The UKs Gambling Commission is after BetFair and Betdaq for in-running (in-play) betting.

No Gravatar

– Do you have any information about the customer profile in the in-running betting market (ie is it made up predominantly of specialist, knowledgeable betting customers)? &#8230- sources of information and time delays- availability of high-speed broadband- computer software packages that are specifically designed to assist in-running betting customers (known as ‘bots’).
– Do betting customers with traditional bookmakers and betting exchanges also take part in spread betting and is it a direct competitor to in-running betting?

UK&#8217-s Gambling Commission – PDF file

Via Adonis

UPDATE: IN-PLAY BETTING: BetFair is already compliant with the Gambling Commission&#8217-s first pointer.

63 thoughts on “The UKs Gambling Commission is after BetFair and Betdaq for in-running (in-play) betting.

  1. medemi said:

    Yes… raced through the document and they’re adressing some serious issues, for now.

    It seems to me they are looking for excuses already to ban in-running (as I thought), so we can all go back to having lunch. And I like having my lunch.

    I’ll be back.

  2. Chris F. Masse said:

    @medemi: They won’t ban it.

  3. medemi said:

    Chris,

    we’ll see, I haven’t read it well yet. But the GC are going to have to work their ass off for the next 5 years or so to make sure gambling is conducted fairly, one of their 3 main objectives. And betfair, the leading betting exchange haven’t been very helpful !!

    So where does your optimism come from, Chris ?

  4. medemi said:

    from the betfair forum :

    The Magician (1)

    15 May 20:10

    Betfair state:

    Based on our testing, we expect the interaction between the UK and Malta to take an average of c.120 milliseconds.

    that is an eternity for IR

    ————————-

    The Magician is right, it is an extra 120ms for non-UK residents.

    I haven’t paid much attention to this before, but it is kind of an unfortunate timing for betfair to “relocate” some of it’s customers at a time when the GC are releasing this document.

    Betfair probably don’t see it this way, because disadvantaging one group is what they are used to (doing).  

  5. Chris F. Masse said:

    @medemi: from common sense

  6. Chris F. Masse said:

    @medemi: Thanks for the info.

    In terms of seconds, that’s how much?

    0.0120 seconds?

    or

    0.120 seconds?

    Too early, haven’t gotten my coffee yet…

  7. medemi said:

    0.120

    You know what Einstein says about “common sense”… :-D

    “Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.”

  8. Chris F. Masse said:

    @medemi: So that’s a tenth of a second?

  9. medemi said:

    I just checked, I have my own bot, which I don’t use anymore.

    My average API call used to be around 0.03 sec.

    That is still true for some calls, and I’m not aware exactly which calls are being delayed now.

    But I can see, for the “getMarketProfitAndLoss” call for instance, that it is now about 0.14 sec. So that confirms the extra 120ms.

    You’re going to have to make many different calls to handle all the information (when using a bot)  so I would say non-UK users are at a significant disadvantage. That is true for people who don’t use bots as well, although less.

    Also, If I had subscribed to the Betfair API (in stead of using the free one) I would have asked for my money back, and terminate my subscription. I don’t know what betfair have to say about that, but I reckon there are not that many non-UK API users.

  10. Chris F. Masse said:

    @medemi: “You’re going to have to make many different calls to handle all the information (when using a bot) so I would say non-UK users are at a significant disadvantage.”

    I would say you have a point, here.

  11. Adonis said:

    Just a sanity check amongst ourselves (here) regarding Time….

    Almost any process can be vulnerable to manipulation/cheating/fraud (call it whatever suits!) if any fraction of its users (or even its operator) can do things either,

    1. Reliably quicker than anyone else

    2. Reliably so fast that they are effectively invisible to most others.

    The range of classes of cheating is boundless.

    We have no way of predicting any limitations if we can’t capture enough information about the cheating methods being employed – in many cases we don’t even know for sure that they are/ are not being used! Merely that, in theory, they can conceivably be used, because there is not (or may not be) a stringent-enough anti-fraud protection regime in place.

    Example:

    It can easily be determined that IF a Client can find a way to cancel his current bet offers faster than any other Client can accept them ( lock him into a position he wants to avoid), then he can effectively, and without risk “spoof” the market at will. This might be done (hyopothetically) by somehow “freezing” the bet matching process and inspecting the now-frozen matching pipeline for any imminent offer acceptances. In other words, if an offer is there, cancel your offer, if not, continue the illusion that your offer is real.

    Of course, “freezing” the matching process is probably impossible for a mere Client. But it might be possible for a person with access to the internal processing (hardware/software). Or virtually, using a high speed “bot” which might complete a “spoof-like” task reliably faster than any Client (or competing “bot”) can….

    Whether this has ever happened is not relevant to the key point:

    Unless a system can be shown (audited in respect of Time) to be tamper-proof by ANYONE to published standards, it must be under constant Regulatory review and scrutiny because it is likely (rather than merely possible) that security loopholes will be found. It is up to the vigilance of both operators and Clients to discuss, hypothesise and theorise about these potentials freely and openly, in order to fulfil the Integrity goal of blocking fraud opportunities before criminal use is made of them.

    [Anyone – and I mean ANYONE – having evidence that an effort has been made to suppress discussion of such weaknesses, by overtly or covertly undermining the credibility of those attempting such discussion should VERY PROPERLY supply the GC with their evidence of that suppression activty. It need not be absolutely conclusive evidence on an individual basis. If the GC collect a dossier of consistent, partially complete evidence, they will have a lot more than they have now!]

    As with encryption techniques used to offer “protection” from those wishing to intercept and view our messages, there is NO SUCH THING as the perfect encryption method. And it’s not really a mystery either! ….It can be shown to be so, mathematically.

    Likewise, a totally secure matching process is impossible to achieve. Any reticence to discuss the shortcomings of the current state-of-the-art in process design therefore undermines the most important goal: improved Integrity/security for all.

    It may be that I’m failing to understand the logic of “keep it secret”, but for me a wise and sensible starting point would be for all operators to publish a time-compliant flowchart of their matching process so that accurate debate on it’s quality/lack of it can begin. It seems they prefer us (and the GC?) to guess if they have good, or alternatively, amateurish processes!

    Interestingly, we might expect those making potentially huge profits from maintaining the status quo to be the most strenuous critics/opponents of such openness……

    Adonis

  12. Medemi said:

    I’m pleased with the GC document, and in a way I feel it’s payday for those who have helped to create a certain awareness.

    Short term improvements in betting integrity will be implemented on the “openness” front, not so much on “fairness”.

    There is not enough evidence to justify a ban on in-running betting at this point, but the risks pointed out by the GC will materialize over time and leave them no other option, IMO.

  13. Adonis said:

    I too am pleased with the essence of what it says, but I feel that it’s methodology going forward (seekiing one-way input) is flawed and parochial.

    IMHO, the GC should facilitate OPEN discussion and debate on all aspects (obvious and unobvious) via some form of independent Public Forum. No posting makes the Board until AFTER it’s vetted for “Rule Compliance” by the Moderator. That will eliminate identified spammers, poseurs ( biased trade “plants”/propagandists seeking only to distract and disrupt) and those who simply enjoy spoiling progress for whatever selfish reason!

    The GC’s current strategy (collect individual opinion and deliver a GC “verdict” on it) is modelled more on an autocracy than a democracy. The Star Chamber principle where a “closed council” acts as judge, jury and executioner. It effectively eliminates the substantial benefits to be gained by DEVELOPING thoughts and opinions via free and open, public DISCUSSION.

    How else will the general public see the richness of coupling, publicly, the viewpoints of all aspects and disciplines involved (Law, Integrity, Statistics, Number Theorists, Hardware, Software, Time etc etc)? For that matter how else will the GAMBLING COMMISSION see the development of such richer information and opiniopn?????

    These one-way depositories for our opinions serve (usually) only one purpose: the production of output designed to satisfy the need of almost anyone BUT we, who stump up the funding for them!

    Example: If (and only if) it transpired that a thread on “should the matching pipeline be sacrosanct – untouchable even by the Operator?” might reveal that a majority feel that operators need to be COMPELLED to follow that course, because public debate might reach the conclusion that without it, Integrity was simply unquantifiable to any worthwhile degree. Would the GC dare circumvent such mass public preferrence?

    Whether or not such conclusions might be reached is IMMATERIAL to the point:

    Is it proper (or fair or efficient) for the GC to proscribe unseen input collection, rather than open, Public debate?

    Adonis

  14. Medemi said:

    Your concerns are my concerns Adonis, I’m not stupid.

    I also fear that the propaganda machine of the leading exchange(s) will be at full throttle, once again, to try and show the GC that there’s “nothing wrong” with in-running betting.

    But… what the GC document tells us, is maybe that it’s too late for that.

    Your suggestion of a need for public debate makes a lot of sense though.

  15. Medemi said:

    3.5

     

    Betting customers have traditionally sought better information when making their bets.

    These information advantages have traditionally been either access to inside information or

    else the studying of form and relevant statistics. Such information is used before the event

    takes place as well as in-running. But in-running betting customers are turning to other

    tools besides information in order to bet profitably. These advantages, in the context of inrunning

    betting, are generally technological.

    ———————-

    I can’t get my head around this. Traditionally….access to inside information ???

    It is never mentioned again. Slip of the tongue ?

  16. IN-PLAY BETTING: BetFair is already compliant with the Gambling Commission's first pointer. | Midas Oracle .ORG said:

    […] The UK Gambling Commission is not “coming after BetFair and Betdaq”. They’ll be looking at all operators. Almost all betting operators (betting exchanges and bookmakers) offer “in-play” betting, these days. […]

  17. Medemi said:

    Just testing again. It says my post consists of spam.

  18. Medemi said:

    3.8

    Evidence that we have seen to date indicates that the market for in-running betting is in

    fact made up predominantly of specialist and knowledgeable betting customers. This is

    backed up by analysis which shows a success rate percentage for in-running betting with

    one company being slightly higher than successful bets made ante-post (that is prior to the

    event to which the bet relates starting). This would back up the view that in-running betting

    attracts betting customers who have knowledge and experience and is not necessarily

    unfairly drawing naive betting customers in numbers to lose their money. However the

    Commission would like to see further evidence on this issue.

  19. Medemi said:

    “Evidence that we have seen to date indicates that the market for in-running betting is in fact made up predominantly of specialist and knowledgeable betting customers.”

  20. Medemi said:

    Yeah, organized crime could be characterized as “specialist and knowledgeable” as well.

    Just wait and see.

  21. Medemi said:

    “This is backed up by analysis which shows a success rate percentage for in-running betting with one company being slightly higher than successful bets made ante-post (that is prior to the event to which the bet relates starting)”

    What are they talking about ??? Sounds like more mumbo jumbo from betfair.

    “However the Commission would like to see further evidence on this issue.”

    The trouble is, novice punters betting in-running who don’t understand why they are losing money, are unable to present their case to the Gambling Commission. Those who do understand and are able to provide evidence, won’t, because most of them prefer to translate that “specialist” knowledge into hard cash.

    What do I care ? The UK is doomed anyway and I don’t plan to set foot on UK soil any time soon.

    When we all blow really hard in Europe, maybe it will drift towards the US.

  22. Medemi said:

    Too many dots is considered to be spam.

    as in Yeah…

    Great, now we won’t have to think anymore.

  23. Chris F. Masse said:

    @Medemi: “Just testing again. It says my post consists of spam.”

    If I were you, I would log in before commenting.

  24. Chris F. Masse said:

    @Medemi: “Just testing again. It says my post consists of spam.”

    Bizarre.

    Anyway, do log in before commenting. It will solve your problem.

  25. Medemi said:

    Chris, you’re joking. I’m 100% certain I was logged on. And I mean 100%.

    BTW, your home page is stuck now, one of your latest pages is trying to load a video player and looping. No link works from there. I had to use a link from Google reader to be able to log on (and it said invalid user name as well a couple of times) and get to this thread.

    If no one else is having problems then something is not right with my account.

    I couldn’t sign up from the beginning, and you had to do it for me, remember. And something is not right.

     

  26. Adonis said:

    Medemi,

    the Gambling Commission have not provided any debating Forum facilities so that opinions can be discussed, formulated and promoted. Instead it proscribes that the views and opinions of the Public must be sent to It so that It can deliberate ( privately) and edict whatever conclusions it might come to. It provides no guarantee that all opinions and views submitted will be published for Public review and scrutiny at any Time…

    Whilst it is in theory ultimately answerable to Parliament, most ( in the UK at least) realise that it seems ( and it is my opinion too) to be simply yet another “QUANGO” ( Quasi Autonomous Non-Govermental Organisation). Officials of said Organisations are typically paid from the Public Purse, yet tend to behave as if they can define their own standards of dialogue and discussion, to suit themselves and their purpose.

    Quaint, ain’t we?

    Have a good week-end Old Friend.

    You too Chris!

    Adonis

    PS: I have a propensity for including “….” in my prose! I learned a while ago that the trick is to highlight and copy your inputs, then when they are initailly rejected, a second try (paste) usually works just fine! At least it’s just an honest technical foible hiding somewhere, IMHO, not a deliberate attempt to stifle the publication of legtimate views and opinions…..

  27. Chris F. Masse said:

    @Medemi: Have you tried using FireFox?

    I have just deleted that video.

    Inform me better of your problems by e-mail, and I’ll try to think about what cause them.

  28. Medemi said:

    @Medemi: Have you tried using FireFox?

    I prefer not to use it on this computer. It’s 5 years old with limited memory and adding more gave me problems in the past. You may not believe this but usually everything works fine here.

    Inform me better of your problems by e-mail, and I’ll try to think about what cause them.

    There are three indications that tell me whether I’m logged on after I logged on.

    (1) The top blue area that says (dashboard/profile/log out)

    (2) The line that says “Logged in as Medemi” above this box

    (3) The option to have e-mails sent to you.

    I get all sorts of combinations after I logged on and navigate on your blog and sometimes (1) (2) are absent and I have (3) which suggests I’m logged off. I even got (3) just now even when I was logged on.

    (1) Comes and goes at random it seems, and I use (2) as a reliable indicator, although as I said before, sometimes it disappears as well. I click on links from “recent comments” and “discussions” a lot.

    This is what you should be looking into IMO as it could explain a number of things, and I get the impression it’s not just me. So, maybe my (our) log on status isn’t maintained properly (when we use the different plugins?).

    I’m at a stage now where I’m done with trying to determine and reflect on (giving feedback) what could be wrong, and will simply work around it going forward. Thanks for your time and effort and good luck with your bug chase.   

  29. Chris F. Masse said:

    @Medemi: I am sorry for the pain you are enduring.

    1. I’ll “chase” the bugs.

    2. You might upgrade your machine, one day.

  30. Chris F. Masse said:

    @Adonis: “I complained about this to betfair last night.

    They said they’d done it as a “GESTURE OF SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY”!!!!!!!”

    Without their original wording, it’s difficult to have an opinion on this.

    Are they on record somewhere on that?

  31. Medemi said:

    No-one can be sure if all of the “bots” are independently run, or in fact one or some might be “bookmaker bots” abstracting money for the licenceholder: betfair.

    Adonis,

    I don’t think it’s a well kept secret that betfair have bots operating on Exchange Games, which is regulated in Malta btw. (You probably know this, but many readers don’t.)

    I’ve been looking to find a thread where some bot operator (I thought it was “MoreTea” or “Robin Ewe”) came on and said he had been “locked out” of the markets by betfair bots. Can’t find it. I asked him then to provide evidence on that, which he did (to my surprise). Maybe you remember that thread, it was one of “bot’s” (who works for betfair) last appearances.

    This guy had been working on that bot for 9 months. Nobody really cared because these bot-operators were considered to be parasites by many. When betfair decided to take over that business, people had already adapted to this rip-off mentality, which betfair offered on their platform in the first place. The two of us (and a few others) were very sceptical about betfair operating on their own markets and justifyably so, because a couple of months later betfair released the skimming bot on sports markets (regulated by the GC).

    – 

    My view is that bots should not be allowed to operate on markets where reaction time is crucial, and if they are allowed, it shouldn’t be called exchange games because people are betting against bots, not other customers.

    The success of Exchange Games is dependent on the number of fools out there, and betfair will gladly take their money. To keep them dumb is crucial, because unless you have a bot, you will lose money. Simple.

    (The odds on Exchange Games can be calculated precisely, so a bot will give you that advantage. But this is not the real issue. Response time is – you don’t want to play “chicken” with an opponent who’s car is operated by a computer…) 

  32. Medemi said:

    I just remembered the thread title. It was MoreTea, but someone else started that thread.

    http://site.forum.betfair.com/…..ID=1315061

     

    MoreTea

    02 Jan 09:34

    Medemi – That would be a serious matter. Any way that you can support this claim ?

    Yes. The Technical Director of Exchange Games at Betfair told me directly over the phone that they were going to beat their own customers on queue position, they just didn’t announce it publically. Here are the details…

    I have been running a bot against casino games for about the last 6 months, and got first in queue about one in every four or five games.

    This is about what you would expect when competing against other customer bots doing the same kind of thing, as it is pretty much random who gets there first.

    You can tell queue position on exchange games very easily. You wait until you get a partial match on a runner by the end of round one. You then look at the amount matched at the end of the round and take away the amount of your partial match. This is the amount of money which is ahead of you in the queue.

    In early December I noticed that there was now a short a delay in the market opening (ie: my bets were getting rejected early on in poker, even though the cards were dealt). We also went through long periods where we never got front of queue.

    This kind of thing could have occured due to network problems or bf tweaking their database, so I opened a support call on Dec 11 through the betfair developers site.

    Later that day I got a call from the technical director at exchange games. He told me that he was responding to my support call, and that the reason I was having problems was that Betfair had been providing their own liquidity to the markets since early December.

    When I asked him whether Betfair’s money would be behind customer money in the queue, he told me straight out that Betfair money would be ahead of customer money in the queue (ie: bf would always get matched first).

    We can confirm that this is the case by using the parital matches technique I described above. The last time I looked there was around ?79 ahead of us in the queue in every one of the thousand or so poker games a day. This was not the case until December.

    I spent 10 months developing that software, only to be muscled out of the market by the Betfair themselves. I can cope with competition from punters and other bot owners and comission charges. But competing with my supplier? Forget it.

    Imagine if the London Stock Exchange started putting their own liquidity ahead of ‘winning’ companies like Goldman Sachs. There would be jail sentences. Betfair can get away with it because they are a monopoly in an unregulated market.

    They are doing it on the games exchange, they are thinking of entering the sports exchange markets (according to Bot).

    You have been warned.

    They need to know that their customers will not tolerate this.

  33. Adonis said:

    @Chris,

    By all means ask betfair, if you’re nervous.

    If they record all incoming calls (most call centres do these days), the person I spoke to was betfair’s Ben Sciberras some time between 6 and 7 pm UK time yesterday. It was he who advised me to email “info@betfair.com” and mark the email for the attention of the director of betfair’s exchange games.

    I don’t record such calls, I have no need to! I have nothing to construct, nothing to hide. When I call betfair, I express opinion and state facts as I see them. They can take it or leave it.

    For your information, I long ago requested betfair (this is fact and documented) to BE VERY SURE to copy any and all incoming emails from me to their Legal Department, so that they can have no doubt about the content or intent, later.

    [The idea was to ensure that no-one at betfair would initiate any overt (or covert) activities concerning me or my interests without the active consent of betfair’s Legal Department.]

    In turn, I maintain a record of all posts on their “forum” which interest me, or affect my interests, which they publish.

  34. Adonis said:

    Update:

    Today, I tested exchange games again.

    At the end of the timer period, it interrupts play with a window which must be responded to. If you press “Cancel” it resets the timer to zero. Until that is done (or the log out option is selected instead, and play suspended absolutely), no bets or lays can be placed, or cancelled, as far as I can see.

    This, IMHO, effectively “freezes out” the player for at least the time taken to respond.

    It also, incidentally, seems to make life more difficult for those Customers who prefer to use “slow bots” to help them play out their strategies – using “macro recorders” such as Auto HotKey, for example.

    I didn’t say “impossible”……. Just another hurdle which seemingly applies to them, yet few others.

    Doesn’t sound much like a level playing field to me….  but there again, WHAT WOULD I KNOW????

  35. Adonis said:

    medemi,

    betfair recently pubished on their “forum” that they wanted  all non-UK Customers to address their complaints to Malta authorities.

    That DOES NOT mean that they (betfair) have any right or ability to proscribe which Regulator ( or country!) actually holds jurisdiction over them for any particular situation.

    It is my belief that regardless of whatever betfair might prefer, if the Gambling Commission in the UK ( for example) decided to pursue them on any particular issue, and then edicted a punitive finding, it would apply certainly across all EU countries anyway. Unless specifically countermanded by Malta (highly unlikely, IMHO).

    It is thus important that all complaints, compliments, perceptions and problems with ANY exchange are debated and fully disseminated by Customers INDEPENDENTLY of exchange duress, threat, or implied Regulatory “selection”.

    Preferrably via independent Forum.

    Quite why the GC haven’t established a pan-European Forum for dissemmination/collection of evidence, yet, continues to astound me.

    Unless, by chance, they don’t want open discussion?

    It could all be done for the price of just a few cosy expensed meals…….

  36. Medemi said:

    Quite why the GC haven’t established a pan-European Forum for dissemmination/collection of evidence, yet, continues to astound me.

    Adonis,

    there is no substitute for the collection of thoughts, ideas and experiences of the public. Commissions, high position jobs with companies etc. – these people tend to behave like they are special. And they are making costly mistakes over and over because of it.

    You know where I’m coming from.

  37. Chris F. Masse said:

    @Adonis: Cool. I just reminded that we should quote BetFair’s position if we are talking here about them.

  38. Adonis said:

    @Chris: I agree. Quite how their legal people would react to a statement ( here or similar) made  by a betfair employee to a contributor, that WASN’T sanitised by them for Public consumption remains to be seen!

    Speculation on potential reactions might be considered defamatory, so I won’t….. but they can’t stop me mulling the thought over in my mind’s eye ( can they???) and seeing the comedy (IMHO) therein! Even in the  quaint old UK, the concept of Thought Police remains repugnant and, thankfully, inadmissable!

    @medemi: The USA got fed up with Charles III imposing his will on them, and decided to embed Free Speech ( and a lot more) in their Constitution, once broken free of his subjugation. There may be many these days who don’t like lots of things “American”, but I’d have a great deal of trouble with anyone who didn’t admire at least that solid Foundation.

    Wish we had it over here!

  39. Adonis said:

    @All….

    For those unfamiliar of the concept of Thought Police (in George Orwell’s “1984″), here is a short mention

    taken from a rather longer one on the whole book, by Wikipedia:

    Nineteen Eighty-Four’s impact upon the English language is extensive; many of its concepts: Big Brother, Room 101 (the worst place in the world), the Thought Police, the memory hole (oblivion), doublethink (simultaneously holding and believing two contradictory beliefs), and Newspeak (ideological language), are common usages for denoting and connoting overarching, totalitarian authority; Doublespeak is an elaboration of doublethink; the adjective “Orwellian” denotes that which is characteristic and reminiscent of George Orwell’s writings, specifically 1984. The practice of appending the suffixes “-speak” and “-think” (groupthink, mediaspeak) to denote unthinking conformity.

    I read the book as a child, and the potential horror of Totalitarianism scared me more, then, than all of the footage of WWII horrors etc etc.

    Complacency is Totalitarianism’s strongest ally, IMHO.

    We need to be guarded that Prediction Markets don’t succumb to the ideology too: that the servant Facility Providers  become the Masters of all Participants!!!!

    They’ve nearly achieved that goal if you make up a plus/minus scorecard and tick off the boxes……..

    IMHO, we already cannot police them: they do as they please; when they please; how they please. And if we manage to catch them on an unguarded flank, they squeal “Caveat Emptor” (aka “not my problem, pal”)!!!

    Heck, some might even conclude that we even LICENCE them to subjugate us!!!!!!

  40. Medemi said:

    Adonis,

    I would say, and that thought has occured to me more than once over recent years, that the UK (England at least) is suffering from a mild form of learned helplessness.

    Learned helplessness is a psychological condition in which a human being or an animal has learned to believe that it is helpless in a particular situation. It has come to believe that it has no control over its situation and that whatever it does is futile. As a result, the human being or the animal will stay passive in the face of an unpleasant, harmful or damaging situation, even when it does actually have the power to change its circumstances

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness

    What I can’t explain is the “why” bit. Maybe it’s the bookmakers, maybe the social class system – we don’t have that in Holland. If there is some truth to a totalitarian regime in England, in any way shape or form, then that could explain it.

    I don’t think you have to worry about prediction markets in the US. They will do fine IMO. 

    BTW, you and Ed are heroes IMO, when you consider the average person living in the UK. :-)

  41. Adonis said:

    It’s called creeping totalitarianism. It lives here, hidden behind terminal complacency.

    it’s getting harder to limit its growth!

    We actually have Big Brother cameras (thousands of them, honestly!) that will send you a fine for dropping litter from your car ( traced via your car registration plate). So it’s not you littering from your car? ….As the owner, you are obliged to surrender the name of the culprit OR BE ASSUMED GUILTY YOURSELF!!!!

    Likewise with speeding offences.

    What happened to innocent until PROVEN guilty?

    Big Brother calls it “progress”.

    I ask ” progress, to WHERE?” and “Do we really want to go there?”

    It seems that few are bothered about it all………

    BTW, I heard that Learned Helplessness was first postulated by T. Rick Cyclist, who also posted initial theories on Nominative Determinism……

  42. Medemi said:

    Adonis,

    they’ve taken down a lot of speeding cameras here in holland. Mission accomplished – people are speeding less and less. Or maybe it was society who dictated that the police should do more “appropriate” work.

    Wasn’t it Thatcher who said that “society does not exist” ? That’ll be a tough one then.

  43. Medemi said:

    Chris, you’re so small… :-D

  44. Why do BetFair Games (regulated in Malta, E.U.) have a timer on games? | Midas Oracle .ORG said:

    […] Lotteries and Gaming Authority is a stricter regulator than the UK’s Gambling Commission on that point. The Malta regulator mandates BetFair Games to display a timer on their games. The […]

  45. Chris F. Masse said:

    Why do BetFair Games (regulated in Malta, E.U.) have a timer on games?

    http://www.midasoracle.org/200…..-on-games/

    Malta’s Lotteries and Gaming Authority is a stricter regulator than the UK’s Gambling Commission on that point. The Malta regulator mandates BetFair Games to display a timer on their games. The timer is visible on screen at all times, and, when the countdown expires, play is interrupted to provide the customer with a reminder of how long they’ve been playing. (If it didn’t interrupt play, there wouldn’t be much point in having the countdown.)

  46. Adonis said:

    @Chris,

    Malta’s Lotteries and Gaming Authority is a stricter regulator than the UK’s Gambling Commission on that point. The Malta regulator mandates BetFair Games to display a timer on their games. The timer is visible on screen at all times, and, when the countdown expires, play is interrupted to provide the customer with a reminder of how long they’ve been playing. (If it didn’t interrupt play, there wouldn’t be much point in having the countdown.)

    To stop compulsive gamblers for long enough for them to review their predicament is indeed an altruistic action. But to implement a process to do just that which, for most of the Time will, as a by-product, render them liable to plunder by fast, highly experienced plunderers, is repugnant.

    There is a very obvious Time to “freeze out” problem clients: BEFORE they can have their “next” bet!

    NOT when they are in the middle of a betting cycle, when interferrence with their actions can EASILY creat for them large (or even a total) loss.

    betfair games has a clearly defined and Time-safe “game over” period when all players are frozen out (when settlement is completed) BEFORE the next game starts- the screen message from source actually CONFIRMS THAT!!!.

    So WHY, oh WHY, isn’t the freeze-out synchronised with that period, when NO POSSIBLE DAMAGE CAN ENSUE, and therefore Betting Integrity can not be compromised by the action?

    [or might such synchronisation be an acknowledgement that Timeliness is a fundamental component of Betting Integrity, and thus a dangerous precedent might be set????]

    More to the point… WHY, OH WHY isn’t the relevance and importance of Time at the FOREFRONT of such decisions and implementations, and REGULATION of those things, instead of being ( as it always is IMHO) a mere AFTERTHOUGHT??????

    IMHO, after repeated transgressions, such slipshod attention becomes carelessness, and then progresses to culpable recklessness; and it does seem to me that the Regulatory authority – instead of enforcing Timely compliance – are by default complicit in the dilution of the awareness of the need for such diligence!

    Maybe it IS rocket science, after all?

    Maybe I’m one of only a very few who actually CARE that the allegedly well-dressed Emperor is actually NAKED???

    Maybe if they hang me or do something similarly dastardly, me and my fundamental logic will fade into comfortable, and profitable, obscurity?

    Adonis.

  47. Chris F. Masse said:

    @medemi: Remind me about the deadline, next week, after I will have dealt with the CFTC. Thanks.

  48. medemi said:

    Adonis – OUT

    DJ Sunset – OUT

    Snake Plissken – OUT

    Medemi – OUT

    Feck – N. Eejit – OUT

    http://site.forum.betfair.com/…..ID=1613068

    Get the picture ? These were all people who favored a level playing field, and took the lead.

    The UK’s Gambling Commission is after betfair for in-running betting, and betfair is determined to keep things the way they are.

    You have 5 days left to make sure your voice does get heard.

  49. Adonis said:

    I just saw this on the betfair organ:-

    The Magician (6)

    20 Aug 22:36

    Andy

    this is well past betfair Q&A sessions…

    The Magician (6)

    21 Aug 18:45

    Looking at the data…

    I am finding more and more examples that look entirely suspect.

    Have a lok at the data around the horse called demand from earlier this month.

    I will back at 1.01 the start of this race was missed by 1-2-3 seconds

    The Magician (6)

    21 Aug 18:49

    can someone tell me what SECOND this race stared?

    PONTEFRACT

    06 August 2008

    2:40 Ronnie Senior 80th Birthday Maiden Stakes (Class 4) (2yo)

    The Magician (6)

    21 Aug 21:54

    The Magician (6) 21 Aug 18:51

    can someone tell me what SECOND this race stared?

    PONTEFRACT

    06 August 2008

    2:40 Ronnie Senior 80th Birthday Maiden Stakes (Class 4) (2yo)

    Walter Tull VC 21 Aug 19:24

    The Magician: 14.42.19s. The ATR results archive gives the off time including seconds but it’s unclear whether this is the official off time or the off time from their delayed pictures.

    Baby Jesus 21 Aug 19:25

    Paddy power site gives the same time so I’ d assume it was the actual off time.

    The Magician (6) 21 Aug 19:55

    As expected

    API feeds….

    13:42:17.6 trades 4.8 / 4.9

    13:42:19.933 trades 5.1 / 6.0

    Form reports reads missed the break…

    the thieves win again…

    Betfair lets them

    The Magician (6) 21 Aug 19:57

    they lift

    the thieves lift the 4.9, 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 , 5.5, 5.6 , 5.7, 5.8, 5.9 all in the 1-2 seconds between the real start and when Betfair watch the start

    so what pictures do betfair use to suspend?

    secong coming.

    21 Aug 23:24

    AN ‘ADONIS’ THREAD IMO

    I suppose, in Time, most of the people WON’T be fooled, most of the Time?

    Until then, plenty of fools are apparently content to argue that Time doesn’t matter.

    ESPECIALLY IF IT GIVES THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEFRAUD HONEST PUNTERS?

    I repeat…. understanding Time fraud isn’t rocket science!!!!!!

    -at least there’s a couple who remember my name. Not bad considering betfair stopped me posting any more questions on Time-related Betting Integrity issues w-a-y back in 2005. I actually had the dubious “honour” of the name “Adonis” being a disallowed word for postings…. there were actually threads where customers tried all ways to post the word “Adonis” and circumvent the betfair censor!

    Now, is that DETERMINATION to suppress? You might think so, but I couldn’t possibly comment…………..

    Adonis

  50. Medemi said:

    Interesting developments Adonis.

    The Gambling Commission was interested whether unexperienced customers are losing money in-running.

    Well, if the Magician, who has been around for 20 years, doesn’t fully understand what is going on, then I guess everyone must be losing to the fast pic boys. Everyone who bets a certain way, that is.

    You need a lot of cattle and a couple of butchers to get the economy (or betfair) going. At least that’s what some people believe. They have already earned my contempt, and I will piss on them should I ever meet them.

    I’ve said it before, The people at the GC are actually going to have to work hard to earn a living the next few years if they don’t sort this out. That must be their biggest fear, and our best hope. Let’s see how much tax money they’ll be wasting before they give us what we want.

  51. Adonis said:

    medemi,

    one thing that the Fat Cats at Quangos (Quasi-Autonomous, Non-Governmental Organisations) like the Gambling Commission fear hugely is CHANGE. They are essentially Civil Servants, and ripe for decimation/plucking/pruning/sacrifice etc etc whenever there’s a change of government.

    Not sure if you’ve noticed the “predictions” on Gordon Brown’s longevity at No 10 Downing Street, but it may be marginally longer than the survival Time of a snowball in Hell………but only maybe.

    Some might believe that there is plenty of behind-the-scenes lobbying that the current Gambling Commission (based purely on delivered Results) is merely a roosting pole for the Favoured Few vultures, but I couldn’t possibly comment…….

    Suffice to say that, purely IMHO, ANY oprganisation that can be shown to feed off Public Funds, but fails to serve the Public is fodder indeed for Madame Guillotine; but only after the Inquisitor General has used all necessary methods to determine all of their misdeeds, and identify all of those who were complicit with them.

    Lots of baskets.

    Lots of heads.

    Some might hope that there might be a few betting exchange directors’ heads in those baskets, but I couldn’t possibly speculate on that.

    .

    Enjoy the week-end folks……

    Vive la Revolution!!!!

    Adonis

  52. Adonis said:

    Hilarious!!!

    the following post (part of the thread I mentioned above) has been wiped from the thread quoted:

    secong coming.

    21 Aug 23:24

    AN ‘ADONIS’ THREAD IMO”

    It will be interesting to see if “second coming” suffers bannishment for using the forbidden word “Adonis” !

    Those wishing to see the full thread (interesting albeit now somewhat abridged, of course) it’s entitled “Yet again the fast pics boys pick off the prices SP 4/6 BF SP 9.62″ by “baby jesus”.

    http://site.forum.betfair.com/…..eCount=427

    Some might say that it’s obvious that open discussion of the possibility, or even actuality, of cheating or even fraud is quite, quite, taboo, unless closely “steered” and “adjusted” by The Great Overseer………. But I couldn’t possibly comment.

    Adonis, PMSL

  53. Medemi said:

    What surprises me is that so many people oppose regulation. Even today, when we have an economic crisis of immense proportion. Nobody knows what will happen next, but we could be at stage one of what will eventually turn out to be the end of prosperity. Our children will have to pay for this, that’s for sure. Primary cause : a lack of regulation! Complacency has ruled for too long.

    Yet most people seem afraid of what the Gambling Commission might do, even when their primary objectives are to help us punters. Amazing…

  54. Medemi said:

    To most people betfair is their friend, and the Gambling Commission is the enemy.

    Don’t you think that’s amusing, Adonis? I do. Basically that’s a translation of the well-being of the entire population being a distant second to one person’s greediness. Multiply that by 300,000 (customers) or so.

    We won’t make it, the human race. Because there is ONLY ONE guy fighting for what’s right on the betfair forum at the moment. Well, betfair have had their way with us, they’ve even caused some damage to the supporting troups (although it took them a while to to learn and apply that strategy).

    Almost forgot, I really don’t care about any of this. A consider myself an observer, detecting lots of inefficiencies. I don’t even live on this planet.

  55. Adonis said:

    Medemi, I have only a slight amendment to propose to your statement about betfair, GC, friends and enemies:-

    It’s possible (likely, IMHO) that we’re only allowed to see what the proprietors of propaganda vehicles wish us to see. That is a basic function of propaganda.

    So, we see a flood of people arguing vehemently that the status quo is the better alternative; and if the clock is stopped by the “referee” (so that he can shave a bit off for himself amongst other things) we should be grateful that he at least does it in such a way that we can’t see it coming!

    If you think about it, unless a solitary voice (which is almost where the situation has sunk to!) isn’t permitted to give the wolves something to attack….. then the organ’s credibility would be zero.

    They’d be in a feeding frenzy, but with no prey!

    With tongue in cheek, not wishing to impair or undervalue Magician’s unthanked role (for as long as the Great Overseer can bite his lip and tolerate him further) some of us, already dispatched, were probably more pressing targets in the steady process of containment, confinement and – where that wouldn’t work – exclusion.

    The impact of avoiding engagement with those I feel are or may be corrupt (bettors, layers or so-called referees) can be minimised.

    Ultimately, when I want to bet or lay, I can easily get accommodated, to acceptable standards, with acceptable counterparties, at acceptable Integrity standards.

    In due course, those who may feel that they are “trapped” within the operation of a Virtual Monopoly will find that they themselves hold the Key to remedy of that situation.

    …..Waiting for the Competition Commission to do it for them is not a viable task – if breath is held concurrently!

    Adonis.

  56. Medemi said:

    Adonis,

    Quote: “It’s possible (likely, IMHO) that we’re only allowed to see what the proprietors of propaganda vehicles wish us to see.”

    I think that’s unlikely. Well, to a lesser degree than you think anyway, although getting rid of me the way they did (without any warnings whatsoever) certainly didn’t help. I guess we weren’t supposed to find out about that.

    I really believe that what we’re witnessing in general is a lack of faith in regulators (you can see it on here with regard to the CFTC). Also, most people tend to believe they can make money betting, even though the facts reveal that only 3% or so will make money in the long run. It’s a male thing. When betfair offers them a chance to make money in an unfair way, but without breaking any rules or laws, most people will take it. Their inability to look at the big picture or the consequences won’t prevent them from doing so.

    In my mind, that’s even worse than your propaganda theory. But it is what it is.

  57. Adonis said:

    My thoughts on “regulation” apply equally well to politics:

    Right now, it’s ENTIRELY POSSIBLE for the People to “regulate” and govern themselves, almost on a daily basis.

    Politicians want the continuation of the devolution of individual political power to themselves ( the politicians) in lengthy lumps of Time. Without it they would have to earn their next meal…..

    It doesn’t take rocket science to make available fingerprint readers to all personal computers (no more expensive than a mouse these days) – especially those PC’s in public buildings (eg libraries) so that individuals might vote ON A DAILY BASIS if they choose to – and take PRECEDENCE over the default proxy held by their elected representative.

    Thus, if a politician establishes a track record of voting oppositely to the mood of his electorate, they can (and would!) “outvote” him on any/all future important issues. Almost IMMEDIATELY!

    Boy! Would those politicians in question be ultra careful to vote according to their Electorate’s wishes if there was a “two strikes and you’re out” rule of implied No Confidence for those who get “voted down” more than (say) once……

    Similarly, if anyone desirous of voting on any gambling issue were able to, it is at least feasible that the Gambling Commission (or similar elsewhere) would find themselves OUT ON THEIR EAR if failing to reflect the wishes of the Public they reputedly serve.

    The chances of such devolved democracy?

    Didn’t we mention snowballs and Hell a little earlier?

    Adonis.

    PS: such topics are generally regarded as just as much “dangerous talk” as is criticism of the betting integrity policies of betting exchanges…….

  58. Medemi said:

    Someone started a thread about me on the betfair organ.

    Walter Tull VC

    25 Aug 00:06

    He posts on Midas Oracle, or he did the last time looked. He had been warned by Midas for making unsubstantiated allegations about Betfair.

    Nice one. People see what they want to see.

  59. Medemi said:

    I normally hate to do this, but I think we have reached a point where undermining my reputation isn’t acceptabel, whoever is doing it. So here are some comments on the last thread about me, after betfair silenced me for good, without notifying me.

  60. Medemi said:

    Forget it, I can’t copy and paste.

  61. Medemi said:

    In stead, let me help some of betfair’s customers by removing some of their cognitive dissonances, since it must be hard for them to justify handing over their cash to a company while thinking customers are being treated unfairly at the same time.

    According to some people, I have been banned on many sites. According to them I’m a disruptive poster, a troublemaker. It isn’t true that those people have been making false claims about me to try and silence me. It is me who continuously makes these false accusations about them.

    There, that should make you feel better. Happy punting, shitheads. :-D

Leave a Reply to IN-PLAY BETTING: BetFair is already compliant with the Gambling Commission's first pointer. | Midas Oracle .ORG Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *