Hi guys, would appreciate any input/advice into my situation here.
So as many of you know after falling in his race yesterday, for some reason Douvan was still listed to run in the Ryanair Chase at 2:50 today despite everyone knowing that he wouldn't run. This created a strange market last night so I thought I spotted an opportunity to make some profit.
The book overround was hovering between 98-97% on the back side so I decided to dutch the field repeatedly when it hit this range. I can't be the only person caught up in this as this race had more volume matched on it then all the other races combined as of 1am. I eventually stopped as I had a slight feeling something could go wrong and of course it did. Managed to get over 100k matched leaving a green of >2k across the entire field. Matched Douvan at average odds of 6.7. Thankfully I also withdrew almost all of my balance overnight just in case something like this happened.
He was "officially" withdrawn just before 10am, and Betfair applied a reduction factor of 20% (which to my understanding suggests they gave him a 4/1 shot to win at 10am this morning which is obviously laughable). Seems to be some speculation that his price was backed in before the official withdrawal but I wasn't keeping an eye on his odds. This plunged my exposure several K into the red even with a balance of 0 which I never knew was possible in the first place! Interesting to note I could have theoretically had an exposure of millions if I kept going as there was plenty of money in the market.
What would you suggest doing in my situation? I wont be paying anything back, IMO they should have either suspended the market overnight until they got confirmation of the withdrawal, or applied a more reasonable reduction factor like all of the bookies did, even Betfair Racing on twitter stated last that there would be no reduction and never suggested anything different about the exchange until after 10am this morning. I would however like to keep my Betfair account if possible. Should I even bother getting in touch with them or am I fooked? Thanks
Betfair Rule 4 / RF / Douvan Fiasco
-
DegenerateTrader
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2018 5:16 pm
Last edited by DegenerateTrader on Thu Mar 15, 2018 6:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Im afraid to say in short there is nothing you can do about it, there is no such thing as ‘free’ money on Betfair it something many have been caught out with in the past when trying to take advantage of such things. There was quite a well-known incident in a football market a few years ago where the first player to score goal score was no longer going to play in the match (or something like that) so people started trying to dutch over round looking for free cash – until the penny dropped!
If you search the Bet Angel blog Peter once done a brief post on it and included some links to a forum where some of it unfolded and the carnage that ensued afterward. Some tried to WD and run others who needed their account or didn't want to be indebted had to just accept the loss
I’d like to give you better news but for the amount that you have said is involved Betfair will almost certainly pursue you for the money.
There is, however, some debate weather bookies shorting its price just to increase the reduction factor was ethical
If you search the Bet Angel blog Peter once done a brief post on it and included some links to a forum where some of it unfolded and the carnage that ensued afterward. Some tried to WD and run others who needed their account or didn't want to be indebted had to just accept the loss
I’d like to give you better news but for the amount that you have said is involved Betfair will almost certainly pursue you for the money.
There is, however, some debate weather bookies shorting its price just to increase the reduction factor was ethical
Heres the blog I was referring to, it contains the links to the forum where it all unfolded
https://www.betangel.com/blog_wp/2016/0 ... e-markets/
https://www.betangel.com/blog_wp/2016/0 ... e-markets/
I think its important to recognise here, that Betfair havent won anything.
Other customers knew the rules better, and exploited it.
Its hard, but try shrug it off, and take advantage next time.
Its possible Betfair will block your withdrawal.
Sorry
Other customers knew the rules better, and exploited it.
Its hard, but try shrug it off, and take advantage next time.
Its possible Betfair will block your withdrawal.
Sorry
-
DegenerateTrader
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2018 5:16 pm
Hi guys thanks for your replies,
Have you got any more info on how the RF is calculated? Betfair are vague at best. Seems like they really screwed me here, and likely many others based on the crazy market activity last night. The RF they applied was entirely off based on the horse's true probability of winning even if he miraculously ran. And what about the "false credit" - this isn't spread betting I didn't have the funds to cover these losses and never consented to any additional liability - it wouldn't be legally enforceable in my country based off of previous judgement anyway.
Thanks, will have a read through those links before I make a decision. Withdrawal has gone through already.
Have you got any more info on how the RF is calculated? Betfair are vague at best. Seems like they really screwed me here, and likely many others based on the crazy market activity last night. The RF they applied was entirely off based on the horse's true probability of winning even if he miraculously ran. And what about the "false credit" - this isn't spread betting I didn't have the funds to cover these losses and never consented to any additional liability - it wouldn't be legally enforceable in my country based off of previous judgement anyway.
Thanks, will have a read through those links before I make a decision. Withdrawal has gone through already.
-
DegenerateTrader
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2018 5:16 pm
I emailed Betfair several years ago about how RFs are calculated. The answer was that they are based on the horses expected true chance of winning. This would imply its chances IF IT RUNS, so the fact that it's not going to run has no effect. The RF is largely based on current trade price but where they suspect manipulation of the price they have to disregard it. The fact it was trading at 7 would not, in this case, affect its RF.
As I mentioned on the Cheltenham thread, they usually remove liability offset in these circumstances and that would have prevented anyone from risking more than the funds in their account. For whatever reason they didn't do it.
I hate to say this, but it's in the terms and conditions that Betfair can ask for negative balances back on demand.
I believe this happened to someone who backed the field in a place market with only one finisher, which resulted them removing liability offset for back bets in place markets.
As I mentioned on the Cheltenham thread, they usually remove liability offset in these circumstances and that would have prevented anyone from risking more than the funds in their account. For whatever reason they didn't do it.
I hate to say this, but it's in the terms and conditions that Betfair can ask for negative balances back on demand.
I believe this happened to someone who backed the field in a place market with only one finisher, which resulted them removing liability offset for back bets in place markets.
-
spreadbetting
- Posts: 3140
- Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:06 pm
So you thought you'd got an easy £2k for nothing on Betfair but instead got stuffed by others who knew the rules better 
The reduction factor was readily available to you when placing the bets so trying to argue it's out of line with the odds won't get you anywhere.
You say the withdrawal has gone thru but generally Betfair don't send to your bank for a couple of days so until it hits your bank I wouldn't count your chickens just yet. Can't see Betfair writing off your losses just because you didn't read the rules and thought you might take advantage of others errors offering a 98% book. There was a case ages ago where they wrote off punters debts due to a similar situation so you may be able to argue they shouldn't have let you expose yourself so highly on a market where there were doubts about it running which others took advantage of. They'll almost certainly take whatever balance you had on the account though.
The reduction factor was readily available to you when placing the bets so trying to argue it's out of line with the odds won't get you anywhere.
You say the withdrawal has gone thru but generally Betfair don't send to your bank for a couple of days so until it hits your bank I wouldn't count your chickens just yet. Can't see Betfair writing off your losses just because you didn't read the rules and thought you might take advantage of others errors offering a 98% book. There was a case ages ago where they wrote off punters debts due to a similar situation so you may be able to argue they shouldn't have let you expose yourself so highly on a market where there were doubts about it running which others took advantage of. They'll almost certainly take whatever balance you had on the account though.
-
DegenerateTrader
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2018 5:16 pm
I agree with you, Douvan priced up at least 4/1 for today's race before he fell yesterday. I'm no expert on horse fatigue, one day preperation etc but his chances surely weren't helped by an intense half race and fall 24hrs earlier even if we presumed he would run. Unfortunately I never recorded any Betfair data but here's a snapshop from Boylesports taken on Monday so you can add a few ticks on for the exchange already http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=ie
So the manipulation in this case would be to bring his odds in, not out.
Their interpetation of the RF vs the actual trading price has caused this 5-6% shift into the negative and put me in this spot, and if I was even aware it was possible to go into negative balance I obviously wouldn't have jumped in. It's different to that FGS case where they are laying a 140% book against players that, unlike Douvan, may or may not start. 140% would have the alarm bells ringing from the start, this was for 2-3% with high volume which I have had good success with over the last couple of years.
If the RF was always way off the actual trading price then this scenario would crop up far more often, and make it quite difficult to trade even individual runners, so far the only other case I've heard of is the one you have just mentioned. Say for example you are trading horse A and is available to back at 5.0(20%) while horse B trades at 2.0 but is withdrawn. Nothwithstanding any other variables which they are vague about, horse A should instantly drop down to 2.5(40%) which allows you to keep trading smoothly, keeping you're P&L intact and ratios. This is backed up by checking the reduction factor in the Market Activity window on any race; 100/horse odds gives you that figure. Even presuming he is ready to run, Betfair are basically saying his chances went from 6.8>5 between 3am when I stopped and 10am. Isn't that manipulation? Maybe I'm totally off, but I would argue there might even be a case to reclaim that 2k given how blatant this was. Even if he was trading as low as 6.0 at 10am (16.67%) thats a 4k swing at the stakes I had on. The poster above said Betdaq had him at 14% this morn which is over 7.0.
Lol I guess I am already preparing myself from the hassle I might get off them. Completely ruined a decent Cheltenham!
So the manipulation in this case would be to bring his odds in, not out.
Their interpetation of the RF vs the actual trading price has caused this 5-6% shift into the negative and put me in this spot, and if I was even aware it was possible to go into negative balance I obviously wouldn't have jumped in. It's different to that FGS case where they are laying a 140% book against players that, unlike Douvan, may or may not start. 140% would have the alarm bells ringing from the start, this was for 2-3% with high volume which I have had good success with over the last couple of years.
If the RF was always way off the actual trading price then this scenario would crop up far more often, and make it quite difficult to trade even individual runners, so far the only other case I've heard of is the one you have just mentioned. Say for example you are trading horse A and is available to back at 5.0(20%) while horse B trades at 2.0 but is withdrawn. Nothwithstanding any other variables which they are vague about, horse A should instantly drop down to 2.5(40%) which allows you to keep trading smoothly, keeping you're P&L intact and ratios. This is backed up by checking the reduction factor in the Market Activity window on any race; 100/horse odds gives you that figure. Even presuming he is ready to run, Betfair are basically saying his chances went from 6.8>5 between 3am when I stopped and 10am. Isn't that manipulation? Maybe I'm totally off, but I would argue there might even be a case to reclaim that 2k given how blatant this was. Even if he was trading as low as 6.0 at 10am (16.67%) thats a 4k swing at the stakes I had on. The poster above said Betdaq had him at 14% this morn which is over 7.0.
Lol I guess I am already preparing myself from the hassle I might get off them. Completely ruined a decent Cheltenham!
-
spreadbetting
- Posts: 3140
- Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:06 pm
The reduction factor is similar to a tissue price it is not supposed to be a constant reflection of the horses chances. Once a market has started trading the reduction factor is set and very rarely amended. It is not supposed to track the odds like a rule 4, so just because Douvan was trading at 7's (14%) there's no reason to believe it couldn't be trading at 5's (20%) within the next 10 minutes or so. Constantly amending the RF's for each horse on each odds change would become a nightmare for exchange punters and Betfair with the way exchange markets operate.
DegenerateTrader, I took the time and trouble to post the explanation of how RFs are calculated.
Douvan's price was entirely irrelevant to its RF - it could have hit 20 or got backed down to 2 - it would make no difference.
No RF would satisfy everyone - sometimes it's advantageous to layers and sometimes to backers, it will never be spot on. You can't complain about 20% because that's what it was overnight and never changed, so it was possible to calculate what odds your back bets would be settled at.
RFs are frequently changed during the course of the day and they use to be (probably still are) published on the Betfair forum under Betfair's section (can't remember it's title). When a market is momentarily suspended I think it's often to update the RFs.
The only thing I would blame Betfair for is not removing liability offset, which they usually do when a key horse isn't likely to run. As I already said, this would stop anyone from exposing more than the funds in their account.
Douvan's price was entirely irrelevant to its RF - it could have hit 20 or got backed down to 2 - it would make no difference.
No RF would satisfy everyone - sometimes it's advantageous to layers and sometimes to backers, it will never be spot on. You can't complain about 20% because that's what it was overnight and never changed, so it was possible to calculate what odds your back bets would be settled at.
RFs are frequently changed during the course of the day and they use to be (probably still are) published on the Betfair forum under Betfair's section (can't remember it's title). When a market is momentarily suspended I think it's often to update the RFs.
The only thing I would blame Betfair for is not removing liability offset, which they usually do when a key horse isn't likely to run. As I already said, this would stop anyone from exposing more than the funds in their account.
I ended up reading the two MSE threads in full (missed US racing to do it).Dallas wrote: ↑Thu Mar 15, 2018 5:50 pmHeres the blog I was referring to, it contains the links to the forum where it all unfolded
https://www.betangel.com/blog_wp/2016/0 ... e-markets/
Very sad reading. I really felt for them and understand their limited understanding, but I didn't like the way some of them blamed the trading software downloaded, believing it was that that caused the problem, or the trolls that enjoyed other people's difficulty.
PS: Sorry, I didn't realise that F***B** was a swear word.
-
ShaunWhite
- Posts: 9731
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:42 am
The horse may have been entered in both races, but would never have run in both. High quality horses simply don't run on consecutive days. I agree it seems misleading but the trainer doesn't officially have to confirm the withdrawal until the morning.DegenerateTrader wrote: ↑Thu Mar 15, 2018 11:15 pmI'm no expert on horse fatigue, one day preperation etc but his chances surely weren't helped by an intense half race and fall 24hrs earlier even if we presumed he would run. !
I noticed the same anomaly as you but was confused about why Douval was still listed, 'I'm no expert'. So I asked for advice, and thankfully at 3am Derek explained the RF and the risks, especially as he'd noticed BF didn't have the usual liability clause in the rules for that particular race. The lunch wasn't free.
I think this is another case for why the exchange isn't a straight swap for a bookie, they have their faults but bookies operate under consumer regs rather than industry rules and user is therefore insulated against this sort of danger to a large extent.
I recall from a conversation with Betfair many years ago that when they apply a 'rule 4' they apply it to the whole return including the stake. In an example I'd backed a short price favourite Evs. there was 50p rule 4. with a conventional bookie or even Betdaq if you'd backed it at Evs for say £100 you'd be returned £150. However with Betfair as they apply it to the whole return you'd actually just receive back your £100 stake.