- This topic has 84 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 14 years ago by
.
- Posts
Everyone who backed it on Betdaq was paid out within minutes of them crossing the line. The biggest I’ve seen anyone mention being matched at was 14. She was 11+ all the way down the back straight, while Mourad was 1.02. I thought it looked too good to be true and left it thinking there was huge delay on RTE, I don’t use betfair so didn’t know what was going on there. I’m kicking myself about that now. After jumping the last it was still available at 3 and in-play so I helped myself to some of that, not huge winnings but I’m more than happy.
Betdaq has nothing like the liquidity of Betfair but obviously some people arbing between the exchanges will have been pretty badly stung now that their Betfair bets have been voided.
How was it past the post with 6 hurdles left to jump?
How was it ever ‘genuinely’ a 28/1 shot with 6 hurdles left to jump?
do you think all bets would have been voided if it had lost?
Given the facts and and figures involved I think it’s 1.01 they would have had to, without question!
Maybe he meant to put 2.9, it does happen, should all bets be void if that happens?
How many pundits on tv say "How did that winner ever get to price"
Many horses get to prices well above what you consider reflective of their chance, how many get beat at 1.01? That’s the whole idea of an exchange.I’ve no reason to believe bets would have been voided if it had lost.
Maybe we should have more evidence from Betfair, like who the punter is, after all Betfair have saved them a considerable amount of money, as they don’t have to even pay out up to their limit.
Maybe we should have more evidence from Betfair, like who the punter is, after all Betfair have saved them a considerable amount of money, as they don’t have to even pay out up to their limit.
Embarrassing would be an understatement but i dont believe there was anything intentionally sinister going on today,it does show how many of us are looking for the Golden Goose though and exposes just how much ‘profit’ Betfair make when you think about it.
Voler la Vedette
could be named the winner from a long way out in what was always going to be a 2 horse race,being someone who uses the exchanges daily i would have expected to see a high of 2.9 max which would possibly go to explaining some of the problem,yesterdays Welsh National was a fine example of a 2 horse race from a long way out also and even when Giles Cross went 1/4 in running,Le Beau Bai only traded at 3’s so i believe a genuine mistake has been made,whoever allowed that to happen will be looking for a job mind!
Unless Betfair come clean and say who the "layer" was there will be immense speculation as to the integrity of their markets. If it exposes them to the public for being short order oddsmakers then surely the public are entitled to know what sharp practices they are employing.
Unless Betfair come clean and say who the "layer" was there will be immense speculation as to the integrity of their markets.
Eclipse,you are suggesting there’s something more to this than meets the eye,as is Yeats. If Betfair were trying to pull a massive stroke they wouldn’t have picked this race to do it and had the Betfair layers even watched
Voler la Vedettes
and
Mourads
last clash at Fairyhouse they certainly wouldn’t have been laying the mare at 29’s today,she did exactly the same thing then as she did today and ran away from the Gelding.Now had this ‘layer’ offered 29’s about Mourad in running then everybody would have been saying ‘that mad B*stard knows their horses’.Mourad does have a bad habit of finishing 2nd! The more you look at it the more obvious it is that someones made a Boo boo and i wouldn’t want to be them!
I’m not suggesting that there is anything sinister, but I do think that the "fair" part of their name is perhaps in contravention of advertising standards! Someone had too much sauce last night and the company are not prepared to take it on the chin.
When you bet in-running things can change in an instant, if they are not competent then do they deserve to hold a gaming licence?if it lost they would not say anything they accepted the bets and they were placed in good faith by punters if you place a bet and it wins you EXPECT to get paid !!!
"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 fault 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." – Betfair response
Regards
Indeed Matron, I had read that as well. However was the "technical" error due to a technological failure that would undermine customer confidence in their systems or was it actually a "human" error by one of their own traders therefore undermining customer confidence in their integrity. All it does show is that they are no better or no worse than any other bookmaker, for that is all they are when you strip the facts down to the bare bones.
Some odd things have happened lately. A friend of mine got his account hacked, 800 euros gone in ONE night match (live betting) on another continent. They stood their ground and said it was normal betting even tho the opposite could be said looking at his record. And it took 4 weeks and many many frustrating calls for my last payout.
Unless Betfair come clean and say who the "layer" was there will be immense speculation as to the integrity of their markets.
Eclipse,you are suggesting there’s something more to this than meets the eye,as is Yeats. If Betfair were trying to pull a massive stroke they wouldn’t have picked this race to do it and had the Betfair layers even watched
Voler la Vedettes
and
Mourads
last clash at Fairyhouse they certainly wouldn’t have been laying the mare at 29’s today,she did exactly the same thing then as she did today and ran away from the Gelding.Now had this ‘layer’ offered 29’s about Mourad in running then everybody would have been saying ‘that mad B*stard knows their horses’.Mourad does have a bad habit of finishing 2nd! The more you look at it the more obvious it is that someones made a Boo boo and i wouldn’t want to be them!
Surprisingly Kingfisher you’re being extremely naive regards this. Past form of the horses has nothing to do with it.
Punters make mistakes all the time on Betfair but always have to pay the piper.
Favourites laid at 1000 soon as the boxes opened to the tune of over 200 grand, he had to pay up and there are many more plus many beaten at 1.01, I’m sure there are many mistakes amongst them such as having the decimal point in the wrong place, I don’t recall any of them getting a refund.How many punters have you ever heard of who managed to get a bet through on Betfair that exceeded their limit? I’ve not heard of anyone prior to yesterday, what a co-incidence.
Some people believe Betfair lay horses themselves with no limit attached, lets see the evidence what occurred is as they say. After all it is a small price to pay for the punter who attempted the lay and was saved a considerable amount of money by Betfair’s decision to void. If the horse had lost he would have been over £800,000 better off less commission.
Not a bad bet if you can get it, win £800,000 if the horse loses but a full refund if it wins.It was clearly a monstrous error so why do people expect to get paid?
I didn’t expect to get paid at 11-1 by an on course bookie at Lingfield because he hit the wrong button when it should have been 11-2, so why are people expecting to profit from a mistake when the T+Cs probably cover all eventualities?
I’ve had bets voided in the past, both winning and losing ones and not known why, it happens, what I’ve never seen before is such a wrong price being up for so long due to amounts being available that have never been available in the history of betfair.
If people were trading and relied on IR bets then they may have lost out but that’s the risk they know they take, as we all do when we bet on what is generally a random event that is so open to and muddied with dodgy practices anyway.
That’s gambling, get over it or get off.
"yeats":s00etl7s wrote:
Surprisingly Kingfisher you’re being extremely naive regards this. Past form of the horses has nothing to do with it.
Punters make mistakes all the time on Betfair but always have to pay the piper.I hear what you are saying Yeats and i can understand where you are coming from,i remember those who offered
Wichita Lineman
at 999/1 getting their fingers burned as have many others ‘stupid’ enough to offer such ridiculous odds.This however is completely different and what makes it so is the fact that
Voler la Vedette
was always travelling like the winner from a long way out so nobody would genuinely offer 29’s about a horse literally tanking away on the bridle in what was really a 2 horse race with strong form to suggest the said horse could actually beat the same horse (Mourad) from their last encounter.For that notion to have any real bearing you would have expected the jockey to miraculously fall off just before the line and then it would be an obvious plot,not even my 2nd fav flat jockey could talk his way out of that scenario.No i’m of the opinion having watched the race several times that No way in a million years would anybody really think the winner ever looked like losing,Wichita Lineman on the other hand never looked like winning.I would still like to know a bit more about what actually did happen mind as its quite normal for humans to f things up,someone has big time here and pulling the wool over punters eyes only encourages the likes of Yeats to see things a bit too fluffy!
I don’t think it is Gord that is being "naive" in this case Yeats.
Although may be "naive" isn’t strong enough in your case.
Value Is EverythingI don’t think it is Gord that is being "naive" in this case Yeats.
Although may be "naive" isn’t strong enough in your case.
A useful contribution to the debate gingertipster and there I was thinking you were going to state some evidence and facts to back up Betfair on the issue.
Maybe you could send an email to Chappers at ATR on the issue and he can read it out in that sarcastic voice of his that he normally reserves for you whenever you send him one
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.