- This topic has 84 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 14 years ago by
.
- Posts
All publicity is good publicity?
Betfair name in the news, acknowledged that there is no real alternative exchanges, highlighting the huge sums that can be matched and won there, etc.
Maybe a couple of hundred people who didn’t get a free gift but didn’t lose either.
Will all be forgotten about soon and business as usual will continue.
Since when has horse racing and gambling on it ever been considered above board or even remotely close to the level?
Storm in a teacup, we’re here beause we like it, if we didn’t we’d move on, we all like a bit of controversy every now and then.
Exchanges; a place where the shrewd mugs can make money out of the complete mugs.
You got that one right lol
Tony Calvin seemed a man very ill at ease and on his guard throughout when quizzed by Matt Chapman on ATR. He came across as bumbling and verbally challenged – a very poor advert for Betfair: incidentally, a betting medium I have never used.
Calvin stuttered a lot and appeared tongue-tied, constantly repeating himself, especially when dealing with the more difficult questions from Chapman. Ok, he may have been nervous but as a PR man/ spokesman for Betfair, he was poor. He appeared totally out of his depth and moreover, his answers seemed totally unconvincing.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
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.
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 noticed Yeats, well done, it was deliberate.
Your words above could easily be attributed to your own second post on this thread Yeats.I thought about giving a "useful contribution to the debate" with "some evidence and facts to back it up", then thought, why should I bother when you don’t?
Pot, kettle, black.
Value Is EverythingBut I don’t need to produce any evidence or facts, that’s up to the company voiding the bets and their supporters (gingertipster)
It’s good to know some people believe everything they’re told
How is this a "useful contribution to the debate" Yeats?
If you’re going to respond like that, why should I respond any differently to you?
Value Is EverythingA program/system error, that allows a user to exceed their limit is bollox.
Betfair – either get the punter who layed the bet to pay-out, wind-up your Company or change your name to Betatyourperilhaha.
Backing two runners is the relentless pursuit of value. Backing each way is a shortcut to the poor house. Only 7% make a long term profit.
It seems on reflection . whatever the reason or circumstances for this weird event , one thing will be certain , punter confidence will be diminished
Once that happens it will take a while for it to recover .
Perhaps those shares are not such a good idea after all
Ricky
A program/system error, that allows a user to exceed their limit is bollox.
quadrilla
Nice bit of in-depth analysis there! Any chance of offering a more credible explanation of what happened?
Rob
Yup.
A user with £600 million credit, probably the Betfair Sneeky Account controlled by the relatively junior person, made a massive call and a huge cock-up whilst Betfair had a skeleton crew working over the Christmas holidays.
Well, you did ask
Backing two runners is the relentless pursuit of value. Backing each way is a shortcut to the poor house. Only 7% make a long term profit.
That’s the point, no one believes it was a genuine "customer". There was an oversight in not putting any upper limit of liability on their own account. If it had been a real account and the customer had missed the decimal point would Betfair have voided all bets on the race due to that customer’s palpable error, or would they have been liable up to their maximum liability?
Unless someone takes out a civil action that would require the naming of the account holder then I do not suppose the whole truth will ever come out.
You cant beat a bit of ‘Conspiracy Theory’ and there is plenty in Horseracing,it goes with the territory,most of us are well aware that Betting coups exist,its always been part and parcel of the game but on this occasion the ‘Betfair Market’ that was created doesn’t tally with the race itself.Now had the horse in question been
Mourad
,that would have left a gaping hole that not even the greatest B*llsh*tters could have filled.No i genuinely believe the layer has made a massive mistake but the Betfair Police have made a bigger one,someone has to be held to account.The Betfair Backroom Boys dont need to ‘play’ too hard as most of us are playing for them (commission wise)!
Anyone who availed themselves of those crazy odds, who had pictures courtesy of ATR, RUK, or any live feed should feel thoroughly ashamed of themselves
Too good to be true? Indeedy
A minority burgled and burnt the suburbs of London last summer
Those who didn’t – hold your head up
Should the people who got 1000s on Wichita Lineman or any other 999/1 winner be ashamed of themselves too?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.