the size of any customer's mistake ..... or "palpable error", so long as they can take their cut.

Yes, the customer made a mistake.... and they should pay like any other Betfair account holder is told to. And when their assets have been exhausted, then Betfair should stand with them in law as being also responsible as an agent for failing to process transactions correctly. That is not the fault of the VLV backers who in Betfair's own words, made their bets "in good faith".

Any normal business whose software failed their clients or customers would be expected to do the same.

I'm surprised that you think you would be "thankful that at least I had my stake returned."

If Betfair had had the nerve to withhold stakes as well as winnings of VLV backers, do you honestly think that Betfair would still be standing today?

[kiint]

I don't know about the examples you gave and I can't be arsed to look them up right now but what you have are two completely different scenarios. If I back what looks to be an obvious winner that falls at the last, then that's tough and is part of using an exchange and in-running betting. But, if I try to lay a 1000 runner or put a huge bet beyond my bank, Betfair's systems will stop me as I can't cover the liability. This is a failsafe that we do all expect to kick in and trust to work. In this case, Betfair's systems broke down and allowed the placing of a bet that couldn't be honoured by the punter.

I can see where you're coming from here, you and a large number of other punters put bets on "in good faith" expecting them to be honoured. However, there was patently more than just the error of some pratt clicking on the wrong back or lay price and all of those bets should not have been matched at all. The fact that they were matched is the error and for that reason, I can understand why Betfair have voided the bets.

This does happen all the time with traditional bookies. If they decide that they have put up an incorrect price, they can palp all the bets placed at that price and there isn't a lot people can do. There have been appeals that have won but in general, it is, again, tough.

Me, I would be saying 'Oh well it did look too good to be true and it was'

[jasonbourne]

kiint, as I have pointed out earlier, there is no such thing as "wrong odds" on an exchange so they cannot be compared to a "palpable error" by a bookmaker. Even Betfair will tell you that.

Does it not seem odd that they now use the "palpable error" clause (which does not exist) to absolve themselves of liability?

When traders on financial exchanges make key input errors, or their software transmits the wrong contract details, do you think they are able to escape liability on the basis of "palpable error" or "technological failure"?

I think you will find that they will be fully liable for their omissions or errors.

Betfair seem to think they exist in a bubble where they can never be held culpable for their negligence.

It is just a matter of time before their customers have to bear another kick in the teeth. Is this acceptable behaviour from a so-called reputable company?

[Shaun]

If it was a customer and they had the funds to pay out then they would have paid out, the issue is betfairs system let a bet that was never able to be covered through there system.

This was the error not the price that was submitted, that's why they are not liable.

[jasonbourne]

shaun, so you accept that the customer should have paid? And can be sued for all assets he has got?

but you say Betfair are not liable even though their system was in error?

Are you suggesting that no matter what error Betfair's software makes in the future (and it will inevitably happen), they can never be liable for their mistakes?

[mak]

jasonbourne
sorry to say but you are becoming obsessed. From many post i read here and in other forums, most members admit that there was a serious error and in most cases it was obvious..many bets matched after the suspension...

without knowing any further, my opinion is that it was a technical error, which i would accept next time it will happen, just because our technology etc. is not that advanced so mistakes can and will happen.

However, lets admit for conversation reason that it was betfair manipulation.. can you prove it? I really don't understand why you are so obsess with that. ( I could if you were with Premium Charges though )

Let's suppose that it was their manipulation but you can't prove it. Are you still playing with them?

We have to admit that bf gave many people the chance to bet in a much better, advanced, and interest way than any other bookie.

By definition mistakes will happen. I know that they have changed in the worst during the years, (PC Cross Matching etc) but everyone is free to close his account and play wherever they want. Don't' they?

[jasonbourne]

many bets matched after the suspension

this is a technical impossibility, mak. Are you referring to some incident other than VLV? I am not aware this happened in the VLV race, are you?

betfair manipulation.. can you prove it?

why are you bringing up "manipulation"? No one is suggesting that at all, other than BF have "manipulated" their way out of settling a valid market.

everyone is free to close his account and play wherever they want

Mak, you appear to be unaware of the monopoly position BF are in. If there was an alternative, do yo really think that PC payers would hang around to pay exorbitant and scandalous premium charges? They stay because they have no choice.

[mak]

I know about betfair monopoly and have accept it.And yes i am staying because i don't have an alternative.That's no reason for me to shout about PC... sometimes i am thinking lucky to get it ... sometimes not...anyway

many bookies closes account just because you are winning...

what i am trying to tell, for me are not the worst. they do their business as they think..like it or not ( i don't but as i told you earlier no alternatives )

but at the end is business for all.

regarding the suspension as i told you never watch the market or had a bet
i think that night at bf forum read some posts about it