How BetFair did treat its customers on the day that the BetFair Starting Price system crashed down
Deep Throat May 12th, 2008
BetFair did pay the backers at better prices than the reconciliation threw out. The UK’s Grand National is the one race in the year where non-regular bettors bet, and BetFair couldn’t give them a poor experience. The cost was borne by BetFair, not by the layers (the short-sellers), a decision taken shortly after the race. (One senior executive took this decision within 30 minutes of the race being settled.)
- All Guest Authors's Posts , Ethics , Exchanges & Markets , Market Expiry
- Comments(4)
on 
This was how BF treated customers from the 7th April onwards, two days after the race. They initially announced they weren’t paying out many winning bets, and it was up to customers to write in if they feel they were disadvantaged.
-
There was huge hostility to the 5th April announcement that Bf were voiding a number of the winning side of bets, and the hostility can be read here on the BF forum on the thread “Betfair’s response to the Grand National SP fiasco”.
-
http://site.forum.betfair.com/.....ID=1458845
-
Betfair published a statement on the 7th of April retracting their earlier 5th April statement that it was up to customers to write in, and on the 7th April they said that all bets would be paid out.
-
The post on that thread from “Plant” on the 7th April revealed that BF had done a U-turn and changed their position from their original statement on the 5th of April.
-
In general BF users, as can be seen on that thread, were roundly horrified by the original 5th April announcement, it seemed unbelievable that BF themselves were announcing they were voiding legally binding bets/contracts, and the result was the 7th April announcement.
-
Both the 5th April and 7th April announcements have now been removed from the BF forum announcements section, with seemingly all other BF announcements from before and after left up on the site for people to read freely. The reasons BF felt uncomfortable with leaving both the original announcement and the amended U-turn 2 days later, up on their own site, are reasons which BF have, and would be interesting if they would care to elaborate on.
From the evidence, that has been brought forward so far on Midas Oracle, there can be only one conclusion IMO - that there was a 2-day interval between the decision taken on 5th of April and the decision made on the 7th of April, as pointed out by Ed Murray.
-
Although I would be happy to see any evidence that could prove me wrong.
@medemi: I think that BetFair possesses the evidence you’re asking for. It’s their business to publish about that —or not. Their call, not mine.
I’m not interested in betfair’s opinion Chris. PMSL.