Posts Tagged error
Betfair to compensate Leopardstown losers
Posted by Peter Webb in Betfair, Horse Racing on January 11th, 2012
Hot off the press, just received this email from Betfair: -
“Dear Peter,
Since the 2.00pm race at Leopardstown on 28 December 2011, we’ve looked in detail at all the circumstances surrounding the technology failure and the anomaly it created. In addition, we provided our Gibraltar regulator, the Gibraltar Gambling Commissioner (GGC), with a detailed technical and operational report on the incident and the GGC made a number of recommendations. We have also consulted with customers and taken their feedback on board.
Accordingly, we have reviewed our decision to void all in-running bets matched on the race and, in the interests of fairness, certain categories of voided bets will be compensated by way of ex gratia payments from Betfair. This compensation complies with, and goes beyond, the GGC’s recommendations.
The categories of bets that will be compensated are:
- In-play winning positions in both the ‘win’ and the ‘to be placed’ markets which were achieved before the technology failure; and
- In-play winning positions in the ‘to be placed’ market achieved at any time through to the completion of the race.
Bets matched in the ‘win’ market after the technology failure will remain void.
As your bets were placed in one of the two categories described above, a payment reflecting your winnings had the relevant bets not been voided, will be made to your Betfair account today.
Once again we would like to apologise for the inconvenience caused, and the time taken to reach this outcome. We do thank you for your continued support and remain committed to providing you with the best betting proposition possible.
Regards,
The Betfair Racing team”
£1k account caused £600m Betfair error
Posted by Peter Webb in Betfair on December 30th, 2011
Betfair have issued a statement this afternoon outlining the error that caused the exchange to misfire. The full statement is here: -
But here are some bullet points:-
“This bet was placed by one of our UK customers trading the race via our API or Application Programming Interface (bdp.betfair.com/) using an automated program (a “bot”). Their bot had developed a fault causing it to try and place a very large number of bets on the Exchange. These bets were large in size and mispriced…… However, due to a technical glitch within the core exchange database, one of the bets evaded the prevention system and was shown on the site. This was an issue that was triggered because of a unique sequence of events that had never happened before.” – “In this case, the customer had less than £1,000 in their account so none of these bets should have been accepted.”
“The Betfair technical teams continued to investigate the details of the fault and, having identified the issue, worked on putting a fix in place which was applied at 10.15pm on December 28th.”
“Following extensive testing, we can confirm that there have been no subsequent occurrences of this fault and we’ve taken steps to prevent its reoccurrence in the future.”
“Again, I would like to clarify that the account in question has no commercial relationship with Betfair other than being a customer. Our reputation has been built on integrity and we have been pioneers in the industry in ensuring that betting is carried out in a fair and transparent manner. By making the voiding decision, I can assure you that this decision was not taken lightly and that we have implemented what we believe to be the fairest solution in these truly exceptional circumstances.”
How to lay £600m worth of bets on Betfair?
Posted by Peter Webb in Betfair on December 29th, 2011
That has to be the #1 question after yesterdays debacle in one of the feature races at Leopardstown.
To summarise, a mysterious lay bet appeared and stayed on the winning favourite at 29′s right up to the finish of the race. The ‘layer’ offered up £21m at 29′s creating a £600m liability. Betfair voided the in-running market.
Betfair have come out officially and ruled out that it was them or any account controlled by them or that they had a commercial interest in it. So it would appear it was just a common lay that created the error. But the question now shifts to who was this layer and how did they create the error? Nobody on the planet has £600m to gamble on a single runner in a race, so that points to some system quirk. There are checks in place that stop you exceeding your account balance or exposure limit, so what could jump over both those hurdles?
The amount of the Lay was curiously near the value of a 32bit binary number, slightly over if you add in additional stakes. The range of values of a 32bit binary is -2147483648 to +2147483647 which fits with the stake amount displayed on Betfair. You can create an error by forcing overflow or underflow with a calculation involving an integer, so it’s not impossible that this could be the source of the error. There is a good explanation on this link, curiously to do with customer balances: -
http://weblogs.asp.net/dvravikanth/archive/2008/03/10/integer-overflow-amp-underflow-revisited.aspx
I can’t comment authoritatively on the way that Betfair have coded their back-end, but lets just say that it’s not impossible that something like this could be the cause of the error. It could be that the exposure calculation is done using an integer and this layer just fluked it somehow. If it is something like this, then I am pretty sure an arms race is already underway to exploit it. The ability to force a voided market is potentially quite valuable, so Betfair should announce what the error is and what they are going to do to solve it, immediately. The person who placed the bets knows what created it, so that layer is hot property at the moment!
By quoting terms and conditions to void the market, people were quick to spot contradictory terms that stated that in the event of a bet exceeding agreed exposure all bets will stand, whoops! You can find the clause under section 9. Has Betfair has possibly opened themselves up to a legal issue?
I get the feeling this story is going to rumble on for a fair bit. But I sense we are nearer an explanation.
Leonhard Euler proved in 1772 that 2,147,483,647 was a prime number
Fat fingers crucify punter
Posted by Peter Webb in Bet Angel on October 23rd, 2010
I see lots of strange things in the markets but few stranger than what happened just a moment ago at Newbury. While I realise we all, in some way, take money of each other now and again. I feel a great deal of sympathy for what they did, we all screw up from time to time. I can’t imagine how they felt after this error.
The long and short of it is that they backed a 400/1 shot down to only 1.08, with significant amounts of money. All this occured before the off. Why, is anybodies guess. But you feel it could be a bot error. There is a discussion on the forum, but here is an image I took quickly after this happened.
It’s going to take some getting back I think.
Ouch!
Hereford 16:30
Posted by Peter Webb in Bet Angel on February 23rd, 2009
Gee, thanks Betfair. Just started trading this race when they suspended it and put it in-play. No problem usually there, but it was well before the start of the race. Obviously some head scratching went on as I was held in the market for ages with a half finished trade before, just seconds from the start, they brought the market back. What a mess, but luckily I escapted with a 80p profit in running. Phew. I hope you didn’t get too shafted on this!