| Recurring |
one_organization, multiple_organization |
(a) The software failure incident at Betfair was not an isolated event. Prior to the incident involving the voided bets on Voler La Vedette at Leopardstown, Betfair had faced software failures in the past. In September of the same year, Betfair's software failed to process a significant number of bets, including some winners, into the biggest Tote Jackpot pool in history [54496].
(b) The incident at Betfair involving the voided bets on Voler La Vedette at Leopardstown highlighted the potential risks associated with automated trading programs or "bots" in the betting industry. The malfunctioning automated bet-placement program used by a customer resulted in a significant software failure that led to the voiding of bets worth £23m [54496]. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The software failure incident at Betfair related to the design phase as it was caused by a software flaw that allowed a customer's multimillion pound lay bet on Voler La Vedette to bypass the usual checks and be placed on the system, resulting in a potential £600m liability for that customer [11075].
(b) The software failure incident at Betfair also had elements related to the operation phase as it involved the operation of a malfunctioning automated bet-placement programme, known as a "bot," which was responsible for placing the rogue bet into the exchange [54496]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) The software failure incident at Betfair related to the betting exchange's decision to void all bets on the Christmas Hurdle at Leopardstown was primarily within the system. The incident was caused by a software flaw that allowed a customer's multimillion pound lay bet on Voler La Vedette to bypass the usual checks and be placed on the system, resulting in a potential £600m liability for that customer [11075]. Betfair identified and fixed the software flaw that led to the voided bets, indicating an internal system issue [54496]. The use of a malfunctioning automated bet-placement program (bot) by the customer further emphasizes the internal nature of the software failure incident. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions, human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident at Betfair related to the in-running betting on the Christmas Hurdle at Leopardstown was primarily attributed to non-human actions. It was mentioned that a customer's multimillion pound lay bet on Voler La Vedette at 28-1 had bypassed the usual checks and was placed on the system, resulting in a significant liability if enough bets were placed on the horse. This situation was caused by the customer's rogue "bot," which was described as a malfunctioning automated bet-placement program [11075].
Additionally, Betfair's spokesman, Tony Calvin, speculated that an automated trading program or "bot" was likely responsible for placing the rogue bet into the exchange. He confirmed that Betfair itself operates in-house bots on the exchange, indicating that automated processes played a role in the incident [54496].
(b) In the context of human actions contributing to the software failure incident, it was mentioned that Betfair's technicians identified and fixed the software flaw that caused the in-running betting on the Christmas Hurdle to be declared void. The exchange took steps to address the issue, including applying a fix overnight and subjecting it to rigorous testing. Furthermore, Betfair's spokesman, Tony Calvin, defended the exchange's response to the betting activity and emphasized that there was a unique set of events that allowed the incident to happen [54496]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
software |
(a) The software failure incident occurring due to hardware:
- There is no specific mention in the provided articles about the software failure incident being caused by hardware issues. The incident primarily revolves around a software flaw that led to the voiding of bets on the Betfair betting exchange [54496, 11075].
(b) The software failure incident occurring due to software:
- The software failure incident at Betfair was primarily attributed to a software flaw that allowed a customer's multimillion pound lay bet on Voler La Vedette to bypass the usual checks and be placed on the system, resulting in a potential £600m liability for that customer [54496, 11075].
- Betfair cited a unique set of circumstances and a malfunctioning automated bet-placement program (referred to as a "bot") as the contributing factors to the software failure incident that led to the voiding of bets on the Christmas Hurdle at Leopardstown [54496, 11075]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
non-malicious |
(a) The software failure incident described in the articles was non-malicious. It was caused by a unique set of circumstances and a malfunctioning automated bet-placement program (bot) that bypassed the usual checks, leading to the placing of a multimillion-pound lay bet on Voler La Vedette at 28-1 [54496, 11075]. The incident was not attributed to any intentional harm or malicious intent but rather to a technical flaw in the system that allowed the rogue bet to be placed. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions |
(a) The software failure incident at Betfair related to the betting exchange voiding all bets on the Christmas Hurdle at Leopardstown was primarily due to poor_decisions. The incident was caused by a unique set of circumstances where a customer's multimillion pound lay bet on Voler La Vedette at 28-1 bypassed the usual checks and was placed on the system, leading to a potential £600m liability for that customer [11075]. Betfair acknowledged that the situation arose due to the customer's rogue "bot" – a malfunctioning automated bet-placement programme [11075]. The decision to void bets and refund all stakes was made by Betfair, emphasizing that they would have voided the bets regardless of the race's outcome [11075]. The incident highlighted a failure in the system's checks and balances, indicating poor decisions in the software's handling of bets and automated trading programs. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
accidental |
(a) The software failure incident at Betfair, where in-running betting on the Christmas Hurdle at Leopardstown was declared void, was attributed to a unique set of events that allowed a rogue bet to be placed into the exchange. It was speculated that an automated trading programme or "bot" was responsible for placing the rogue bet, which bypassed the usual checks on the system [54496].
(b) The software failure incident was described as caused by "a unique set of circumstances" that led to a customer's multimillion pound lay bet on Voler La Vedette at 28-1 bypassing the usual checks on the system. This resulted in a £600m liability for the customer had sufficient bets been placed on the horse. Betfair claimed that the situation arose due to the customer's rogue "bot" – a malfunctioning automated bet-placement programme [11075]. |
| Duration |
temporary |
(a) The software failure incident in the articles was temporary. The incident was caused by a unique set of circumstances, including a customer's rogue "bot" that bypassed the usual checks to place a multimillion pound lay bet on Voler La Vedette at 28-1, resulting in a potential £600m liability for that customer [Article 11075]. Betfair identified and fixed the software flaw that caused the in-running betting on the Christmas Hurdle at Leopardstown to be declared void, and the bets were ultimately voided and refunded due to the software failure [Article 54496]. The incident was not a permanent failure but rather a specific issue that occurred under certain conditions. |
| Behaviour |
value, other |
(a) crash: The software failure incident described in the articles does not involve a crash where the system loses state and does not perform any of its intended functions. Instead, the incident involved a unique set of circumstances that led to a significant issue in the betting exchange system [54496, 11075].
(b) omission: The software failure incident does not involve the system omitting to perform its intended functions at an instance(s). The incident was more related to a malfunctioning automated bet-placement program that allowed a customer's multimillion-pound lay bet to bypass usual checks [54496, 11075].
(c) timing: The software failure incident is not about the system performing its intended functions correctly but too late or too early. It was more about a customer's rogue "bot" that caused the malfunction in the automated bet-placement system [54496, 11075].
(d) value: The software failure incident does involve the system performing its intended functions incorrectly. The malfunction in the system allowed a customer's lay bet to bypass checks and potentially result in a £600m liability if enough bets were placed on the horse [54496, 11075].
(e) byzantine: The software failure incident does not exhibit a byzantine behavior where the system behaves erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions. The incident was more about a specific issue caused by a malfunctioning automated bet-placement program [54496, 11075].
(f) other: The software failure incident involved a unique set of circumstances where a customer's rogue "bot" caused a significant issue in the betting exchange system, leading to the voiding of bets and refunding of stakes. The incident highlighted the potential risks associated with automated trading programs and the need for robust checks and balances in place [54496, 11075]. |