279 thoughts on “BetFair Casino offers a registration bonus… but reserves the right to take it back later.”
> Please be advised that following an investigation into your activity in the
> Betfair Casino, we have concluded that your bets were carried out with the
> express purpose of abusing the bonus offered.
–
Betfair set the rules. Either they pay out because the conditions were met, or they don’t because the conditions were not met. There is not a whole lot in between betfair. But no… you have to describe a customer’s behaviour as abusive. Typical.
–
> This is in accordance to the bonus terms and conditions which stats that
> “Betfair also reserves the right not to pay any bonus to customers that it
> suspects to be abusing this promotion.”
–
We’ve seen it all before really, it’s called “caveat emptor”.
–
This is just sick. I thought betfair is a reputable company.
Some of the People can be fooled, some of the Time.
But no-one can fool all of the People, all of the Time……
But a fool can fool himself, all of the Time…….
Observation:
In the good old days (pre-legal betting in England) of bookie’s “runners”, a bookie who welched (didn’t pay out) was liable to face the immediate, and rough, justice of his Clientele. He would make sure that he had an obvious, tenable reason for welching, before stepping onto the street! He certainly wouldn’t expect to take many more bets until he’d faced up to his actions against a large quorum of his Clientele….
The local Clientele were interested in good-old-fashioned Fair Play, and if the bookie couldn’t satisfy them (a lot of them all at once, not just a separated-out individual) that his reason for withholding was reasonable and realistic, he’d pay the street-Rules “price”.
It often meant a stay in the local Infirmary……
Unfortunately, such “natural justice” is now outlawed, so we are all reverted to an imposed Rule: Caveat Emptor.
Which begs the question: given the option, would any Client elect for a bookie’s Caveat Emptor Rule as a default determinator?????
Well, actually, YES!!!
Virtually all bookies have a “Rule” in their small print which effectively gives them carte blanche to withhold any amount, including Customers’ deposits, at any Time, for any length of Time (forever included!)
They won’t let you bet until you’ve signed up to their small print.
Which begs the question:
Is such a sweeping exclusion of normally acceptable defence processes legally sustainable?
Even if it is legally acceptable, is it socially acceptable?
@Medemi: About Midas Oracle, the comments, Google Reader, etc.
–
Midas Oracle is a blog with comments —not a web forum.
–
If you find that Midas Oracle is not adapted for web commenting, then here’s what you can do. When you post a comment on Midas Oracle, put the URL of the web forum elsewhere where you intend to continue the deep discussion with your online discussants. And at that external web forum, say you come from Midas Oracle.
–
That way you can begin a discussion on Midas Oracle, have a deep discussion about it elsewhere, and maybe come back to Midas Oracle in the end to tell people what the outcome is.
–
Google Reader indeed refreshes once a hour or so the comments of Midas Oracle.
–
I’m sorry you find Midas Oracle slow for commenting, but, as I said, it’s structured to have posts + comments, not discussion alone. A web forum is more appropriate for long, deep, infinite discussions, because it refreshes quicker.
–
It’s not a problem if you give external links to other web forums or blogs, here. You can either set up elsewhere your own web forum, and direct your commenters there.
–
Some of the problems you encounter (”deleting cookies”) are a bit puzzling. I don’t understand why you run into those problems. Commenting on a blog is a simple operation.
–
As for the “discussions” page, it lists only the last comment of each thread, and experiences a lag time, I suppose.
–
It could be possible for me to set up a web forum, in addition to this blog, but something I really want to do. Other people elsewhere on the Web do it better than I would do. So let’s direct people to them, when it’s needed.
@Medemi: Did some of your problems had to do with this?
–
If you are referring to me deleting my cookies, I’m not sure about the effects of that. I don’t know.
I will check out the PC-based feed readers later. For now I will stick with my e-mail feeder since that is the only place where the news will actually come to me.
But for that you need to check each time the “receive comments as e-mails” options, in each post. Which compels you to post a little comment each time.
@Medemi: “I will check out the PC-based feed readers later. For now I will stick with my e-mail feeder since that is the only place where the news will actually come to me.”
–
The PC-based feed reader is THE solution to your problem. Please, consider it seriously.
I have now removed the link I had to Betfair on my site, although all my various Betfair articles are staying…with nice big warnings at the top. In the first case, “bonus abuse”, Betfair is almost certainly in breach of Maltese law.
1. How does one abuse a bonus offering by simply using a bot ? I don’t see it, and I’m educated on both – bots and statistics. Betfair are also going to have to show us how it can be done, a simple mention in their T&C will not be sufficient in a court of law IMO.
–
2. Betfair receive some free advertising now. The message they want out, is that they won’t tolerate bonus chasers so they won’t come anymore. The best course of action is to file a formal complaint with the Maltese regulator and hand over all evidence.
–
3. What a mess… and what a waste of time and money for everyone involved, even those who are not involved. Maybe we should have laws against these types of bonus offerings.
I would be intrigued by a poll put on the bf forum where solely bf users (not staff) were allowed to post, asking how many people would actually recommend bf at the mo.
–
An improved bf in my book would make these changes
–
(1) limit on stake sizes/wins per market for new users, building up in size over time (stops insiders coming on and whacking through massive money on a single prediction market)
–
(2) blacklisting of the players which bf themselves said in the sunday times last week that they “monitor much more closely than other competitors”. (once a player is ‘in’, they are ‘in’ for life).
–
(3) more intelligence being used by bf to design ethical bonuses in the first place, rather than putting up a flawed scheme and trying to palp accounts later which broke no part of the original regulation (other than the predictable ‘caveat emptor’ part of them)
–
(4) sacking any staff who spend bf office time attacking people on either the bf or other web fora from behind chatnames they think are anonymous
–
(5) all bets placed after events have finished to be voided (bf are now doing this on some australian events, as it is illegal for them to run markets in the way they do outside of australia)
–
(6) bf market ops to identify which accounts are smashing through large money every point/run etc on events that take place in australia/usa, where people courtside are breaking the law in those countries.
–
(7) money to be put back into each sport that bf profits from to help pay for the costs of integrity/policing, rather than the current status quo on most sports bar racing and greyhounds, where bf make money out of the sport and impose an extra cost onto the sport itself.
–
(8) clear information published as to the volume of bets that are p2p, and the volume that aren’t.
–
(9) best execution on all markets, and a guarantee that they will never turn the trap bet robot back on
–
–
medemi, what do you make of the bf announcement
–
“Finally, please note that Betfair will shortly be making important changes to the way the forum is run. In future, you will only be able to post on the forum if full ‘know your customer’ (KYC) checks for you have been completed. ”
–
surely its crazy that people can register and place large bets immediately without completing the KYC (is the criteria still that you have to complete it once you reach 3% commission?), but there are much stricter requirements in place on people making forum posts? surely they should be worrying about the markets much more than the forum,……
surely its crazy that people can register and place large bets immediately without completing the KYC (is the criteria still that you have to complete it once you reach 3% commission?), but there are much stricter requirements in place on people making forum posts? surely they should be worrying about the markets much more than the forum,……
–
I already said that, somewhere, on here.
We are, in fact, betfair’s best friends. But if they want to make an enemy of us, then so be it.
medemi – i can’t find the piece by a bf customer talking about how he had had an email through saying his bet at 1000 after an event had finished (he was trying to free up funds) had been refunded because it broke australian law.
–
these kind of bets take place many times a day on many bf markets. i really think that some of the business, say when its matchpoint on a final set tie break, a player is trading at say 1.4 to win the match (she has a matchpoint on her opponents serve), and then suddenly everything is hoovered down to 1.01 before bf suspend, well that kind of business should be voided, and happily it looks like it is illegal in australia.
–
it does beg the question tho, what is an australian punter doing betting in running? must have been someone betting on an australian event from outside australia.
–
–
i actually agree with you that we are their “best friends”. they proudly state how they are the only exchange to put up warnings about faster pictures, but they only put that up after my anti-illegal hoovering from the USA campaign in late 2006. i asked them behind the scenes for it, and they only did it when it broke in the NOTW. same with the ban on people betting from the US, again their changes to betfair t&c’s were only made after my campaign.
its really sad the way that if one bf user puts one over another user through unethical means, its “caveat emptor”, but where its bf’s own money at stake, they try to withdraw their poorly designed offer.
–
there is a delicious irony which will happen in the future if bf did decide to actively trade their own markets. bf would then void/shut down all the sharp operators betting with shady advantages. active trading would destroy the p2p exchange, yet ironically, it would also deliver huge improvements in levelling the playing field
Ed, I already mentioned on the betfair forum that any bets struck after the event has finished is illegal in my book. It will be one day too in the UK. Betfair should have the capability to retroactively void bets up until a certain timestamp in the past to be able to deal with this practical problem effectively.
–
As for clearer messages, it was a poster called “frog” and myself who battled fiercely on this front, and the GC seem to have taken on some of those concerns now . I don’t know about your campaign. If anything, I would say they listen to frog sometimes as he still seems to have some credit with them.
That is not to say I don’t think you have any influence, but quite frankly I don’t care who does as long as betfair get the job done which they are supposed to do.
My goal was to get into their heads in the boardroom, and change their thinking from “what is currently legal/illegal”, towards “what is right/wrong”. When I was told they had changed their decisions a few months earlier on reality tv markets – which mark davies had trumpeted at full volume on the front pages of the national press – back towards a free for all, because “there is no law being broken by phone vote insiders”, it was obvious that they should have stuck with their earlier decision instead of reversing it. My campaign led them to do another U-turn, and the policy of shutting events at the time the events finish, is still in place now two years later (and counting). The other change I campaigned for on game by game/frame by frame markets, of the same delays on game/frame markets as match odds markets, is also still in place
–
I think they thought they were insular from the press/media, but the reality is they failed to recognise that they have a responsibility, as a gambling operator, to keep their own house in order. If they refuse to talk or communicate, there are very few options left.
–
The regulation will change, but a lot of progress has been made. It is really ironic they now trumpet the warnings which I said they should put on the markets, as evidence that they are responsible operators :-). How times change . Those warnings would not have been put on without me, and they know that :-).
I think they thought they were insular from the press/media, but the reality is they failed to recognise that they have a responsibility.
–
Very true.
–
Yes, some progress has been made. But that isn’t hard when you think about how things were 3 or 4 years ago. I thought I was sent back in time a couple of hundred years when I first joined the forum and witnessed this wild-west spirit.
I think betfair got the message so it’s up to them now. I also think they got rid of us by banning us from the forum because they can’t handle so much stick from us. lol
pretty much everyone was disgusted with the betfair trap bet robot, but your criticism of mark davies statement as “lies” in the thread title, probably annoyed him directly (or someone junior trying to curry favour with him).
–
i wish they would release the thread i got a ban for, i said absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever, they just panicked about the argument between troy and his mates, and the legal damage that troy and his friends could do to betfair with their betting in 2004/2005 & 2006 from the new york hilton on the US open. it was completely unfair, and if i had posted under any chatname other than “dj sunset”, nothing i said was wrong, and they wouldn’t have connected the row behind the scenes between me and them (they told me twice the betting from new york was completely illegal, so i complained it was unfair they were letting people bet millions of pounds from new york into the bf markets), with that thread. it was totally spiteful and ridiculous.
i wish chris masse had first hand experience of betting heavily on bf markets. i have no idea how much chris bets on bf (and full apologies if chris is a heavy user), but when there is a series of trap bet robots, hooverers, suspicious price movements on matches, immediate losses taken from bf accounts where there are markets with suspicious price movements, ridiculous forum bans, and in my case leaks of my own account details deliberately down my local pub from a bf employee, and another bf employee being outed as posting maliciously on bettingforum.co.uk , well, its just tiring.
–
there is no anti-betfair agenda, it would be great to see bf doing well, but also having trap bet robots switched off, people stopped from betting from the us/australia illegally, suspicious players not being offered, a ban on leaks down my local pub of my account details, and the sack for abusive bf members of staff behind anonymous chatnames. betfair deserves to go from strength to strength, and all of these things are just unacceptable
this is the thread you got a ban for, and it is odd they never actually took it down
–
Supposedly Ed, Supposedly. And I’ve never been officially banned from the forum.
I also want to reiterate that I wanted to put “lies” in the title between quotation marks, but quotation marks are not allowed in the title for some technical reason. Thinking about it made me forget to put a question mark at the end.
But that’s ok, I got to meet you and Adonis again, and all this great stuff here on Midas Oracle.
99% of Midas Oracle is great. The other 1% are the 2003/2004 style pro-BF threads. A lot of us used to put up threads saying BF are great etcetera, but there is nobody left on the BF forum saying that anymore, except for user “artie”. It would be lovely if the reality matched the 2003/2004 pro-Bf threads from the Bf forum, or the 2008 MO threads. Maybe having four locals all coming up to me with a description of what a BF staff member has been saying to them about my account profitability/margin/turnover, and giving one of them advice to stop putting bets on for me, would be something which would alarm most people just how indiscrete BF are. I find it unbelievable to have random locals who have never placed a bet on BF, giving me the full thoughts of BF’s legal team, and the one who helps me get bets on being advised by that BF employee not to let me. Its like someone talking about my bank accounts, its completely outrageous. He keeps doing it, and I have not had a single reply to at least 5 emails over an 18 month period, nor an apology. It is surely completely illegal. Perhaps if that happened to other Midas Oracle users, their view of the current BF team would become somewhat dimmer.
You have your personal experiences Ed, I don’t know how to comment on that.
What’s most worrying from my point of view, is betfair’s attempt to silence me and others.
I wish I didn’t have to come to that conclusion, but from what I have expereinced over recent months (and that includes the complaints Chris has received about me) I simply cannot make another deduction.
The regulators aren’t skilled enough to apply regulation in a proactive manner. There is more money and less hassle, if there is no regulation. It has to be as easy as possible for everyone to bet, and as difficult as possible for anyone to flag up ethics. That’s why you are a danger, I am another danger, and there is a rush to silence anyone constructive. Its an arrangement which works well for the incumbent team, and anyone threatening the smooth course of a comfortable arrangement, is disposable.
Ed, I’m very well aware why I could be a danger to them and in what way exactly. I can put myself in their position. Also, I don’t feel like talking about it on a forum.
But by chasing me after they got rid of me on the betfair forum was a huge mistake. And I feel I should remind them of that, as I do whenever I feel they are making a mistake.
You’re not a danger to BF – the only things you or any of us have called for is protecting fairness, upholding the law, giving value for money to punters, and minimising the amount of skulduggery. Actually the more I think about, the more their identification of “Team BetFair” and “Everyone Else”, where Everyone Else are supposedly highly dangerous and must be silenced at any cost, the more silly it is.
I have just realised that I think I’m in the position where I don’t think much of the anti-prediction market Paul Wolfowitz lobbying group to the CFTC, and I am also very uncertain about the pro-prediction market lobby to the CFTC. Making it easier for people to wager against one another has advantages, but also has severe problems. Prediction markets with effective regulation are the answer, and at the moment we have one out of two.
Betfair’s real enemies are not discussing opinions openly. They are going behind their backs, and will try and make profits on their exchange any way they can. They don’t engage in constructive debate. This is who betfair considers to be their “friends”. That’s just the world we live in I suppose – see no evil, hear no evil.
–
So here we are. I don’t remember being critical of betfair in my first year, I was in my second, and I certainly stepped up the pace in my third. That’s because I care about the things you mentioned, and betfair are putting one mistake on top of another. And it does seem they are getting personal about this, which doesn’t reflect well on a companies’ policy.
I wrote article after article supporting Betfair, advocating Betfair, and was massively pro-Betfair for years, in exactly the same way that Midas Oracle is pro-Betfair now.
–
I still actually am pro-Betfair, though by that I mean that a profitable Betfair, with internally regulated markets & full effort put in to giving people the chance to bet fairly, is something I support. I don’t support malicious internet posts from BF staff or malicious gossiping in local pubs. That is just ridiculous. BF are in the position where if anyone complains, they can threaten people with account closure, whether or not BF have indeed leaked account information and broken the Data Protection Act deliberately, time and again.
They can close the whole thing down in the UK as far as I’m concerned, meaning betting exchanges and bookmakers as well. What’s going on in the US with the CFTC is a lot more interesting, actually.
I also believe regulation from the start is crucial, or else we’ll end up with the same kind of uncontrollable mess we have in the UK today. The gambling markets will survive, for now, but for the socially valuable markets for which there is less demand, it would already have been the end. Let’s hope betfair doesn’t get involved. 🙂
They can close the whole thing down in the UK as far as I’m concerned, meaning betting exchanges and bookmakers as well. What’s going on in the US with the CFTC is a lot more interesting, actually.
–
lol . i think society would be better off if gambling was banned, but given that its here to stay, i think betfair fully deserves support as part of that landscape and has much to offer. what i would change is the regulation of betfair, as i don’t think there is enough thought and altruistic goodwill from within the current bf team to move towards betting taking place fairly. its so obvious they should make it difficult for insiders and cheats, yet with racing BF policy has been to leave suspicious accounts open for years, so that those accounts can be ‘monitored’. when the BHA have only just started proceedings about a race from 2004 (yes, 2004) , what happened to all the people trying to bet fairly in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008?
–
there is a real danger with the “socially valuable” prediction markets, that without effective regulation, they will perform socially damaging functions, such as encouraging assassinations or terrorist incidents. its no good having 99.9% socially valuable functions from an expansion of prediction markets, and one extra assassination on top.
–
betfair with regulation should be fully supported if the us market was deregulated and opened up. in its current form, the cost-benefit analysis to society of doing so would look decidedly in the balance.
You can laugh Ed, but I’ve gone from a huge supporter (I was actually actively looking for something like betfair 3 years ago because it had to be there, that’s how I found them) to someone who prefers to behave like a mug and look for a bookmaker now. And I hate bookmakers. All in the course of let’s say 2 years.
Manipulating transactions – effecting, or participating
in effecting, transactions or orders to trade which give or
are likely to give a false or misleading impression as to
the supply, demand, price or value of a qualifying
investment or related investment, or which secure the
price of such an investment at an abnormal or artificial
level.
–
LOLOL! that is an outstanding spot
–
I don’t blame WBX for boosting their amount traded figures (again, we’re going back to the exchanges not being regulated territory here, with practise that would be illegal in financial markets).
–
The best thing that could happen for punters is a Bet Angel style device, where backs and lays are put into ALL the betting exchanges, and matched at best price. I actually know what BF have said about this idea behind the scenes , but seeing as it would increase value for punters, and massively decrease BF’s market strength, its not hard to work it out.
I think they are operating within the law tho, because they’re not FSA regulated? I don’t think any non-spread bookmaker is FSA related?
–
The figures on that market look incredibly cack-handed and hard to believe. Having WBX trading big volume, whilst other exchanges including Betfair are at the zero mark, is amusing .
I don’t think they’re operating within the law. The Gambling Commission have some general principles (not to be underestimated!) attached to licences they hand out. You’ll find them if you dig deep enough. Not my specialty though.
I don’t think they are breaking the law (i’m no legal expert), even if they are going against the spirit of how the markets should be run. An example like this though should make it clear to fans of prediction markets on Midas Oracle who are making submissions to the CFTC, that non-financial markets need just as much (if not more) protection than financial ones, and there are clear examples of how the current prediction exchanges outside of the US are behaving in a way that would be totally unethical, and illegal, in a financial market. Its not acceptable.
“i think society would be better off if gambling was banned, but given that its here to stay, i think betfair fully deserves support as part of that landscape and has much to offer. ”
I disagree:
I have read the betfair forum.
I read, therein, that a substantial number of betfair Customers postings were VERY unhappy when it was revealed, retrospectively, that betfair had instigated a no-risk method of matching bets which also resulted in a portion of Client funds ostensibly being abstracted (at no risk) by the exchange.
It seems that the only way that such a process can be done, at no risk to the exchange, is via “freezing” the matching queue ( thus effectively freezing every Customer’s ability to do anything to protect themselves- if they had a way to do that, even!).
I also read betfair’s announcement that it deemed itself ENTITLED to abstract funds in the way it did, BECAUSE IT HELD A BOOKMAKER’S LICENCE.
IMHO, it pays to err on the side of experience and safety.
So when my doorbell rings and the caller says ” I’m just doing a survey”, my usual response is “yes, and I’m Santa Claus…… so what are you trying to sell to me????”
Lots of people are falling all over themselves telling us that the Emperor’s Suit of Clothes is fabulous…. there’s a couple of guys out there called Ed, Medemi, Adonis (and some we shouldn’t mention because the Imperial Guard isn’t onto them yet!) who’re simply saying “DO TAKE A LOOK before you jump to the conclusions expected of you!!!!!”
Well, why should I care how large the time window on such a freeze is ?
If I want to cancel an order, as a non-UK customer, I’ll have to wait another (extra) 120ms for my transaction to be processed. So who cares if betfair freezes my order for another 240ms or so, so they can increase the likelihood of matching it with someone else and keep a variable percentage for themselves. It’s all possible in the UK and I don’t see how anyone could object to that.
Also, I’m pretty sure the Gambling Commission can tell us exactly what the maximum allowed time window is.
I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for an answer from the GC, Medemi……..
If you aren’t fortunate enough to be able to afford an API interface, then WHEREVER you live, there will be the possibility that a “bot” can cash in on you, in the event that your exchange doesn’t get their first.
It’s called a level playing field….. For my next joke….
So you’re saying that anyone betting from outside the UK, and who uses the standard interface, is actually a mug because he’s (on top of that) subjected to betfair’s cross matching algorithm.
–
What’s more important, is to get the numbers out in the open so consumers can make an informed decision where they want to spend their money. We have the 120ms figure for non-UK customers (although I’m not entirely sure they apply to cancelling orders as well), now all we need is the advantage of the API translated into ms, and the time window on betfair’s freeze.
The 120ms delay applies to ALL bet manipulation calls including cancelling, web or API. I think its actually 60/60, 60ms for your bet to Malta and another 60ms for Malta to place/cancel their bet on your behalf. International users don`t bet on the exchange.
Not sure I follow that one Medemi “freeze window”?. If you mean if an API and Web bet were placed simultaneously with the same odds and bet type, would either have an advantage? I doubt that there would be anything noticeable on the exchange side except maybe an irrelevant difference casued by translating those two different types of calls.
I`m speculating here as we dont have the infrastructure plans, but if you placed two bets together, one at 5.0 and one at 6.0, if the 5.0 odds already had 50 other bets in that que waiting to be processed and the 6.0 only has your bet then the 6.0 bet could be placed quicker. This is all presuming Betfair has implemented some parallel processing of bets.
There are a number of ways to look at it, but I was looking at it this way.
Whenever betfair want to match my bet they’d have to look for an opposing bet to set off their risk. With cross-matching they’d have to look at a number of alternatives (and do many calculations), during which I will be unable to cancel (for practical reasons) even when they receive an order from me to cancel. Normally you’d expect them to finish all calculations and release my bet (which they had to lock earlier on) at least every 1/100 of a second. I see an opportunity for betfair to profit from having my bet locked for a little bit longer, let’s say 100ms, as to – in their own words perhaps- “provide a service and increase my chances of having my bet matched, which is what customers want”.
Hope that makes sense, and even if it doesn’t, I would still like to know how long they can hold on to my bet. Shouldn’t be longer than 1/100 of a second IMO, once they receive an order to cancel.
1. How does one abuse a bonus offering by simply using a bot ? I don’t see it, and I’m educated on both – bots and statistics. Betfair are also going to have to show us how it can be done, a simple mention in their T&C will not be sufficient in a court of law IMO.
–
The casino would argue that a bot makes it easier for the user to clear the wagering requirements of a bonus. They want real people clicking away on bonuses, not bots. Also, bots are almost certainly used by multi-accounters who simply lack the time or inclination to play multiple accounts manually. As such, bots equate to bad news for casinos more than good news. I have to disagree that outlawing bots would not be sufficient in court. If they say “no bots”, then that’s as clear as it gets. Of course, they’d be more than happy to have bots pissing away customers’ funds WITHOUT a bonus, but let’s leave aside good ole’ casino hypocrisy.
–
The problem is not dissallowing bots. The problem is that:
–
1) The allegation is UNPROVEN.
–
2) Other players have simply been accused of “bonus abuse”. Of course, THAT is rank illegal, to disallow winnings on the basis of vague teminology. I have commented more on this in my blog article on the subject I posted a link to above. Betfair are almost certainly in breach of Maltese, err…”law”.
–
On that matter:
–
2. Betfair receive some free advertising now. The message they want out, is that they won’t tolerate bonus chasers so they won’t come anymore. The best course of action is to file a formal complaint with the Maltese regulator and hand over all evidence.
–
I take it you’re not sooo familiar with the Malta Lotteries And Gaming Authority?
Hope it’s OK to link again, but I’m sure you’ll find things you didn’t know about. If you can’t be bothered to read it all, I’ll sum up for you: the Malta LGA is useless. It flat out ignores players, and continues “licensing” operations that have long ago stopped paying players. In short, it’s a whitewash service for its licensees, and a complete joke as a “regulatory” authority. So forget about ”a formal complaint with the Maltese regulator”, you might as well chuck the evidence in the bin, it couldn’t be less ignored.
you have some good points, which I agree to. But this:
“They want real people clicking away on bonuses, not bots”
I understand that, but betfair generally stimulate the usage of bots on their exchange, and now that someone has just opened up an account, they shouldn’t ? That’s ridiculous. They can’t have it both ways, although that is usually what they get away with.
–
About the LGA, no I don’t have any experience with them. That’s really something you’re saying. Should have a look at that later.
I understand that, but betfair generally stimulate the usage of bots on their exchange, and now that someone has just opened up an account, they shouldn’t ? That’s ridiculous. They can’t have it both ways, although that is usually what they get away with.
–
I agree – and I said as much above. Casinos want slot junkies pissing away their mortgages using bots, that’s why Microgaming has a built-in bot, “autoplay”, designed to do just this. I suppose it’s similar to the Betfair bot you mention. Betfair says as follows:
–
“All wagers must be placed through the user interface provided on the Casino. Any wagering through other means, including the use of a “robot” player, is strictly forbiddenwithout the express consent of Betfair.”
–
I suppose “consent” equates to the built-in bot you mention, ie. you can use their bot but not yours. Thing is, I’m not sufficiently familiar with the Betfair bot. Can you play casino games for bonuses with it? As company’s own bot, is its use consensual by definition?
–
I think, though, that this is too complicated. Bottom line: if you want to play a Betfair bonus, don’t use any kind of bot.
–
The problem is not the bot, it’s that it is unproven. And also of course, like I said, the REAL problem is this:
–
“Betfair Casino reserves the right not to pay this bonus to any customer that wesuspect is abusing the promotion.”
–
Such vague, undefined terminology is 1) obvious bullshit, 2) morally unacceptable anywhere and 3) actually illegal in any credible location with proper consumer protection laws – see my Maltese law links. The thing is, Betfair can do this because they know the LGA will let them.
–
If you want to do something about the Betfair problem, expose the LGA. Tell people about what’s going on in these pseudo -”reputable” Euro zones.
“All wagers must be placed through the user interface provided on the Casino. Any wagering through other means, including the use of a “robot” player, is strictly forbiddenwithout the express consent of Betfair.”
–
I don’t know much about their Casino. If this is related to their casino I suppose there’s not a lot we can do about it. If it’s related to the promotion on the other hand, then it’s bull IMO. Betfair are going to have a real hard time proving how anyone could possibly abuse the exchange by using a bot, when it is clear they stimulate the usuage of bots in general.
–
In general, T&C’ are just that, designed to offer betfair some protection, that doesn’t necessarily mean they will hold up in a court of law. Not even for betfair.
I think the whole thing is incredibly sad for Betfair itself. There shouldn’t be a need to try to target areas/countries where the law is weaker than other jurisdictions, and hope that the hassle of fighting for markets to be run within a legal framework proves an obstacle to all but the most passionate supporters of betting exchanges & prediction markets.
–
It isn’t that hard to design a sensible bonus offer; perhaps there just isn’t an apparent financial motivation to the bf casino staff to put the effort in to design a fair offer. Who cares if you can just claim palpable error anyway?
Yes, the mathematically-challenged can now comment without embarrassment.
–
Thanks for the homepage link, BTW. That and, I presume, the link I posted here has shot my page up to Google page two. How else do you combat the PR bandwagon?
–
Ed said:
–
“I think the whole thing is incredibly sad for Betfair itself. There shouldn’t be a need to try to target areas/countries where the law is weaker than other jurisdictions, and hope that the hassle of fighting for markets to be run within a legal framework proves an obstacle to all but the most passionate supporters of betting exchanges & prediction markets.”
–
It’s not that the law’s weak, it’s that the implementation of it is nonexistent. I think law within the Eurozone is pretty homogenous, both Maltese and Gibraltarian law on “unfair practice” is pretty much word for word the same as the UK. The problem is that “regulation” actually has toss-all to do with the player. It’s good for the operator to be seen to be in on “reputable” territory and it’s good for the territory because they get the fees. The industry PR bandwagon then struts its stuff and tells the world how wonderful it is, and most people take this at face value – see Chris’s initial comments on the LGA:
And why not take it at face value, if you have no reason not to? I used to. But the industry PR bandwagon makes Essop’s fables look like an engineering textbook – there is zero grounding in reality. Just scratch away an itsy bit at the surface and you’ll discover the real truth behind ostensible “regulation”: they don’t actually do anything at all. They take fees and grin at the camera lens, but they do nothing beyond this. The player is sunk without trace if he comes unglued with such an operator, because complaining to their “regulator” is more pointless than shouting inside a spacesuit in a soundproofed room.
–
Think about it a sec: imagine you have a sportsbook which stopped paying players over six months ago, to the extent that a leading sportsbetting site lists it as a “scam” which owes a good ?100,000 and probably more. Add to that that this “scam” resides on European territory. Now imagine that the governmental regulator of this scam sportsbook not only has done nothing about it, but it still lists them on their site as carrying a governmental license? A top-ranked sports site has them down as a scam, but the government licenses them still and takes their money.
–
If you read that in a fairy story, would you not put it down as just a little bit too silly?
–
Reality check: it’s happening right now as we speak. See the side comments about Betchance in my Malta article that Chris linked up.
–
God help the people of the USA if online gambling ever gets “regulated” there. Can you imagine what’ll happen when Washington signs up Brokecasino.com and then the players being denied cashouts have to complain to Congress? I shudder to think. The “regulators” would probably start acknowledging the players’ emails after their great grandchildren are all dead.
–
Laws are all well and good, but they’re more useless than an icecream condom if nobody actually implements the damn things.
–
Ed said:
–
It isn’t that hard to design a sensible bonus offer; perhaps there just isn’t an apparent financial motivation to the bf casino staff to put the effort in to design a fair offer. Who cares if you can just claim palpable error anyway?
–
Pretty much. With casinos, for “palpable error” you can usually read “bonus abuse”. It’s not impossible. There are solid, fair playing and fair paying casinos out there. Trouble is, you can count them on a pair of hands – and the others number in their thousands.
My contention is that if the Regulator allows anyone or any organisation to actually (or effectively) freeze the bet matching queue, then Betting Integrity must, by definition, be seriously compromised.
Because arbitrary or scheduled freezing of the process of negotiating a match ensures that those that are “frozen out” are totally vulnerable to losing (some or all of the money they put up to support their offers) to those able to do the freezing!
Otherwise, why bother freezing at all???.
That one (untested in Court) interpretation of British Law infers that it is “OK” to freeze the process if you hold a Bookmaker’s Permit is, IMHO, immaterial to the fundamental question:
Is there anyone who can use logic to justify the argument that “freezing the clock can’t and doesn’t impact Betting Integrity”? In other words,show that “clock-freezing is harmless“???
NB: I didn’t ask if there’s anyone out there who wants clock-freezing to be allowed (there is at least ONE Company that obviously does!!!)
More worryingly still, there might also be one Regulator who also thinks it’s harmless!!!!!!!!!!
Finally, IMHO, it doesn’t actually matter if the clock is only frozen by only a mere 10 milliseconds, if the “freezer” is able to conduct their deeds within that Time.
And it is not really important if ( due to locational delay differences) the onset Time or length of a freeze period varies between Customers.
The only impactless policy on the subject, IMHO, is simple: NO FREEZING ALLOWED!
No doubt the LGA receive a lot of complaints, most of them unjustified. You should have a look at the betfair casino forum section… Some of these nutters who scream scam here, scam there, probably even write to the LGA. The problem for the LGA is probably to sift through all this rubbish they receive.
–
Also, some of these regulators are very inexperienced. What is on top of their agenda is to control gambling addiction, which they do well IMO (that goes for the Gambling Commission at least).
Our job is to educate them and let them know there are other issues as well which deserve some attention.
How they pick up on that is the real question. They will be judged, eventually.
“I think you’re somewhat overreacting. No doubt the LGA receive a lot of complaints, most of them unjustified. You should have a look at the betfair casino forum section… Some of these nutters who scream scam here, scam there, probably even write to the LGA. The problem for the LGA is probably to sift through all this rubbish they receive.”
–
“No doubt”, “probably” this, “probably” that. The LGA has for afact continued to “license” Betchance while it has been in no-pay mode for fully six months and counting. The LGA has for a fact ignored me for fully four months, and everyone else into the bargain, save for one form email, on complaints totalling I estimate $100,000 USD.
–
On what basis is my factual comment above an “overreaction”, in your opinion? How do you know without doubt “most complaints are unjustified”? How do you know it’s mainly “rubbish”? Read my complaint here:
This is an extraordinary stance. You post misinformed opinion as fact.
–
“Also, some of these regulators are very inexperienced. What is on top of their agenda is to control gambling addiction, which they do well IMO (that goes for the Gambling Commission at least).
Our job is to educate them and let them know there are other issues as well which deserve some attention.
How they pick up on that is the real question. They will be judged, eventually.”
–
How do you know what is top of their agenda? You think the LGA controls gambling addiction, and “well”? Post corroboration of this – I must have missed it, and it’s a pretty powerful assertion to make. Why is it my “job” to educate them? Breaking news: these people are PAID to do a job by the government. It is THEIR job to know how to do their job when they do it.
–
How many surgeons get away with botched operations with “Well, I’m really not very experienced, you know. It’s your job to educate me – it’s not my fault”. That is about the most absurd thing I’ve heard. He’d be up on a malpractice suit in a New York second.
–
Why does a WHOLE new set of criteria apply to the gambling industry that does not apply to every other business? Why do you make such an extraordinary set of assumptions when there is a ton of corroborated evidence staring you in the face which indicates the exact opposite?
you’re actually giving the LGA too much credit – they should know everything and they should respond to everyone. By doing so you end up being disrespectful (justified or unjustified, I don’t care) which is a pitty. It is not about who is right and who is wrong, in the end it is about how effective you are. It always is.
You sound very knowledgable and experienced in this area and it would serve you better to accept that simple fact.
–
As for facts, you’re at the wrong address I’m sorry to say. I don’t believe in facts and if you want to impress someone with facts you should turn to Chris, amongst others. To me, you’re just one guy with an opinion (who deserves some respect) like many others. I also believe there is huge advantage and power (the right kind) in being able to look at things from different perspectives, including (especially) your enemies.
–
If you really believe the LGA are being negligent, who you want to talk to is Adonis IMO (he’s right around the corner). Or better yet, ask him to sink his teeth into the LGA.
BetChance (SBR rating F) player reports that the sportsbook informed him it will finally close
The player states the no-pay sportsbook called to offer him a settlement of 25% of his balance or the possibility of being paid in 20 months. BetChance has been unable to clear delinquent withdrawal requests for almost a year while teasing owed users with email updates about new ownership and small sporadic payments to a fortunate few. Most players do not expect to see any of their funds and now believe the empty promises and positive updates were part of the scam to remain operational in Malta while collecting from new depositors.”
–
Now read it again, because I know you didn’t believe it the first time. Me neither.
–
That was six weeks ago. Six weeks. Oh, and I made a mistake, it’s not six months that they’ve been in no-pay mode. It’s a whole year.
…and click on “Class 2″, then look at entry number five.
–
See anything anything there to change you opinion?
–
For anyone who doesn’t feel like clicking through, I’ll spare you the suspense. Yes, it’s Betchance. Betchance, who list themselves thus:
–
Betting Licence Number: LGA/CL2/189/2004
–
That means “LGA license Class 2, number 189, granted 2004″.
–
No payments for fully one year, still licensed by the LGA. The license is not listed as “cancelled”, not even “suspended” (as it can be)! It’s fully current. C-U-R-R-E-N-T. They haven’t even bothered to suspend Betchance’s license, fully aware that this licensee has barely paid anyone in a year!
–
This is a monumental scandal.
–
Run that bit by me again abour it being our job to educate the gambling regulators who are wilting under the weight of all the scam complaints they receive?
Hey Caruso… If I wasn’t so “sceptical” I would have taken everything for granted that Betfair taught me.
Cheer up man, if you’re going to fight the LGA at least do it with a smile on your face or else you won’t last long. Some of us know about these things.
Yes, however my handle still appears as it was when I wasn’t registered if not logged in, so I can comment both logged in and logged out under the same username (hence non-logged in posts above). Difference is capital “C” when not logged in. I’ll try and remember to log in.
–
Medemi:
–
“It is not about who is right and who is wrong, in the end it is about how effective you are.”
–
That’s an unfortunate perspective. It helps to be right AND effective. I have no desire to take a wrong position.
–
Your comments about not being interested in facts are odd to say the least.
“It is not about who is right and who is wrong, in the end it is about how effective you are.”
That’s an unfortunate perspective. It helps to be right AND effective. I have no desire to take a wrong position.
My point is, you could be 100% right and still lose, suffer from burn-out. Whatever. Not saying you personally, but in general. The opposite is also true, you could be proven wrong in the end, yet contributed massively in search for the truth. Whatever.
–
Your comments about not being interested in facts are odd to say the least.
It’s not that I’m not interested in them, I don’t believe in them. In other words, they appear to me as a point of view (with some added weight).
The other thread for instance, Chris seemed thrilled at the evidence he found about the LGA being a respectable regulator. Now he’s very disappointed after having a look at your facts. That would never happen to me – these swings. Well, never say never, but when it does happen to me I feel like an idiot. That’s why I am who I am.
There is this thought I can’t get rid of lately. It was the mods at WBX telling me that it’s fine to give someone stick, but I should expect the same in return. Well, when I gave the chief moderator some stick, he banned me for life. Hahaha…
I think its quite sad to see the WBX total matched market manipulation. The reason why its sad is that a genuine competitor to BF has the ability to shadow the prices on BF – if a market is trading at evens on BF, there is no reason why an internal seeding robot should not be laying say 1.9 on WBX, in lumpy size, whilst backing 2.1. Its a win-win, getting over the odds on the BF price, and can only be picked off by corrupt accounts, i.e. people who know the actual result of fixed races or matches.
–
Restrict the size that the 1.9 and 2.1 bets are good in, say 5k, and then fritter that money outwards in a rainbow at lower and higher increments, respectively further away from evens than the 1.9 to 2.1 band are.
–
WBX need a trading robot on their own markets. It is fully doable, betdirect have done something like this for years, with a robot plugged in to the bf price shadowing it. With the aim of long run profitability, offering fairly meaty size ten clicks above and below the current o/u 2.5 goals price on bf, really wouldn’t be difficult to program, and there would be a lot of investors ready to fund such a project (i can think of a number i know personally who would be happy getting ten clicks above or below current bf price commission free). Having no liquidity is inexcusable, when WBX are in the position to literally take on BF using the free market prices on the exchange which are available in size.
I’m sure there are scanning robots operating over the different exchanges looking for overbroke opportunities. WBX & Betdaq are both missing out on joining in the party. Tradefair (Betfair in disguise) are actively recruiting heavy Betfair users in Hammersmith trying to court them into seeding Tradefair, but a robot offering real liquidity on WBX and Betdaq, scabbing the BF price to put up real liquidity, would be a massive bonus to both exchanges, and I think would look like a much more attractive and profitable tool for the current people BF are chasing to seed TF.
I have a bot that “rotates” through the markets on betfair. All I needed to do is hook it up with WBX. I was willing to build such an application offering prices just below the real prices with a non-profit intent, just for the fun of it. Maybe even spread it around. I let the WBX management know I was interested in providing some liquidity but they never got back to me. It seems they prefer their fake markets, and when I found out about that I lost complete interest of course. There must be more people like me. It’s better this way, let them go down. I have no intention of using my bot ever again btw.
Sporting Options went bust because they seeded their own markets – and went out of line with the price on Bet”fair”. Using a robot to internally seed with prices on stable markets which don’t go out of line with the prevailing market price is probably critical to WBX and Betdaq’s success. Its absolutely bonkers to swell their own turnover with artificial trading figures, but not try to find a way to get real liquidity into the market. Catering for the non-price sensitive punters is what keeps the wheels oiled on BF and WBX/Betdaq. Having no liquidity when there is a fairly easy way to do it is just potty.
> Please be advised that following an investigation into your activity in the
> Betfair Casino, we have concluded that your bets were carried out with the
> express purpose of abusing the bonus offered.
–
Betfair set the rules. Either they pay out because the conditions were met, or they don’t because the conditions were not met. There is not a whole lot in between betfair. But no… you have to describe a customer’s behaviour as abusive. Typical.
–
> This is in accordance to the bonus terms and conditions which stats that
> “Betfair also reserves the right not to pay any bonus to customers that it
> suspects to be abusing this promotion.”
–
We’ve seen it all before really, it’s called “caveat emptor”.
–
This is just sick. I thought betfair is a reputable company.
Some of the People can be fooled, some of the Time.
But no-one can fool all of the People, all of the Time……
But a fool can fool himself, all of the Time…….
Observation:
In the good old days (pre-legal betting in England) of bookie’s “runners”, a bookie who welched (didn’t pay out) was liable to face the immediate, and rough, justice of his Clientele. He would make sure that he had an obvious, tenable reason for welching, before stepping onto the street! He certainly wouldn’t expect to take many more bets until he’d faced up to his actions against a large quorum of his Clientele….
The local Clientele were interested in good-old-fashioned Fair Play, and if the bookie couldn’t satisfy them (a lot of them all at once, not just a separated-out individual) that his reason for withholding was reasonable and realistic, he’d pay the street-Rules “price”.
It often meant a stay in the local Infirmary……
Unfortunately, such “natural justice” is now outlawed, so we are all reverted to an imposed Rule: Caveat Emptor.
Which begs the question: given the option, would any Client elect for a bookie’s Caveat Emptor Rule as a default determinator?????
Well, actually, YES!!!
Virtually all bookies have a “Rule” in their small print which effectively gives them carte blanche to withhold any amount, including Customers’ deposits, at any Time, for any length of Time (forever included!)
They won’t let you bet until you’ve signed up to their small print.
Which begs the question:
Is such a sweeping exclusion of normally acceptable defence processes legally sustainable?
Even if it is legally acceptable, is it socially acceptable?
@Medemi: About Midas Oracle, the comments, Google Reader, etc.
–
Midas Oracle is a blog with comments —not a web forum.
–
If you find that Midas Oracle is not adapted for web commenting, then here’s what you can do. When you post a comment on Midas Oracle, put the URL of the web forum elsewhere where you intend to continue the deep discussion with your online discussants. And at that external web forum, say you come from Midas Oracle.
–
That way you can begin a discussion on Midas Oracle, have a deep discussion about it elsewhere, and maybe come back to Midas Oracle in the end to tell people what the outcome is.
–
Google Reader indeed refreshes once a hour or so the comments of Midas Oracle.
–
I’m sorry you find Midas Oracle slow for commenting, but, as I said, it’s structured to have posts + comments, not discussion alone. A web forum is more appropriate for long, deep, infinite discussions, because it refreshes quicker.
–
It’s not a problem if you give external links to other web forums or blogs, here. You can either set up elsewhere your own web forum, and direct your commenters there.
–
Some of the problems you encounter (”deleting cookies”) are a bit puzzling. I don’t understand why you run into those problems. Commenting on a blog is a simple operation.
–
As for the “discussions” page, it lists only the last comment of each thread, and experiences a lag time, I suppose.
–
It could be possible for me to set up a web forum, in addition to this blog, but something I really want to do. Other people elsewhere on the Web do it better than I would do. So let’s direct people to them, when it’s needed.
@Medemi: Did some of your problems had to do with this?
–
If you are referring to me deleting my cookies, I’m not sure about the effects of that. I don’t know.
I will check out the PC-based feed readers later. For now I will stick with my e-mail feeder since that is the only place where the news will actually come to me.
But for that you need to check each time the “receive comments as e-mails” options, in each post. Which compels you to post a little comment each time.
@Medemi: “I will check out the PC-based feed readers later. For now I will stick with my e-mail feeder since that is the only place where the news will actually come to me.”
–
The PC-based feed reader is THE solution to your problem. Please, consider it seriously.
I have now removed the link I had to Betfair on my site, although all my various Betfair articles are staying…with nice big warnings at the top. In the first case, “bonus abuse”, Betfair is almost certainly in breach of Maltese law.
1. How does one abuse a bonus offering by simply using a bot ? I don’t see it, and I’m educated on both – bots and statistics. Betfair are also going to have to show us how it can be done, a simple mention in their T&C will not be sufficient in a court of law IMO.
–
2. Betfair receive some free advertising now. The message they want out, is that they won’t tolerate bonus chasers so they won’t come anymore. The best course of action is to file a formal complaint with the Maltese regulator and hand over all evidence.
–
3. What a mess… and what a waste of time and money for everyone involved, even those who are not involved. Maybe we should have laws against these types of bonus offerings.
I would be intrigued by a poll put on the bf forum where solely bf users (not staff) were allowed to post, asking how many people would actually recommend bf at the mo.
–
An improved bf in my book would make these changes
–
(1) limit on stake sizes/wins per market for new users, building up in size over time (stops insiders coming on and whacking through massive money on a single prediction market)
–
(2) blacklisting of the players which bf themselves said in the sunday times last week that they “monitor much more closely than other competitors”. (once a player is ‘in’, they are ‘in’ for life).
–
(3) more intelligence being used by bf to design ethical bonuses in the first place, rather than putting up a flawed scheme and trying to palp accounts later which broke no part of the original regulation (other than the predictable ‘caveat emptor’ part of them)
–
(4) sacking any staff who spend bf office time attacking people on either the bf or other web fora from behind chatnames they think are anonymous
–
(5) all bets placed after events have finished to be voided (bf are now doing this on some australian events, as it is illegal for them to run markets in the way they do outside of australia)
–
(6) bf market ops to identify which accounts are smashing through large money every point/run etc on events that take place in australia/usa, where people courtside are breaking the law in those countries.
–
(7) money to be put back into each sport that bf profits from to help pay for the costs of integrity/policing, rather than the current status quo on most sports bar racing and greyhounds, where bf make money out of the sport and impose an extra cost onto the sport itself.
–
(8) clear information published as to the volume of bets that are p2p, and the volume that aren’t.
–
(9) best execution on all markets, and a guarantee that they will never turn the trap bet robot back on
–
–
medemi, what do you make of the bf announcement
–
“Finally, please note that Betfair will shortly be making important changes to the way the forum is run. In future, you will only be able to post on the forum if full ‘know your customer’ (KYC) checks for you have been completed. ”
–
surely its crazy that people can register and place large bets immediately without completing the KYC (is the criteria still that you have to complete it once you reach 3% commission?), but there are much stricter requirements in place on people making forum posts? surely they should be worrying about the markets much more than the forum,……
surely its crazy that people can register and place large bets immediately without completing the KYC (is the criteria still that you have to complete it once you reach 3% commission?), but there are much stricter requirements in place on people making forum posts? surely they should be worrying about the markets much more than the forum,……
–
I already said that, somewhere, on here.
We are, in fact, betfair’s best friends. But if they want to make an enemy of us, then so be it.
medemi – i can’t find the piece by a bf customer talking about how he had had an email through saying his bet at 1000 after an event had finished (he was trying to free up funds) had been refunded because it broke australian law.
–
these kind of bets take place many times a day on many bf markets. i really think that some of the business, say when its matchpoint on a final set tie break, a player is trading at say 1.4 to win the match (she has a matchpoint on her opponents serve), and then suddenly everything is hoovered down to 1.01 before bf suspend, well that kind of business should be voided, and happily it looks like it is illegal in australia.
–
it does beg the question tho, what is an australian punter doing betting in running? must have been someone betting on an australian event from outside australia.
–
–
i actually agree with you that we are their “best friends”. they proudly state how they are the only exchange to put up warnings about faster pictures, but they only put that up after my anti-illegal hoovering from the USA campaign in late 2006. i asked them behind the scenes for it, and they only did it when it broke in the NOTW. same with the ban on people betting from the US, again their changes to betfair t&c’s were only made after my campaign.
its really sad the way that if one bf user puts one over another user through unethical means, its “caveat emptor”, but where its bf’s own money at stake, they try to withdraw their poorly designed offer.
–
there is a delicious irony which will happen in the future if bf did decide to actively trade their own markets. bf would then void/shut down all the sharp operators betting with shady advantages. active trading would destroy the p2p exchange, yet ironically, it would also deliver huge improvements in levelling the playing field
Ed, I already mentioned on the betfair forum that any bets struck after the event has finished is illegal in my book. It will be one day too in the UK. Betfair should have the capability to retroactively void bets up until a certain timestamp in the past to be able to deal with this practical problem effectively.
–
As for clearer messages, it was a poster called “frog” and myself who battled fiercely on this front, and the GC seem to have taken on some of those concerns now . I don’t know about your campaign. If anything, I would say they listen to frog sometimes as he still seems to have some credit with them.
That is not to say I don’t think you have any influence, but quite frankly I don’t care who does as long as betfair get the job done which they are supposed to do.
My goal was to get into their heads in the boardroom, and change their thinking from “what is currently legal/illegal”, towards “what is right/wrong”. When I was told they had changed their decisions a few months earlier on reality tv markets – which mark davies had trumpeted at full volume on the front pages of the national press – back towards a free for all, because “there is no law being broken by phone vote insiders”, it was obvious that they should have stuck with their earlier decision instead of reversing it. My campaign led them to do another U-turn, and the policy of shutting events at the time the events finish, is still in place now two years later (and counting). The other change I campaigned for on game by game/frame by frame markets, of the same delays on game/frame markets as match odds markets, is also still in place
–
I think they thought they were insular from the press/media, but the reality is they failed to recognise that they have a responsibility, as a gambling operator, to keep their own house in order. If they refuse to talk or communicate, there are very few options left.
–
The regulation will change, but a lot of progress has been made. It is really ironic they now trumpet the warnings which I said they should put on the markets, as evidence that they are responsible operators :-). How times change . Those warnings would not have been put on without me, and they know that :-).
I think they thought they were insular from the press/media, but the reality is they failed to recognise that they have a responsibility.
–
Very true.
–
Yes, some progress has been made. But that isn’t hard when you think about how things were 3 or 4 years ago. I thought I was sent back in time a couple of hundred years when I first joined the forum and witnessed this wild-west spirit.
I think betfair got the message so it’s up to them now. I also think they got rid of us by banning us from the forum because they can’t handle so much stick from us. lol
pretty much everyone was disgusted with the betfair trap bet robot, but your criticism of mark davies statement as “lies” in the thread title, probably annoyed him directly (or someone junior trying to curry favour with him).
–
i wish they would release the thread i got a ban for, i said absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever, they just panicked about the argument between troy and his mates, and the legal damage that troy and his friends could do to betfair with their betting in 2004/2005 & 2006 from the new york hilton on the US open. it was completely unfair, and if i had posted under any chatname other than “dj sunset”, nothing i said was wrong, and they wouldn’t have connected the row behind the scenes between me and them (they told me twice the betting from new york was completely illegal, so i complained it was unfair they were letting people bet millions of pounds from new york into the bf markets), with that thread. it was totally spiteful and ridiculous.
i wish chris masse had first hand experience of betting heavily on bf markets. i have no idea how much chris bets on bf (and full apologies if chris is a heavy user), but when there is a series of trap bet robots, hooverers, suspicious price movements on matches, immediate losses taken from bf accounts where there are markets with suspicious price movements, ridiculous forum bans, and in my case leaks of my own account details deliberately down my local pub from a bf employee, and another bf employee being outed as posting maliciously on bettingforum.co.uk , well, its just tiring.
–
there is no anti-betfair agenda, it would be great to see bf doing well, but also having trap bet robots switched off, people stopped from betting from the us/australia illegally, suspicious players not being offered, a ban on leaks down my local pub of my account details, and the sack for abusive bf members of staff behind anonymous chatnames. betfair deserves to go from strength to strength, and all of these things are just unacceptable
this is the thread you got a ban for, and it is odd they never actually took it down
–
Supposedly Ed, Supposedly. And I’ve never been officially banned from the forum.
I also want to reiterate that I wanted to put “lies” in the title between quotation marks, but quotation marks are not allowed in the title for some technical reason. Thinking about it made me forget to put a question mark at the end.
But that’s ok, I got to meet you and Adonis again, and all this great stuff here on Midas Oracle.
99% of Midas Oracle is great. The other 1% are the 2003/2004 style pro-BF threads. A lot of us used to put up threads saying BF are great etcetera, but there is nobody left on the BF forum saying that anymore, except for user “artie”. It would be lovely if the reality matched the 2003/2004 pro-Bf threads from the Bf forum, or the 2008 MO threads. Maybe having four locals all coming up to me with a description of what a BF staff member has been saying to them about my account profitability/margin/turnover, and giving one of them advice to stop putting bets on for me, would be something which would alarm most people just how indiscrete BF are. I find it unbelievable to have random locals who have never placed a bet on BF, giving me the full thoughts of BF’s legal team, and the one who helps me get bets on being advised by that BF employee not to let me. Its like someone talking about my bank accounts, its completely outrageous. He keeps doing it, and I have not had a single reply to at least 5 emails over an 18 month period, nor an apology. It is surely completely illegal. Perhaps if that happened to other Midas Oracle users, their view of the current BF team would become somewhat dimmer.
You have your personal experiences Ed, I don’t know how to comment on that.
What’s most worrying from my point of view, is betfair’s attempt to silence me and others.
I wish I didn’t have to come to that conclusion, but from what I have expereinced over recent months (and that includes the complaints Chris has received about me) I simply cannot make another deduction.
The regulators aren’t skilled enough to apply regulation in a proactive manner. There is more money and less hassle, if there is no regulation. It has to be as easy as possible for everyone to bet, and as difficult as possible for anyone to flag up ethics. That’s why you are a danger, I am another danger, and there is a rush to silence anyone constructive. Its an arrangement which works well for the incumbent team, and anyone threatening the smooth course of a comfortable arrangement, is disposable.
Ed, I’m very well aware why I could be a danger to them and in what way exactly. I can put myself in their position. Also, I don’t feel like talking about it on a forum.
But by chasing me after they got rid of me on the betfair forum was a huge mistake. And I feel I should remind them of that, as I do whenever I feel they are making a mistake.
You’re not a danger to BF – the only things you or any of us have called for is protecting fairness, upholding the law, giving value for money to punters, and minimising the amount of skulduggery. Actually the more I think about, the more their identification of “Team BetFair” and “Everyone Else”, where Everyone Else are supposedly highly dangerous and must be silenced at any cost, the more silly it is.
I have just realised that I think I’m in the position where I don’t think much of the anti-prediction market Paul Wolfowitz lobbying group to the CFTC, and I am also very uncertain about the pro-prediction market lobby to the CFTC. Making it easier for people to wager against one another has advantages, but also has severe problems. Prediction markets with effective regulation are the answer, and at the moment we have one out of two.
Betfair’s real enemies are not discussing opinions openly. They are going behind their backs, and will try and make profits on their exchange any way they can. They don’t engage in constructive debate. This is who betfair considers to be their “friends”. That’s just the world we live in I suppose – see no evil, hear no evil.
–
So here we are. I don’t remember being critical of betfair in my first year, I was in my second, and I certainly stepped up the pace in my third. That’s because I care about the things you mentioned, and betfair are putting one mistake on top of another. And it does seem they are getting personal about this, which doesn’t reflect well on a companies’ policy.
I wrote article after article supporting Betfair, advocating Betfair, and was massively pro-Betfair for years, in exactly the same way that Midas Oracle is pro-Betfair now.
–
I still actually am pro-Betfair, though by that I mean that a profitable Betfair, with internally regulated markets & full effort put in to giving people the chance to bet fairly, is something I support. I don’t support malicious internet posts from BF staff or malicious gossiping in local pubs. That is just ridiculous. BF are in the position where if anyone complains, they can threaten people with account closure, whether or not BF have indeed leaked account information and broken the Data Protection Act deliberately, time and again.
They can close the whole thing down in the UK as far as I’m concerned, meaning betting exchanges and bookmakers as well. What’s going on in the US with the CFTC is a lot more interesting, actually.
I also believe regulation from the start is crucial, or else we’ll end up with the same kind of uncontrollable mess we have in the UK today. The gambling markets will survive, for now, but for the socially valuable markets for which there is less demand, it would already have been the end. Let’s hope betfair doesn’t get involved. 🙂
They can close the whole thing down in the UK as far as I’m concerned, meaning betting exchanges and bookmakers as well. What’s going on in the US with the CFTC is a lot more interesting, actually.
–
lol . i think society would be better off if gambling was banned, but given that its here to stay, i think betfair fully deserves support as part of that landscape and has much to offer. what i would change is the regulation of betfair, as i don’t think there is enough thought and altruistic goodwill from within the current bf team to move towards betting taking place fairly. its so obvious they should make it difficult for insiders and cheats, yet with racing BF policy has been to leave suspicious accounts open for years, so that those accounts can be ‘monitored’. when the BHA have only just started proceedings about a race from 2004 (yes, 2004) , what happened to all the people trying to bet fairly in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008?
–
there is a real danger with the “socially valuable” prediction markets, that without effective regulation, they will perform socially damaging functions, such as encouraging assassinations or terrorist incidents. its no good having 99.9% socially valuable functions from an expansion of prediction markets, and one extra assassination on top.
–
betfair with regulation should be fully supported if the us market was deregulated and opened up. in its current form, the cost-benefit analysis to society of doing so would look decidedly in the balance.
You can laugh Ed, but I’ve gone from a huge supporter (I was actually actively looking for something like betfair 3 years ago because it had to be there, that’s how I found them) to someone who prefers to behave like a mug and look for a bookmaker now. And I hate bookmakers. All in the course of let’s say 2 years.
Manipulating transactions – effecting, or participating
in effecting, transactions or orders to trade which give or
are likely to give a false or misleading impression as to
the supply, demand, price or value of a qualifying
investment or related investment, or which secure the
price of such an investment at an abnormal or artificial
level.
–
LOLOL! that is an outstanding spot
–
I don’t blame WBX for boosting their amount traded figures (again, we’re going back to the exchanges not being regulated territory here, with practise that would be illegal in financial markets).
–
The best thing that could happen for punters is a Bet Angel style device, where backs and lays are put into ALL the betting exchanges, and matched at best price. I actually know what BF have said about this idea behind the scenes , but seeing as it would increase value for punters, and massively decrease BF’s market strength, its not hard to work it out.
I think they are operating within the law tho, because they’re not FSA regulated? I don’t think any non-spread bookmaker is FSA related?
–
The figures on that market look incredibly cack-handed and hard to believe. Having WBX trading big volume, whilst other exchanges including Betfair are at the zero mark, is amusing .
I don’t think they’re operating within the law. The Gambling Commission have some general principles (not to be underestimated!) attached to licences they hand out. You’ll find them if you dig deep enough. Not my specialty though.
I don’t think they are breaking the law (i’m no legal expert), even if they are going against the spirit of how the markets should be run. An example like this though should make it clear to fans of prediction markets on Midas Oracle who are making submissions to the CFTC, that non-financial markets need just as much (if not more) protection than financial ones, and there are clear examples of how the current prediction exchanges outside of the US are behaving in a way that would be totally unethical, and illegal, in a financial market. Its not acceptable.
“i think society would be better off if gambling was banned, but given that its here to stay, i think betfair fully deserves support as part of that landscape and has much to offer. ”
I disagree:
I have read the betfair forum.
I read, therein, that a substantial number of betfair Customers postings were VERY unhappy when it was revealed, retrospectively, that betfair had instigated a no-risk method of matching bets which also resulted in a portion of Client funds ostensibly being abstracted (at no risk) by the exchange.
It seems that the only way that such a process can be done, at no risk to the exchange, is via “freezing” the matching queue ( thus effectively freezing every Customer’s ability to do anything to protect themselves- if they had a way to do that, even!).
I also read betfair’s announcement that it deemed itself ENTITLED to abstract funds in the way it did, BECAUSE IT HELD A BOOKMAKER’S LICENCE.
IMHO, it pays to err on the side of experience and safety.
So when my doorbell rings and the caller says ” I’m just doing a survey”, my usual response is “yes, and I’m Santa Claus…… so what are you trying to sell to me????”
Lots of people are falling all over themselves telling us that the Emperor’s Suit of Clothes is fabulous…. there’s a couple of guys out there called Ed, Medemi, Adonis (and some we shouldn’t mention because the Imperial Guard isn’t onto them yet!) who’re simply saying “DO TAKE A LOOK before you jump to the conclusions expected of you!!!!!”
Well, why should I care how large the time window on such a freeze is ?
If I want to cancel an order, as a non-UK customer, I’ll have to wait another (extra) 120ms for my transaction to be processed. So who cares if betfair freezes my order for another 240ms or so, so they can increase the likelihood of matching it with someone else and keep a variable percentage for themselves. It’s all possible in the UK and I don’t see how anyone could object to that.
Also, I’m pretty sure the Gambling Commission can tell us exactly what the maximum allowed time window is.
I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for an answer from the GC, Medemi……..
If you aren’t fortunate enough to be able to afford an API interface, then WHEREVER you live, there will be the possibility that a “bot” can cash in on you, in the event that your exchange doesn’t get their first.
It’s called a level playing field….. For my next joke….
So you’re saying that anyone betting from outside the UK, and who uses the standard interface, is actually a mug because he’s (on top of that) subjected to betfair’s cross matching algorithm.
–
What’s more important, is to get the numbers out in the open so consumers can make an informed decision where they want to spend their money. We have the 120ms figure for non-UK customers (although I’m not entirely sure they apply to cancelling orders as well), now all we need is the advantage of the API translated into ms, and the time window on betfair’s freeze.
The 120ms delay applies to ALL bet manipulation calls including cancelling, web or API. I think its actually 60/60, 60ms for your bet to Malta and another 60ms for Malta to place/cancel their bet on your behalf. International users don`t bet on the exchange.
Not sure I follow that one Medemi “freeze window”?. If you mean if an API and Web bet were placed simultaneously with the same odds and bet type, would either have an advantage? I doubt that there would be anything noticeable on the exchange side except maybe an irrelevant difference casued by translating those two different types of calls.
I`m speculating here as we dont have the infrastructure plans, but if you placed two bets together, one at 5.0 and one at 6.0, if the 5.0 odds already had 50 other bets in that que waiting to be processed and the 6.0 only has your bet then the 6.0 bet could be placed quicker. This is all presuming Betfair has implemented some parallel processing of bets.
There are a number of ways to look at it, but I was looking at it this way.
Whenever betfair want to match my bet they’d have to look for an opposing bet to set off their risk. With cross-matching they’d have to look at a number of alternatives (and do many calculations), during which I will be unable to cancel (for practical reasons) even when they receive an order from me to cancel. Normally you’d expect them to finish all calculations and release my bet (which they had to lock earlier on) at least every 1/100 of a second. I see an opportunity for betfair to profit from having my bet locked for a little bit longer, let’s say 100ms, as to – in their own words perhaps- “provide a service and increase my chances of having my bet matched, which is what customers want”.
Hope that makes sense, and even if it doesn’t, I would still like to know how long they can hold on to my bet. Shouldn’t be longer than 1/100 of a second IMO, once they receive an order to cancel.
1. How does one abuse a bonus offering by simply using a bot ? I don’t see it, and I’m educated on both – bots and statistics. Betfair are also going to have to show us how it can be done, a simple mention in their T&C will not be sufficient in a court of law IMO.
–
The casino would argue that a bot makes it easier for the user to clear the wagering requirements of a bonus. They want real people clicking away on bonuses, not bots. Also, bots are almost certainly used by multi-accounters who simply lack the time or inclination to play multiple accounts manually. As such, bots equate to bad news for casinos more than good news. I have to disagree that outlawing bots would not be sufficient in court. If they say “no bots”, then that’s as clear as it gets. Of course, they’d be more than happy to have bots pissing away customers’ funds WITHOUT a bonus, but let’s leave aside good ole’ casino hypocrisy.
–
The problem is not dissallowing bots. The problem is that:
–
1) The allegation is UNPROVEN.
–
2) Other players have simply been accused of “bonus abuse”. Of course, THAT is rank illegal, to disallow winnings on the basis of vague teminology. I have commented more on this in my blog article on the subject I posted a link to above. Betfair are almost certainly in breach of Maltese, err…”law”.
–
On that matter:
–
2. Betfair receive some free advertising now. The message they want out, is that they won’t tolerate bonus chasers so they won’t come anymore. The best course of action is to file a formal complaint with the Maltese regulator and hand over all evidence.
–
I take it you’re not sooo familiar with the Malta Lotteries And Gaming Authority?
Hope it’s OK to link again, but I’m sure you’ll find things you didn’t know about. If you can’t be bothered to read it all, I’ll sum up for you: the Malta LGA is useless. It flat out ignores players, and continues “licensing” operations that have long ago stopped paying players. In short, it’s a whitewash service for its licensees, and a complete joke as a “regulatory” authority. So forget about ”a formal complaint with the Maltese regulator”, you might as well chuck the evidence in the bin, it couldn’t be less ignored.
you have some good points, which I agree to. But this:
“They want real people clicking away on bonuses, not bots”
I understand that, but betfair generally stimulate the usage of bots on their exchange, and now that someone has just opened up an account, they shouldn’t ? That’s ridiculous. They can’t have it both ways, although that is usually what they get away with.
–
About the LGA, no I don’t have any experience with them. That’s really something you’re saying. Should have a look at that later.
I understand that, but betfair generally stimulate the usage of bots on their exchange, and now that someone has just opened up an account, they shouldn’t ? That’s ridiculous. They can’t have it both ways, although that is usually what they get away with.
–
I agree – and I said as much above. Casinos want slot junkies pissing away their mortgages using bots, that’s why Microgaming has a built-in bot, “autoplay”, designed to do just this. I suppose it’s similar to the Betfair bot you mention. Betfair says as follows:
–
“All wagers must be placed through the user interface provided on the Casino. Any wagering through other means, including the use of a “robot” player, is strictly forbiddenwithout the express consent of Betfair.”
–
I suppose “consent” equates to the built-in bot you mention, ie. you can use their bot but not yours. Thing is, I’m not sufficiently familiar with the Betfair bot. Can you play casino games for bonuses with it? As company’s own bot, is its use consensual by definition?
–
I think, though, that this is too complicated. Bottom line: if you want to play a Betfair bonus, don’t use any kind of bot.
–
The problem is not the bot, it’s that it is unproven. And also of course, like I said, the REAL problem is this:
–
“Betfair Casino reserves the right not to pay this bonus to any customer that wesuspect is abusing the promotion.”
–
Such vague, undefined terminology is 1) obvious bullshit, 2) morally unacceptable anywhere and 3) actually illegal in any credible location with proper consumer protection laws – see my Maltese law links. The thing is, Betfair can do this because they know the LGA will let them.
–
If you want to do something about the Betfair problem, expose the LGA. Tell people about what’s going on in these pseudo -”reputable” Euro zones.
“All wagers must be placed through the user interface provided on the Casino. Any wagering through other means, including the use of a “robot” player, is strictly forbiddenwithout the express consent of Betfair.”
–
I don’t know much about their Casino. If this is related to their casino I suppose there’s not a lot we can do about it. If it’s related to the promotion on the other hand, then it’s bull IMO. Betfair are going to have a real hard time proving how anyone could possibly abuse the exchange by using a bot, when it is clear they stimulate the usuage of bots in general.
–
In general, T&C’ are just that, designed to offer betfair some protection, that doesn’t necessarily mean they will hold up in a court of law. Not even for betfair.
I think the whole thing is incredibly sad for Betfair itself. There shouldn’t be a need to try to target areas/countries where the law is weaker than other jurisdictions, and hope that the hassle of fighting for markets to be run within a legal framework proves an obstacle to all but the most passionate supporters of betting exchanges & prediction markets.
–
It isn’t that hard to design a sensible bonus offer; perhaps there just isn’t an apparent financial motivation to the bf casino staff to put the effort in to design a fair offer. Who cares if you can just claim palpable error anyway?
Yes, the mathematically-challenged can now comment without embarrassment.
–
Thanks for the homepage link, BTW. That and, I presume, the link I posted here has shot my page up to Google page two. How else do you combat the PR bandwagon?
–
Ed said:
–
“I think the whole thing is incredibly sad for Betfair itself. There shouldn’t be a need to try to target areas/countries where the law is weaker than other jurisdictions, and hope that the hassle of fighting for markets to be run within a legal framework proves an obstacle to all but the most passionate supporters of betting exchanges & prediction markets.”
–
It’s not that the law’s weak, it’s that the implementation of it is nonexistent. I think law within the Eurozone is pretty homogenous, both Maltese and Gibraltarian law on “unfair practice” is pretty much word for word the same as the UK. The problem is that “regulation” actually has toss-all to do with the player. It’s good for the operator to be seen to be in on “reputable” territory and it’s good for the territory because they get the fees. The industry PR bandwagon then struts its stuff and tells the world how wonderful it is, and most people take this at face value – see Chris’s initial comments on the LGA:
And why not take it at face value, if you have no reason not to? I used to. But the industry PR bandwagon makes Essop’s fables look like an engineering textbook – there is zero grounding in reality. Just scratch away an itsy bit at the surface and you’ll discover the real truth behind ostensible “regulation”: they don’t actually do anything at all. They take fees and grin at the camera lens, but they do nothing beyond this. The player is sunk without trace if he comes unglued with such an operator, because complaining to their “regulator” is more pointless than shouting inside a spacesuit in a soundproofed room.
–
Think about it a sec: imagine you have a sportsbook which stopped paying players over six months ago, to the extent that a leading sportsbetting site lists it as a “scam” which owes a good ?100,000 and probably more. Add to that that this “scam” resides on European territory. Now imagine that the governmental regulator of this scam sportsbook not only has done nothing about it, but it still lists them on their site as carrying a governmental license? A top-ranked sports site has them down as a scam, but the government licenses them still and takes their money.
–
If you read that in a fairy story, would you not put it down as just a little bit too silly?
–
Reality check: it’s happening right now as we speak. See the side comments about Betchance in my Malta article that Chris linked up.
–
God help the people of the USA if online gambling ever gets “regulated” there. Can you imagine what’ll happen when Washington signs up Brokecasino.com and then the players being denied cashouts have to complain to Congress? I shudder to think. The “regulators” would probably start acknowledging the players’ emails after their great grandchildren are all dead.
–
Laws are all well and good, but they’re more useless than an icecream condom if nobody actually implements the damn things.
–
Ed said:
–
It isn’t that hard to design a sensible bonus offer; perhaps there just isn’t an apparent financial motivation to the bf casino staff to put the effort in to design a fair offer. Who cares if you can just claim palpable error anyway?
–
Pretty much. With casinos, for “palpable error” you can usually read “bonus abuse”. It’s not impossible. There are solid, fair playing and fair paying casinos out there. Trouble is, you can count them on a pair of hands – and the others number in their thousands.
My contention is that if the Regulator allows anyone or any organisation to actually (or effectively) freeze the bet matching queue, then Betting Integrity must, by definition, be seriously compromised.
Because arbitrary or scheduled freezing of the process of negotiating a match ensures that those that are “frozen out” are totally vulnerable to losing (some or all of the money they put up to support their offers) to those able to do the freezing!
Otherwise, why bother freezing at all???.
That one (untested in Court) interpretation of British Law infers that it is “OK” to freeze the process if you hold a Bookmaker’s Permit is, IMHO, immaterial to the fundamental question:
Is there anyone who can use logic to justify the argument that “freezing the clock can’t and doesn’t impact Betting Integrity”? In other words,show that “clock-freezing is harmless“???
NB: I didn’t ask if there’s anyone out there who wants clock-freezing to be allowed (there is at least ONE Company that obviously does!!!)
More worryingly still, there might also be one Regulator who also thinks it’s harmless!!!!!!!!!!
Finally, IMHO, it doesn’t actually matter if the clock is only frozen by only a mere 10 milliseconds, if the “freezer” is able to conduct their deeds within that Time.
And it is not really important if ( due to locational delay differences) the onset Time or length of a freeze period varies between Customers.
The only impactless policy on the subject, IMHO, is simple: NO FREEZING ALLOWED!
No doubt the LGA receive a lot of complaints, most of them unjustified. You should have a look at the betfair casino forum section… Some of these nutters who scream scam here, scam there, probably even write to the LGA. The problem for the LGA is probably to sift through all this rubbish they receive.
–
Also, some of these regulators are very inexperienced. What is on top of their agenda is to control gambling addiction, which they do well IMO (that goes for the Gambling Commission at least).
Our job is to educate them and let them know there are other issues as well which deserve some attention.
How they pick up on that is the real question. They will be judged, eventually.
“I think you’re somewhat overreacting. No doubt the LGA receive a lot of complaints, most of them unjustified. You should have a look at the betfair casino forum section… Some of these nutters who scream scam here, scam there, probably even write to the LGA. The problem for the LGA is probably to sift through all this rubbish they receive.”
–
“No doubt”, “probably” this, “probably” that. The LGA has for afact continued to “license” Betchance while it has been in no-pay mode for fully six months and counting. The LGA has for a fact ignored me for fully four months, and everyone else into the bargain, save for one form email, on complaints totalling I estimate $100,000 USD.
–
On what basis is my factual comment above an “overreaction”, in your opinion? How do you know without doubt “most complaints are unjustified”? How do you know it’s mainly “rubbish”? Read my complaint here:
This is an extraordinary stance. You post misinformed opinion as fact.
–
“Also, some of these regulators are very inexperienced. What is on top of their agenda is to control gambling addiction, which they do well IMO (that goes for the Gambling Commission at least).
Our job is to educate them and let them know there are other issues as well which deserve some attention.
How they pick up on that is the real question. They will be judged, eventually.”
–
How do you know what is top of their agenda? You think the LGA controls gambling addiction, and “well”? Post corroboration of this – I must have missed it, and it’s a pretty powerful assertion to make. Why is it my “job” to educate them? Breaking news: these people are PAID to do a job by the government. It is THEIR job to know how to do their job when they do it.
–
How many surgeons get away with botched operations with “Well, I’m really not very experienced, you know. It’s your job to educate me – it’s not my fault”. That is about the most absurd thing I’ve heard. He’d be up on a malpractice suit in a New York second.
–
Why does a WHOLE new set of criteria apply to the gambling industry that does not apply to every other business? Why do you make such an extraordinary set of assumptions when there is a ton of corroborated evidence staring you in the face which indicates the exact opposite?
you’re actually giving the LGA too much credit – they should know everything and they should respond to everyone. By doing so you end up being disrespectful (justified or unjustified, I don’t care) which is a pitty. It is not about who is right and who is wrong, in the end it is about how effective you are. It always is.
You sound very knowledgable and experienced in this area and it would serve you better to accept that simple fact.
–
As for facts, you’re at the wrong address I’m sorry to say. I don’t believe in facts and if you want to impress someone with facts you should turn to Chris, amongst others. To me, you’re just one guy with an opinion (who deserves some respect) like many others. I also believe there is huge advantage and power (the right kind) in being able to look at things from different perspectives, including (especially) your enemies.
–
If you really believe the LGA are being negligent, who you want to talk to is Adonis IMO (he’s right around the corner). Or better yet, ask him to sink his teeth into the LGA.
BetChance (SBR rating F) player reports that the sportsbook informed him it will finally close
The player states the no-pay sportsbook called to offer him a settlement of 25% of his balance or the possibility of being paid in 20 months. BetChance has been unable to clear delinquent withdrawal requests for almost a year while teasing owed users with email updates about new ownership and small sporadic payments to a fortunate few. Most players do not expect to see any of their funds and now believe the empty promises and positive updates were part of the scam to remain operational in Malta while collecting from new depositors.”
–
Now read it again, because I know you didn’t believe it the first time. Me neither.
–
That was six weeks ago. Six weeks. Oh, and I made a mistake, it’s not six months that they’ve been in no-pay mode. It’s a whole year.
…and click on “Class 2″, then look at entry number five.
–
See anything anything there to change you opinion?
–
For anyone who doesn’t feel like clicking through, I’ll spare you the suspense. Yes, it’s Betchance. Betchance, who list themselves thus:
–
Betting Licence Number: LGA/CL2/189/2004
–
That means “LGA license Class 2, number 189, granted 2004″.
–
No payments for fully one year, still licensed by the LGA. The license is not listed as “cancelled”, not even “suspended” (as it can be)! It’s fully current. C-U-R-R-E-N-T. They haven’t even bothered to suspend Betchance’s license, fully aware that this licensee has barely paid anyone in a year!
–
This is a monumental scandal.
–
Run that bit by me again abour it being our job to educate the gambling regulators who are wilting under the weight of all the scam complaints they receive?
Hey Caruso… If I wasn’t so “sceptical” I would have taken everything for granted that Betfair taught me.
Cheer up man, if you’re going to fight the LGA at least do it with a smile on your face or else you won’t last long. Some of us know about these things.
Yes, however my handle still appears as it was when I wasn’t registered if not logged in, so I can comment both logged in and logged out under the same username (hence non-logged in posts above). Difference is capital “C” when not logged in. I’ll try and remember to log in.
–
Medemi:
–
“It is not about who is right and who is wrong, in the end it is about how effective you are.”
–
That’s an unfortunate perspective. It helps to be right AND effective. I have no desire to take a wrong position.
–
Your comments about not being interested in facts are odd to say the least.
“It is not about who is right and who is wrong, in the end it is about how effective you are.”
That’s an unfortunate perspective. It helps to be right AND effective. I have no desire to take a wrong position.
My point is, you could be 100% right and still lose, suffer from burn-out. Whatever. Not saying you personally, but in general. The opposite is also true, you could be proven wrong in the end, yet contributed massively in search for the truth. Whatever.
–
Your comments about not being interested in facts are odd to say the least.
It’s not that I’m not interested in them, I don’t believe in them. In other words, they appear to me as a point of view (with some added weight).
The other thread for instance, Chris seemed thrilled at the evidence he found about the LGA being a respectable regulator. Now he’s very disappointed after having a look at your facts. That would never happen to me – these swings. Well, never say never, but when it does happen to me I feel like an idiot. That’s why I am who I am.
There is this thought I can’t get rid of lately. It was the mods at WBX telling me that it’s fine to give someone stick, but I should expect the same in return. Well, when I gave the chief moderator some stick, he banned me for life. Hahaha…
I think its quite sad to see the WBX total matched market manipulation. The reason why its sad is that a genuine competitor to BF has the ability to shadow the prices on BF – if a market is trading at evens on BF, there is no reason why an internal seeding robot should not be laying say 1.9 on WBX, in lumpy size, whilst backing 2.1. Its a win-win, getting over the odds on the BF price, and can only be picked off by corrupt accounts, i.e. people who know the actual result of fixed races or matches.
–
Restrict the size that the 1.9 and 2.1 bets are good in, say 5k, and then fritter that money outwards in a rainbow at lower and higher increments, respectively further away from evens than the 1.9 to 2.1 band are.
–
WBX need a trading robot on their own markets. It is fully doable, betdirect have done something like this for years, with a robot plugged in to the bf price shadowing it. With the aim of long run profitability, offering fairly meaty size ten clicks above and below the current o/u 2.5 goals price on bf, really wouldn’t be difficult to program, and there would be a lot of investors ready to fund such a project (i can think of a number i know personally who would be happy getting ten clicks above or below current bf price commission free). Having no liquidity is inexcusable, when WBX are in the position to literally take on BF using the free market prices on the exchange which are available in size.
I’m sure there are scanning robots operating over the different exchanges looking for overbroke opportunities. WBX & Betdaq are both missing out on joining in the party. Tradefair (Betfair in disguise) are actively recruiting heavy Betfair users in Hammersmith trying to court them into seeding Tradefair, but a robot offering real liquidity on WBX and Betdaq, scabbing the BF price to put up real liquidity, would be a massive bonus to both exchanges, and I think would look like a much more attractive and profitable tool for the current people BF are chasing to seed TF.
I have a bot that “rotates” through the markets on betfair. All I needed to do is hook it up with WBX. I was willing to build such an application offering prices just below the real prices with a non-profit intent, just for the fun of it. Maybe even spread it around. I let the WBX management know I was interested in providing some liquidity but they never got back to me. It seems they prefer their fake markets, and when I found out about that I lost complete interest of course. There must be more people like me. It’s better this way, let them go down. I have no intention of using my bot ever again btw.
Sporting Options went bust because they seeded their own markets – and went out of line with the price on Bet”fair”. Using a robot to internally seed with prices on stable markets which don’t go out of line with the prevailing market price is probably critical to WBX and Betdaq’s success. Its absolutely bonkers to swell their own turnover with artificial trading figures, but not try to find a way to get real liquidity into the market. Catering for the non-price sensitive punters is what keeps the wheels oiled on BF and WBX/Betdaq. Having no liquidity when there is a fairly easy way to do it is just potty.
> Please be advised that following an investigation into your activity in the
> Betfair Casino, we have concluded that your bets were carried out with the
> express purpose of abusing the bonus offered.
–
Betfair set the rules. Either they pay out because the conditions were met, or they don’t because the conditions were not met. There is not a whole lot in between betfair. But no… you have to describe a customer’s behaviour as abusive. Typical.
–
> This is in accordance to the bonus terms and conditions which stats that
> “Betfair also reserves the right not to pay any bonus to customers that it
> suspects to be abusing this promotion.”
–
We’ve seen it all before really, it’s called “caveat emptor”.
–
This is just sick. I thought betfair is a reputable company.
Some of the People can be fooled, some of the Time.
But no-one can fool all of the People, all of the Time……
But a fool can fool himself, all of the Time…….
Observation:
In the good old days (pre-legal betting in England) of bookie’s “runners”, a bookie who welched (didn’t pay out) was liable to face the immediate, and rough, justice of his Clientele. He would make sure that he had an obvious, tenable reason for welching, before stepping onto the street! He certainly wouldn’t expect to take many more bets until he’d faced up to his actions against a large quorum of his Clientele….
The local Clientele were interested in good-old-fashioned Fair Play, and if the bookie couldn’t satisfy them (a lot of them all at once, not just a separated-out individual) that his reason for withholding was reasonable and realistic, he’d pay the street-Rules “price”.
It often meant a stay in the local Infirmary……
Unfortunately, such “natural justice” is now outlawed, so we are all reverted to an imposed Rule: Caveat Emptor.
Which begs the question: given the option, would any Client elect for a bookie’s Caveat Emptor Rule as a default determinator?????
Well, actually, YES!!!
Virtually all bookies have a “Rule” in their small print which effectively gives them carte blanche to withhold any amount, including Customers’ deposits, at any Time, for any length of Time (forever included!)
They won’t let you bet until you’ve signed up to their small print.
Which begs the question:
Is such a sweeping exclusion of normally acceptable defence processes legally sustainable?
Even if it is legally acceptable, is it socially acceptable?
@Medemi: About Midas Oracle, the comments, Google Reader, etc.
–
Midas Oracle is a blog with comments —not a web forum.
–
If you find that Midas Oracle is not adapted for web commenting, then here’s what you can do. When you post a comment on Midas Oracle, put the URL of the web forum elsewhere where you intend to continue the deep discussion with your online discussants. And at that external web forum, say you come from Midas Oracle.
–
That way you can begin a discussion on Midas Oracle, have a deep discussion about it elsewhere, and maybe come back to Midas Oracle in the end to tell people what the outcome is.
–
Google Reader indeed refreshes once a hour or so the comments of Midas Oracle.
–
I’m sorry you find Midas Oracle slow for commenting, but, as I said, it’s structured to have posts + comments, not discussion alone. A web forum is more appropriate for long, deep, infinite discussions, because it refreshes quicker.
–
It’s not a problem if you give external links to other web forums or blogs, here. You can either set up elsewhere your own web forum, and direct your commenters there.
–
Some of the problems you encounter (”deleting cookies”) are a bit puzzling. I don’t understand why you run into those problems. Commenting on a blog is a simple operation.
–
As for the “discussions” page, it lists only the last comment of each thread, and experiences a lag time, I suppose.
–
It could be possible for me to set up a web forum, in addition to this blog, but something I really want to do. Other people elsewhere on the Web do it better than I would do. So let’s direct people to them, when it’s needed.
@Medemi: Did some of your problems had to do with this?
–
If you are referring to me deleting my cookies, I’m not sure about the effects of that. I don’t know.
I will check out the PC-based feed readers later. For now I will stick with my e-mail feeder since that is the only place where the news will actually come to me.
But for that you need to check each time the “receive comments as e-mails” options, in each post. Which compels you to post a little comment each time.
@Medemi: “I will check out the PC-based feed readers later. For now I will stick with my e-mail feeder since that is the only place where the news will actually come to me.”
–
The PC-based feed reader is THE solution to your problem. Please, consider it seriously.
I have now removed the link I had to Betfair on my site, although all my various Betfair articles are staying…with nice big warnings at the top. In the first case, “bonus abuse”, Betfair is almost certainly in breach of Maltese law.
1. How does one abuse a bonus offering by simply using a bot ? I don’t see it, and I’m educated on both – bots and statistics. Betfair are also going to have to show us how it can be done, a simple mention in their T&C will not be sufficient in a court of law IMO.
–
2. Betfair receive some free advertising now. The message they want out, is that they won’t tolerate bonus chasers so they won’t come anymore. The best course of action is to file a formal complaint with the Maltese regulator and hand over all evidence.
–
3. What a mess… and what a waste of time and money for everyone involved, even those who are not involved. Maybe we should have laws against these types of bonus offerings.
I would be intrigued by a poll put on the bf forum where solely bf users (not staff) were allowed to post, asking how many people would actually recommend bf at the mo.
–
An improved bf in my book would make these changes
–
(1) limit on stake sizes/wins per market for new users, building up in size over time (stops insiders coming on and whacking through massive money on a single prediction market)
–
(2) blacklisting of the players which bf themselves said in the sunday times last week that they “monitor much more closely than other competitors”. (once a player is ‘in’, they are ‘in’ for life).
–
(3) more intelligence being used by bf to design ethical bonuses in the first place, rather than putting up a flawed scheme and trying to palp accounts later which broke no part of the original regulation (other than the predictable ‘caveat emptor’ part of them)
–
(4) sacking any staff who spend bf office time attacking people on either the bf or other web fora from behind chatnames they think are anonymous
–
(5) all bets placed after events have finished to be voided (bf are now doing this on some australian events, as it is illegal for them to run markets in the way they do outside of australia)
–
(6) bf market ops to identify which accounts are smashing through large money every point/run etc on events that take place in australia/usa, where people courtside are breaking the law in those countries.
–
(7) money to be put back into each sport that bf profits from to help pay for the costs of integrity/policing, rather than the current status quo on most sports bar racing and greyhounds, where bf make money out of the sport and impose an extra cost onto the sport itself.
–
(8) clear information published as to the volume of bets that are p2p, and the volume that aren’t.
–
(9) best execution on all markets, and a guarantee that they will never turn the trap bet robot back on
–
–
medemi, what do you make of the bf announcement
–
“Finally, please note that Betfair will shortly be making important changes to the way the forum is run. In future, you will only be able to post on the forum if full ‘know your customer’ (KYC) checks for you have been completed. ”
–
surely its crazy that people can register and place large bets immediately without completing the KYC (is the criteria still that you have to complete it once you reach 3% commission?), but there are much stricter requirements in place on people making forum posts? surely they should be worrying about the markets much more than the forum,……
surely its crazy that people can register and place large bets immediately without completing the KYC (is the criteria still that you have to complete it once you reach 3% commission?), but there are much stricter requirements in place on people making forum posts? surely they should be worrying about the markets much more than the forum,……
–
I already said that, somewhere, on here.
We are, in fact, betfair’s best friends. But if they want to make an enemy of us, then so be it.
medemi – i can’t find the piece by a bf customer talking about how he had had an email through saying his bet at 1000 after an event had finished (he was trying to free up funds) had been refunded because it broke australian law.
–
these kind of bets take place many times a day on many bf markets. i really think that some of the business, say when its matchpoint on a final set tie break, a player is trading at say 1.4 to win the match (she has a matchpoint on her opponents serve), and then suddenly everything is hoovered down to 1.01 before bf suspend, well that kind of business should be voided, and happily it looks like it is illegal in australia.
–
it does beg the question tho, what is an australian punter doing betting in running? must have been someone betting on an australian event from outside australia.
–
–
i actually agree with you that we are their “best friends”. they proudly state how they are the only exchange to put up warnings about faster pictures, but they only put that up after my anti-illegal hoovering from the USA campaign in late 2006. i asked them behind the scenes for it, and they only did it when it broke in the NOTW. same with the ban on people betting from the US, again their changes to betfair t&c’s were only made after my campaign.
its really sad the way that if one bf user puts one over another user through unethical means, its “caveat emptor”, but where its bf’s own money at stake, they try to withdraw their poorly designed offer.
–
there is a delicious irony which will happen in the future if bf did decide to actively trade their own markets. bf would then void/shut down all the sharp operators betting with shady advantages. active trading would destroy the p2p exchange, yet ironically, it would also deliver huge improvements in levelling the playing field
Ed, I already mentioned on the betfair forum that any bets struck after the event has finished is illegal in my book. It will be one day too in the UK. Betfair should have the capability to retroactively void bets up until a certain timestamp in the past to be able to deal with this practical problem effectively.
–
As for clearer messages, it was a poster called “frog” and myself who battled fiercely on this front, and the GC seem to have taken on some of those concerns now . I don’t know about your campaign. If anything, I would say they listen to frog sometimes as he still seems to have some credit with them.
That is not to say I don’t think you have any influence, but quite frankly I don’t care who does as long as betfair get the job done which they are supposed to do.
My goal was to get into their heads in the boardroom, and change their thinking from “what is currently legal/illegal”, towards “what is right/wrong”. When I was told they had changed their decisions a few months earlier on reality tv markets – which mark davies had trumpeted at full volume on the front pages of the national press – back towards a free for all, because “there is no law being broken by phone vote insiders”, it was obvious that they should have stuck with their earlier decision instead of reversing it. My campaign led them to do another U-turn, and the policy of shutting events at the time the events finish, is still in place now two years later (and counting). The other change I campaigned for on game by game/frame by frame markets, of the same delays on game/frame markets as match odds markets, is also still in place
–
I think they thought they were insular from the press/media, but the reality is they failed to recognise that they have a responsibility, as a gambling operator, to keep their own house in order. If they refuse to talk or communicate, there are very few options left.
–
The regulation will change, but a lot of progress has been made. It is really ironic they now trumpet the warnings which I said they should put on the markets, as evidence that they are responsible operators :-). How times change . Those warnings would not have been put on without me, and they know that :-).
I think they thought they were insular from the press/media, but the reality is they failed to recognise that they have a responsibility.
–
Very true.
–
Yes, some progress has been made. But that isn’t hard when you think about how things were 3 or 4 years ago. I thought I was sent back in time a couple of hundred years when I first joined the forum and witnessed this wild-west spirit.
I think betfair got the message so it’s up to them now. I also think they got rid of us by banning us from the forum because they can’t handle so much stick from us. lol
pretty much everyone was disgusted with the betfair trap bet robot, but your criticism of mark davies statement as “lies” in the thread title, probably annoyed him directly (or someone junior trying to curry favour with him).
–
i wish they would release the thread i got a ban for, i said absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever, they just panicked about the argument between troy and his mates, and the legal damage that troy and his friends could do to betfair with their betting in 2004/2005 & 2006 from the new york hilton on the US open. it was completely unfair, and if i had posted under any chatname other than “dj sunset”, nothing i said was wrong, and they wouldn’t have connected the row behind the scenes between me and them (they told me twice the betting from new york was completely illegal, so i complained it was unfair they were letting people bet millions of pounds from new york into the bf markets), with that thread. it was totally spiteful and ridiculous.
i wish chris masse had first hand experience of betting heavily on bf markets. i have no idea how much chris bets on bf (and full apologies if chris is a heavy user), but when there is a series of trap bet robots, hooverers, suspicious price movements on matches, immediate losses taken from bf accounts where there are markets with suspicious price movements, ridiculous forum bans, and in my case leaks of my own account details deliberately down my local pub from a bf employee, and another bf employee being outed as posting maliciously on bettingforum.co.uk , well, its just tiring.
–
there is no anti-betfair agenda, it would be great to see bf doing well, but also having trap bet robots switched off, people stopped from betting from the us/australia illegally, suspicious players not being offered, a ban on leaks down my local pub of my account details, and the sack for abusive bf members of staff behind anonymous chatnames. betfair deserves to go from strength to strength, and all of these things are just unacceptable
this is the thread you got a ban for, and it is odd they never actually took it down
–
Supposedly Ed, Supposedly. And I’ve never been officially banned from the forum.
I also want to reiterate that I wanted to put “lies” in the title between quotation marks, but quotation marks are not allowed in the title for some technical reason. Thinking about it made me forget to put a question mark at the end.
But that’s ok, I got to meet you and Adonis again, and all this great stuff here on Midas Oracle.
99% of Midas Oracle is great. The other 1% are the 2003/2004 style pro-BF threads. A lot of us used to put up threads saying BF are great etcetera, but there is nobody left on the BF forum saying that anymore, except for user “artie”. It would be lovely if the reality matched the 2003/2004 pro-Bf threads from the Bf forum, or the 2008 MO threads. Maybe having four locals all coming up to me with a description of what a BF staff member has been saying to them about my account profitability/margin/turnover, and giving one of them advice to stop putting bets on for me, would be something which would alarm most people just how indiscrete BF are. I find it unbelievable to have random locals who have never placed a bet on BF, giving me the full thoughts of BF’s legal team, and the one who helps me get bets on being advised by that BF employee not to let me. Its like someone talking about my bank accounts, its completely outrageous. He keeps doing it, and I have not had a single reply to at least 5 emails over an 18 month period, nor an apology. It is surely completely illegal. Perhaps if that happened to other Midas Oracle users, their view of the current BF team would become somewhat dimmer.
You have your personal experiences Ed, I don’t know how to comment on that.
What’s most worrying from my point of view, is betfair’s attempt to silence me and others.
I wish I didn’t have to come to that conclusion, but from what I have expereinced over recent months (and that includes the complaints Chris has received about me) I simply cannot make another deduction.
The regulators aren’t skilled enough to apply regulation in a proactive manner. There is more money and less hassle, if there is no regulation. It has to be as easy as possible for everyone to bet, and as difficult as possible for anyone to flag up ethics. That’s why you are a danger, I am another danger, and there is a rush to silence anyone constructive. Its an arrangement which works well for the incumbent team, and anyone threatening the smooth course of a comfortable arrangement, is disposable.
Ed, I’m very well aware why I could be a danger to them and in what way exactly. I can put myself in their position. Also, I don’t feel like talking about it on a forum.
But by chasing me after they got rid of me on the betfair forum was a huge mistake. And I feel I should remind them of that, as I do whenever I feel they are making a mistake.
You’re not a danger to BF – the only things you or any of us have called for is protecting fairness, upholding the law, giving value for money to punters, and minimising the amount of skulduggery. Actually the more I think about, the more their identification of “Team BetFair” and “Everyone Else”, where Everyone Else are supposedly highly dangerous and must be silenced at any cost, the more silly it is.
I have just realised that I think I’m in the position where I don’t think much of the anti-prediction market Paul Wolfowitz lobbying group to the CFTC, and I am also very uncertain about the pro-prediction market lobby to the CFTC. Making it easier for people to wager against one another has advantages, but also has severe problems. Prediction markets with effective regulation are the answer, and at the moment we have one out of two.
Betfair’s real enemies are not discussing opinions openly. They are going behind their backs, and will try and make profits on their exchange any way they can. They don’t engage in constructive debate. This is who betfair considers to be their “friends”. That’s just the world we live in I suppose – see no evil, hear no evil.
–
So here we are. I don’t remember being critical of betfair in my first year, I was in my second, and I certainly stepped up the pace in my third. That’s because I care about the things you mentioned, and betfair are putting one mistake on top of another. And it does seem they are getting personal about this, which doesn’t reflect well on a companies’ policy.
I wrote article after article supporting Betfair, advocating Betfair, and was massively pro-Betfair for years, in exactly the same way that Midas Oracle is pro-Betfair now.
–
I still actually am pro-Betfair, though by that I mean that a profitable Betfair, with internally regulated markets & full effort put in to giving people the chance to bet fairly, is something I support. I don’t support malicious internet posts from BF staff or malicious gossiping in local pubs. That is just ridiculous. BF are in the position where if anyone complains, they can threaten people with account closure, whether or not BF have indeed leaked account information and broken the Data Protection Act deliberately, time and again.
They can close the whole thing down in the UK as far as I’m concerned, meaning betting exchanges and bookmakers as well. What’s going on in the US with the CFTC is a lot more interesting, actually.
I also believe regulation from the start is crucial, or else we’ll end up with the same kind of uncontrollable mess we have in the UK today. The gambling markets will survive, for now, but for the socially valuable markets for which there is less demand, it would already have been the end. Let’s hope betfair doesn’t get involved. 🙂
They can close the whole thing down in the UK as far as I’m concerned, meaning betting exchanges and bookmakers as well. What’s going on in the US with the CFTC is a lot more interesting, actually.
–
lol . i think society would be better off if gambling was banned, but given that its here to stay, i think betfair fully deserves support as part of that landscape and has much to offer. what i would change is the regulation of betfair, as i don’t think there is enough thought and altruistic goodwill from within the current bf team to move towards betting taking place fairly. its so obvious they should make it difficult for insiders and cheats, yet with racing BF policy has been to leave suspicious accounts open for years, so that those accounts can be ‘monitored’. when the BHA have only just started proceedings about a race from 2004 (yes, 2004) , what happened to all the people trying to bet fairly in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008?
–
there is a real danger with the “socially valuable” prediction markets, that without effective regulation, they will perform socially damaging functions, such as encouraging assassinations or terrorist incidents. its no good having 99.9% socially valuable functions from an expansion of prediction markets, and one extra assassination on top.
–
betfair with regulation should be fully supported if the us market was deregulated and opened up. in its current form, the cost-benefit analysis to society of doing so would look decidedly in the balance.
You can laugh Ed, but I’ve gone from a huge supporter (I was actually actively looking for something like betfair 3 years ago because it had to be there, that’s how I found them) to someone who prefers to behave like a mug and look for a bookmaker now. And I hate bookmakers. All in the course of let’s say 2 years.
Manipulating transactions – effecting, or participating
in effecting, transactions or orders to trade which give or
are likely to give a false or misleading impression as to
the supply, demand, price or value of a qualifying
investment or related investment, or which secure the
price of such an investment at an abnormal or artificial
level.
–
LOLOL! that is an outstanding spot
–
I don’t blame WBX for boosting their amount traded figures (again, we’re going back to the exchanges not being regulated territory here, with practise that would be illegal in financial markets).
–
The best thing that could happen for punters is a Bet Angel style device, where backs and lays are put into ALL the betting exchanges, and matched at best price. I actually know what BF have said about this idea behind the scenes , but seeing as it would increase value for punters, and massively decrease BF’s market strength, its not hard to work it out.
I think they are operating within the law tho, because they’re not FSA regulated? I don’t think any non-spread bookmaker is FSA related?
–
The figures on that market look incredibly cack-handed and hard to believe. Having WBX trading big volume, whilst other exchanges including Betfair are at the zero mark, is amusing .
I don’t think they’re operating within the law. The Gambling Commission have some general principles (not to be underestimated!) attached to licences they hand out. You’ll find them if you dig deep enough. Not my specialty though.
I don’t think they are breaking the law (i’m no legal expert), even if they are going against the spirit of how the markets should be run. An example like this though should make it clear to fans of prediction markets on Midas Oracle who are making submissions to the CFTC, that non-financial markets need just as much (if not more) protection than financial ones, and there are clear examples of how the current prediction exchanges outside of the US are behaving in a way that would be totally unethical, and illegal, in a financial market. Its not acceptable.
“i think society would be better off if gambling was banned, but given that its here to stay, i think betfair fully deserves support as part of that landscape and has much to offer. ”
I disagree:
I have read the betfair forum.
I read, therein, that a substantial number of betfair Customers postings were VERY unhappy when it was revealed, retrospectively, that betfair had instigated a no-risk method of matching bets which also resulted in a portion of Client funds ostensibly being abstracted (at no risk) by the exchange.
It seems that the only way that such a process can be done, at no risk to the exchange, is via “freezing” the matching queue ( thus effectively freezing every Customer’s ability to do anything to protect themselves- if they had a way to do that, even!).
I also read betfair’s announcement that it deemed itself ENTITLED to abstract funds in the way it did, BECAUSE IT HELD A BOOKMAKER’S LICENCE.
IMHO, it pays to err on the side of experience and safety.
So when my doorbell rings and the caller says ” I’m just doing a survey”, my usual response is “yes, and I’m Santa Claus…… so what are you trying to sell to me????”
Lots of people are falling all over themselves telling us that the Emperor’s Suit of Clothes is fabulous…. there’s a couple of guys out there called Ed, Medemi, Adonis (and some we shouldn’t mention because the Imperial Guard isn’t onto them yet!) who’re simply saying “DO TAKE A LOOK before you jump to the conclusions expected of you!!!!!”
Well, why should I care how large the time window on such a freeze is ?
If I want to cancel an order, as a non-UK customer, I’ll have to wait another (extra) 120ms for my transaction to be processed. So who cares if betfair freezes my order for another 240ms or so, so they can increase the likelihood of matching it with someone else and keep a variable percentage for themselves. It’s all possible in the UK and I don’t see how anyone could object to that.
Also, I’m pretty sure the Gambling Commission can tell us exactly what the maximum allowed time window is.
I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for an answer from the GC, Medemi……..
If you aren’t fortunate enough to be able to afford an API interface, then WHEREVER you live, there will be the possibility that a “bot” can cash in on you, in the event that your exchange doesn’t get their first.
It’s called a level playing field….. For my next joke….
So you’re saying that anyone betting from outside the UK, and who uses the standard interface, is actually a mug because he’s (on top of that) subjected to betfair’s cross matching algorithm.
–
What’s more important, is to get the numbers out in the open so consumers can make an informed decision where they want to spend their money. We have the 120ms figure for non-UK customers (although I’m not entirely sure they apply to cancelling orders as well), now all we need is the advantage of the API translated into ms, and the time window on betfair’s freeze.
The 120ms delay applies to ALL bet manipulation calls including cancelling, web or API. I think its actually 60/60, 60ms for your bet to Malta and another 60ms for Malta to place/cancel their bet on your behalf. International users don`t bet on the exchange.
Not sure I follow that one Medemi “freeze window”?. If you mean if an API and Web bet were placed simultaneously with the same odds and bet type, would either have an advantage? I doubt that there would be anything noticeable on the exchange side except maybe an irrelevant difference casued by translating those two different types of calls.
I`m speculating here as we dont have the infrastructure plans, but if you placed two bets together, one at 5.0 and one at 6.0, if the 5.0 odds already had 50 other bets in that que waiting to be processed and the 6.0 only has your bet then the 6.0 bet could be placed quicker. This is all presuming Betfair has implemented some parallel processing of bets.
There are a number of ways to look at it, but I was looking at it this way.
Whenever betfair want to match my bet they’d have to look for an opposing bet to set off their risk. With cross-matching they’d have to look at a number of alternatives (and do many calculations), during which I will be unable to cancel (for practical reasons) even when they receive an order from me to cancel. Normally you’d expect them to finish all calculations and release my bet (which they had to lock earlier on) at least every 1/100 of a second. I see an opportunity for betfair to profit from having my bet locked for a little bit longer, let’s say 100ms, as to – in their own words perhaps- “provide a service and increase my chances of having my bet matched, which is what customers want”.
Hope that makes sense, and even if it doesn’t, I would still like to know how long they can hold on to my bet. Shouldn’t be longer than 1/100 of a second IMO, once they receive an order to cancel.
1. How does one abuse a bonus offering by simply using a bot ? I don’t see it, and I’m educated on both – bots and statistics. Betfair are also going to have to show us how it can be done, a simple mention in their T&C will not be sufficient in a court of law IMO.
–
The casino would argue that a bot makes it easier for the user to clear the wagering requirements of a bonus. They want real people clicking away on bonuses, not bots. Also, bots are almost certainly used by multi-accounters who simply lack the time or inclination to play multiple accounts manually. As such, bots equate to bad news for casinos more than good news. I have to disagree that outlawing bots would not be sufficient in court. If they say “no bots”, then that’s as clear as it gets. Of course, they’d be more than happy to have bots pissing away customers’ funds WITHOUT a bonus, but let’s leave aside good ole’ casino hypocrisy.
–
The problem is not dissallowing bots. The problem is that:
–
1) The allegation is UNPROVEN.
–
2) Other players have simply been accused of “bonus abuse”. Of course, THAT is rank illegal, to disallow winnings on the basis of vague teminology. I have commented more on this in my blog article on the subject I posted a link to above. Betfair are almost certainly in breach of Maltese, err…”law”.
–
On that matter:
–
2. Betfair receive some free advertising now. The message they want out, is that they won’t tolerate bonus chasers so they won’t come anymore. The best course of action is to file a formal complaint with the Maltese regulator and hand over all evidence.
–
I take it you’re not sooo familiar with the Malta Lotteries And Gaming Authority?
Hope it’s OK to link again, but I’m sure you’ll find things you didn’t know about. If you can’t be bothered to read it all, I’ll sum up for you: the Malta LGA is useless. It flat out ignores players, and continues “licensing” operations that have long ago stopped paying players. In short, it’s a whitewash service for its licensees, and a complete joke as a “regulatory” authority. So forget about ”a formal complaint with the Maltese regulator”, you might as well chuck the evidence in the bin, it couldn’t be less ignored.
you have some good points, which I agree to. But this:
“They want real people clicking away on bonuses, not bots”
I understand that, but betfair generally stimulate the usage of bots on their exchange, and now that someone has just opened up an account, they shouldn’t ? That’s ridiculous. They can’t have it both ways, although that is usually what they get away with.
–
About the LGA, no I don’t have any experience with them. That’s really something you’re saying. Should have a look at that later.
I understand that, but betfair generally stimulate the usage of bots on their exchange, and now that someone has just opened up an account, they shouldn’t ? That’s ridiculous. They can’t have it both ways, although that is usually what they get away with.
–
I agree – and I said as much above. Casinos want slot junkies pissing away their mortgages using bots, that’s why Microgaming has a built-in bot, “autoplay”, designed to do just this. I suppose it’s similar to the Betfair bot you mention. Betfair says as follows:
–
“All wagers must be placed through the user interface provided on the Casino. Any wagering through other means, including the use of a “robot” player, is strictly forbiddenwithout the express consent of Betfair.”
–
I suppose “consent” equates to the built-in bot you mention, ie. you can use their bot but not yours. Thing is, I’m not sufficiently familiar with the Betfair bot. Can you play casino games for bonuses with it? As company’s own bot, is its use consensual by definition?
–
I think, though, that this is too complicated. Bottom line: if you want to play a Betfair bonus, don’t use any kind of bot.
–
The problem is not the bot, it’s that it is unproven. And also of course, like I said, the REAL problem is this:
–
“Betfair Casino reserves the right not to pay this bonus to any customer that wesuspect is abusing the promotion.”
–
Such vague, undefined terminology is 1) obvious bullshit, 2) morally unacceptable anywhere and 3) actually illegal in any credible location with proper consumer protection laws – see my Maltese law links. The thing is, Betfair can do this because they know the LGA will let them.
–
If you want to do something about the Betfair problem, expose the LGA. Tell people about what’s going on in these pseudo -”reputable” Euro zones.
“All wagers must be placed through the user interface provided on the Casino. Any wagering through other means, including the use of a “robot” player, is strictly forbiddenwithout the express consent of Betfair.”
–
I don’t know much about their Casino. If this is related to their casino I suppose there’s not a lot we can do about it. If it’s related to the promotion on the other hand, then it’s bull IMO. Betfair are going to have a real hard time proving how anyone could possibly abuse the exchange by using a bot, when it is clear they stimulate the usuage of bots in general.
–
In general, T&C’ are just that, designed to offer betfair some protection, that doesn’t necessarily mean they will hold up in a court of law. Not even for betfair.
I think the whole thing is incredibly sad for Betfair itself. There shouldn’t be a need to try to target areas/countries where the law is weaker than other jurisdictions, and hope that the hassle of fighting for markets to be run within a legal framework proves an obstacle to all but the most passionate supporters of betting exchanges & prediction markets.
–
It isn’t that hard to design a sensible bonus offer; perhaps there just isn’t an apparent financial motivation to the bf casino staff to put the effort in to design a fair offer. Who cares if you can just claim palpable error anyway?
Yes, the mathematically-challenged can now comment without embarrassment.
–
Thanks for the homepage link, BTW. That and, I presume, the link I posted here has shot my page up to Google page two. How else do you combat the PR bandwagon?
–
Ed said:
–
“I think the whole thing is incredibly sad for Betfair itself. There shouldn’t be a need to try to target areas/countries where the law is weaker than other jurisdictions, and hope that the hassle of fighting for markets to be run within a legal framework proves an obstacle to all but the most passionate supporters of betting exchanges & prediction markets.”
–
It’s not that the law’s weak, it’s that the implementation of it is nonexistent. I think law within the Eurozone is pretty homogenous, both Maltese and Gibraltarian law on “unfair practice” is pretty much word for word the same as the UK. The problem is that “regulation” actually has toss-all to do with the player. It’s good for the operator to be seen to be in on “reputable” territory and it’s good for the territory because they get the fees. The industry PR bandwagon then struts its stuff and tells the world how wonderful it is, and most people take this at face value – see Chris’s initial comments on the LGA:
And why not take it at face value, if you have no reason not to? I used to. But the industry PR bandwagon makes Essop’s fables look like an engineering textbook – there is zero grounding in reality. Just scratch away an itsy bit at the surface and you’ll discover the real truth behind ostensible “regulation”: they don’t actually do anything at all. They take fees and grin at the camera lens, but they do nothing beyond this. The player is sunk without trace if he comes unglued with such an operator, because complaining to their “regulator” is more pointless than shouting inside a spacesuit in a soundproofed room.
–
Think about it a sec: imagine you have a sportsbook which stopped paying players over six months ago, to the extent that a leading sportsbetting site lists it as a “scam” which owes a good ?100,000 and probably more. Add to that that this “scam” resides on European territory. Now imagine that the governmental regulator of this scam sportsbook not only has done nothing about it, but it still lists them on their site as carrying a governmental license? A top-ranked sports site has them down as a scam, but the government licenses them still and takes their money.
–
If you read that in a fairy story, would you not put it down as just a little bit too silly?
–
Reality check: it’s happening right now as we speak. See the side comments about Betchance in my Malta article that Chris linked up.
–
God help the people of the USA if online gambling ever gets “regulated” there. Can you imagine what’ll happen when Washington signs up Brokecasino.com and then the players being denied cashouts have to complain to Congress? I shudder to think. The “regulators” would probably start acknowledging the players’ emails after their great grandchildren are all dead.
–
Laws are all well and good, but they’re more useless than an icecream condom if nobody actually implements the damn things.
–
Ed said:
–
It isn’t that hard to design a sensible bonus offer; perhaps there just isn’t an apparent financial motivation to the bf casino staff to put the effort in to design a fair offer. Who cares if you can just claim palpable error anyway?
–
Pretty much. With casinos, for “palpable error” you can usually read “bonus abuse”. It’s not impossible. There are solid, fair playing and fair paying casinos out there. Trouble is, you can count them on a pair of hands – and the others number in their thousands.
My contention is that if the Regulator allows anyone or any organisation to actually (or effectively) freeze the bet matching queue, then Betting Integrity must, by definition, be seriously compromised.
Because arbitrary or scheduled freezing of the process of negotiating a match ensures that those that are “frozen out” are totally vulnerable to losing (some or all of the money they put up to support their offers) to those able to do the freezing!
Otherwise, why bother freezing at all???.
That one (untested in Court) interpretation of British Law infers that it is “OK” to freeze the process if you hold a Bookmaker’s Permit is, IMHO, immaterial to the fundamental question:
Is there anyone who can use logic to justify the argument that “freezing the clock can’t and doesn’t impact Betting Integrity”? In other words,show that “clock-freezing is harmless“???
NB: I didn’t ask if there’s anyone out there who wants clock-freezing to be allowed (there is at least ONE Company that obviously does!!!)
More worryingly still, there might also be one Regulator who also thinks it’s harmless!!!!!!!!!!
Finally, IMHO, it doesn’t actually matter if the clock is only frozen by only a mere 10 milliseconds, if the “freezer” is able to conduct their deeds within that Time.
And it is not really important if ( due to locational delay differences) the onset Time or length of a freeze period varies between Customers.
The only impactless policy on the subject, IMHO, is simple: NO FREEZING ALLOWED!
No doubt the LGA receive a lot of complaints, most of them unjustified. You should have a look at the betfair casino forum section… Some of these nutters who scream scam here, scam there, probably even write to the LGA. The problem for the LGA is probably to sift through all this rubbish they receive.
–
Also, some of these regulators are very inexperienced. What is on top of their agenda is to control gambling addiction, which they do well IMO (that goes for the Gambling Commission at least).
Our job is to educate them and let them know there are other issues as well which deserve some attention.
How they pick up on that is the real question. They will be judged, eventually.
“I think you’re somewhat overreacting. No doubt the LGA receive a lot of complaints, most of them unjustified. You should have a look at the betfair casino forum section… Some of these nutters who scream scam here, scam there, probably even write to the LGA. The problem for the LGA is probably to sift through all this rubbish they receive.”
–
“No doubt”, “probably” this, “probably” that. The LGA has for afact continued to “license” Betchance while it has been in no-pay mode for fully six months and counting. The LGA has for a fact ignored me for fully four months, and everyone else into the bargain, save for one form email, on complaints totalling I estimate $100,000 USD.
–
On what basis is my factual comment above an “overreaction”, in your opinion? How do you know without doubt “most complaints are unjustified”? How do you know it’s mainly “rubbish”? Read my complaint here:
This is an extraordinary stance. You post misinformed opinion as fact.
–
“Also, some of these regulators are very inexperienced. What is on top of their agenda is to control gambling addiction, which they do well IMO (that goes for the Gambling Commission at least).
Our job is to educate them and let them know there are other issues as well which deserve some attention.
How they pick up on that is the real question. They will be judged, eventually.”
–
How do you know what is top of their agenda? You think the LGA controls gambling addiction, and “well”? Post corroboration of this – I must have missed it, and it’s a pretty powerful assertion to make. Why is it my “job” to educate them? Breaking news: these people are PAID to do a job by the government. It is THEIR job to know how to do their job when they do it.
–
How many surgeons get away with botched operations with “Well, I’m really not very experienced, you know. It’s your job to educate me – it’s not my fault”. That is about the most absurd thing I’ve heard. He’d be up on a malpractice suit in a New York second.
–
Why does a WHOLE new set of criteria apply to the gambling industry that does not apply to every other business? Why do you make such an extraordinary set of assumptions when there is a ton of corroborated evidence staring you in the face which indicates the exact opposite?
you’re actually giving the LGA too much credit – they should know everything and they should respond to everyone. By doing so you end up being disrespectful (justified or unjustified, I don’t care) which is a pitty. It is not about who is right and who is wrong, in the end it is about how effective you are. It always is.
You sound very knowledgable and experienced in this area and it would serve you better to accept that simple fact.
–
As for facts, you’re at the wrong address I’m sorry to say. I don’t believe in facts and if you want to impress someone with facts you should turn to Chris, amongst others. To me, you’re just one guy with an opinion (who deserves some respect) like many others. I also believe there is huge advantage and power (the right kind) in being able to look at things from different perspectives, including (especially) your enemies.
–
If you really believe the LGA are being negligent, who you want to talk to is Adonis IMO (he’s right around the corner). Or better yet, ask him to sink his teeth into the LGA.
BetChance (SBR rating F) player reports that the sportsbook informed him it will finally close
The player states the no-pay sportsbook called to offer him a settlement of 25% of his balance or the possibility of being paid in 20 months. BetChance has been unable to clear delinquent withdrawal requests for almost a year while teasing owed users with email updates about new ownership and small sporadic payments to a fortunate few. Most players do not expect to see any of their funds and now believe the empty promises and positive updates were part of the scam to remain operational in Malta while collecting from new depositors.”
–
Now read it again, because I know you didn’t believe it the first time. Me neither.
–
That was six weeks ago. Six weeks. Oh, and I made a mistake, it’s not six months that they’ve been in no-pay mode. It’s a whole year.
…and click on “Class 2″, then look at entry number five.
–
See anything anything there to change you opinion?
–
For anyone who doesn’t feel like clicking through, I’ll spare you the suspense. Yes, it’s Betchance. Betchance, who list themselves thus:
–
Betting Licence Number: LGA/CL2/189/2004
–
That means “LGA license Class 2, number 189, granted 2004″.
–
No payments for fully one year, still licensed by the LGA. The license is not listed as “cancelled”, not even “suspended” (as it can be)! It’s fully current. C-U-R-R-E-N-T. They haven’t even bothered to suspend Betchance’s license, fully aware that this licensee has barely paid anyone in a year!
–
This is a monumental scandal.
–
Run that bit by me again abour it being our job to educate the gambling regulators who are wilting under the weight of all the scam complaints they receive?
Hey Caruso… If I wasn’t so “sceptical” I would have taken everything for granted that Betfair taught me.
Cheer up man, if you’re going to fight the LGA at least do it with a smile on your face or else you won’t last long. Some of us know about these things.
Yes, however my handle still appears as it was when I wasn’t registered if not logged in, so I can comment both logged in and logged out under the same username (hence non-logged in posts above). Difference is capital “C” when not logged in. I’ll try and remember to log in.
–
Medemi:
–
“It is not about who is right and who is wrong, in the end it is about how effective you are.”
–
That’s an unfortunate perspective. It helps to be right AND effective. I have no desire to take a wrong position.
–
Your comments about not being interested in facts are odd to say the least.
“It is not about who is right and who is wrong, in the end it is about how effective you are.”
That’s an unfortunate perspective. It helps to be right AND effective. I have no desire to take a wrong position.
My point is, you could be 100% right and still lose, suffer from burn-out. Whatever. Not saying you personally, but in general. The opposite is also true, you could be proven wrong in the end, yet contributed massively in search for the truth. Whatever.
–
Your comments about not being interested in facts are odd to say the least.
It’s not that I’m not interested in them, I don’t believe in them. In other words, they appear to me as a point of view (with some added weight).
The other thread for instance, Chris seemed thrilled at the evidence he found about the LGA being a respectable regulator. Now he’s very disappointed after having a look at your facts. That would never happen to me – these swings. Well, never say never, but when it does happen to me I feel like an idiot. That’s why I am who I am.
There is this thought I can’t get rid of lately. It was the mods at WBX telling me that it’s fine to give someone stick, but I should expect the same in return. Well, when I gave the chief moderator some stick, he banned me for life. Hahaha…
I think its quite sad to see the WBX total matched market manipulation. The reason why its sad is that a genuine competitor to BF has the ability to shadow the prices on BF – if a market is trading at evens on BF, there is no reason why an internal seeding robot should not be laying say 1.9 on WBX, in lumpy size, whilst backing 2.1. Its a win-win, getting over the odds on the BF price, and can only be picked off by corrupt accounts, i.e. people who know the actual result of fixed races or matches.
–
Restrict the size that the 1.9 and 2.1 bets are good in, say 5k, and then fritter that money outwards in a rainbow at lower and higher increments, respectively further away from evens than the 1.9 to 2.1 band are.
–
WBX need a trading robot on their own markets. It is fully doable, betdirect have done something like this for years, with a robot plugged in to the bf price shadowing it. With the aim of long run profitability, offering fairly meaty size ten clicks above and below the current o/u 2.5 goals price on bf, really wouldn’t be difficult to program, and there would be a lot of investors ready to fund such a project (i can think of a number i know personally who would be happy getting ten clicks above or below current bf price commission free). Having no liquidity is inexcusable, when WBX are in the position to literally take on BF using the free market prices on the exchange which are available in size.
I’m sure there are scanning robots operating over the different exchanges looking for overbroke opportunities. WBX & Betdaq are both missing out on joining in the party. Tradefair (Betfair in disguise) are actively recruiting heavy Betfair users in Hammersmith trying to court them into seeding Tradefair, but a robot offering real liquidity on WBX and Betdaq, scabbing the BF price to put up real liquidity, would be a massive bonus to both exchanges, and I think would look like a much more attractive and profitable tool for the current people BF are chasing to seed TF.
I have a bot that “rotates” through the markets on betfair. All I needed to do is hook it up with WBX. I was willing to build such an application offering prices just below the real prices with a non-profit intent, just for the fun of it. Maybe even spread it around. I let the WBX management know I was interested in providing some liquidity but they never got back to me. It seems they prefer their fake markets, and when I found out about that I lost complete interest of course. There must be more people like me. It’s better this way, let them go down. I have no intention of using my bot ever again btw.
Sporting Options went bust because they seeded their own markets – and went out of line with the price on Bet”fair”. Using a robot to internally seed with prices on stable markets which don’t go out of line with the prevailing market price is probably critical to WBX and Betdaq’s success. Its absolutely bonkers to swell their own turnover with artificial trading figures, but not try to find a way to get real liquidity into the market. Catering for the non-price sensitive punters is what keeps the wheels oiled on BF and WBX/Betdaq. Having no liquidity when there is a fairly easy way to do it is just potty.
> Please be advised that following an investigation into your activity in the
> Betfair Casino, we have concluded that your bets were carried out with the
> express purpose of abusing the bonus offered.
–
Betfair set the rules. Either they pay out because the conditions were met, or they don’t because the conditions were not met. There is not a whole lot in between betfair. But no… you have to describe a customer’s behaviour as abusive. Typical.
–
> This is in accordance to the bonus terms and conditions which stats that
> “Betfair also reserves the right not to pay any bonus to customers that it
> suspects to be abusing this promotion.”
–
We’ve seen it all before really, it’s called “caveat emptor”.
–
This is just sick. I thought betfair is a reputable company.
What alleged offense warrants partial confiscation of ones cashout?
Close the account for fraud, or pay the man what he won.
What fraud ???
–
There are waging requirements to release these bonuses.
If the requirements are not “in the spirit of the game” then betfair need to update them.
Either way, pay the man.
–
Don’t get me started on this one….
Some of the People can be fooled, some of the Time.
But no-one can fool all of the People, all of the Time……
But a fool can fool himself, all of the Time…….
Observation:
In the good old days (pre-legal betting in England) of bookie’s “runners”, a bookie who welched (didn’t pay out) was liable to face the immediate, and rough, justice of his Clientele. He would make sure that he had an obvious, tenable reason for welching, before stepping onto the street! He certainly wouldn’t expect to take many more bets until he’d faced up to his actions against a large quorum of his Clientele….
The local Clientele were interested in good-old-fashioned Fair Play, and if the bookie couldn’t satisfy them (a lot of them all at once, not just a separated-out individual) that his reason for withholding was reasonable and realistic, he’d pay the street-Rules “price”.
It often meant a stay in the local Infirmary……
Unfortunately, such “natural justice” is now outlawed, so we are all reverted to an imposed Rule: Caveat Emptor.
Which begs the question: given the option, would any Client elect for a bookie’s Caveat Emptor Rule as a default determinator?????
Well, actually, YES!!!
Virtually all bookies have a “Rule” in their small print which effectively gives them carte blanche to withhold any amount, including Customers’ deposits, at any Time, for any length of Time (forever included!)
They won’t let you bet until you’ve signed up to their small print.
Which begs the question:
Is such a sweeping exclusion of normally acceptable defence processes legally sustainable?
Even if it is legally acceptable, is it socially acceptable?
Adonis,
–
betfair are abusing a rule that was designed to offer them some protection.
And they have the nerve to accuse a customer of abusive behaviour.
We should rip their hearts out.
The only reason to refuse full payout is fraud. Stolen credit card, multiple accounts etc.
Playing to win as much money as possible with the aid of a marketing offer is not fraud, therefore full payout must be warranted.
Why does Sandracer’s post still not show up in Google reader ?
Why does the refresh button seem out of order ?
Why doesn’t Google reader offer anything of use to me ?
Like auto refresh, a treeview of comments in relation to original pages etc.
–
Why does “discussions” only show 1 response to this thread ? We have 6.
Why does “recent comments” show them in the wrong order ?
Why am I continually deleting cookies, hitting refresh buttons, refreshing manually, logging off/on etc. ?
Why am I checking my e-mail for recent comments ? Because it is the only thing that actually works if you disregard the spam.
–
In a world where news travels at light speed, this is simply unacceptable. IMHO.
test (sorry)
Updates are once every hour ?
–
11.27 PM
12.28 AM (2 comments)
01.28 AM (3 comments)
–
I suppose that’s fine for blogs, but not for discussions.
@Medemi: “betfair are abusing a rule”
–
We don’t know that for sure, yet. Wait till you have further facts.
@Sandracer: “Playing to win as much money as possible with the aid of a marketing offer is not fraud”
–
What did BetFair Casino reply to that?
–
Give airtime to them.
@Medemi: About Midas Oracle, the comments, Google Reader, etc.
–
Midas Oracle is a blog with comments —not a web forum.
–
If you find that Midas Oracle is not adapted for web commenting, then here’s what you can do. When you post a comment on Midas Oracle, put the URL of the web forum elsewhere where you intend to continue the deep discussion with your online discussants. And at that external web forum, say you come from Midas Oracle.
–
That way you can begin a discussion on Midas Oracle, have a deep discussion about it elsewhere, and maybe come back to Midas Oracle in the end to tell people what the outcome is.
–
Google Reader indeed refreshes once a hour or so the comments of Midas Oracle.
–
I’m sorry you find Midas Oracle slow for commenting, but, as I said, it’s structured to have posts + comments, not discussion alone. A web forum is more appropriate for long, deep, infinite discussions, because it refreshes quicker.
–
It’s not a problem if you give external links to other web forums or blogs, here. You can either set up elsewhere your own web forum, and direct your commenters there.
–
Some of the problems you encounter (”deleting cookies”) are a bit puzzling. I don’t understand why you run into those problems. Commenting on a blog is a simple operation.
–
As for the “discussions” page, it lists only the last comment of each thread, and experiences a lag time, I suppose.
–
It could be possible for me to set up a web forum, in addition to this blog, but something I really want to do. Other people elsewhere on the Web do it better than I would do. So let’s direct people to them, when it’s needed.
@Medemi: “I suppose that’s fine for blogs, but not for discussions.”
–
Then, switch to a PC-based feed reader.
–
I use SAGE on FireFox.
http://www.midasoracle.org/about/feeds/
–
With a PC-based feed reader, it’s you who decides when to refresh —not the machine.
[…] Google Reader fetches our comment feed once an hour or so. Too long for some. […]
@Medemi: Did some of your problems had to do with this?
http://www.dreamhoststatus.com…..roblems-5/
@Medemi: Did some of your problems had to do with this?
–
If you are referring to me deleting my cookies, I’m not sure about the effects of that. I don’t know.
I will check out the PC-based feed readers later. For now I will stick with my e-mail feeder since that is the only place where the news will actually come to me.
–
Thanks.
@Medemi: OK.
–
But for that you need to check each time the “receive comments as e-mails” options, in each post. Which compels you to post a little comment each time.
–
Anyway, if it works that way…
–
I do use SAGE with FireFox and it’s super.
(My main feed reader is Google Reader.)
@Medemi: “I will check out the PC-based feed readers later. For now I will stick with my e-mail feeder since that is the only place where the news will actually come to me.”
–
The PC-based feed reader is THE solution to your problem. Please, consider it seriously.
Hello,
I was unaware of this site until today.
I have done my own writeup on the Betfair issue – is it OK to link?
http://www.hundredpercentgambl…..cation.htm
I have now removed the link I had to Betfair on my site, although all my various Betfair articles are staying…with nice big warnings at the top. In the first case, “bonus abuse”, Betfair is almost certainly in breach of Maltese law.
[…] hope that his/her grievances will find their […]
A couple of thoughts.
–
1. How does one abuse a bonus offering by simply using a bot ? I don’t see it, and I’m educated on both – bots and statistics. Betfair are also going to have to show us how it can be done, a simple mention in their T&C will not be sufficient in a court of law IMO.
–
2. Betfair receive some free advertising now. The message they want out, is that they won’t tolerate bonus chasers so they won’t come anymore. The best course of action is to file a formal complaint with the Maltese regulator and hand over all evidence.
–
3. What a mess… and what a waste of time and money for everyone involved, even those who are not involved. Maybe we should have laws against these types of bonus offerings.
I would be intrigued by a poll put on the bf forum where solely bf users (not staff) were allowed to post, asking how many people would actually recommend bf at the mo.
–
An improved bf in my book would make these changes
–
(1) limit on stake sizes/wins per market for new users, building up in size over time (stops insiders coming on and whacking through massive money on a single prediction market)
–
(2) blacklisting of the players which bf themselves said in the sunday times last week that they “monitor much more closely than other competitors”. (once a player is ‘in’, they are ‘in’ for life).
–
(3) more intelligence being used by bf to design ethical bonuses in the first place, rather than putting up a flawed scheme and trying to palp accounts later which broke no part of the original regulation (other than the predictable ‘caveat emptor’ part of them)
–
(4) sacking any staff who spend bf office time attacking people on either the bf or other web fora from behind chatnames they think are anonymous
–
(5) all bets placed after events have finished to be voided (bf are now doing this on some australian events, as it is illegal for them to run markets in the way they do outside of australia)
–
(6) bf market ops to identify which accounts are smashing through large money every point/run etc on events that take place in australia/usa, where people courtside are breaking the law in those countries.
–
(7) money to be put back into each sport that bf profits from to help pay for the costs of integrity/policing, rather than the current status quo on most sports bar racing and greyhounds, where bf make money out of the sport and impose an extra cost onto the sport itself.
–
(8) clear information published as to the volume of bets that are p2p, and the volume that aren’t.
–
(9) best execution on all markets, and a guarantee that they will never turn the trap bet robot back on
–
–
medemi, what do you make of the bf announcement
–
“Finally, please note that Betfair will shortly be making important changes to the way the forum is run. In future, you will only be able to post on the forum if full ‘know your customer’ (KYC) checks for you have been completed. ”
–
surely its crazy that people can register and place large bets immediately without completing the KYC (is the criteria still that you have to complete it once you reach 3% commission?), but there are much stricter requirements in place on people making forum posts? surely they should be worrying about the markets much more than the forum,……
surely its crazy that people can register and place large bets immediately without completing the KYC (is the criteria still that you have to complete it once you reach 3% commission?), but there are much stricter requirements in place on people making forum posts? surely they should be worrying about the markets much more than the forum,……
–
I already said that, somewhere, on here.
We are, in fact, betfair’s best friends. But if they want to make an enemy of us, then so be it.
That last line not necessarily in relation to your quote btw.
medemi – i can’t find the piece by a bf customer talking about how he had had an email through saying his bet at 1000 after an event had finished (he was trying to free up funds) had been refunded because it broke australian law.
–
these kind of bets take place many times a day on many bf markets. i really think that some of the business, say when its matchpoint on a final set tie break, a player is trading at say 1.4 to win the match (she has a matchpoint on her opponents serve), and then suddenly everything is hoovered down to 1.01 before bf suspend, well that kind of business should be voided, and happily it looks like it is illegal in australia.
–
it does beg the question tho, what is an australian punter doing betting in running? must have been someone betting on an australian event from outside australia.
–
–
i actually agree with you that we are their “best friends”. they proudly state how they are the only exchange to put up warnings about faster pictures, but they only put that up after my anti-illegal hoovering from the USA campaign in late 2006. i asked them behind the scenes for it, and they only did it when it broke in the NOTW. same with the ban on people betting from the US, again their changes to betfair t&c’s were only made after my campaign.
–
they really should listen.
its really sad the way that if one bf user puts one over another user through unethical means, its “caveat emptor”, but where its bf’s own money at stake, they try to withdraw their poorly designed offer.
–
there is a delicious irony which will happen in the future if bf did decide to actively trade their own markets. bf would then void/shut down all the sharp operators betting with shady advantages. active trading would destroy the p2p exchange, yet ironically, it would also deliver huge improvements in levelling the playing field
Ed, I already mentioned on the betfair forum that any bets struck after the event has finished is illegal in my book. It will be one day too in the UK. Betfair should have the capability to retroactively void bets up until a certain timestamp in the past to be able to deal with this practical problem effectively.
–
As for clearer messages, it was a poster called “frog” and myself who battled fiercely on this front, and the GC seem to have taken on some of those concerns now . I don’t know about your campaign. If anything, I would say they listen to frog sometimes as he still seems to have some credit with them.
That is not to say I don’t think you have any influence, but quite frankly I don’t care who does as long as betfair get the job done which they are supposed to do.
My goal was to get into their heads in the boardroom, and change their thinking from “what is currently legal/illegal”, towards “what is right/wrong”. When I was told they had changed their decisions a few months earlier on reality tv markets – which mark davies had trumpeted at full volume on the front pages of the national press – back towards a free for all, because “there is no law being broken by phone vote insiders”, it was obvious that they should have stuck with their earlier decision instead of reversing it. My campaign led them to do another U-turn, and the policy of shutting events at the time the events finish, is still in place now two years later (and counting). The other change I campaigned for on game by game/frame by frame markets, of the same delays on game/frame markets as match odds markets, is also still in place
–
I think they thought they were insular from the press/media, but the reality is they failed to recognise that they have a responsibility, as a gambling operator, to keep their own house in order. If they refuse to talk or communicate, there are very few options left.
–
The regulation will change, but a lot of progress has been made. It is really ironic they now trumpet the warnings which I said they should put on the markets, as evidence that they are responsible operators :-). How times change
. Those warnings would not have been put on without me, and they know that :-).
I think they thought they were insular from the press/media, but the reality is they failed to recognise that they have a responsibility.
–
Very true.
–
Yes, some progress has been made. But that isn’t hard when you think about how things were 3 or 4 years ago. I thought I was sent back in time a couple of hundred years when I first joined the forum and witnessed this wild-west spirit.
I think betfair got the message so it’s up to them now. I also think they got rid of us by banning us from the forum because they can’t handle so much stick from us.
lol
this is the thread you got a ban for, and it is odd they never actually took it down
http://site.forum.betfair.com/…..ID=1437159
–
pretty much everyone was disgusted with the betfair trap bet robot, but your criticism of mark davies statement as “lies” in the thread title, probably annoyed him directly (or someone junior trying to curry favour with him).
–
i wish they would release the thread i got a ban for, i said absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever, they just panicked about the argument between troy and his mates, and the legal damage that troy and his friends could do to betfair with their betting in 2004/2005 & 2006 from the new york hilton on the US open. it was completely unfair, and if i had posted under any chatname other than “dj sunset”, nothing i said was wrong, and they wouldn’t have connected the row behind the scenes between me and them (they told me twice the betting from new york was completely illegal, so i complained it was unfair they were letting people bet millions of pounds from new york into the bf markets), with that thread. it was totally spiteful and ridiculous.
i wish chris masse had first hand experience of betting heavily on bf markets. i have no idea how much chris bets on bf (and full apologies if chris is a heavy user), but when there is a series of trap bet robots, hooverers, suspicious price movements on matches, immediate losses taken from bf accounts where there are markets with suspicious price movements, ridiculous forum bans, and in my case leaks of my own account details deliberately down my local pub from a bf employee, and another bf employee being outed as posting maliciously on bettingforum.co.uk , well, its just tiring.
–
there is no anti-betfair agenda, it would be great to see bf doing well, but also having trap bet robots switched off, people stopped from betting from the us/australia illegally, suspicious players not being offered, a ban on leaks down my local pub of my account details, and the sack for abusive bf members of staff behind anonymous chatnames. betfair deserves to go from strength to strength, and all of these things are just unacceptable
this is the thread you got a ban for, and it is odd they never actually took it down
–
Supposedly Ed, Supposedly. And I’ve never been officially banned from the forum.
I also want to reiterate that I wanted to put “lies” in the title between quotation marks, but quotation marks are not allowed in the title for some technical reason. Thinking about it made me forget to put a question mark at the end.
But that’s ok, I got to meet you and Adonis again, and all this great stuff here on Midas Oracle.
99% of Midas Oracle is great. The other 1% are the 2003/2004 style pro-BF threads. A lot of us used to put up threads saying BF are great etcetera, but there is nobody left on the BF forum saying that anymore, except for user “artie”. It would be lovely if the reality matched the 2003/2004 pro-Bf threads from the Bf forum, or the 2008 MO threads. Maybe having four locals all coming up to me with a description of what a BF staff member has been saying to them about my account profitability/margin/turnover, and giving one of them advice to stop putting bets on for me, would be something which would alarm most people just how indiscrete BF are. I find it unbelievable to have random locals who have never placed a bet on BF, giving me the full thoughts of BF’s legal team, and the one who helps me get bets on being advised by that BF employee not to let me. Its like someone talking about my bank accounts, its completely outrageous. He keeps doing it, and I have not had a single reply to at least 5 emails over an 18 month period, nor an apology. It is surely completely illegal. Perhaps if that happened to other Midas Oracle users, their view of the current BF team would become somewhat dimmer.
You have your personal experiences Ed, I don’t know how to comment on that.
What’s most worrying from my point of view, is betfair’s attempt to silence me and others.
I wish I didn’t have to come to that conclusion, but from what I have expereinced over recent months (and that includes the complaints Chris has received about me) I simply cannot make another deduction.
And that puts betfair in a very bad light.
The regulators aren’t skilled enough to apply regulation in a proactive manner. There is more money and less hassle, if there is no regulation. It has to be as easy as possible for everyone to bet, and as difficult as possible for anyone to flag up ethics. That’s why you are a danger, I am another danger, and there is a rush to silence anyone constructive. Its an arrangement which works well for the incumbent team, and anyone threatening the smooth course of a comfortable arrangement, is disposable.
Ed, I’m very well aware why I could be a danger to them and in what way exactly. I can put myself in their position. Also, I don’t feel like talking about it on a forum.
But by chasing me after they got rid of me on the betfair forum was a huge mistake. And I feel I should remind them of that, as I do whenever I feel they are making a mistake.
You’re not a danger to BF – the only things you or any of us have called for is protecting fairness, upholding the law, giving value for money to punters, and minimising the amount of skulduggery. Actually the more I think about, the more their identification of “Team BetFair” and “Everyone Else”, where Everyone Else are supposedly highly dangerous and must be silenced at any cost, the more silly it is.
I have just realised that I think I’m in the position where I don’t think much of the anti-prediction market Paul Wolfowitz lobbying group to the CFTC, and I am also very uncertain about the pro-prediction market lobby to the CFTC. Making it easier for people to wager against one another has advantages, but also has severe problems. Prediction markets with effective regulation are the answer, and at the moment we have one out of two.
Betfair’s real enemies are not discussing opinions openly. They are going behind their backs, and will try and make profits on their exchange any way they can. They don’t engage in constructive debate. This is who betfair considers to be their “friends”. That’s just the world we live in I suppose – see no evil, hear no evil.
–
So here we are. I don’t remember being critical of betfair in my first year, I was in my second, and I certainly stepped up the pace in my third. That’s because I care about the things you mentioned, and betfair are putting one mistake on top of another. And it does seem they are getting personal about this, which doesn’t reflect well on a companies’ policy.
I wrote article after article supporting Betfair, advocating Betfair, and was massively pro-Betfair for years, in exactly the same way that Midas Oracle is pro-Betfair now.
–
I still actually am pro-Betfair, though by that I mean that a profitable Betfair, with internally regulated markets & full effort put in to giving people the chance to bet fairly, is something I support. I don’t support malicious internet posts from BF staff or malicious gossiping in local pubs. That is just ridiculous. BF are in the position where if anyone complains, they can threaten people with account closure, whether or not BF have indeed leaked account information and broken the Data Protection Act deliberately, time and again.
They can close the whole thing down in the UK as far as I’m concerned, meaning betting exchanges and bookmakers as well. What’s going on in the US with the CFTC is a lot more interesting, actually.
I also believe regulation from the start is crucial, or else we’ll end up with the same kind of uncontrollable mess we have in the UK today. The gambling markets will survive, for now, but for the socially valuable markets for which there is less demand, it would already have been the end. Let’s hope betfair doesn’t get involved. 🙂
They can close the whole thing down in the UK as far as I’m concerned, meaning betting exchanges and bookmakers as well. What’s going on in the US with the CFTC is a lot more interesting, actually.
–
lol
. i think society would be better off if gambling was banned, but given that its here to stay, i think betfair fully deserves support as part of that landscape and has much to offer. what i would change is the regulation of betfair, as i don’t think there is enough thought and altruistic goodwill from within the current bf team to move towards betting taking place fairly. its so obvious they should make it difficult for insiders and cheats, yet with racing BF policy has been to leave suspicious accounts open for years, so that those accounts can be ‘monitored’. when the BHA have only just started proceedings about a race from 2004 (yes, 2004) , what happened to all the people trying to bet fairly in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008? 
–
there is a real danger with the “socially valuable” prediction markets, that without effective regulation, they will perform socially damaging functions, such as encouraging assassinations or terrorist incidents. its no good having 99.9% socially valuable functions from an expansion of prediction markets, and one extra assassination on top.
–
betfair with regulation should be fully supported if the us market was deregulated and opened up. in its current form, the cost-benefit analysis to society of doing so would look decidedly in the balance.
You can laugh Ed, but I’ve gone from a huge supporter (I was actually actively looking for something like betfair 3 years ago because it had to be there, that’s how I found them) to someone who prefers to behave like a mug and look for a bookmaker now. And I hate bookmakers. All in the course of let’s say 2 years.
Ed, did you happen to read the alledged market manipulation that is going on at WBX ? By the operator itself ?
Another one of your famous betting exchanges.
–
http://forum.wbx.com/viewtopic.php?t=32070
–
It’s amazing that we even had a debate about that.
(It’s also the thread that resulted in my ban there, for whatever reasons but you shouldn’t pay too much attention to that aspect
Manipulating transactions – effecting, or participating
in effecting, transactions or orders to trade which give or
are likely to give a false or misleading impression as to
the supply, demand, price or value of a qualifying
investment or related investment, or which secure the
price of such an investment at an abnormal or artificial
level.
–
LOLOL! that is an outstanding spot
–
I don’t blame WBX for boosting their amount traded figures (again, we’re going back to the exchanges not being regulated territory here, with practise that would be illegal in financial markets).
–
The best thing that could happen for punters is a Bet Angel style device, where backs and lays are put into ALL the betting exchanges, and matched at best price. I actually know what BF have said about this idea behind the scenes
, but seeing as it would increase value for punters, and massively decrease BF’s market strength, its not hard to work it out.
Is that why they haven’t removed the thread, because they think they’re operating within the law ?
They could be in for a surprise…
–
And it’s not just boosting the amount traded figures. Every single transaction on that market, in my view, was fake.
I think they are operating within the law tho, because they’re not FSA regulated? I don’t think any non-spread bookmaker is FSA related?
–
The figures on that market look incredibly cack-handed and hard to believe. Having WBX trading big volume, whilst other exchanges including Betfair are at the zero mark, is amusing
.
I don’t think they’re operating within the law. The Gambling Commission have some general principles (not to be underestimated!) attached to licences they hand out. You’ll find them if you dig deep enough. Not my specialty though.
I don’t think they are breaking the law (i’m no legal expert), even if they are going against the spirit of how the markets should be run. An example like this though should make it clear to fans of prediction markets on Midas Oracle who are making submissions to the CFTC, that non-financial markets need just as much (if not more) protection than financial ones, and there are clear examples of how the current prediction exchanges outside of the US are behaving in a way that would be totally unethical, and illegal, in a financial market. Its not acceptable.
non-financial markets need just as much (if not more) protection than financial ones
–
Excellent. And yes, definitely more !
Exactly why will be food for thought.
Enjoy the rest of your week-end, and thanks for this conversation Ed.
@Ed…
“i think society would be better off if gambling was banned, but given that its here to stay, i think betfair fully deserves support as part of that landscape and has much to offer. ”
I disagree:
I have read the betfair forum.
I read, therein, that a substantial number of betfair Customers postings were VERY unhappy when it was revealed, retrospectively, that betfair had instigated a no-risk method of matching bets which also resulted in a portion of Client funds ostensibly being abstracted (at no risk) by the exchange.
It seems that the only way that such a process can be done, at no risk to the exchange, is via “freezing” the matching queue ( thus effectively freezing every Customer’s ability to do anything to protect themselves- if they had a way to do that, even!).
I also read betfair’s announcement that it deemed itself ENTITLED to abstract funds in the way it did, BECAUSE IT HELD A BOOKMAKER’S LICENCE.
IMHO, it pays to err on the side of experience and safety.
So when my doorbell rings and the caller says ” I’m just doing a survey”, my usual response is “yes, and I’m Santa Claus…… so what are you trying to sell to me????”
Lots of people are falling all over themselves telling us that the Emperor’s Suit of Clothes is fabulous…. there’s a couple of guys out there called Ed, Medemi, Adonis (and some we shouldn’t mention because the Imperial Guard isn’t onto them yet!) who’re simply saying “DO TAKE A LOOK before you jump to the conclusions expected of you!!!!!”
Warm regards,
Adonis
Well, why should I care how large the time window on such a freeze is ?
If I want to cancel an order, as a non-UK customer, I’ll have to wait another (extra) 120ms for my transaction to be processed. So who cares if betfair freezes my order for another 240ms or so, so they can increase the likelihood of matching it with someone else and keep a variable percentage for themselves. It’s all possible in the UK and I don’t see how anyone could object to that.
Also, I’m pretty sure the Gambling Commission can tell us exactly what the maximum allowed time window is.
I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for an answer from the GC, Medemi……..
If you aren’t fortunate enough to be able to afford an API interface, then WHEREVER you live, there will be the possibility that a “bot” can cash in on you, in the event that your exchange doesn’t get their first.
It’s called a level playing field….. For my next joke….
Adonis
So you’re saying that anyone betting from outside the UK, and who uses the standard interface, is actually a mug because he’s (on top of that) subjected to betfair’s cross matching algorithm.
–
What’s more important, is to get the numbers out in the open so consumers can make an informed decision where they want to spend their money. We have the 120ms figure for non-UK customers (although I’m not entirely sure they apply to cancelling orders as well), now all we need is the advantage of the API translated into ms, and the time window on betfair’s freeze.
–
Erm… anyone know ?
The 120ms delay applies to ALL bet manipulation calls including cancelling, web or API. I think its actually 60/60, 60ms for your bet to Malta and another 60ms for Malta to place/cancel their bet on your behalf. International users don`t bet on the exchange.
Great, so we can pin down the 120ms for non-UK customers.
Leaves us with the API advantage relative to the standard interface, and the freeze window.
–
Just to sum things up. 🙂
non-financial markets need just as much (if not more) protection than financial ones
Excellent. And yes, definitely more !
Exactly why will be food for thought.
–
And here is the (partial) answer.
“Insider trading is a bigger deal in sports than in the financial markets,” said Justin Wolfers
–
It just adds more weight when I mention his name. For now.
Not sure I follow that one Medemi “freeze window”?. If you mean if an API and Web bet were placed simultaneously with the same odds and bet type, would either have an advantage? I doubt that there would be anything noticeable on the exchange side except maybe an irrelevant difference casued by translating those two different types of calls.
I`m speculating here as we dont have the infrastructure plans, but if you placed two bets together, one at 5.0 and one at 6.0, if the 5.0 odds already had 50 other bets in that que waiting to be processed and the 6.0 only has your bet then the 6.0 bet could be placed quicker. This is all presuming Betfair has implemented some parallel processing of bets.
BarryO,
There are a number of ways to look at it, but I was looking at it this way.
Whenever betfair want to match my bet they’d have to look for an opposing bet to set off their risk. With cross-matching they’d have to look at a number of alternatives (and do many calculations), during which I will be unable to cancel (for practical reasons) even when they receive an order from me to cancel. Normally you’d expect them to finish all calculations and release my bet (which they had to lock earlier on) at least every 1/100 of a second. I see an opportunity for betfair to profit from having my bet locked for a little bit longer, let’s say 100ms, as to – in their own words perhaps- “provide a service and increase my chances of having my bet matched, which is what customers want”.
Hope that makes sense, and even if it doesn’t, I would still like to know how long they can hold on to my bet. Shouldn’t be longer than 1/100 of a second IMO, once they receive an order to cancel.
Hello again.
–
Medini said:
–
1. How does one abuse a bonus offering by simply using a bot ? I don’t see it, and I’m educated on both – bots and statistics. Betfair are also going to have to show us how it can be done, a simple mention in their T&C will not be sufficient in a court of law IMO.
–
The casino would argue that a bot makes it easier for the user to clear the wagering requirements of a bonus. They want real people clicking away on bonuses, not bots. Also, bots are almost certainly used by multi-accounters who simply lack the time or inclination to play multiple accounts manually. As such, bots equate to bad news for casinos more than good news. I have to disagree that outlawing bots would not be sufficient in court. If they say “no bots”, then that’s as clear as it gets. Of course, they’d be more than happy to have bots pissing away customers’ funds WITHOUT a bonus, but let’s leave aside good ole’ casino hypocrisy.
–
The problem is not dissallowing bots. The problem is that:
–
1) The allegation is UNPROVEN.
–
2) Other players have simply been accused of “bonus abuse”. Of course, THAT is rank illegal, to disallow winnings on the basis of vague teminology. I have commented more on this in my blog article on the subject I posted a link to above. Betfair are almost certainly in breach of Maltese, err…”law”.
–
On that matter:
–
2. Betfair receive some free advertising now. The message they want out, is that they won’t tolerate bonus chasers so they won’t come anymore. The best course of action is to file a formal complaint with the Maltese regulator and hand over all evidence.
–
I take it you’re not sooo familiar with the Malta Lotteries And Gaming Authority?
–
I am :):):)
–
http://www.hundredpercentgambl…..hority.htm
–
Hope it’s OK to link again, but I’m sure you’ll find things you didn’t know about. If you can’t be bothered to read it all, I’ll sum up for you: the Malta LGA is useless. It flat out ignores players, and continues “licensing” operations that have long ago stopped paying players. In short, it’s a whitewash service for its licensees, and a complete joke as a “regulatory” authority. So forget about ”a formal complaint with the Maltese regulator”, you might as well chuck the evidence in the bin, it couldn’t be less ignored.
Caruso,
you have some good points, which I agree to. But this:
“They want real people clicking away on bonuses, not bots”
I understand that, but betfair generally stimulate the usage of bots on their exchange, and now that someone has just opened up an account, they shouldn’t ? That’s ridiculous. They can’t have it both ways, although that is usually what they get away with.
–
About the LGA, no I don’t have any experience with them. That’s really something you’re saying. Should have a look at that later.
@Caruso: “Hope it’s OK to link again,”
–
Yes, it is OK to link out.
–
FYI, I have changed the anti-spam plugin.
–
I encourage you to register yourself on Midas Oracle, and to log in to put up your comment.
–
The new anti-spam plugin (a math test) should not apply for logged in people —unlike the previous one (I was unaware of that).
Medini said:
–
I understand that, but betfair generally stimulate the usage of bots on their exchange, and now that someone has just opened up an account, they shouldn’t ? That’s ridiculous. They can’t have it both ways, although that is usually what they get away with.
–
I agree – and I said as much above. Casinos want slot junkies pissing away their mortgages using bots, that’s why Microgaming has a built-in bot, “autoplay”, designed to do just this. I suppose it’s similar to the Betfair bot you mention. Betfair says as follows:
–
“All wagers must be placed through the user interface provided on the Casino. Any wagering through other means, including the use of a “robot” player, is strictly forbidden without the express consent of Betfair.”
–
I suppose “consent” equates to the built-in bot you mention, ie. you can use their bot but not yours. Thing is, I’m not sufficiently familiar with the Betfair bot. Can you play casino games for bonuses with it? As company’s own bot, is its use consensual by definition?
–
I think, though, that this is too complicated. Bottom line: if you want to play a Betfair bonus, don’t use any kind of bot.
–
The problem is not the bot, it’s that it is unproven. And also of course, like I said, the REAL problem is this:
–
“Betfair Casino reserves the right not to pay this bonus to any customer that we suspect is abusing the promotion.”
–
Such vague, undefined terminology is 1) obvious bullshit, 2) morally unacceptable anywhere and 3) actually illegal in any credible location with proper consumer protection laws – see my Maltese law links. The thing is, Betfair can do this because they know the LGA will let them.
–
If you want to do something about the Betfair problem, expose the LGA. Tell people about what’s going on in these pseudo -”reputable” Euro zones.
“All wagers must be placed through the user interface provided on the Casino. Any wagering through other means, including the use of a “robot” player, is strictly forbidden without the express consent of Betfair.”
–
I don’t know much about their Casino. If this is related to their casino I suppose there’s not a lot we can do about it. If it’s related to the promotion on the other hand, then it’s bull IMO. Betfair are going to have a real hard time proving how anyone could possibly abuse the exchange by using a bot, when it is clear they stimulate the usuage of bots in general.
–
In general, T&C’ are just that, designed to offer betfair some protection, that doesn’t necessarily mean they will hold up in a court of law. Not even for betfair.
I think the whole thing is incredibly sad for Betfair itself. There shouldn’t be a need to try to target areas/countries where the law is weaker than other jurisdictions, and hope that the hassle of fighting for markets to be run within a legal framework proves an obstacle to all but the most passionate supporters of betting exchanges & prediction markets.
–
It isn’t that hard to design a sensible bonus offer; perhaps there just isn’t an apparent financial motivation to the bf casino staff to put the effort in to design a fair offer. Who cares if you can just claim palpable error anyway?
Chris said:
–
I encourage you to register yourself on Midas Oracle, and to log in to put up your comment.
–
Thanks.
–
Testing, testing…
@caruso: Your first comment was held in moderation. And now your next comments will appear immediately.
@caruso: And if you are wondering about gravatars:
http://www.gravatar.com/
@caruso: Folks, I changed once again the anti-spam plugin. It is not about math.
–
If you run into trouble, tell me.
–
If you are registered adn logged in, it should not bother you.
–
Well, in theory. Let’s test.
Yes, the mathematically-challenged can now comment without embarrassment.
–
Thanks for the homepage link, BTW. That and, I presume, the link I posted here has shot my page up to Google page two. How else do you combat the PR bandwagon?
–
Ed said:
–
“I think the whole thing is incredibly sad for Betfair itself. There shouldn’t be a need to try to target areas/countries where the law is weaker than other jurisdictions, and hope that the hassle of fighting for markets to be run within a legal framework proves an obstacle to all but the most passionate supporters of betting exchanges & prediction markets.”
–
It’s not that the law’s weak, it’s that the implementation of it is nonexistent. I think law within the Eurozone is pretty homogenous, both Maltese and Gibraltarian law on “unfair practice” is pretty much word for word the same as the UK. The problem is that “regulation” actually has toss-all to do with the player. It’s good for the operator to be seen to be in on “reputable” territory and it’s good for the territory because they get the fees. The industry PR bandwagon then struts its stuff and tells the world how wonderful it is, and most people take this at face value – see Chris’s initial comments on the LGA:
–
http://www.midasoracle.org/200…..ta-gaming/
–
And why not take it at face value, if you have no reason not to? I used to. But the industry PR bandwagon makes Essop’s fables look like an engineering textbook – there is zero grounding in reality. Just scratch away an itsy bit at the surface and you’ll discover the real truth behind ostensible “regulation”: they don’t actually do anything at all. They take fees and grin at the camera lens, but they do nothing beyond this. The player is sunk without trace if he comes unglued with such an operator, because complaining to their “regulator” is more pointless than shouting inside a spacesuit in a soundproofed room.
–
Think about it a sec: imagine you have a sportsbook which stopped paying players over six months ago, to the extent that a leading sportsbetting site lists it as a “scam” which owes a good ?100,000 and probably more. Add to that that this “scam” resides on European territory. Now imagine that the governmental regulator of this scam sportsbook not only has done nothing about it, but it still lists them on their site as carrying a governmental license? A top-ranked sports site has them down as a scam, but the government licenses them still and takes their money.
–
If you read that in a fairy story, would you not put it down as just a little bit too silly?
–
Reality check: it’s happening right now as we speak. See the side comments about Betchance in my Malta article that Chris linked up.
–
God help the people of the USA if online gambling ever gets “regulated” there. Can you imagine what’ll happen when Washington signs up Brokecasino.com and then the players being denied cashouts have to complain to Congress? I shudder to think. The “regulators” would probably start acknowledging the players’ emails after their great grandchildren are all dead.
–
Laws are all well and good, but they’re more useless than an icecream condom if nobody actually implements the damn things.
–
Ed said:
–
It isn’t that hard to design a sensible bonus offer; perhaps there just isn’t an apparent financial motivation to the bf casino staff to put the effort in to design a fair offer. Who cares if you can just claim palpable error anyway?
–
Pretty much. With casinos, for “palpable error” you can usually read “bonus abuse”. It’s not impossible. There are solid, fair playing and fair paying casinos out there. Trouble is, you can count them on a pair of hands – and the others number in their thousands.
@Caruso: “Thanks for the homepage link”.
–
Cool.
@Caruso: “Reality check: it’s happening right now as we speak. See the side comments about Betchance in my Malta article that Chris linked up.”
–
http://www.hundredpercentgambl…..hority.htm
@Medemi….
you’re almost there….
My contention is that if the Regulator allows anyone or any organisation to actually (or effectively) freeze the bet matching queue, then Betting Integrity must, by definition, be seriously compromised.
Because arbitrary or scheduled freezing of the process of negotiating a match ensures that those that are “frozen out” are totally vulnerable to losing (some or all of the money they put up to support their offers) to those able to do the freezing!
Otherwise, why bother freezing at all???.
That one (untested in Court) interpretation of British Law infers that it is “OK” to freeze the process if you hold a Bookmaker’s Permit is, IMHO, immaterial to the fundamental question:
Is there anyone who can use logic to justify the argument that “freezing the clock can’t and doesn’t impact Betting Integrity”? In other words,show that “clock-freezing is harmless“???
NB: I didn’t ask if there’s anyone out there who wants clock-freezing to be allowed (there is at least ONE Company that obviously does!!!)
More worryingly still, there might also be one Regulator who also thinks it’s harmless!!!!!!!!!!
Finally, IMHO, it doesn’t actually matter if the clock is only frozen by only a mere 10 milliseconds, if the “freezer” is able to conduct their deeds within that Time.
And it is not really important if ( due to locational delay differences) the onset Time or length of a freeze period varies between Customers.
The only impactless policy on the subject, IMHO, is simple: NO FREEZING ALLOWED!
Adonis.
Caruso,
–
I think you’re somewhat overreacting.
No doubt the LGA receive a lot of complaints, most of them unjustified. You should have a look at the betfair casino forum section… Some of these nutters who scream scam here, scam there, probably even write to the LGA. The problem for the LGA is probably to sift through all this rubbish they receive.
–
Also, some of these regulators are very inexperienced. What is on top of their agenda is to control gambling addiction, which they do well IMO (that goes for the Gambling Commission at least).
Our job is to educate them and let them know there are other issues as well which deserve some attention.
How they pick up on that is the real question. They will be judged, eventually.
Medini said:
–
“I think you’re somewhat overreacting. No doubt the LGA receive a lot of complaints, most of them unjustified. You should have a look at the betfair casino forum section… Some of these nutters who scream scam here, scam there, probably even write to the LGA. The problem for the LGA is probably to sift through all this rubbish they receive.”
–
“No doubt”, “probably” this, “probably” that. The LGA has for a fact continued to “license” Betchance while it has been in no-pay mode for fully six months and counting. The LGA has for a fact ignored me for fully four months, and everyone else into the bargain, save for one form email, on complaints totalling I estimate $100,000 USD.
–
On what basis is my factual comment above an “overreaction”, in your opinion? How do you know without doubt “most complaints are unjustified”? How do you know it’s mainly “rubbish”? Read my complaint here:
–
http://www.hundredpercentgambl…..e-than.htm
–
You think that’s “rubbish”?
–
This is an extraordinary stance. You post misinformed opinion as fact.
–
“Also, some of these regulators are very inexperienced. What is on top of their agenda is to control gambling addiction, which they do well IMO (that goes for the Gambling Commission at least).
Our job is to educate them and let them know there are other issues as well which deserve some attention.
How they pick up on that is the real question. They will be judged, eventually.”
–
How do you know what is top of their agenda? You think the LGA controls gambling addiction, and “well”? Post corroboration of this – I must have missed it, and it’s a pretty powerful assertion to make. Why is it my “job” to educate them? Breaking news: these people are PAID to do a job by the government. It is THEIR job to know how to do their job when they do it.
–
How many surgeons get away with botched operations with “Well, I’m really not very experienced, you know. It’s your job to educate me – it’s not my fault”. That is about the most absurd thing I’ve heard. He’d be up on a malpractice suit in a New York second.
–
Why does a WHOLE new set of criteria apply to the gambling industry that does not apply to every other business? Why do you make such an extraordinary set of assumptions when there is a ton of corroborated evidence staring you in the face which indicates the exact opposite?
Caruso,
–
you’re actually giving the LGA too much credit – they should know everything and they should respond to everyone. By doing so you end up being disrespectful (justified or unjustified, I don’t care) which is a pitty. It is not about who is right and who is wrong, in the end it is about how effective you are. It always is.
You sound very knowledgable and experienced in this area and it would serve you better to accept that simple fact.
–
As for facts, you’re at the wrong address I’m sorry to say. I don’t believe in facts and if you want to impress someone with facts you should turn to Chris, amongst others. To me, you’re just one guy with an opinion (who deserves some respect) like many others. I also believe there is huge advantage and power (the right kind) in being able to look at things from different perspectives, including (especially) your enemies.
–
If you really believe the LGA are being negligent, who you want to talk to is Adonis IMO (he’s right around the corner). Or better yet, ask him to sink his teeth into the LGA.
–
Cheers.
(I’ll try logging in again…)
No, still got it all wrong, bear with me…
Medini, this is for you – look right down the bottom:
–
http://www.sportsbookreview.com/
–
BetChance (SBR rating F) player reports that the sportsbook informed him it will finally close
The player states the no-pay sportsbook called to offer him a settlement of 25% of his balance or the possibility of being paid in 20 months. BetChance has been unable to clear delinquent withdrawal requests for almost a year while teasing owed users with email updates about new ownership and small sporadic payments to a fortunate few. Most players do not expect to see any of their funds and now believe the empty promises and positive updates were part of the scam to remain operational in Malta while collecting from new depositors.”
–
Now read it again, because I know you didn’t believe it the first time. Me neither.
–
That was six weeks ago. Six weeks. Oh, and I made a mistake, it’s not six months that they’ve been in no-pay mode. It’s a whole year.
–
Now go here, Medini:
–
http://cert.lga.org.mt/
–
…and click on “Class 2″, then look at entry number five.
–
See anything anything there to change you opinion?
–
For anyone who doesn’t feel like clicking through, I’ll spare you the suspense. Yes, it’s Betchance. Betchance, who list themselves thus:
–
Betting Licence Number: LGA/CL2/189/2004
–
That means “LGA license Class 2, number 189, granted 2004″.
–
No payments for fully one year, still licensed by the LGA. The license is not listed as “cancelled”, not even “suspended” (as it can be)! It’s fully current. C-U-R-R-E-N-T. They haven’t even bothered to suspend Betchance’s license, fully aware that this licensee has barely paid anyone in a year!
–
This is a monumental scandal.
–
Run that bit by me again abour it being our job to educate the gambling regulators who are wilting under the weight of all the scam complaints they receive?
Hey Caruso… If I wasn’t so “sceptical” I would have taken everything for granted that Betfair taught me.
Cheer up man, if you’re going to fight the LGA at least do it with a smile on your face or else you won’t last long. Some of us know about these things.
@caruso: Could you log in?
Yes, however my handle still appears as it was when I wasn’t registered if not logged in, so I can comment both logged in and logged out under the same username (hence non-logged in posts above). Difference is capital “C” when not logged in. I’ll try and remember to log in.
–
Medemi:
–
“It is not about who is right and who is wrong, in the end it is about how effective you are.”
–
That’s an unfortunate perspective. It helps to be right AND effective. I have no desire to take a wrong position.
–
Your comments about not being interested in facts are odd to say the least.
“It is not about who is right and who is wrong, in the end it is about how effective you are.”
That’s an unfortunate perspective. It helps to be right AND effective. I have no desire to take a wrong position.
My point is, you could be 100% right and still lose, suffer from burn-out. Whatever. Not saying you personally, but in general. The opposite is also true, you could be proven wrong in the end, yet contributed massively in search for the truth. Whatever.
–
Your comments about not being interested in facts are odd to say the least.
It’s not that I’m not interested in them, I don’t believe in them. In other words, they appear to me as a point of view (with some added weight).
The other thread for instance, Chris seemed thrilled at the evidence he found about the LGA being a respectable regulator. Now he’s very disappointed after having a look at your facts. That would never happen to me – these swings. Well, never say never, but when it does happen to me I feel like an idiot. That’s why I am who I am.
Sorry to get you involved in this Chris.
btw, your new anti-spam plugin seems to be working fine.
@Medemi: “btw, your new anti-spam plugin seems to be working fine.”
–
Great.
@caruso: “my handle”
–
Go to your profile.
Fill either:
– your first name
– your last name
– your nickname
All this with or without capital letters.
Then, press “SAVE”.
Then, pick up your choice under “Display name publicly as”…
Then, click “SAVE” again.
There is this thought I can’t get rid of lately. It was the mods at WBX telling me that it’s fine to give someone stick, but I should expect the same in return. Well, when I gave the chief moderator some stick, he banned me for life. Hahaha…
Yup, login is all fine. When I’m not logged in, I can still post under pre-registered (same) handle, but not a problem.
I think its quite sad to see the WBX total matched market manipulation. The reason why its sad is that a genuine competitor to BF has the ability to shadow the prices on BF – if a market is trading at evens on BF, there is no reason why an internal seeding robot should not be laying say 1.9 on WBX, in lumpy size, whilst backing 2.1. Its a win-win, getting over the odds on the BF price, and can only be picked off by corrupt accounts, i.e. people who know the actual result of fixed races or matches.
–
Restrict the size that the 1.9 and 2.1 bets are good in, say 5k, and then fritter that money outwards in a rainbow at lower and higher increments, respectively further away from evens than the 1.9 to 2.1 band are.
–
WBX need a trading robot on their own markets. It is fully doable, betdirect have done something like this for years, with a robot plugged in to the bf price shadowing it. With the aim of long run profitability, offering fairly meaty size ten clicks above and below the current o/u 2.5 goals price on bf, really wouldn’t be difficult to program, and there would be a lot of investors ready to fund such a project (i can think of a number i know personally who would be happy getting ten clicks above or below current bf price commission free). Having no liquidity is inexcusable, when WBX are in the position to literally take on BF using the free market prices on the exchange which are available in size.
I’m sure there are scanning robots operating over the different exchanges looking for overbroke opportunities. WBX & Betdaq are both missing out on joining in the party. Tradefair (Betfair in disguise) are actively recruiting heavy Betfair users in Hammersmith trying to court them into seeding Tradefair, but a robot offering real liquidity on WBX and Betdaq, scabbing the BF price to put up real liquidity, would be a massive bonus to both exchanges, and I think would look like a much more attractive and profitable tool for the current people BF are chasing to seed TF.
Ed,
–
I have a bot that “rotates” through the markets on betfair. All I needed to do is hook it up with WBX. I was willing to build such an application offering prices just below the real prices with a non-profit intent, just for the fun of it. Maybe even spread it around. I let the WBX management know I was interested in providing some liquidity but they never got back to me. It seems they prefer their fake markets, and when I found out about that I lost complete interest of course. There must be more people like me. It’s better this way, let them go down. I have no intention of using my bot ever again btw.
Assuming that’s true medemi (which i do), then I seriously have no idea why they bothered opening up an exchange.
Sporting Options went bust because they seeded their own markets – and went out of line with the price on Bet”fair”. Using a robot to internally seed with prices on stable markets which don’t go out of line with the prevailing market price is probably critical to WBX and Betdaq’s success. Its absolutely bonkers to swell their own turnover with artificial trading figures, but not try to find a way to get real liquidity into the market. Catering for the non-price sensitive punters is what keeps the wheels oiled on BF and WBX/Betdaq. Having no liquidity when there is a fairly easy way to do it is just potty.
> Please be advised that following an investigation into your activity in the
> Betfair Casino, we have concluded that your bets were carried out with the
> express purpose of abusing the bonus offered.
–
Betfair set the rules. Either they pay out because the conditions were met, or they don’t because the conditions were not met. There is not a whole lot in between betfair. But no… you have to describe a customer’s behaviour as abusive. Typical.
–
> This is in accordance to the bonus terms and conditions which stats that
> “Betfair also reserves the right not to pay any bonus to customers that it
> suspects to be abusing this promotion.”
–
We’ve seen it all before really, it’s called “caveat emptor”.
–
This is just sick. I thought betfair is a reputable company.
What alleged offense warrants partial confiscation of ones cashout?
Close the account for fraud, or pay the man what he won.
What fraud ???
–
There are waging requirements to release these bonuses.
If the requirements are not “in the spirit of the game” then betfair need to update them.
Either way, pay the man.
–
Don’t get me started on this one….
Some of the People can be fooled, some of the Time.
But no-one can fool all of the People, all of the Time……
But a fool can fool himself, all of the Time…….
Observation:
In the good old days (pre-legal betting in England) of bookie’s “runners”, a bookie who welched (didn’t pay out) was liable to face the immediate, and rough, justice of his Clientele. He would make sure that he had an obvious, tenable reason for welching, before stepping onto the street! He certainly wouldn’t expect to take many more bets until he’d faced up to his actions against a large quorum of his Clientele….
The local Clientele were interested in good-old-fashioned Fair Play, and if the bookie couldn’t satisfy them (a lot of them all at once, not just a separated-out individual) that his reason for withholding was reasonable and realistic, he’d pay the street-Rules “price”.
It often meant a stay in the local Infirmary……
Unfortunately, such “natural justice” is now outlawed, so we are all reverted to an imposed Rule: Caveat Emptor.
Which begs the question: given the option, would any Client elect for a bookie’s Caveat Emptor Rule as a default determinator?????
Well, actually, YES!!!
Virtually all bookies have a “Rule” in their small print which effectively gives them carte blanche to withhold any amount, including Customers’ deposits, at any Time, for any length of Time (forever included!)
They won’t let you bet until you’ve signed up to their small print.
Which begs the question:
Is such a sweeping exclusion of normally acceptable defence processes legally sustainable?
Even if it is legally acceptable, is it socially acceptable?
Adonis,
–
betfair are abusing a rule that was designed to offer them some protection.
And they have the nerve to accuse a customer of abusive behaviour.
We should rip their hearts out.
The only reason to refuse full payout is fraud. Stolen credit card, multiple accounts etc.
Playing to win as much money as possible with the aid of a marketing offer is not fraud, therefore full payout must be warranted.
Why does Sandracer’s post still not show up in Google reader ?
Why does the refresh button seem out of order ?
Why doesn’t Google reader offer anything of use to me ?
Like auto refresh, a treeview of comments in relation to original pages etc.
–
Why does “discussions” only show 1 response to this thread ? We have 6.
Why does “recent comments” show them in the wrong order ?
Why am I continually deleting cookies, hitting refresh buttons, refreshing manually, logging off/on etc. ?
Why am I checking my e-mail for recent comments ? Because it is the only thing that actually works if you disregard the spam.
–
In a world where news travels at light speed, this is simply unacceptable. IMHO.
test (sorry)
Updates are once every hour ?
–
11.27 PM
12.28 AM (2 comments)
01.28 AM (3 comments)
–
I suppose that’s fine for blogs, but not for discussions.
@Medemi: “betfair are abusing a rule”
–
We don’t know that for sure, yet. Wait till you have further facts.
@Sandracer: “Playing to win as much money as possible with the aid of a marketing offer is not fraud”
–
What did BetFair Casino reply to that?
–
Give airtime to them.
@Medemi: About Midas Oracle, the comments, Google Reader, etc.
–
Midas Oracle is a blog with comments —not a web forum.
–
If you find that Midas Oracle is not adapted for web commenting, then here’s what you can do. When you post a comment on Midas Oracle, put the URL of the web forum elsewhere where you intend to continue the deep discussion with your online discussants. And at that external web forum, say you come from Midas Oracle.
–
That way you can begin a discussion on Midas Oracle, have a deep discussion about it elsewhere, and maybe come back to Midas Oracle in the end to tell people what the outcome is.
–
Google Reader indeed refreshes once a hour or so the comments of Midas Oracle.
–
I’m sorry you find Midas Oracle slow for commenting, but, as I said, it’s structured to have posts + comments, not discussion alone. A web forum is more appropriate for long, deep, infinite discussions, because it refreshes quicker.
–
It’s not a problem if you give external links to other web forums or blogs, here. You can either set up elsewhere your own web forum, and direct your commenters there.
–
Some of the problems you encounter (”deleting cookies”) are a bit puzzling. I don’t understand why you run into those problems. Commenting on a blog is a simple operation.
–
As for the “discussions” page, it lists only the last comment of each thread, and experiences a lag time, I suppose.
–
It could be possible for me to set up a web forum, in addition to this blog, but something I really want to do. Other people elsewhere on the Web do it better than I would do. So let’s direct people to them, when it’s needed.
@Medemi: “I suppose that’s fine for blogs, but not for discussions.”
–
Then, switch to a PC-based feed reader.
–
I use SAGE on FireFox.
http://www.midasoracle.org/about/feeds/
–
With a PC-based feed reader, it’s you who decides when to refresh —not the machine.
[…] Google Reader fetches our comment feed once an hour or so. Too long for some. […]
@Medemi: Did some of your problems had to do with this?
http://www.dreamhoststatus.com…..roblems-5/
@Medemi: Did some of your problems had to do with this?
–
If you are referring to me deleting my cookies, I’m not sure about the effects of that. I don’t know.
I will check out the PC-based feed readers later. For now I will stick with my e-mail feeder since that is the only place where the news will actually come to me.
–
Thanks.
@Medemi: OK.
–
But for that you need to check each time the “receive comments as e-mails” options, in each post. Which compels you to post a little comment each time.
–
Anyway, if it works that way…
–
I do use SAGE with FireFox and it’s super.
(My main feed reader is Google Reader.)
@Medemi: “I will check out the PC-based feed readers later. For now I will stick with my e-mail feeder since that is the only place where the news will actually come to me.”
–
The PC-based feed reader is THE solution to your problem. Please, consider it seriously.
Hello,
I was unaware of this site until today.
I have done my own writeup on the Betfair issue – is it OK to link?
http://www.hundredpercentgambl…..cation.htm
I have now removed the link I had to Betfair on my site, although all my various Betfair articles are staying…with nice big warnings at the top. In the first case, “bonus abuse”, Betfair is almost certainly in breach of Maltese law.
[…] hope that his/her grievances will find their […]
A couple of thoughts.
–
1. How does one abuse a bonus offering by simply using a bot ? I don’t see it, and I’m educated on both – bots and statistics. Betfair are also going to have to show us how it can be done, a simple mention in their T&C will not be sufficient in a court of law IMO.
–
2. Betfair receive some free advertising now. The message they want out, is that they won’t tolerate bonus chasers so they won’t come anymore. The best course of action is to file a formal complaint with the Maltese regulator and hand over all evidence.
–
3. What a mess… and what a waste of time and money for everyone involved, even those who are not involved. Maybe we should have laws against these types of bonus offerings.
I would be intrigued by a poll put on the bf forum where solely bf users (not staff) were allowed to post, asking how many people would actually recommend bf at the mo.
–
An improved bf in my book would make these changes
–
(1) limit on stake sizes/wins per market for new users, building up in size over time (stops insiders coming on and whacking through massive money on a single prediction market)
–
(2) blacklisting of the players which bf themselves said in the sunday times last week that they “monitor much more closely than other competitors”. (once a player is ‘in’, they are ‘in’ for life).
–
(3) more intelligence being used by bf to design ethical bonuses in the first place, rather than putting up a flawed scheme and trying to palp accounts later which broke no part of the original regulation (other than the predictable ‘caveat emptor’ part of them)
–
(4) sacking any staff who spend bf office time attacking people on either the bf or other web fora from behind chatnames they think are anonymous
–
(5) all bets placed after events have finished to be voided (bf are now doing this on some australian events, as it is illegal for them to run markets in the way they do outside of australia)
–
(6) bf market ops to identify which accounts are smashing through large money every point/run etc on events that take place in australia/usa, where people courtside are breaking the law in those countries.
–
(7) money to be put back into each sport that bf profits from to help pay for the costs of integrity/policing, rather than the current status quo on most sports bar racing and greyhounds, where bf make money out of the sport and impose an extra cost onto the sport itself.
–
(8) clear information published as to the volume of bets that are p2p, and the volume that aren’t.
–
(9) best execution on all markets, and a guarantee that they will never turn the trap bet robot back on
–
–
medemi, what do you make of the bf announcement
–
“Finally, please note that Betfair will shortly be making important changes to the way the forum is run. In future, you will only be able to post on the forum if full ‘know your customer’ (KYC) checks for you have been completed. ”
–
surely its crazy that people can register and place large bets immediately without completing the KYC (is the criteria still that you have to complete it once you reach 3% commission?), but there are much stricter requirements in place on people making forum posts? surely they should be worrying about the markets much more than the forum,……
surely its crazy that people can register and place large bets immediately without completing the KYC (is the criteria still that you have to complete it once you reach 3% commission?), but there are much stricter requirements in place on people making forum posts? surely they should be worrying about the markets much more than the forum,……
–
I already said that, somewhere, on here.
We are, in fact, betfair’s best friends. But if they want to make an enemy of us, then so be it.
That last line not necessarily in relation to your quote btw.
medemi – i can’t find the piece by a bf customer talking about how he had had an email through saying his bet at 1000 after an event had finished (he was trying to free up funds) had been refunded because it broke australian law.
–
these kind of bets take place many times a day on many bf markets. i really think that some of the business, say when its matchpoint on a final set tie break, a player is trading at say 1.4 to win the match (she has a matchpoint on her opponents serve), and then suddenly everything is hoovered down to 1.01 before bf suspend, well that kind of business should be voided, and happily it looks like it is illegal in australia.
–
it does beg the question tho, what is an australian punter doing betting in running? must have been someone betting on an australian event from outside australia.
–
–
i actually agree with you that we are their “best friends”. they proudly state how they are the only exchange to put up warnings about faster pictures, but they only put that up after my anti-illegal hoovering from the USA campaign in late 2006. i asked them behind the scenes for it, and they only did it when it broke in the NOTW. same with the ban on people betting from the US, again their changes to betfair t&c’s were only made after my campaign.
–
they really should listen.
its really sad the way that if one bf user puts one over another user through unethical means, its “caveat emptor”, but where its bf’s own money at stake, they try to withdraw their poorly designed offer.
–
there is a delicious irony which will happen in the future if bf did decide to actively trade their own markets. bf would then void/shut down all the sharp operators betting with shady advantages. active trading would destroy the p2p exchange, yet ironically, it would also deliver huge improvements in levelling the playing field
Ed, I already mentioned on the betfair forum that any bets struck after the event has finished is illegal in my book. It will be one day too in the UK. Betfair should have the capability to retroactively void bets up until a certain timestamp in the past to be able to deal with this practical problem effectively.
–
As for clearer messages, it was a poster called “frog” and myself who battled fiercely on this front, and the GC seem to have taken on some of those concerns now . I don’t know about your campaign. If anything, I would say they listen to frog sometimes as he still seems to have some credit with them.
That is not to say I don’t think you have any influence, but quite frankly I don’t care who does as long as betfair get the job done which they are supposed to do.
My goal was to get into their heads in the boardroom, and change their thinking from “what is currently legal/illegal”, towards “what is right/wrong”. When I was told they had changed their decisions a few months earlier on reality tv markets – which mark davies had trumpeted at full volume on the front pages of the national press – back towards a free for all, because “there is no law being broken by phone vote insiders”, it was obvious that they should have stuck with their earlier decision instead of reversing it. My campaign led them to do another U-turn, and the policy of shutting events at the time the events finish, is still in place now two years later (and counting). The other change I campaigned for on game by game/frame by frame markets, of the same delays on game/frame markets as match odds markets, is also still in place
–
I think they thought they were insular from the press/media, but the reality is they failed to recognise that they have a responsibility, as a gambling operator, to keep their own house in order. If they refuse to talk or communicate, there are very few options left.
–
The regulation will change, but a lot of progress has been made. It is really ironic they now trumpet the warnings which I said they should put on the markets, as evidence that they are responsible operators :-). How times change
. Those warnings would not have been put on without me, and they know that :-).
I think they thought they were insular from the press/media, but the reality is they failed to recognise that they have a responsibility.
–
Very true.
–
Yes, some progress has been made. But that isn’t hard when you think about how things were 3 or 4 years ago. I thought I was sent back in time a couple of hundred years when I first joined the forum and witnessed this wild-west spirit.
I think betfair got the message so it’s up to them now. I also think they got rid of us by banning us from the forum because they can’t handle so much stick from us.
lol
this is the thread you got a ban for, and it is odd they never actually took it down
http://site.forum.betfair.com/…..ID=1437159
–
pretty much everyone was disgusted with the betfair trap bet robot, but your criticism of mark davies statement as “lies” in the thread title, probably annoyed him directly (or someone junior trying to curry favour with him).
–
i wish they would release the thread i got a ban for, i said absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever, they just panicked about the argument between troy and his mates, and the legal damage that troy and his friends could do to betfair with their betting in 2004/2005 & 2006 from the new york hilton on the US open. it was completely unfair, and if i had posted under any chatname other than “dj sunset”, nothing i said was wrong, and they wouldn’t have connected the row behind the scenes between me and them (they told me twice the betting from new york was completely illegal, so i complained it was unfair they were letting people bet millions of pounds from new york into the bf markets), with that thread. it was totally spiteful and ridiculous.
i wish chris masse had first hand experience of betting heavily on bf markets. i have no idea how much chris bets on bf (and full apologies if chris is a heavy user), but when there is a series of trap bet robots, hooverers, suspicious price movements on matches, immediate losses taken from bf accounts where there are markets with suspicious price movements, ridiculous forum bans, and in my case leaks of my own account details deliberately down my local pub from a bf employee, and another bf employee being outed as posting maliciously on bettingforum.co.uk , well, its just tiring.
–
there is no anti-betfair agenda, it would be great to see bf doing well, but also having trap bet robots switched off, people stopped from betting from the us/australia illegally, suspicious players not being offered, a ban on leaks down my local pub of my account details, and the sack for abusive bf members of staff behind anonymous chatnames. betfair deserves to go from strength to strength, and all of these things are just unacceptable
this is the thread you got a ban for, and it is odd they never actually took it down
–
Supposedly Ed, Supposedly. And I’ve never been officially banned from the forum.
I also want to reiterate that I wanted to put “lies” in the title between quotation marks, but quotation marks are not allowed in the title for some technical reason. Thinking about it made me forget to put a question mark at the end.
But that’s ok, I got to meet you and Adonis again, and all this great stuff here on Midas Oracle.
99% of Midas Oracle is great. The other 1% are the 2003/2004 style pro-BF threads. A lot of us used to put up threads saying BF are great etcetera, but there is nobody left on the BF forum saying that anymore, except for user “artie”. It would be lovely if the reality matched the 2003/2004 pro-Bf threads from the Bf forum, or the 2008 MO threads. Maybe having four locals all coming up to me with a description of what a BF staff member has been saying to them about my account profitability/margin/turnover, and giving one of them advice to stop putting bets on for me, would be something which would alarm most people just how indiscrete BF are. I find it unbelievable to have random locals who have never placed a bet on BF, giving me the full thoughts of BF’s legal team, and the one who helps me get bets on being advised by that BF employee not to let me. Its like someone talking about my bank accounts, its completely outrageous. He keeps doing it, and I have not had a single reply to at least 5 emails over an 18 month period, nor an apology. It is surely completely illegal. Perhaps if that happened to other Midas Oracle users, their view of the current BF team would become somewhat dimmer.
You have your personal experiences Ed, I don’t know how to comment on that.
What’s most worrying from my point of view, is betfair’s attempt to silence me and others.
I wish I didn’t have to come to that conclusion, but from what I have expereinced over recent months (and that includes the complaints Chris has received about me) I simply cannot make another deduction.
And that puts betfair in a very bad light.
The regulators aren’t skilled enough to apply regulation in a proactive manner. There is more money and less hassle, if there is no regulation. It has to be as easy as possible for everyone to bet, and as difficult as possible for anyone to flag up ethics. That’s why you are a danger, I am another danger, and there is a rush to silence anyone constructive. Its an arrangement which works well for the incumbent team, and anyone threatening the smooth course of a comfortable arrangement, is disposable.
Ed, I’m very well aware why I could be a danger to them and in what way exactly. I can put myself in their position. Also, I don’t feel like talking about it on a forum.
But by chasing me after they got rid of me on the betfair forum was a huge mistake. And I feel I should remind them of that, as I do whenever I feel they are making a mistake.
You’re not a danger to BF – the only things you or any of us have called for is protecting fairness, upholding the law, giving value for money to punters, and minimising the amount of skulduggery. Actually the more I think about, the more their identification of “Team BetFair” and “Everyone Else”, where Everyone Else are supposedly highly dangerous and must be silenced at any cost, the more silly it is.
I have just realised that I think I’m in the position where I don’t think much of the anti-prediction market Paul Wolfowitz lobbying group to the CFTC, and I am also very uncertain about the pro-prediction market lobby to the CFTC. Making it easier for people to wager against one another has advantages, but also has severe problems. Prediction markets with effective regulation are the answer, and at the moment we have one out of two.
Betfair’s real enemies are not discussing opinions openly. They are going behind their backs, and will try and make profits on their exchange any way they can. They don’t engage in constructive debate. This is who betfair considers to be their “friends”. That’s just the world we live in I suppose – see no evil, hear no evil.
–
So here we are. I don’t remember being critical of betfair in my first year, I was in my second, and I certainly stepped up the pace in my third. That’s because I care about the things you mentioned, and betfair are putting one mistake on top of another. And it does seem they are getting personal about this, which doesn’t reflect well on a companies’ policy.
I wrote article after article supporting Betfair, advocating Betfair, and was massively pro-Betfair for years, in exactly the same way that Midas Oracle is pro-Betfair now.
–
I still actually am pro-Betfair, though by that I mean that a profitable Betfair, with internally regulated markets & full effort put in to giving people the chance to bet fairly, is something I support. I don’t support malicious internet posts from BF staff or malicious gossiping in local pubs. That is just ridiculous. BF are in the position where if anyone complains, they can threaten people with account closure, whether or not BF have indeed leaked account information and broken the Data Protection Act deliberately, time and again.
They can close the whole thing down in the UK as far as I’m concerned, meaning betting exchanges and bookmakers as well. What’s going on in the US with the CFTC is a lot more interesting, actually.
I also believe regulation from the start is crucial, or else we’ll end up with the same kind of uncontrollable mess we have in the UK today. The gambling markets will survive, for now, but for the socially valuable markets for which there is less demand, it would already have been the end. Let’s hope betfair doesn’t get involved. 🙂
They can close the whole thing down in the UK as far as I’m concerned, meaning betting exchanges and bookmakers as well. What’s going on in the US with the CFTC is a lot more interesting, actually.
–
lol
. i think society would be better off if gambling was banned, but given that its here to stay, i think betfair fully deserves support as part of that landscape and has much to offer. what i would change is the regulation of betfair, as i don’t think there is enough thought and altruistic goodwill from within the current bf team to move towards betting taking place fairly. its so obvious they should make it difficult for insiders and cheats, yet with racing BF policy has been to leave suspicious accounts open for years, so that those accounts can be ‘monitored’. when the BHA have only just started proceedings about a race from 2004 (yes, 2004) , what happened to all the people trying to bet fairly in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008? 
–
there is a real danger with the “socially valuable” prediction markets, that without effective regulation, they will perform socially damaging functions, such as encouraging assassinations or terrorist incidents. its no good having 99.9% socially valuable functions from an expansion of prediction markets, and one extra assassination on top.
–
betfair with regulation should be fully supported if the us market was deregulated and opened up. in its current form, the cost-benefit analysis to society of doing so would look decidedly in the balance.
You can laugh Ed, but I’ve gone from a huge supporter (I was actually actively looking for something like betfair 3 years ago because it had to be there, that’s how I found them) to someone who prefers to behave like a mug and look for a bookmaker now. And I hate bookmakers. All in the course of let’s say 2 years.
Ed, did you happen to read the alledged market manipulation that is going on at WBX ? By the operator itself ?
Another one of your famous betting exchanges.
–
http://forum.wbx.com/viewtopic.php?t=32070
–
It’s amazing that we even had a debate about that.
(It’s also the thread that resulted in my ban there, for whatever reasons but you shouldn’t pay too much attention to that aspect
Manipulating transactions – effecting, or participating
in effecting, transactions or orders to trade which give or
are likely to give a false or misleading impression as to
the supply, demand, price or value of a qualifying
investment or related investment, or which secure the
price of such an investment at an abnormal or artificial
level.
–
LOLOL! that is an outstanding spot
–
I don’t blame WBX for boosting their amount traded figures (again, we’re going back to the exchanges not being regulated territory here, with practise that would be illegal in financial markets).
–
The best thing that could happen for punters is a Bet Angel style device, where backs and lays are put into ALL the betting exchanges, and matched at best price. I actually know what BF have said about this idea behind the scenes
, but seeing as it would increase value for punters, and massively decrease BF’s market strength, its not hard to work it out.
Is that why they haven’t removed the thread, because they think they’re operating within the law ?
They could be in for a surprise…
–
And it’s not just boosting the amount traded figures. Every single transaction on that market, in my view, was fake.
I think they are operating within the law tho, because they’re not FSA regulated? I don’t think any non-spread bookmaker is FSA related?
–
The figures on that market look incredibly cack-handed and hard to believe. Having WBX trading big volume, whilst other exchanges including Betfair are at the zero mark, is amusing
.
I don’t think they’re operating within the law. The Gambling Commission have some general principles (not to be underestimated!) attached to licences they hand out. You’ll find them if you dig deep enough. Not my specialty though.
I don’t think they are breaking the law (i’m no legal expert), even if they are going against the spirit of how the markets should be run. An example like this though should make it clear to fans of prediction markets on Midas Oracle who are making submissions to the CFTC, that non-financial markets need just as much (if not more) protection than financial ones, and there are clear examples of how the current prediction exchanges outside of the US are behaving in a way that would be totally unethical, and illegal, in a financial market. Its not acceptable.
non-financial markets need just as much (if not more) protection than financial ones
–
Excellent. And yes, definitely more !
Exactly why will be food for thought.
Enjoy the rest of your week-end, and thanks for this conversation Ed.
@Ed…
“i think society would be better off if gambling was banned, but given that its here to stay, i think betfair fully deserves support as part of that landscape and has much to offer. ”
I disagree:
I have read the betfair forum.
I read, therein, that a substantial number of betfair Customers postings were VERY unhappy when it was revealed, retrospectively, that betfair had instigated a no-risk method of matching bets which also resulted in a portion of Client funds ostensibly being abstracted (at no risk) by the exchange.
It seems that the only way that such a process can be done, at no risk to the exchange, is via “freezing” the matching queue ( thus effectively freezing every Customer’s ability to do anything to protect themselves- if they had a way to do that, even!).
I also read betfair’s announcement that it deemed itself ENTITLED to abstract funds in the way it did, BECAUSE IT HELD A BOOKMAKER’S LICENCE.
IMHO, it pays to err on the side of experience and safety.
So when my doorbell rings and the caller says ” I’m just doing a survey”, my usual response is “yes, and I’m Santa Claus…… so what are you trying to sell to me????”
Lots of people are falling all over themselves telling us that the Emperor’s Suit of Clothes is fabulous…. there’s a couple of guys out there called Ed, Medemi, Adonis (and some we shouldn’t mention because the Imperial Guard isn’t onto them yet!) who’re simply saying “DO TAKE A LOOK before you jump to the conclusions expected of you!!!!!”
Warm regards,
Adonis
Well, why should I care how large the time window on such a freeze is ?
If I want to cancel an order, as a non-UK customer, I’ll have to wait another (extra) 120ms for my transaction to be processed. So who cares if betfair freezes my order for another 240ms or so, so they can increase the likelihood of matching it with someone else and keep a variable percentage for themselves. It’s all possible in the UK and I don’t see how anyone could object to that.
Also, I’m pretty sure the Gambling Commission can tell us exactly what the maximum allowed time window is.
I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for an answer from the GC, Medemi……..
If you aren’t fortunate enough to be able to afford an API interface, then WHEREVER you live, there will be the possibility that a “bot” can cash in on you, in the event that your exchange doesn’t get their first.
It’s called a level playing field….. For my next joke….
Adonis
So you’re saying that anyone betting from outside the UK, and who uses the standard interface, is actually a mug because he’s (on top of that) subjected to betfair’s cross matching algorithm.
–
What’s more important, is to get the numbers out in the open so consumers can make an informed decision where they want to spend their money. We have the 120ms figure for non-UK customers (although I’m not entirely sure they apply to cancelling orders as well), now all we need is the advantage of the API translated into ms, and the time window on betfair’s freeze.
–
Erm… anyone know ?
The 120ms delay applies to ALL bet manipulation calls including cancelling, web or API. I think its actually 60/60, 60ms for your bet to Malta and another 60ms for Malta to place/cancel their bet on your behalf. International users don`t bet on the exchange.
Great, so we can pin down the 120ms for non-UK customers.
Leaves us with the API advantage relative to the standard interface, and the freeze window.
–
Just to sum things up. 🙂
non-financial markets need just as much (if not more) protection than financial ones
Excellent. And yes, definitely more !
Exactly why will be food for thought.
–
And here is the (partial) answer.
“Insider trading is a bigger deal in sports than in the financial markets,” said Justin Wolfers
–
It just adds more weight when I mention his name. For now.
Not sure I follow that one Medemi “freeze window”?. If you mean if an API and Web bet were placed simultaneously with the same odds and bet type, would either have an advantage? I doubt that there would be anything noticeable on the exchange side except maybe an irrelevant difference casued by translating those two different types of calls.
I`m speculating here as we dont have the infrastructure plans, but if you placed two bets together, one at 5.0 and one at 6.0, if the 5.0 odds already had 50 other bets in that que waiting to be processed and the 6.0 only has your bet then the 6.0 bet could be placed quicker. This is all presuming Betfair has implemented some parallel processing of bets.
BarryO,
There are a number of ways to look at it, but I was looking at it this way.
Whenever betfair want to match my bet they’d have to look for an opposing bet to set off their risk. With cross-matching they’d have to look at a number of alternatives (and do many calculations), during which I will be unable to cancel (for practical reasons) even when they receive an order from me to cancel. Normally you’d expect them to finish all calculations and release my bet (which they had to lock earlier on) at least every 1/100 of a second. I see an opportunity for betfair to profit from having my bet locked for a little bit longer, let’s say 100ms, as to – in their own words perhaps- “provide a service and increase my chances of having my bet matched, which is what customers want”.
Hope that makes sense, and even if it doesn’t, I would still like to know how long they can hold on to my bet. Shouldn’t be longer than 1/100 of a second IMO, once they receive an order to cancel.
Hello again.
–
Medini said:
–
1. How does one abuse a bonus offering by simply using a bot ? I don’t see it, and I’m educated on both – bots and statistics. Betfair are also going to have to show us how it can be done, a simple mention in their T&C will not be sufficient in a court of law IMO.
–
The casino would argue that a bot makes it easier for the user to clear the wagering requirements of a bonus. They want real people clicking away on bonuses, not bots. Also, bots are almost certainly used by multi-accounters who simply lack the time or inclination to play multiple accounts manually. As such, bots equate to bad news for casinos more than good news. I have to disagree that outlawing bots would not be sufficient in court. If they say “no bots”, then that’s as clear as it gets. Of course, they’d be more than happy to have bots pissing away customers’ funds WITHOUT a bonus, but let’s leave aside good ole’ casino hypocrisy.
–
The problem is not dissallowing bots. The problem is that:
–
1) The allegation is UNPROVEN.
–
2) Other players have simply been accused of “bonus abuse”. Of course, THAT is rank illegal, to disallow winnings on the basis of vague teminology. I have commented more on this in my blog article on the subject I posted a link to above. Betfair are almost certainly in breach of Maltese, err…”law”.
–
On that matter:
–
2. Betfair receive some free advertising now. The message they want out, is that they won’t tolerate bonus chasers so they won’t come anymore. The best course of action is to file a formal complaint with the Maltese regulator and hand over all evidence.
–
I take it you’re not sooo familiar with the Malta Lotteries And Gaming Authority?
–
I am :):):)
–
http://www.hundredpercentgambl…..hority.htm
–
Hope it’s OK to link again, but I’m sure you’ll find things you didn’t know about. If you can’t be bothered to read it all, I’ll sum up for you: the Malta LGA is useless. It flat out ignores players, and continues “licensing” operations that have long ago stopped paying players. In short, it’s a whitewash service for its licensees, and a complete joke as a “regulatory” authority. So forget about ”a formal complaint with the Maltese regulator”, you might as well chuck the evidence in the bin, it couldn’t be less ignored.
Caruso,
you have some good points, which I agree to. But this:
“They want real people clicking away on bonuses, not bots”
I understand that, but betfair generally stimulate the usage of bots on their exchange, and now that someone has just opened up an account, they shouldn’t ? That’s ridiculous. They can’t have it both ways, although that is usually what they get away with.
–
About the LGA, no I don’t have any experience with them. That’s really something you’re saying. Should have a look at that later.
@Caruso: “Hope it’s OK to link again,”
–
Yes, it is OK to link out.
–
FYI, I have changed the anti-spam plugin.
–
I encourage you to register yourself on Midas Oracle, and to log in to put up your comment.
–
The new anti-spam plugin (a math test) should not apply for logged in people —unlike the previous one (I was unaware of that).
Medini said:
–
I understand that, but betfair generally stimulate the usage of bots on their exchange, and now that someone has just opened up an account, they shouldn’t ? That’s ridiculous. They can’t have it both ways, although that is usually what they get away with.
–
I agree – and I said as much above. Casinos want slot junkies pissing away their mortgages using bots, that’s why Microgaming has a built-in bot, “autoplay”, designed to do just this. I suppose it’s similar to the Betfair bot you mention. Betfair says as follows:
–
“All wagers must be placed through the user interface provided on the Casino. Any wagering through other means, including the use of a “robot” player, is strictly forbidden without the express consent of Betfair.”
–
I suppose “consent” equates to the built-in bot you mention, ie. you can use their bot but not yours. Thing is, I’m not sufficiently familiar with the Betfair bot. Can you play casino games for bonuses with it? As company’s own bot, is its use consensual by definition?
–
I think, though, that this is too complicated. Bottom line: if you want to play a Betfair bonus, don’t use any kind of bot.
–
The problem is not the bot, it’s that it is unproven. And also of course, like I said, the REAL problem is this:
–
“Betfair Casino reserves the right not to pay this bonus to any customer that we suspect is abusing the promotion.”
–
Such vague, undefined terminology is 1) obvious bullshit, 2) morally unacceptable anywhere and 3) actually illegal in any credible location with proper consumer protection laws – see my Maltese law links. The thing is, Betfair can do this because they know the LGA will let them.
–
If you want to do something about the Betfair problem, expose the LGA. Tell people about what’s going on in these pseudo -”reputable” Euro zones.
“All wagers must be placed through the user interface provided on the Casino. Any wagering through other means, including the use of a “robot” player, is strictly forbidden without the express consent of Betfair.”
–
I don’t know much about their Casino. If this is related to their casino I suppose there’s not a lot we can do about it. If it’s related to the promotion on the other hand, then it’s bull IMO. Betfair are going to have a real hard time proving how anyone could possibly abuse the exchange by using a bot, when it is clear they stimulate the usuage of bots in general.
–
In general, T&C’ are just that, designed to offer betfair some protection, that doesn’t necessarily mean they will hold up in a court of law. Not even for betfair.
I think the whole thing is incredibly sad for Betfair itself. There shouldn’t be a need to try to target areas/countries where the law is weaker than other jurisdictions, and hope that the hassle of fighting for markets to be run within a legal framework proves an obstacle to all but the most passionate supporters of betting exchanges & prediction markets.
–
It isn’t that hard to design a sensible bonus offer; perhaps there just isn’t an apparent financial motivation to the bf casino staff to put the effort in to design a fair offer. Who cares if you can just claim palpable error anyway?
Chris said:
–
I encourage you to register yourself on Midas Oracle, and to log in to put up your comment.
–
Thanks.
–
Testing, testing…
@caruso: Your first comment was held in moderation. And now your next comments will appear immediately.
@caruso: And if you are wondering about gravatars:
http://www.gravatar.com/
@caruso: Folks, I changed once again the anti-spam plugin. It is not about math.
–
If you run into trouble, tell me.
–
If you are registered adn logged in, it should not bother you.
–
Well, in theory. Let’s test.
Yes, the mathematically-challenged can now comment without embarrassment.
–
Thanks for the homepage link, BTW. That and, I presume, the link I posted here has shot my page up to Google page two. How else do you combat the PR bandwagon?
–
Ed said:
–
“I think the whole thing is incredibly sad for Betfair itself. There shouldn’t be a need to try to target areas/countries where the law is weaker than other jurisdictions, and hope that the hassle of fighting for markets to be run within a legal framework proves an obstacle to all but the most passionate supporters of betting exchanges & prediction markets.”
–
It’s not that the law’s weak, it’s that the implementation of it is nonexistent. I think law within the Eurozone is pretty homogenous, both Maltese and Gibraltarian law on “unfair practice” is pretty much word for word the same as the UK. The problem is that “regulation” actually has toss-all to do with the player. It’s good for the operator to be seen to be in on “reputable” territory and it’s good for the territory because they get the fees. The industry PR bandwagon then struts its stuff and tells the world how wonderful it is, and most people take this at face value – see Chris’s initial comments on the LGA:
–
http://www.midasoracle.org/200…..ta-gaming/
–
And why not take it at face value, if you have no reason not to? I used to. But the industry PR bandwagon makes Essop’s fables look like an engineering textbook – there is zero grounding in reality. Just scratch away an itsy bit at the surface and you’ll discover the real truth behind ostensible “regulation”: they don’t actually do anything at all. They take fees and grin at the camera lens, but they do nothing beyond this. The player is sunk without trace if he comes unglued with such an operator, because complaining to their “regulator” is more pointless than shouting inside a spacesuit in a soundproofed room.
–
Think about it a sec: imagine you have a sportsbook which stopped paying players over six months ago, to the extent that a leading sportsbetting site lists it as a “scam” which owes a good ?100,000 and probably more. Add to that that this “scam” resides on European territory. Now imagine that the governmental regulator of this scam sportsbook not only has done nothing about it, but it still lists them on their site as carrying a governmental license? A top-ranked sports site has them down as a scam, but the government licenses them still and takes their money.
–
If you read that in a fairy story, would you not put it down as just a little bit too silly?
–
Reality check: it’s happening right now as we speak. See the side comments about Betchance in my Malta article that Chris linked up.
–
God help the people of the USA if online gambling ever gets “regulated” there. Can you imagine what’ll happen when Washington signs up Brokecasino.com and then the players being denied cashouts have to complain to Congress? I shudder to think. The “regulators” would probably start acknowledging the players’ emails after their great grandchildren are all dead.
–
Laws are all well and good, but they’re more useless than an icecream condom if nobody actually implements the damn things.
–
Ed said:
–
It isn’t that hard to design a sensible bonus offer; perhaps there just isn’t an apparent financial motivation to the bf casino staff to put the effort in to design a fair offer. Who cares if you can just claim palpable error anyway?
–
Pretty much. With casinos, for “palpable error” you can usually read “bonus abuse”. It’s not impossible. There are solid, fair playing and fair paying casinos out there. Trouble is, you can count them on a pair of hands – and the others number in their thousands.
@Caruso: “Thanks for the homepage link”.
–
Cool.
@Caruso: “Reality check: it’s happening right now as we speak. See the side comments about Betchance in my Malta article that Chris linked up.”
–
http://www.hundredpercentgambl…..hority.htm
@Medemi….
you’re almost there….
My contention is that if the Regulator allows anyone or any organisation to actually (or effectively) freeze the bet matching queue, then Betting Integrity must, by definition, be seriously compromised.
Because arbitrary or scheduled freezing of the process of negotiating a match ensures that those that are “frozen out” are totally vulnerable to losing (some or all of the money they put up to support their offers) to those able to do the freezing!
Otherwise, why bother freezing at all???.
That one (untested in Court) interpretation of British Law infers that it is “OK” to freeze the process if you hold a Bookmaker’s Permit is, IMHO, immaterial to the fundamental question:
Is there anyone who can use logic to justify the argument that “freezing the clock can’t and doesn’t impact Betting Integrity”? In other words,show that “clock-freezing is harmless“???
NB: I didn’t ask if there’s anyone out there who wants clock-freezing to be allowed (there is at least ONE Company that obviously does!!!)
More worryingly still, there might also be one Regulator who also thinks it’s harmless!!!!!!!!!!
Finally, IMHO, it doesn’t actually matter if the clock is only frozen by only a mere 10 milliseconds, if the “freezer” is able to conduct their deeds within that Time.
And it is not really important if ( due to locational delay differences) the onset Time or length of a freeze period varies between Customers.
The only impactless policy on the subject, IMHO, is simple: NO FREEZING ALLOWED!
Adonis.
Caruso,
–
I think you’re somewhat overreacting.
No doubt the LGA receive a lot of complaints, most of them unjustified. You should have a look at the betfair casino forum section… Some of these nutters who scream scam here, scam there, probably even write to the LGA. The problem for the LGA is probably to sift through all this rubbish they receive.
–
Also, some of these regulators are very inexperienced. What is on top of their agenda is to control gambling addiction, which they do well IMO (that goes for the Gambling Commission at least).
Our job is to educate them and let them know there are other issues as well which deserve some attention.
How they pick up on that is the real question. They will be judged, eventually.
Medini said:
–
“I think you’re somewhat overreacting. No doubt the LGA receive a lot of complaints, most of them unjustified. You should have a look at the betfair casino forum section… Some of these nutters who scream scam here, scam there, probably even write to the LGA. The problem for the LGA is probably to sift through all this rubbish they receive.”
–
“No doubt”, “probably” this, “probably” that. The LGA has for a fact continued to “license” Betchance while it has been in no-pay mode for fully six months and counting. The LGA has for a fact ignored me for fully four months, and everyone else into the bargain, save for one form email, on complaints totalling I estimate $100,000 USD.
–
On what basis is my factual comment above an “overreaction”, in your opinion? How do you know without doubt “most complaints are unjustified”? How do you know it’s mainly “rubbish”? Read my complaint here:
–
http://www.hundredpercentgambl…..e-than.htm
–
You think that’s “rubbish”?
–
This is an extraordinary stance. You post misinformed opinion as fact.
–
“Also, some of these regulators are very inexperienced. What is on top of their agenda is to control gambling addiction, which they do well IMO (that goes for the Gambling Commission at least).
Our job is to educate them and let them know there are other issues as well which deserve some attention.
How they pick up on that is the real question. They will be judged, eventually.”
–
How do you know what is top of their agenda? You think the LGA controls gambling addiction, and “well”? Post corroboration of this – I must have missed it, and it’s a pretty powerful assertion to make. Why is it my “job” to educate them? Breaking news: these people are PAID to do a job by the government. It is THEIR job to know how to do their job when they do it.
–
How many surgeons get away with botched operations with “Well, I’m really not very experienced, you know. It’s your job to educate me – it’s not my fault”. That is about the most absurd thing I’ve heard. He’d be up on a malpractice suit in a New York second.
–
Why does a WHOLE new set of criteria apply to the gambling industry that does not apply to every other business? Why do you make such an extraordinary set of assumptions when there is a ton of corroborated evidence staring you in the face which indicates the exact opposite?
Caruso,
–
you’re actually giving the LGA too much credit – they should know everything and they should respond to everyone. By doing so you end up being disrespectful (justified or unjustified, I don’t care) which is a pitty. It is not about who is right and who is wrong, in the end it is about how effective you are. It always is.
You sound very knowledgable and experienced in this area and it would serve you better to accept that simple fact.
–
As for facts, you’re at the wrong address I’m sorry to say. I don’t believe in facts and if you want to impress someone with facts you should turn to Chris, amongst others. To me, you’re just one guy with an opinion (who deserves some respect) like many others. I also believe there is huge advantage and power (the right kind) in being able to look at things from different perspectives, including (especially) your enemies.
–
If you really believe the LGA are being negligent, who you want to talk to is Adonis IMO (he’s right around the corner). Or better yet, ask him to sink his teeth into the LGA.
–
Cheers.
(I’ll try logging in again…)
No, still got it all wrong, bear with me…
Medini, this is for you – look right down the bottom:
–
http://www.sportsbookreview.com/
–
BetChance (SBR rating F) player reports that the sportsbook informed him it will finally close
The player states the no-pay sportsbook called to offer him a settlement of 25% of his balance or the possibility of being paid in 20 months. BetChance has been unable to clear delinquent withdrawal requests for almost a year while teasing owed users with email updates about new ownership and small sporadic payments to a fortunate few. Most players do not expect to see any of their funds and now believe the empty promises and positive updates were part of the scam to remain operational in Malta while collecting from new depositors.”
–
Now read it again, because I know you didn’t believe it the first time. Me neither.
–
That was six weeks ago. Six weeks. Oh, and I made a mistake, it’s not six months that they’ve been in no-pay mode. It’s a whole year.
–
Now go here, Medini:
–
http://cert.lga.org.mt/
–
…and click on “Class 2″, then look at entry number five.
–
See anything anything there to change you opinion?
–
For anyone who doesn’t feel like clicking through, I’ll spare you the suspense. Yes, it’s Betchance. Betchance, who list themselves thus:
–
Betting Licence Number: LGA/CL2/189/2004
–
That means “LGA license Class 2, number 189, granted 2004″.
–
No payments for fully one year, still licensed by the LGA. The license is not listed as “cancelled”, not even “suspended” (as it can be)! It’s fully current. C-U-R-R-E-N-T. They haven’t even bothered to suspend Betchance’s license, fully aware that this licensee has barely paid anyone in a year!
–
This is a monumental scandal.
–
Run that bit by me again abour it being our job to educate the gambling regulators who are wilting under the weight of all the scam complaints they receive?
Hey Caruso… If I wasn’t so “sceptical” I would have taken everything for granted that Betfair taught me.
Cheer up man, if you’re going to fight the LGA at least do it with a smile on your face or else you won’t last long. Some of us know about these things.
@caruso: Could you log in?
Yes, however my handle still appears as it was when I wasn’t registered if not logged in, so I can comment both logged in and logged out under the same username (hence non-logged in posts above). Difference is capital “C” when not logged in. I’ll try and remember to log in.
–
Medemi:
–
“It is not about who is right and who is wrong, in the end it is about how effective you are.”
–
That’s an unfortunate perspective. It helps to be right AND effective. I have no desire to take a wrong position.
–
Your comments about not being interested in facts are odd to say the least.
“It is not about who is right and who is wrong, in the end it is about how effective you are.”
That’s an unfortunate perspective. It helps to be right AND effective. I have no desire to take a wrong position.
My point is, you could be 100% right and still lose, suffer from burn-out. Whatever. Not saying you personally, but in general. The opposite is also true, you could be proven wrong in the end, yet contributed massively in search for the truth. Whatever.
–
Your comments about not being interested in facts are odd to say the least.
It’s not that I’m not interested in them, I don’t believe in them. In other words, they appear to me as a point of view (with some added weight).
The other thread for instance, Chris seemed thrilled at the evidence he found about the LGA being a respectable regulator. Now he’s very disappointed after having a look at your facts. That would never happen to me – these swings. Well, never say never, but when it does happen to me I feel like an idiot. That’s why I am who I am.
Sorry to get you involved in this Chris.
btw, your new anti-spam plugin seems to be working fine.
@Medemi: “btw, your new anti-spam plugin seems to be working fine.”
–
Great.
@caruso: “my handle”
–
Go to your profile.
Fill either:
– your first name
– your last name
– your nickname
All this with or without capital letters.
Then, press “SAVE”.
Then, pick up your choice under “Display name publicly as”…
Then, click “SAVE” again.
There is this thought I can’t get rid of lately. It was the mods at WBX telling me that it’s fine to give someone stick, but I should expect the same in return. Well, when I gave the chief moderator some stick, he banned me for life. Hahaha…
Yup, login is all fine. When I’m not logged in, I can still post under pre-registered (same) handle, but not a problem.
I think its quite sad to see the WBX total matched market manipulation. The reason why its sad is that a genuine competitor to BF has the ability to shadow the prices on BF – if a market is trading at evens on BF, there is no reason why an internal seeding robot should not be laying say 1.9 on WBX, in lumpy size, whilst backing 2.1. Its a win-win, getting over the odds on the BF price, and can only be picked off by corrupt accounts, i.e. people who know the actual result of fixed races or matches.
–
Restrict the size that the 1.9 and 2.1 bets are good in, say 5k, and then fritter that money outwards in a rainbow at lower and higher increments, respectively further away from evens than the 1.9 to 2.1 band are.
–
WBX need a trading robot on their own markets. It is fully doable, betdirect have done something like this for years, with a robot plugged in to the bf price shadowing it. With the aim of long run profitability, offering fairly meaty size ten clicks above and below the current o/u 2.5 goals price on bf, really wouldn’t be difficult to program, and there would be a lot of investors ready to fund such a project (i can think of a number i know personally who would be happy getting ten clicks above or below current bf price commission free). Having no liquidity is inexcusable, when WBX are in the position to literally take on BF using the free market prices on the exchange which are available in size.
I’m sure there are scanning robots operating over the different exchanges looking for overbroke opportunities. WBX & Betdaq are both missing out on joining in the party. Tradefair (Betfair in disguise) are actively recruiting heavy Betfair users in Hammersmith trying to court them into seeding Tradefair, but a robot offering real liquidity on WBX and Betdaq, scabbing the BF price to put up real liquidity, would be a massive bonus to both exchanges, and I think would look like a much more attractive and profitable tool for the current people BF are chasing to seed TF.
Ed,
–
I have a bot that “rotates” through the markets on betfair. All I needed to do is hook it up with WBX. I was willing to build such an application offering prices just below the real prices with a non-profit intent, just for the fun of it. Maybe even spread it around. I let the WBX management know I was interested in providing some liquidity but they never got back to me. It seems they prefer their fake markets, and when I found out about that I lost complete interest of course. There must be more people like me. It’s better this way, let them go down. I have no intention of using my bot ever again btw.
Assuming that’s true medemi (which i do), then I seriously have no idea why they bothered opening up an exchange.
Sporting Options went bust because they seeded their own markets – and went out of line with the price on Bet”fair”. Using a robot to internally seed with prices on stable markets which don’t go out of line with the prevailing market price is probably critical to WBX and Betdaq’s success. Its absolutely bonkers to swell their own turnover with artificial trading figures, but not try to find a way to get real liquidity into the market. Catering for the non-price sensitive punters is what keeps the wheels oiled on BF and WBX/Betdaq. Having no liquidity when there is a fairly easy way to do it is just potty.
> Please be advised that following an investigation into your activity in the
> Betfair Casino, we have concluded that your bets were carried out with the
> express purpose of abusing the bonus offered.
–
Betfair set the rules. Either they pay out because the conditions were met, or they don’t because the conditions were not met. There is not a whole lot in between betfair. But no… you have to describe a customer’s behaviour as abusive. Typical.
–
> This is in accordance to the bonus terms and conditions which stats that
> “Betfair also reserves the right not to pay any bonus to customers that it
> suspects to be abusing this promotion.”
–
We’ve seen it all before really, it’s called “caveat emptor”.
–
This is just sick. I thought betfair is a reputable company.
What alleged offense warrants partial confiscation of ones cashout?
Close the account for fraud, or pay the man what he won.
What fraud ???
–
There are waging requirements to release these bonuses.
If the requirements are not “in the spirit of the game” then betfair need to update them.
Either way, pay the man.
–
Don’t get me started on this one….
Some of the People can be fooled, some of the Time.
But no-one can fool all of the People, all of the Time……
But a fool can fool himself, all of the Time…….
Observation:
In the good old days (pre-legal betting in England) of bookie’s “runners”, a bookie who welched (didn’t pay out) was liable to face the immediate, and rough, justice of his Clientele. He would make sure that he had an obvious, tenable reason for welching, before stepping onto the street! He certainly wouldn’t expect to take many more bets until he’d faced up to his actions against a large quorum of his Clientele….
The local Clientele were interested in good-old-fashioned Fair Play, and if the bookie couldn’t satisfy them (a lot of them all at once, not just a separated-out individual) that his reason for withholding was reasonable and realistic, he’d pay the street-Rules “price”.
It often meant a stay in the local Infirmary……
Unfortunately, such “natural justice” is now outlawed, so we are all reverted to an imposed Rule: Caveat Emptor.
Which begs the question: given the option, would any Client elect for a bookie’s Caveat Emptor Rule as a default determinator?????
Well, actually, YES!!!
Virtually all bookies have a “Rule” in their small print which effectively gives them carte blanche to withhold any amount, including Customers’ deposits, at any Time, for any length of Time (forever included!)
They won’t let you bet until you’ve signed up to their small print.
Which begs the question:
Is such a sweeping exclusion of normally acceptable defence processes legally sustainable?
Even if it is legally acceptable, is it socially acceptable?
Adonis,
–
betfair are abusing a rule that was designed to offer them some protection.
And they have the nerve to accuse a customer of abusive behaviour.
We should rip their hearts out.
The only reason to refuse full payout is fraud. Stolen credit card, multiple accounts etc.
Playing to win as much money as possible with the aid of a marketing offer is not fraud, therefore full payout must be warranted.
Why does Sandracer’s post still not show up in Google reader ?
Why does the refresh button seem out of order ?
Why doesn’t Google reader offer anything of use to me ?
Like auto refresh, a treeview of comments in relation to original pages etc.
–
Why does “discussions” only show 1 response to this thread ? We have 6.
Why does “recent comments” show them in the wrong order ?
Why am I continually deleting cookies, hitting refresh buttons, refreshing manually, logging off/on etc. ?
Why am I checking my e-mail for recent comments ? Because it is the only thing that actually works if you disregard the spam.
–
In a world where news travels at light speed, this is simply unacceptable. IMHO.
test (sorry)
Updates are once every hour ?
–
11.27 PM
12.28 AM (2 comments)
01.28 AM (3 comments)
–
I suppose that’s fine for blogs, but not for discussions.
@Medemi: “betfair are abusing a rule”
–
We don’t know that for sure, yet. Wait till you have further facts.
@Sandracer: “Playing to win as much money as possible with the aid of a marketing offer is not fraud”
–
What did BetFair Casino reply to that?
–
Give airtime to them.
@Medemi: About Midas Oracle, the comments, Google Reader, etc.
–
Midas Oracle is a blog with comments —not a web forum.
–
If you find that Midas Oracle is not adapted for web commenting, then here’s what you can do. When you post a comment on Midas Oracle, put the URL of the web forum elsewhere where you intend to continue the deep discussion with your online discussants. And at that external web forum, say you come from Midas Oracle.
–
That way you can begin a discussion on Midas Oracle, have a deep discussion about it elsewhere, and maybe come back to Midas Oracle in the end to tell people what the outcome is.
–
Google Reader indeed refreshes once a hour or so the comments of Midas Oracle.
–
I’m sorry you find Midas Oracle slow for commenting, but, as I said, it’s structured to have posts + comments, not discussion alone. A web forum is more appropriate for long, deep, infinite discussions, because it refreshes quicker.
–
It’s not a problem if you give external links to other web forums or blogs, here. You can either set up elsewhere your own web forum, and direct your commenters there.
–
Some of the problems you encounter (”deleting cookies”) are a bit puzzling. I don’t understand why you run into those problems. Commenting on a blog is a simple operation.
–
As for the “discussions” page, it lists only the last comment of each thread, and experiences a lag time, I suppose.
–
It could be possible for me to set up a web forum, in addition to this blog, but something I really want to do. Other people elsewhere on the Web do it better than I would do. So let’s direct people to them, when it’s needed.
@Medemi: “I suppose that’s fine for blogs, but not for discussions.”
–
Then, switch to a PC-based feed reader.
–
I use SAGE on FireFox.
http://www.midasoracle.org/about/feeds/
–
With a PC-based feed reader, it’s you who decides when to refresh —not the machine.
[…] Google Reader fetches our comment feed once an hour or so. Too long for some. […]
@Medemi: Did some of your problems had to do with this?
http://www.dreamhoststatus.com…..roblems-5/
@Medemi: Did some of your problems had to do with this?
–
If you are referring to me deleting my cookies, I’m not sure about the effects of that. I don’t know.
I will check out the PC-based feed readers later. For now I will stick with my e-mail feeder since that is the only place where the news will actually come to me.
–
Thanks.
@Medemi: OK.
–
But for that you need to check each time the “receive comments as e-mails” options, in each post. Which compels you to post a little comment each time.
–
Anyway, if it works that way…
–
I do use SAGE with FireFox and it’s super.
(My main feed reader is Google Reader.)
@Medemi: “I will check out the PC-based feed readers later. For now I will stick with my e-mail feeder since that is the only place where the news will actually come to me.”
–
The PC-based feed reader is THE solution to your problem. Please, consider it seriously.
Hello,
I was unaware of this site until today.
I have done my own writeup on the Betfair issue – is it OK to link?
http://www.hundredpercentgambl…..cation.htm
I have now removed the link I had to Betfair on my site, although all my various Betfair articles are staying…with nice big warnings at the top. In the first case, “bonus abuse”, Betfair is almost certainly in breach of Maltese law.
[…] hope that his/her grievances will find their […]
A couple of thoughts.
–
1. How does one abuse a bonus offering by simply using a bot ? I don’t see it, and I’m educated on both – bots and statistics. Betfair are also going to have to show us how it can be done, a simple mention in their T&C will not be sufficient in a court of law IMO.
–
2. Betfair receive some free advertising now. The message they want out, is that they won’t tolerate bonus chasers so they won’t come anymore. The best course of action is to file a formal complaint with the Maltese regulator and hand over all evidence.
–
3. What a mess… and what a waste of time and money for everyone involved, even those who are not involved. Maybe we should have laws against these types of bonus offerings.
I would be intrigued by a poll put on the bf forum where solely bf users (not staff) were allowed to post, asking how many people would actually recommend bf at the mo.
–
An improved bf in my book would make these changes
–
(1) limit on stake sizes/wins per market for new users, building up in size over time (stops insiders coming on and whacking through massive money on a single prediction market)
–
(2) blacklisting of the players which bf themselves said in the sunday times last week that they “monitor much more closely than other competitors”. (once a player is ‘in’, they are ‘in’ for life).
–
(3) more intelligence being used by bf to design ethical bonuses in the first place, rather than putting up a flawed scheme and trying to palp accounts later which broke no part of the original regulation (other than the predictable ‘caveat emptor’ part of them)
–
(4) sacking any staff who spend bf office time attacking people on either the bf or other web fora from behind chatnames they think are anonymous
–
(5) all bets placed after events have finished to be voided (bf are now doing this on some australian events, as it is illegal for them to run markets in the way they do outside of australia)
–
(6) bf market ops to identify which accounts are smashing through large money every point/run etc on events that take place in australia/usa, where people courtside are breaking the law in those countries.
–
(7) money to be put back into each sport that bf profits from to help pay for the costs of integrity/policing, rather than the current status quo on most sports bar racing and greyhounds, where bf make money out of the sport and impose an extra cost onto the sport itself.
–
(8) clear information published as to the volume of bets that are p2p, and the volume that aren’t.
–
(9) best execution on all markets, and a guarantee that they will never turn the trap bet robot back on
–
–
medemi, what do you make of the bf announcement
–
“Finally, please note that Betfair will shortly be making important changes to the way the forum is run. In future, you will only be able to post on the forum if full ‘know your customer’ (KYC) checks for you have been completed. ”
–
surely its crazy that people can register and place large bets immediately without completing the KYC (is the criteria still that you have to complete it once you reach 3% commission?), but there are much stricter requirements in place on people making forum posts? surely they should be worrying about the markets much more than the forum,……
surely its crazy that people can register and place large bets immediately without completing the KYC (is the criteria still that you have to complete it once you reach 3% commission?), but there are much stricter requirements in place on people making forum posts? surely they should be worrying about the markets much more than the forum,……
–
I already said that, somewhere, on here.
We are, in fact, betfair’s best friends. But if they want to make an enemy of us, then so be it.
That last line not necessarily in relation to your quote btw.
medemi – i can’t find the piece by a bf customer talking about how he had had an email through saying his bet at 1000 after an event had finished (he was trying to free up funds) had been refunded because it broke australian law.
–
these kind of bets take place many times a day on many bf markets. i really think that some of the business, say when its matchpoint on a final set tie break, a player is trading at say 1.4 to win the match (she has a matchpoint on her opponents serve), and then suddenly everything is hoovered down to 1.01 before bf suspend, well that kind of business should be voided, and happily it looks like it is illegal in australia.
–
it does beg the question tho, what is an australian punter doing betting in running? must have been someone betting on an australian event from outside australia.
–
–
i actually agree with you that we are their “best friends”. they proudly state how they are the only exchange to put up warnings about faster pictures, but they only put that up after my anti-illegal hoovering from the USA campaign in late 2006. i asked them behind the scenes for it, and they only did it when it broke in the NOTW. same with the ban on people betting from the US, again their changes to betfair t&c’s were only made after my campaign.
–
they really should listen.
its really sad the way that if one bf user puts one over another user through unethical means, its “caveat emptor”, but where its bf’s own money at stake, they try to withdraw their poorly designed offer.
–
there is a delicious irony which will happen in the future if bf did decide to actively trade their own markets. bf would then void/shut down all the sharp operators betting with shady advantages. active trading would destroy the p2p exchange, yet ironically, it would also deliver huge improvements in levelling the playing field
Ed, I already mentioned on the betfair forum that any bets struck after the event has finished is illegal in my book. It will be one day too in the UK. Betfair should have the capability to retroactively void bets up until a certain timestamp in the past to be able to deal with this practical problem effectively.
–
As for clearer messages, it was a poster called “frog” and myself who battled fiercely on this front, and the GC seem to have taken on some of those concerns now . I don’t know about your campaign. If anything, I would say they listen to frog sometimes as he still seems to have some credit with them.
That is not to say I don’t think you have any influence, but quite frankly I don’t care who does as long as betfair get the job done which they are supposed to do.
My goal was to get into their heads in the boardroom, and change their thinking from “what is currently legal/illegal”, towards “what is right/wrong”. When I was told they had changed their decisions a few months earlier on reality tv markets – which mark davies had trumpeted at full volume on the front pages of the national press – back towards a free for all, because “there is no law being broken by phone vote insiders”, it was obvious that they should have stuck with their earlier decision instead of reversing it. My campaign led them to do another U-turn, and the policy of shutting events at the time the events finish, is still in place now two years later (and counting). The other change I campaigned for on game by game/frame by frame markets, of the same delays on game/frame markets as match odds markets, is also still in place
–
I think they thought they were insular from the press/media, but the reality is they failed to recognise that they have a responsibility, as a gambling operator, to keep their own house in order. If they refuse to talk or communicate, there are very few options left.
–
The regulation will change, but a lot of progress has been made. It is really ironic they now trumpet the warnings which I said they should put on the markets, as evidence that they are responsible operators :-). How times change
. Those warnings would not have been put on without me, and they know that :-).
I think they thought they were insular from the press/media, but the reality is they failed to recognise that they have a responsibility.
–
Very true.
–
Yes, some progress has been made. But that isn’t hard when you think about how things were 3 or 4 years ago. I thought I was sent back in time a couple of hundred years when I first joined the forum and witnessed this wild-west spirit.
I think betfair got the message so it’s up to them now. I also think they got rid of us by banning us from the forum because they can’t handle so much stick from us.
lol
this is the thread you got a ban for, and it is odd they never actually took it down
http://site.forum.betfair.com/…..ID=1437159
–
pretty much everyone was disgusted with the betfair trap bet robot, but your criticism of mark davies statement as “lies” in the thread title, probably annoyed him directly (or someone junior trying to curry favour with him).
–
i wish they would release the thread i got a ban for, i said absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever, they just panicked about the argument between troy and his mates, and the legal damage that troy and his friends could do to betfair with their betting in 2004/2005 & 2006 from the new york hilton on the US open. it was completely unfair, and if i had posted under any chatname other than “dj sunset”, nothing i said was wrong, and they wouldn’t have connected the row behind the scenes between me and them (they told me twice the betting from new york was completely illegal, so i complained it was unfair they were letting people bet millions of pounds from new york into the bf markets), with that thread. it was totally spiteful and ridiculous.
i wish chris masse had first hand experience of betting heavily on bf markets. i have no idea how much chris bets on bf (and full apologies if chris is a heavy user), but when there is a series of trap bet robots, hooverers, suspicious price movements on matches, immediate losses taken from bf accounts where there are markets with suspicious price movements, ridiculous forum bans, and in my case leaks of my own account details deliberately down my local pub from a bf employee, and another bf employee being outed as posting maliciously on bettingforum.co.uk , well, its just tiring.
–
there is no anti-betfair agenda, it would be great to see bf doing well, but also having trap bet robots switched off, people stopped from betting from the us/australia illegally, suspicious players not being offered, a ban on leaks down my local pub of my account details, and the sack for abusive bf members of staff behind anonymous chatnames. betfair deserves to go from strength to strength, and all of these things are just unacceptable
this is the thread you got a ban for, and it is odd they never actually took it down
–
Supposedly Ed, Supposedly. And I’ve never been officially banned from the forum.
I also want to reiterate that I wanted to put “lies” in the title between quotation marks, but quotation marks are not allowed in the title for some technical reason. Thinking about it made me forget to put a question mark at the end.
But that’s ok, I got to meet you and Adonis again, and all this great stuff here on Midas Oracle.
99% of Midas Oracle is great. The other 1% are the 2003/2004 style pro-BF threads. A lot of us used to put up threads saying BF are great etcetera, but there is nobody left on the BF forum saying that anymore, except for user “artie”. It would be lovely if the reality matched the 2003/2004 pro-Bf threads from the Bf forum, or the 2008 MO threads. Maybe having four locals all coming up to me with a description of what a BF staff member has been saying to them about my account profitability/margin/turnover, and giving one of them advice to stop putting bets on for me, would be something which would alarm most people just how indiscrete BF are. I find it unbelievable to have random locals who have never placed a bet on BF, giving me the full thoughts of BF’s legal team, and the one who helps me get bets on being advised by that BF employee not to let me. Its like someone talking about my bank accounts, its completely outrageous. He keeps doing it, and I have not had a single reply to at least 5 emails over an 18 month period, nor an apology. It is surely completely illegal. Perhaps if that happened to other Midas Oracle users, their view of the current BF team would become somewhat dimmer.
You have your personal experiences Ed, I don’t know how to comment on that.
What’s most worrying from my point of view, is betfair’s attempt to silence me and others.
I wish I didn’t have to come to that conclusion, but from what I have expereinced over recent months (and that includes the complaints Chris has received about me) I simply cannot make another deduction.
And that puts betfair in a very bad light.
The regulators aren’t skilled enough to apply regulation in a proactive manner. There is more money and less hassle, if there is no regulation. It has to be as easy as possible for everyone to bet, and as difficult as possible for anyone to flag up ethics. That’s why you are a danger, I am another danger, and there is a rush to silence anyone constructive. Its an arrangement which works well for the incumbent team, and anyone threatening the smooth course of a comfortable arrangement, is disposable.
Ed, I’m very well aware why I could be a danger to them and in what way exactly. I can put myself in their position. Also, I don’t feel like talking about it on a forum.
But by chasing me after they got rid of me on the betfair forum was a huge mistake. And I feel I should remind them of that, as I do whenever I feel they are making a mistake.
You’re not a danger to BF – the only things you or any of us have called for is protecting fairness, upholding the law, giving value for money to punters, and minimising the amount of skulduggery. Actually the more I think about, the more their identification of “Team BetFair” and “Everyone Else”, where Everyone Else are supposedly highly dangerous and must be silenced at any cost, the more silly it is.
I have just realised that I think I’m in the position where I don’t think much of the anti-prediction market Paul Wolfowitz lobbying group to the CFTC, and I am also very uncertain about the pro-prediction market lobby to the CFTC. Making it easier for people to wager against one another has advantages, but also has severe problems. Prediction markets with effective regulation are the answer, and at the moment we have one out of two.
Betfair’s real enemies are not discussing opinions openly. They are going behind their backs, and will try and make profits on their exchange any way they can. They don’t engage in constructive debate. This is who betfair considers to be their “friends”. That’s just the world we live in I suppose – see no evil, hear no evil.
–
So here we are. I don’t remember being critical of betfair in my first year, I was in my second, and I certainly stepped up the pace in my third. That’s because I care about the things you mentioned, and betfair are putting one mistake on top of another. And it does seem they are getting personal about this, which doesn’t reflect well on a companies’ policy.
I wrote article after article supporting Betfair, advocating Betfair, and was massively pro-Betfair for years, in exactly the same way that Midas Oracle is pro-Betfair now.
–
I still actually am pro-Betfair, though by that I mean that a profitable Betfair, with internally regulated markets & full effort put in to giving people the chance to bet fairly, is something I support. I don’t support malicious internet posts from BF staff or malicious gossiping in local pubs. That is just ridiculous. BF are in the position where if anyone complains, they can threaten people with account closure, whether or not BF have indeed leaked account information and broken the Data Protection Act deliberately, time and again.
They can close the whole thing down in the UK as far as I’m concerned, meaning betting exchanges and bookmakers as well. What’s going on in the US with the CFTC is a lot more interesting, actually.
I also believe regulation from the start is crucial, or else we’ll end up with the same kind of uncontrollable mess we have in the UK today. The gambling markets will survive, for now, but for the socially valuable markets for which there is less demand, it would already have been the end. Let’s hope betfair doesn’t get involved. 🙂
They can close the whole thing down in the UK as far as I’m concerned, meaning betting exchanges and bookmakers as well. What’s going on in the US with the CFTC is a lot more interesting, actually.
–
lol
. i think society would be better off if gambling was banned, but given that its here to stay, i think betfair fully deserves support as part of that landscape and has much to offer. what i would change is the regulation of betfair, as i don’t think there is enough thought and altruistic goodwill from within the current bf team to move towards betting taking place fairly. its so obvious they should make it difficult for insiders and cheats, yet with racing BF policy has been to leave suspicious accounts open for years, so that those accounts can be ‘monitored’. when the BHA have only just started proceedings about a race from 2004 (yes, 2004) , what happened to all the people trying to bet fairly in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008? 
–
there is a real danger with the “socially valuable” prediction markets, that without effective regulation, they will perform socially damaging functions, such as encouraging assassinations or terrorist incidents. its no good having 99.9% socially valuable functions from an expansion of prediction markets, and one extra assassination on top.
–
betfair with regulation should be fully supported if the us market was deregulated and opened up. in its current form, the cost-benefit analysis to society of doing so would look decidedly in the balance.
You can laugh Ed, but I’ve gone from a huge supporter (I was actually actively looking for something like betfair 3 years ago because it had to be there, that’s how I found them) to someone who prefers to behave like a mug and look for a bookmaker now. And I hate bookmakers. All in the course of let’s say 2 years.
Ed, did you happen to read the alledged market manipulation that is going on at WBX ? By the operator itself ?
Another one of your famous betting exchanges.
–
http://forum.wbx.com/viewtopic.php?t=32070
–
It’s amazing that we even had a debate about that.
(It’s also the thread that resulted in my ban there, for whatever reasons but you shouldn’t pay too much attention to that aspect
Manipulating transactions – effecting, or participating
in effecting, transactions or orders to trade which give or
are likely to give a false or misleading impression as to
the supply, demand, price or value of a qualifying
investment or related investment, or which secure the
price of such an investment at an abnormal or artificial
level.
–
LOLOL! that is an outstanding spot
–
I don’t blame WBX for boosting their amount traded figures (again, we’re going back to the exchanges not being regulated territory here, with practise that would be illegal in financial markets).
–
The best thing that could happen for punters is a Bet Angel style device, where backs and lays are put into ALL the betting exchanges, and matched at best price. I actually know what BF have said about this idea behind the scenes
, but seeing as it would increase value for punters, and massively decrease BF’s market strength, its not hard to work it out.
Is that why they haven’t removed the thread, because they think they’re operating within the law ?
They could be in for a surprise…
–
And it’s not just boosting the amount traded figures. Every single transaction on that market, in my view, was fake.
I think they are operating within the law tho, because they’re not FSA regulated? I don’t think any non-spread bookmaker is FSA related?
–
The figures on that market look incredibly cack-handed and hard to believe. Having WBX trading big volume, whilst other exchanges including Betfair are at the zero mark, is amusing
.
I don’t think they’re operating within the law. The Gambling Commission have some general principles (not to be underestimated!) attached to licences they hand out. You’ll find them if you dig deep enough. Not my specialty though.
I don’t think they are breaking the law (i’m no legal expert), even if they are going against the spirit of how the markets should be run. An example like this though should make it clear to fans of prediction markets on Midas Oracle who are making submissions to the CFTC, that non-financial markets need just as much (if not more) protection than financial ones, and there are clear examples of how the current prediction exchanges outside of the US are behaving in a way that would be totally unethical, and illegal, in a financial market. Its not acceptable.
non-financial markets need just as much (if not more) protection than financial ones
–
Excellent. And yes, definitely more !
Exactly why will be food for thought.
Enjoy the rest of your week-end, and thanks for this conversation Ed.
@Ed…
“i think society would be better off if gambling was banned, but given that its here to stay, i think betfair fully deserves support as part of that landscape and has much to offer. ”
I disagree:
I have read the betfair forum.
I read, therein, that a substantial number of betfair Customers postings were VERY unhappy when it was revealed, retrospectively, that betfair had instigated a no-risk method of matching bets which also resulted in a portion of Client funds ostensibly being abstracted (at no risk) by the exchange.
It seems that the only way that such a process can be done, at no risk to the exchange, is via “freezing” the matching queue ( thus effectively freezing every Customer’s ability to do anything to protect themselves- if they had a way to do that, even!).
I also read betfair’s announcement that it deemed itself ENTITLED to abstract funds in the way it did, BECAUSE IT HELD A BOOKMAKER’S LICENCE.
IMHO, it pays to err on the side of experience and safety.
So when my doorbell rings and the caller says ” I’m just doing a survey”, my usual response is “yes, and I’m Santa Claus…… so what are you trying to sell to me????”
Lots of people are falling all over themselves telling us that the Emperor’s Suit of Clothes is fabulous…. there’s a couple of guys out there called Ed, Medemi, Adonis (and some we shouldn’t mention because the Imperial Guard isn’t onto them yet!) who’re simply saying “DO TAKE A LOOK before you jump to the conclusions expected of you!!!!!”
Warm regards,
Adonis
Well, why should I care how large the time window on such a freeze is ?
If I want to cancel an order, as a non-UK customer, I’ll have to wait another (extra) 120ms for my transaction to be processed. So who cares if betfair freezes my order for another 240ms or so, so they can increase the likelihood of matching it with someone else and keep a variable percentage for themselves. It’s all possible in the UK and I don’t see how anyone could object to that.
Also, I’m pretty sure the Gambling Commission can tell us exactly what the maximum allowed time window is.
I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for an answer from the GC, Medemi……..
If you aren’t fortunate enough to be able to afford an API interface, then WHEREVER you live, there will be the possibility that a “bot” can cash in on you, in the event that your exchange doesn’t get their first.
It’s called a level playing field….. For my next joke….
Adonis
So you’re saying that anyone betting from outside the UK, and who uses the standard interface, is actually a mug because he’s (on top of that) subjected to betfair’s cross matching algorithm.
–
What’s more important, is to get the numbers out in the open so consumers can make an informed decision where they want to spend their money. We have the 120ms figure for non-UK customers (although I’m not entirely sure they apply to cancelling orders as well), now all we need is the advantage of the API translated into ms, and the time window on betfair’s freeze.
–
Erm… anyone know ?
The 120ms delay applies to ALL bet manipulation calls including cancelling, web or API. I think its actually 60/60, 60ms for your bet to Malta and another 60ms for Malta to place/cancel their bet on your behalf. International users don`t bet on the exchange.
Great, so we can pin down the 120ms for non-UK customers.
Leaves us with the API advantage relative to the standard interface, and the freeze window.
–
Just to sum things up. 🙂
non-financial markets need just as much (if not more) protection than financial ones
Excellent. And yes, definitely more !
Exactly why will be food for thought.
–
And here is the (partial) answer.
“Insider trading is a bigger deal in sports than in the financial markets,” said Justin Wolfers
–
It just adds more weight when I mention his name. For now.
Not sure I follow that one Medemi “freeze window”?. If you mean if an API and Web bet were placed simultaneously with the same odds and bet type, would either have an advantage? I doubt that there would be anything noticeable on the exchange side except maybe an irrelevant difference casued by translating those two different types of calls.
I`m speculating here as we dont have the infrastructure plans, but if you placed two bets together, one at 5.0 and one at 6.0, if the 5.0 odds already had 50 other bets in that que waiting to be processed and the 6.0 only has your bet then the 6.0 bet could be placed quicker. This is all presuming Betfair has implemented some parallel processing of bets.
BarryO,
There are a number of ways to look at it, but I was looking at it this way.
Whenever betfair want to match my bet they’d have to look for an opposing bet to set off their risk. With cross-matching they’d have to look at a number of alternatives (and do many calculations), during which I will be unable to cancel (for practical reasons) even when they receive an order from me to cancel. Normally you’d expect them to finish all calculations and release my bet (which they had to lock earlier on) at least every 1/100 of a second. I see an opportunity for betfair to profit from having my bet locked for a little bit longer, let’s say 100ms, as to – in their own words perhaps- “provide a service and increase my chances of having my bet matched, which is what customers want”.
Hope that makes sense, and even if it doesn’t, I would still like to know how long they can hold on to my bet. Shouldn’t be longer than 1/100 of a second IMO, once they receive an order to cancel.
Hello again.
–
Medini said:
–
1. How does one abuse a bonus offering by simply using a bot ? I don’t see it, and I’m educated on both – bots and statistics. Betfair are also going to have to show us how it can be done, a simple mention in their T&C will not be sufficient in a court of law IMO.
–
The casino would argue that a bot makes it easier for the user to clear the wagering requirements of a bonus. They want real people clicking away on bonuses, not bots. Also, bots are almost certainly used by multi-accounters who simply lack the time or inclination to play multiple accounts manually. As such, bots equate to bad news for casinos more than good news. I have to disagree that outlawing bots would not be sufficient in court. If they say “no bots”, then that’s as clear as it gets. Of course, they’d be more than happy to have bots pissing away customers’ funds WITHOUT a bonus, but let’s leave aside good ole’ casino hypocrisy.
–
The problem is not dissallowing bots. The problem is that:
–
1) The allegation is UNPROVEN.
–
2) Other players have simply been accused of “bonus abuse”. Of course, THAT is rank illegal, to disallow winnings on the basis of vague teminology. I have commented more on this in my blog article on the subject I posted a link to above. Betfair are almost certainly in breach of Maltese, err…”law”.
–
On that matter:
–
2. Betfair receive some free advertising now. The message they want out, is that they won’t tolerate bonus chasers so they won’t come anymore. The best course of action is to file a formal complaint with the Maltese regulator and hand over all evidence.
–
I take it you’re not sooo familiar with the Malta Lotteries And Gaming Authority?
–
I am :):):)
–
http://www.hundredpercentgambl…..hority.htm
–
Hope it’s OK to link again, but I’m sure you’ll find things you didn’t know about. If you can’t be bothered to read it all, I’ll sum up for you: the Malta LGA is useless. It flat out ignores players, and continues “licensing” operations that have long ago stopped paying players. In short, it’s a whitewash service for its licensees, and a complete joke as a “regulatory” authority. So forget about ”a formal complaint with the Maltese regulator”, you might as well chuck the evidence in the bin, it couldn’t be less ignored.
Caruso,
you have some good points, which I agree to. But this:
“They want real people clicking away on bonuses, not bots”
I understand that, but betfair generally stimulate the usage of bots on their exchange, and now that someone has just opened up an account, they shouldn’t ? That’s ridiculous. They can’t have it both ways, although that is usually what they get away with.
–
About the LGA, no I don’t have any experience with them. That’s really something you’re saying. Should have a look at that later.
@Caruso: “Hope it’s OK to link again,”
–
Yes, it is OK to link out.
–
FYI, I have changed the anti-spam plugin.
–
I encourage you to register yourself on Midas Oracle, and to log in to put up your comment.
–
The new anti-spam plugin (a math test) should not apply for logged in people —unlike the previous one (I was unaware of that).
Medini said:
–
I understand that, but betfair generally stimulate the usage of bots on their exchange, and now that someone has just opened up an account, they shouldn’t ? That’s ridiculous. They can’t have it both ways, although that is usually what they get away with.
–
I agree – and I said as much above. Casinos want slot junkies pissing away their mortgages using bots, that’s why Microgaming has a built-in bot, “autoplay”, designed to do just this. I suppose it’s similar to the Betfair bot you mention. Betfair says as follows:
–
“All wagers must be placed through the user interface provided on the Casino. Any wagering through other means, including the use of a “robot” player, is strictly forbidden without the express consent of Betfair.”
–
I suppose “consent” equates to the built-in bot you mention, ie. you can use their bot but not yours. Thing is, I’m not sufficiently familiar with the Betfair bot. Can you play casino games for bonuses with it? As company’s own bot, is its use consensual by definition?
–
I think, though, that this is too complicated. Bottom line: if you want to play a Betfair bonus, don’t use any kind of bot.
–
The problem is not the bot, it’s that it is unproven. And also of course, like I said, the REAL problem is this:
–
“Betfair Casino reserves the right not to pay this bonus to any customer that we suspect is abusing the promotion.”
–
Such vague, undefined terminology is 1) obvious bullshit, 2) morally unacceptable anywhere and 3) actually illegal in any credible location with proper consumer protection laws – see my Maltese law links. The thing is, Betfair can do this because they know the LGA will let them.
–
If you want to do something about the Betfair problem, expose the LGA. Tell people about what’s going on in these pseudo -”reputable” Euro zones.
“All wagers must be placed through the user interface provided on the Casino. Any wagering through other means, including the use of a “robot” player, is strictly forbidden without the express consent of Betfair.”
–
I don’t know much about their Casino. If this is related to their casino I suppose there’s not a lot we can do about it. If it’s related to the promotion on the other hand, then it’s bull IMO. Betfair are going to have a real hard time proving how anyone could possibly abuse the exchange by using a bot, when it is clear they stimulate the usuage of bots in general.
–
In general, T&C’ are just that, designed to offer betfair some protection, that doesn’t necessarily mean they will hold up in a court of law. Not even for betfair.
I think the whole thing is incredibly sad for Betfair itself. There shouldn’t be a need to try to target areas/countries where the law is weaker than other jurisdictions, and hope that the hassle of fighting for markets to be run within a legal framework proves an obstacle to all but the most passionate supporters of betting exchanges & prediction markets.
–
It isn’t that hard to design a sensible bonus offer; perhaps there just isn’t an apparent financial motivation to the bf casino staff to put the effort in to design a fair offer. Who cares if you can just claim palpable error anyway?
Chris said:
–
I encourage you to register yourself on Midas Oracle, and to log in to put up your comment.
–
Thanks.
–
Testing, testing…
@caruso: Your first comment was held in moderation. And now your next comments will appear immediately.
@caruso: And if you are wondering about gravatars:
http://www.gravatar.com/
@caruso: Folks, I changed once again the anti-spam plugin. It is not about math.
–
If you run into trouble, tell me.
–
If you are registered adn logged in, it should not bother you.
–
Well, in theory. Let’s test.
Yes, the mathematically-challenged can now comment without embarrassment.
–
Thanks for the homepage link, BTW. That and, I presume, the link I posted here has shot my page up to Google page two. How else do you combat the PR bandwagon?
–
Ed said:
–
“I think the whole thing is incredibly sad for Betfair itself. There shouldn’t be a need to try to target areas/countries where the law is weaker than other jurisdictions, and hope that the hassle of fighting for markets to be run within a legal framework proves an obstacle to all but the most passionate supporters of betting exchanges & prediction markets.”
–
It’s not that the law’s weak, it’s that the implementation of it is nonexistent. I think law within the Eurozone is pretty homogenous, both Maltese and Gibraltarian law on “unfair practice” is pretty much word for word the same as the UK. The problem is that “regulation” actually has toss-all to do with the player. It’s good for the operator to be seen to be in on “reputable” territory and it’s good for the territory because they get the fees. The industry PR bandwagon then struts its stuff and tells the world how wonderful it is, and most people take this at face value – see Chris’s initial comments on the LGA:
–
http://www.midasoracle.org/200…..ta-gaming/
–
And why not take it at face value, if you have no reason not to? I used to. But the industry PR bandwagon makes Essop’s fables look like an engineering textbook – there is zero grounding in reality. Just scratch away an itsy bit at the surface and you’ll discover the real truth behind ostensible “regulation”: they don’t actually do anything at all. They take fees and grin at the camera lens, but they do nothing beyond this. The player is sunk without trace if he comes unglued with such an operator, because complaining to their “regulator” is more pointless than shouting inside a spacesuit in a soundproofed room.
–
Think about it a sec: imagine you have a sportsbook which stopped paying players over six months ago, to the extent that a leading sportsbetting site lists it as a “scam” which owes a good ?100,000 and probably more. Add to that that this “scam” resides on European territory. Now imagine that the governmental regulator of this scam sportsbook not only has done nothing about it, but it still lists them on their site as carrying a governmental license? A top-ranked sports site has them down as a scam, but the government licenses them still and takes their money.
–
If you read that in a fairy story, would you not put it down as just a little bit too silly?
–
Reality check: it’s happening right now as we speak. See the side comments about Betchance in my Malta article that Chris linked up.
–
God help the people of the USA if online gambling ever gets “regulated” there. Can you imagine what’ll happen when Washington signs up Brokecasino.com and then the players being denied cashouts have to complain to Congress? I shudder to think. The “regulators” would probably start acknowledging the players’ emails after their great grandchildren are all dead.
–
Laws are all well and good, but they’re more useless than an icecream condom if nobody actually implements the damn things.
–
Ed said:
–
It isn’t that hard to design a sensible bonus offer; perhaps there just isn’t an apparent financial motivation to the bf casino staff to put the effort in to design a fair offer. Who cares if you can just claim palpable error anyway?
–
Pretty much. With casinos, for “palpable error” you can usually read “bonus abuse”. It’s not impossible. There are solid, fair playing and fair paying casinos out there. Trouble is, you can count them on a pair of hands – and the others number in their thousands.
@Caruso: “Thanks for the homepage link”.
–
Cool.
@Caruso: “Reality check: it’s happening right now as we speak. See the side comments about Betchance in my Malta article that Chris linked up.”
–
http://www.hundredpercentgambl…..hority.htm
@Medemi….
you’re almost there….
My contention is that if the Regulator allows anyone or any organisation to actually (or effectively) freeze the bet matching queue, then Betting Integrity must, by definition, be seriously compromised.
Because arbitrary or scheduled freezing of the process of negotiating a match ensures that those that are “frozen out” are totally vulnerable to losing (some or all of the money they put up to support their offers) to those able to do the freezing!
Otherwise, why bother freezing at all???.
That one (untested in Court) interpretation of British Law infers that it is “OK” to freeze the process if you hold a Bookmaker’s Permit is, IMHO, immaterial to the fundamental question:
Is there anyone who can use logic to justify the argument that “freezing the clock can’t and doesn’t impact Betting Integrity”? In other words,show that “clock-freezing is harmless“???
NB: I didn’t ask if there’s anyone out there who wants clock-freezing to be allowed (there is at least ONE Company that obviously does!!!)
More worryingly still, there might also be one Regulator who also thinks it’s harmless!!!!!!!!!!
Finally, IMHO, it doesn’t actually matter if the clock is only frozen by only a mere 10 milliseconds, if the “freezer” is able to conduct their deeds within that Time.
And it is not really important if ( due to locational delay differences) the onset Time or length of a freeze period varies between Customers.
The only impactless policy on the subject, IMHO, is simple: NO FREEZING ALLOWED!
Adonis.
Caruso,
–
I think you’re somewhat overreacting.
No doubt the LGA receive a lot of complaints, most of them unjustified. You should have a look at the betfair casino forum section… Some of these nutters who scream scam here, scam there, probably even write to the LGA. The problem for the LGA is probably to sift through all this rubbish they receive.
–
Also, some of these regulators are very inexperienced. What is on top of their agenda is to control gambling addiction, which they do well IMO (that goes for the Gambling Commission at least).
Our job is to educate them and let them know there are other issues as well which deserve some attention.
How they pick up on that is the real question. They will be judged, eventually.
Medini said:
–
“I think you’re somewhat overreacting. No doubt the LGA receive a lot of complaints, most of them unjustified. You should have a look at the betfair casino forum section… Some of these nutters who scream scam here, scam there, probably even write to the LGA. The problem for the LGA is probably to sift through all this rubbish they receive.”
–
“No doubt”, “probably” this, “probably” that. The LGA has for a fact continued to “license” Betchance while it has been in no-pay mode for fully six months and counting. The LGA has for a fact ignored me for fully four months, and everyone else into the bargain, save for one form email, on complaints totalling I estimate $100,000 USD.
–
On what basis is my factual comment above an “overreaction”, in your opinion? How do you know without doubt “most complaints are unjustified”? How do you know it’s mainly “rubbish”? Read my complaint here:
–
http://www.hundredpercentgambl…..e-than.htm
–
You think that’s “rubbish”?
–
This is an extraordinary stance. You post misinformed opinion as fact.
–
“Also, some of these regulators are very inexperienced. What is on top of their agenda is to control gambling addiction, which they do well IMO (that goes for the Gambling Commission at least).
Our job is to educate them and let them know there are other issues as well which deserve some attention.
How they pick up on that is the real question. They will be judged, eventually.”
–
How do you know what is top of their agenda? You think the LGA controls gambling addiction, and “well”? Post corroboration of this – I must have missed it, and it’s a pretty powerful assertion to make. Why is it my “job” to educate them? Breaking news: these people are PAID to do a job by the government. It is THEIR job to know how to do their job when they do it.
–
How many surgeons get away with botched operations with “Well, I’m really not very experienced, you know. It’s your job to educate me – it’s not my fault”. That is about the most absurd thing I’ve heard. He’d be up on a malpractice suit in a New York second.
–
Why does a WHOLE new set of criteria apply to the gambling industry that does not apply to every other business? Why do you make such an extraordinary set of assumptions when there is a ton of corroborated evidence staring you in the face which indicates the exact opposite?
Caruso,
–
you’re actually giving the LGA too much credit – they should know everything and they should respond to everyone. By doing so you end up being disrespectful (justified or unjustified, I don’t care) which is a pitty. It is not about who is right and who is wrong, in the end it is about how effective you are. It always is.
You sound very knowledgable and experienced in this area and it would serve you better to accept that simple fact.
–
As for facts, you’re at the wrong address I’m sorry to say. I don’t believe in facts and if you want to impress someone with facts you should turn to Chris, amongst others. To me, you’re just one guy with an opinion (who deserves some respect) like many others. I also believe there is huge advantage and power (the right kind) in being able to look at things from different perspectives, including (especially) your enemies.
–
If you really believe the LGA are being negligent, who you want to talk to is Adonis IMO (he’s right around the corner). Or better yet, ask him to sink his teeth into the LGA.
–
Cheers.
(I’ll try logging in again…)
No, still got it all wrong, bear with me…
Medini, this is for you – look right down the bottom:
–
http://www.sportsbookreview.com/
–
BetChance (SBR rating F) player reports that the sportsbook informed him it will finally close
The player states the no-pay sportsbook called to offer him a settlement of 25% of his balance or the possibility of being paid in 20 months. BetChance has been unable to clear delinquent withdrawal requests for almost a year while teasing owed users with email updates about new ownership and small sporadic payments to a fortunate few. Most players do not expect to see any of their funds and now believe the empty promises and positive updates were part of the scam to remain operational in Malta while collecting from new depositors.”
–
Now read it again, because I know you didn’t believe it the first time. Me neither.
–
That was six weeks ago. Six weeks. Oh, and I made a mistake, it’s not six months that they’ve been in no-pay mode. It’s a whole year.
–
Now go here, Medini:
–
http://cert.lga.org.mt/
–
…and click on “Class 2″, then look at entry number five.
–
See anything anything there to change you opinion?
–
For anyone who doesn’t feel like clicking through, I’ll spare you the suspense. Yes, it’s Betchance. Betchance, who list themselves thus:
–
Betting Licence Number: LGA/CL2/189/2004
–
That means “LGA license Class 2, number 189, granted 2004″.
–
No payments for fully one year, still licensed by the LGA. The license is not listed as “cancelled”, not even “suspended” (as it can be)! It’s fully current. C-U-R-R-E-N-T. They haven’t even bothered to suspend Betchance’s license, fully aware that this licensee has barely paid anyone in a year!
–
This is a monumental scandal.
–
Run that bit by me again abour it being our job to educate the gambling regulators who are wilting under the weight of all the scam complaints they receive?
Hey Caruso… If I wasn’t so “sceptical” I would have taken everything for granted that Betfair taught me.
Cheer up man, if you’re going to fight the LGA at least do it with a smile on your face or else you won’t last long. Some of us know about these things.
@caruso: Could you log in?
Yes, however my handle still appears as it was when I wasn’t registered if not logged in, so I can comment both logged in and logged out under the same username (hence non-logged in posts above). Difference is capital “C” when not logged in. I’ll try and remember to log in.
–
Medemi:
–
“It is not about who is right and who is wrong, in the end it is about how effective you are.”
–
That’s an unfortunate perspective. It helps to be right AND effective. I have no desire to take a wrong position.
–
Your comments about not being interested in facts are odd to say the least.
“It is not about who is right and who is wrong, in the end it is about how effective you are.”
That’s an unfortunate perspective. It helps to be right AND effective. I have no desire to take a wrong position.
My point is, you could be 100% right and still lose, suffer from burn-out. Whatever. Not saying you personally, but in general. The opposite is also true, you could be proven wrong in the end, yet contributed massively in search for the truth. Whatever.
–
Your comments about not being interested in facts are odd to say the least.
It’s not that I’m not interested in them, I don’t believe in them. In other words, they appear to me as a point of view (with some added weight).
The other thread for instance, Chris seemed thrilled at the evidence he found about the LGA being a respectable regulator. Now he’s very disappointed after having a look at your facts. That would never happen to me – these swings. Well, never say never, but when it does happen to me I feel like an idiot. That’s why I am who I am.
Sorry to get you involved in this Chris.
btw, your new anti-spam plugin seems to be working fine.
@Medemi: “btw, your new anti-spam plugin seems to be working fine.”
–
Great.
@caruso: “my handle”
–
Go to your profile.
Fill either:
– your first name
– your last name
– your nickname
All this with or without capital letters.
Then, press “SAVE”.
Then, pick up your choice under “Display name publicly as”…
Then, click “SAVE” again.
There is this thought I can’t get rid of lately. It was the mods at WBX telling me that it’s fine to give someone stick, but I should expect the same in return. Well, when I gave the chief moderator some stick, he banned me for life. Hahaha…
Yup, login is all fine. When I’m not logged in, I can still post under pre-registered (same) handle, but not a problem.
I think its quite sad to see the WBX total matched market manipulation. The reason why its sad is that a genuine competitor to BF has the ability to shadow the prices on BF – if a market is trading at evens on BF, there is no reason why an internal seeding robot should not be laying say 1.9 on WBX, in lumpy size, whilst backing 2.1. Its a win-win, getting over the odds on the BF price, and can only be picked off by corrupt accounts, i.e. people who know the actual result of fixed races or matches.
–
Restrict the size that the 1.9 and 2.1 bets are good in, say 5k, and then fritter that money outwards in a rainbow at lower and higher increments, respectively further away from evens than the 1.9 to 2.1 band are.
–
WBX need a trading robot on their own markets. It is fully doable, betdirect have done something like this for years, with a robot plugged in to the bf price shadowing it. With the aim of long run profitability, offering fairly meaty size ten clicks above and below the current o/u 2.5 goals price on bf, really wouldn’t be difficult to program, and there would be a lot of investors ready to fund such a project (i can think of a number i know personally who would be happy getting ten clicks above or below current bf price commission free). Having no liquidity is inexcusable, when WBX are in the position to literally take on BF using the free market prices on the exchange which are available in size.
I’m sure there are scanning robots operating over the different exchanges looking for overbroke opportunities. WBX & Betdaq are both missing out on joining in the party. Tradefair (Betfair in disguise) are actively recruiting heavy Betfair users in Hammersmith trying to court them into seeding Tradefair, but a robot offering real liquidity on WBX and Betdaq, scabbing the BF price to put up real liquidity, would be a massive bonus to both exchanges, and I think would look like a much more attractive and profitable tool for the current people BF are chasing to seed TF.
Ed,
–
I have a bot that “rotates” through the markets on betfair. All I needed to do is hook it up with WBX. I was willing to build such an application offering prices just below the real prices with a non-profit intent, just for the fun of it. Maybe even spread it around. I let the WBX management know I was interested in providing some liquidity but they never got back to me. It seems they prefer their fake markets, and when I found out about that I lost complete interest of course. There must be more people like me. It’s better this way, let them go down. I have no intention of using my bot ever again btw.
Assuming that’s true medemi (which i do), then I seriously have no idea why they bothered opening up an exchange.
Sporting Options went bust because they seeded their own markets – and went out of line with the price on Bet”fair”. Using a robot to internally seed with prices on stable markets which don’t go out of line with the prevailing market price is probably critical to WBX and Betdaq’s success. Its absolutely bonkers to swell their own turnover with artificial trading figures, but not try to find a way to get real liquidity into the market. Catering for the non-price sensitive punters is what keeps the wheels oiled on BF and WBX/Betdaq. Having no liquidity when there is a fairly easy way to do it is just potty.