Betfair in the news again, and not in a good way.

[DiamondGeezer]

Do you have a reference link for that information?

That definitely happened and was never disputed by Betfair.

[pokeraddict]

In reference to vinylweatherman, my point is that is a line is obviously wrong, most (all?) sportsbooks will void it. If a team that is heavily favored is displayed as a 28-1 dog the house can say that is an obvious bad line and void all bets. Perhaps Betfair being an exchange would fall under a different category. They obviously have some questions to answer but considering their past I am sure that nothing will come from it. If the bet had won, Betfair would have certainly allowed the wager to take place and raked a fortune. This was a total freeroll which is the disturbing side.

[threescatters]

Do you have a reference link for that information?

No but I can provide screenshots + account historys and multiple other people on here had the same thing happen.

[jetset]

Thanks, threescatters - it was a genuine question based on a comment made publicly by a Betfair spokesman just a week back - he said that the company would cooperate fully if required by the UK Gambling Commission; perhaps he was out of the loop or was mistakenly referring to the Gibraltar authorities.

[sidhudgens]

It would seem that it would be an almost physical (& technical) impossibility for Betfair to allow so many bets when the so-called bettor had less than $1000 in his account. What is interesting to me that Betfair has bots of their own. They have stepped out of the business from Facilitator to Bookmaker. If this was, in fact, a Betfair 'bot' or a rogue Betfair employee than the bets should be paid

[vinylweatherman]

Thanks, threescatters - it was a genuine question based on a comment made publicly by a Betfair spokesman just a week back - he said that the company would cooperate fully if required by the UK Gambling Commission; perhaps he was out of the loop or was mistakenly referring to the Gibraltar authorities.

He may have said this for PUNTERS to hear so that they felt Betfair had nothing to hide, but management knew full well that this bluff was never going to be called by the UK Gambling Commission. This was a public statement made by what must have been a senior employee with the full backing of his superiors, so there is NO excuse for the ENTIRE TEAM being unaware that Betfair were regulated by Gibraltar.

The fact that this "minor detail" has come to light so quickly is going to make them regret trying to pull the wool yet again by making a statement that sounded impressive, but meant nothing at all.

It also shows that pervasive incompetence at senior levels is STILL just as much an issue as it was during the happy hour fiasco, and that despite numerous management changes, nothing has improved.

We can only look forward to the next screw-up, and hope that it gets so bad that dormant regulators are FORCED to take their task more seriously, rather than be happy to rubber stamp the license and watch the fees roll in.

[jetset]

BETFAIR APPEASES SOME PUNTERS OVER VOIDED BETS (Update)

Certain categories to receive ex gratia payment

Betfair has released a statement following a backlash from punters and industry observers over the company voiding bets on the Christmas Hurdle horse race at Leopardstown last month following a technology failure.

Considering internal discussions, recommendations from the Gibraltar Gambling Commissioner (GGC) on a detailed report Betfair submitted to the authority and extensive customer consultation, the company has reviewed its decision to void all in-running bets matched on the race and will compensate, via ex gratia payments, certain categories of the voided bets, it announced today (Wednesday).

The relevant accounts are reported to have been credited and the company points out that the compensation goes beyond the GCC's recommendations.

According to the statement the following categories of bets compensated are:

1. In-play winning positions in both the ‘win’ and the ‘to be placed’ markets which were achieved before the technology failure; and

2. In-play winning positions in the ‘to be placed’ market achieved at any time through to the completion of the race.

Bets matched in the ‘win’ market after the technology failure will remain void with Betfair referring complaints to the Independent Betting Arbitration Service.

Steve Morana, interim chief executive officer at Betfair, said at the time that the company realised how much damage the incident has caused to its reputation as well as its share price, which dipped significantly before the exchange closed following the debacle.

[flogger]

I thought they were doing good this year. Well good luck to them then.