[Pat McCrotch]

CONFUSION reigned among BetFair punters after near-incredible in-running betting on the Christmas Hurdle at Leopardstown on Wednesday resulted in what should be a near-£23 million payout.
A monster sum of £1,642,094 was matched in running at a price of 29 (28-1) on the winner Voler La Vedette with her price failing to drop as she crossed the line four and three quarter lengths in front of Mourad having been sent off a 13-8 chance and never out of contention.

That sum however was only a fraction of what the potential liability could have been with Betfair's graphics (above) showing that there was over £21.3m offered on Voler La Vedette - which would have resulted in a whopping payout ofalmost £600m.
Betfair issued a statement at 2.48pm which read: "The win and place markets on this race are currently suspended.

"The markets will remain unsettled while we investigate the in-running betting patterns on this race. We apologise for the delay."
Betfair later Tweeted to say: "Update to follow once issue fully investigated."

[milwaukee mike]

can someone explain that in AMERICAN english?

[FindTheLock]

The way I interpreted it, there was a failure to update the live betting options, which kept a horse at roughly 30-1 odds when that same horse had a huge lead in the race.

[Jaug]

Wasnt this an individual bettor who messed up then?

[Pat McCrotch]

no one knows may have been a bookie such as ladbrokes or betfred

betdaq have already paid out!!!

[kmarinouofm]

horses... always horses

[Pat McCrotch]

if its a technical error bets will be voided,

[Scooter]

no one knows may have been a bookie such as ladbrokes or betfred

betdaq have already paid out!!!

Why wouldn't Betdaq have paid?

It sounds like a Betfair trader or Betfair software problem.

[Pat McCrotch]

betdaq paid and the odds went out to over 11, which was way too high for this horse

[Santo]

There may be very unhappy people who backed at Betfair and laid at BetDaq shortly..

[Pat McCrotch]

There may be very unhappy people who backed at Betfair and laid at BetDaq shortly..

especially if they laid at 11 which is wat the horse hit!!!!

[Pat McCrotch]

There may be very unhappy people who backed at Betfair and laid at BetDaq shortly..

all betfair bets have been voided!!!

uh oh!!!

[FourLengthsClear]

can someone explain that in AMERICAN english?

There was a fairly big horse race on which you could bet in-running (in-play).

During the race, there were offers allowing you to bet the winner at odds of 28/1 upto GBP 21.4 million. These offers stayed up at the same odds even as the horse's chances were clearly improving and right up until it crossed the line as the winner.

As it turned out over GBP 1.6 million was wagered during the race on that horse at those odds.

Payouts have been suspended pending an investigation. It looks like a software issue whereby the initial offer was made well before the race started and (I assume) should have been cancelled by the system.

[FourLengthsClear]

There may be very unhappy people who backed at Betfair and laid at BetDaq shortly..

If you live by the sword you have to be prepared to die by the sword.

[Pat McCrotch]

If you live by the sword you have to be prepared to die by the sword.

would those dirty lying betfair fukks have voided if the horse had lost????

[Jaug]

This smells fishy. You cant just void the bet. This was a clear +EV bet for the player that offered 28 times the money.. why? Since in case of loss bets are voided.

Very fishy.

[FourLengthsClear]

would those dirty lying betfair fukks have voided if the horse had lost????

I don't know the circumstances yet but I would assume that this is a bet that was not supposed to be carried over from pre-race to in-running.

If that is the case then, of course, all bets would be voided.

[Scooter]

In before Hareeba.

[Pat McCrotch]

they are 100% protecting one of the big books, why was this not suspended in running?

they say it has allowed a player to exceed his exposure limit,

Punters SHOULD have been paid.

betfair has no credibility left,

dont believe me, go on the betfair forum and look at the 1000s of punters who are fuming.

betfair is lower than a worms grave, theres no defending it this time


i hope someone takes legal action

[potless]

I don't know the circumstances yet but I would assume that this is a bet that was not supposed to be carried over from pre-race to in-running.

If that is the case then, of course, all bets would be voided.

A bet with £600 mill liability - don't think pre v inrunning is the biggest problem here. Waiting anxiously for a full Hareeba update

[Pat McCrotch]

the bet was suppose to go in running,

betfair has made a massive fukk up

[FourLengthsClear]

they are 100% protecting one of the big books, why was this not suspended in running?

they say it has allowed a player to exceed his exposure limit,

Punters SHOULD have been paid.

betfair has no credibility left,

dont believe me, go on the betfair forum and look at the 1000s of punters who are fuming.

betfair is lower than a worms grave, theres no defending it this time


i hope someone takes legal action

I honestly don't think so. None of the big books would have an exposure of £600m on this nag and no individual in their right mind is putting that bet up leave it there.

It is either a a) technical issue, b) a case of the system being hacked or c) a disgruntled employee.

In the case of a) and b) there is no counterparty and in the case of c) ............. well I don't want to go there.

The ones making noise and threatening legal action are full of wind, it won't happen.

[Chuck Sims]

What other exchanges can give BetFair some competition? All I read at SBR is how BetFair is screwing over their players.

[Pat McCrotch]

ladbrokes or betfred could easily have that type of money in there accounts, especially credit accounts

[FourLengthsClear]

What other exchanges can give BetFair some competition? All I read at SBR is how BetFair is screwing over their players.

Betdaq is the only one realistically but they have had 10 years to make an impact and haven't really done it.
I would play a lot more there if they were located in a sensible jurisdiction.

[Glitch]

can someone explain that in AMERICAN english?

+2800 was offered on a horse to win as a live-bet. apparently it was less than 2 to 1 when the race started (from the OP).

even as the horse was about to cross the finish line in first- the odds stayed around +2800 for people to live bet. (apparently)

[potless]

BF:

Customers betting in-play on this race will have seen that Voler La Vedette was available to back at 29 when the in-running market was suspended, and that a considerable sum was matched on the clear winner at that price. An investigation has revealed that this was due to an obvious technical failure which allowed a customer to exceed their exposure limit. In accordance with our terms and conditions, all in running bets on this race, both win and place, will be made void. We fully appreciate the dissatisfaction this will cause many customers, and apologise for a very poor customer and betting experience

I honestly don't think so. None of the big books would have an exposure of £600m on this nag and no individual in their right mind is putting that bet up leave it there.

It is either a a) technical issue, b) a case of the system being hacked or c) a disgruntled employee.

In the case of a) and b) there is no counterparty and in the case of c) ............. well I don't want to go there.

The ones making noise and threatening legal action are full of wind, it won't happen.

Worked plenty of times before (btw BF t&c rule out exposure limits as a reason for voiding)

[hels]

What other exchanges can give BetFair some competition? All I read at SBR is how BetFair is screwing over their players.

Matchbook is ok.

[FourLengthsClear]

BF:

Worked plenty of times before (btw BF t&c rule out exposure limits as a reason for voiding)

Not in a case like this.

I am aware of those Ts and Cs having had bets voided before when the counterparty was involved in fraud.

[Hareeba!]

Even the biggest and best outfits can be hit by technical failures, human error, fraud etc.

I find it difficult to have much sympathy for players betting on obvious bad lines.

And arbers who fall for them always have it coming to them.

[sideloaded]

yeah this fukked me too, I had 50,000 down at 30/1

[Hareeba!]

would those dirty lying betfair fukks have voided if the horse had lost????

that comment suggests an utter failure to comprehend that Betfair is an exchange and that by voiding bets it only costs them commission earnings regardless of the result.

[Pat McCrotch]

rubbish, would they have voided if the horse fell?

read the betfair forum

they treat punters like shit

[FourLengthsClear]

rubbish, would they have voided if the horse fell?

read the betfair forum

they treat punters like shit

They, you and I are all free to take our money and business elsewhere.

I have 1000's of bets matched everyday and have had my fair share of issues with Betfair. There is no doubt in my mind that looking after their customers has slipped down the priority list, since they were floated.

With that said the ones who took the shot on this horse and then laid it of at Betdaq at odds of 11, 12 or 14 are fools and are frankly, not deserving of sympathy.

I am interested to know what the real story is here. The only thing I can think of that would square with the 'explanation' BF have put forward is a wayward (or malicious) bot that has somehow been able to submit multiple offers simultaneously.

[Hareeba!]

rubbish, would they have voided if the horse fell?

read the betfair forum

they treat punters like shit

what part is "rubbish"?

you seem to be clearly failing to comprehend how exchanges work
it wasn't Betfair's money at risk on the horse - it was players who laid it
the voiding has cost those who backed it but has saved those who laid it
from Betfair's perspective it's an even sum game except for all the commission they would have collected on the bets
so in the end it has cost Betfair revenue in addition to the negative publicity

and the topic heading here is a gross exaggeration
the 600M is the additional amount which the layer would have been at risk for had his offer been fully matched
the actually amount matched and in the balance was only a fraction of that sum