Yeah, a quick read of the relevant regs tells me Fanduel is gonna lose this one (Unless i've missed something)[1,2]
The law on this is pretty clear, and they can't unilaterally decide not to apply the gaming regulations of the state, or change them through their contracts.
(They can decide not to do business in states they don't like the regulations of course)
BTW, somewhat hilariously, the part they "..."'d is just 4 words.
[2] (c) Upon accepting a wager pursuant to this chapter, a wagering cashier shall cause
the wagering system to generate a wagering ticket.
(IE them generating the ticket is acceptance)
(d) A wagering operator shall not unilaterally rescind any wager pursuant to this
chapter without the prior written approval of the Division.
(h) Winning wagering tickets shall be redeemed by a wagering cashier after
verifying the validity of the wagering ticket through the wagering system.
(IE they should have redeemed it because it was valid)
(k) No wagering ticket shall be voided after the start of the wagering event on which a wager has been placed
Another reason the could not have voided it.
Essentially the best argument they have is that it's a house rule under 13:69N2-2 .
This only works if their internal controls were approved by the division.
Even then, a reasonable court would likely find that clearly contrary to the written regulations (and thus, not a reasonable interpretation of the regulations by the commission).
I also wonder what they mean by mistake. I’m guessing these are set algorithmically; you can’t honestly label the times you lose money by trusting your code as mistakes while keeping money from the times it’s successful.
I mildly disagree in the sense that what constitutes a "palpable" error is just too broad of a grey area.
It would be encouraging to see FanDuel just cough up the erroneous wager (which is surely cheaper than a lawsuit) and tighten down the definition of errors in spreads to something more specific such as anything outside like 2 standard deviations within the scope of a game*
*I'm not a gambler just someone who believes the definition of error can be mathematically defined for everyone's benefit
Disgusting? So if you see a sign on a car for sale that says $19,95 because a digit fell off, the dealer is obligated to sell it to you at that price? People and systems make mistakes, that doesn't mean it's "disgusting" that they protect themselves financially from those mistakes.
It's a nice reminder to stay away from the gambling industry. Any company that doesn't play by the same rules as you, doesn't deserve your business. Try voiding a bet you made due to your algorithm error once. I'm sure they would just laugh.
I had my account closed by a major betting site shortly after winning (and withdrawing) a few hundred euro, multiplying the original stake by around 10x in a series of bets.
These companies operate completely arbitrarily, and they really hate winners of course.
> Any company that doesn't play by the same rules as you, doesn't deserve your business.
Which companies do play by the same rules as you? I can't think of any time I've been able to compel a company to use an arbiter of my choosing for any disputes.
Online retailers will do the same thing. They misprice an item, you purchase it, then they realize the error and decline to ship and give you your money back.
Owned by Paddy Power. Not surprised they are welching on the bet, they make a great play on what good sports they are in their advertising but will ban you if you show signs of not being a complete mug.
I worked for a betting company for a bit, and they actually liked people who were great at betting. They get flagged along with the sport/league they are good at, and the traders used these people to adjust their lines.
If someone bets and wins often on a specific sport/league, and they make a big bet for it that doesn't really make sense, maybe the line is wrong or that person knows something everyone else doesn't.
That is the business model. How do you think they make money?If you want to bet in volume at better prices, use exchanges or an Asian book. But their business model is to spend a lot on marketing to attract unsophisticated customers and make it back on bad prices.
Our system has this exactly backwards. An individual should get the benefit of the doubt, and their mistakes should be mitigated. An individual human gets tired, hungry, emotional, etc and other such experiences which cloud judgement. A corporation on the other hand is supposed to systematically avoid these things.
Because of this, mistakes in the interaction between an individual and a corporation should favor the individual. However, it seems that the system favors the corporation.
Gaming companies are especially bad about this. Their whole setup is designed to take advantage of human weaknesses in evaluating risks. However, when they make a mistake they are often the first to say that the bet is invalid.
>>> industry practice, which specifically address such obvious pricing errors.
I am in two minds here. Firstly this is a "contract" - honour it.
Secondly, I understand the industry practise, but Indont think it is in line with society needs - that is a human bookmaker would never have given 750-1 with the team leading and minutes to go.
So either you write software that won't do that and take the risk, or you stop using software to rinse every last penny out of human addiction
my preference is that mistakes in the software can bankrupt you. That way you pay attention to the software process
Finance has seen its fair share of this. As an example, I was ashamed to see the difference in reactions between when it was Knight Capital [0] vs Goldman Sachs [1].
For Knight Capital, the entire company floundered after a trading glitch, and they closed shortly after.
When it was Goldman who suffered a glitch, many of their trades "qualified for cancellation". Co-author of the Black Scholes formula even spoke up against this hypocrisy.
Both companies lobbied to the exchanges and the SEC, but one had more capital. If this is any indicator, a company like FanDuel may be let off.
I couldn't agree more. Software that doesn't have these kinds of bugs is far from impossible, it just costs (possible an order of magnitude) more than gaming houses are willing to pay. The consequence of them not being willing to pay should fall squarely on their shoulders.
Exactly. The bookmakers are pretending that their software is human, and thus should have human fixes applied as if it was a real bookie. But they’re literally making billions of addiction, why should we have sympathy for this company?
I feel like we need the Second Software Crisis movement to address the bug riddled software were still making, it’s as though we’re just acclimated to bugs everywhere as being expected. Perhaps in 2100 they’ll look back on this time in software as we do on the early automotive industry today.
The problem isn't that we don't know how to write bug free software, it's that we choose not to because it's far more expensive. It's about business priorities, not lack of technical knowledge.
Obviously from reading these comments, most people here are not gamblers and prob do not have much interaction with bookies.
With bookies your honor and reputation is #1.
When you gamble, you take a risk and the counterparts takes a risk. Then it is up to Lady Luck to decide.
If you take a bet, you can’t back out. Just don’t take the bet in the first place.
In this case the guy sure had his stars aligned. To not honor that is insulting to all gamblers who respect the unknown and risk taking. They broke the social contract between the gambler and bookie.
Fanduel absolutely does not deserve to be company and should be grouped together with all the shady overseas bookies.
I disagree. In an ideal Dapp, pricing is determined by the open market or with a strong oracle - nothing novel here. If the contract was audited and deemed secure, then a pricing error shouldn't be possible. Payouts would be automatic and instant, as determined by the contract or set of contracts. Therefore, even if there was an error, the platform itself couldn't refuse to pay out a bet because they don't have a say in it. Can't be evil > Don't be evil.
Edit: to add, if users saw unresolved bugs in the platform, the contract could be forked and improved or users could just leave. If code is law, and that code is deployed publicly for everyone to see, then nothing is left to the discretion of "owners" because the "owners" don't have discretion to begin with.
I don't quite follow. Are you suggesting that because there can be errors or misunderstandings in all contracts, the non-smart variety is preferable since they allow for human intervention when there's a dispute?
Surprised at most of the comments here. If the line error had been for $82,000,000 would you have expected them to honor it as well?
Whenever there's doubt side with the customer but this was such an obvious error that any reasonable better would have realized it. Had the better lost the money I'm pretty confident they would have refunded the bet as well (since the bets were voided).
Or 82 billion, or trillion... yes, I would expect them to go out of business. Same if they made a mistake that killed someone, for example. As others have said, what if the client (or they kid!) had made the bet online and entered a few extra zeroes (and lost) - would they have accepted "I made a mistake" as an excuse and canceled the bet?
You should not encourage a business to have a "head we win, tails you lose" policy.
Yes. How is it different from the software error that led to $440 million loss for Knight Capital Group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight_Capital_Group#2012_stoc...)? I bet they would love to cancel the trades they executed and get a refund as well.
> Whenever there's doubt side with the customer but this was such an obvious error that any reasonable better would have realized it.
But, essentially every bet is exactly the bettor assessing that the odds represent an assessment of the likelihood of an event that is wrong; from the bettor’s position gross errors of the market (the other bettors whose actions are the input to odds-setting) that they should mercilessly exploit are indistinguishable from gross errors of the aggregation system which you suggest they should not.
Especially with a human-in-the-loop system for taking bets, the protection for the oddsmaker should be that their agent refuse to accept bets when there is such an “obvious(ly attributable to the odds-setting mechanism) error”.
This is pretty standard. I've had a really angry email from a bookmaker after betting on a line that was like 10% off. From the bookmakers POV if they had to honour these bets either a) spreads would be much or higher or b) spreads would be so high there would be no market for bookmakers. I would hope the bookmakers do the honourable thing and void all bets on the misplaced line, not just the losing side. It's pretty scummy to freeroll your customers.
I'm fine with welching, thanks, been using it since long before anyone suggested to me it might have origins such as you infer. In fact since you're the first person I've known to be offended by it, then unless you're Welsh, I suggest you take a break from virtue signalling, it's really boring. Never heard the term gyping until you mentioned it though.
This will just add to the (necessary - don't get me wrong) tax on society that is our legal system. It's pretty obvious what should happen here because, as humans, we understand and allow for the possibilities of mistakes.
Fan Duel should send him some tickets to a game, try to create a positive interaction for him, and let's move on.
[+] [-] DannyBee|7 years ago|reply
The law on this is pretty clear, and they can't unilaterally decide not to apply the gaming regulations of the state, or change them through their contracts.
(They can decide not to do business in states they don't like the regulations of course)
BTW, somewhat hilariously, the part they "..."'d is just 4 words.
[1] http://state.nj.us/lps/ge/docs/Regulations/CHAPTER69N.pdf
[2] (c) Upon accepting a wager pursuant to this chapter, a wagering cashier shall cause the wagering system to generate a wagering ticket.
(IE them generating the ticket is acceptance)
(d) A wagering operator shall not unilaterally rescind any wager pursuant to this chapter without the prior written approval of the Division.
(h) Winning wagering tickets shall be redeemed by a wagering cashier after verifying the validity of the wagering ticket through the wagering system.
(IE they should have redeemed it because it was valid)
(k) No wagering ticket shall be voided after the start of the wagering event on which a wager has been placed
Another reason the could not have voided it.
Essentially the best argument they have is that it's a house rule under 13:69N2-2 . This only works if their internal controls were approved by the division. Even then, a reasonable court would likely find that clearly contrary to the written regulations (and thus, not a reasonable interpretation of the regulations by the commission).
[+] [-] stochastic_monk|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wccrawford|7 years ago|reply
Absolutely disgusting.
[+] [-] paulddraper|7 years ago|reply
The imbalance is obvious even before the bet is placed.
[+] [-] pweissbrod|7 years ago|reply
It would be encouraging to see FanDuel just cough up the erroneous wager (which is surely cheaper than a lawsuit) and tighten down the definition of errors in spreads to something more specific such as anything outside like 2 standard deviations within the scope of a game*
*I'm not a gambler just someone who believes the definition of error can be mathematically defined for everyone's benefit
[+] [-] lowlevel|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ddingus|7 years ago|reply
What they could do is pay this guy off, then follow the good press for a very likely net gain.
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dumbfounder|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shawnz|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hailmike|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TillE|7 years ago|reply
These companies operate completely arbitrarily, and they really hate winners of course.
[+] [-] emodendroket|7 years ago|reply
Which companies do play by the same rules as you? I can't think of any time I've been able to compel a company to use an arbiter of my choosing for any disputes.
[+] [-] bo1024|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] barking|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kevindqc|7 years ago|reply
If someone bets and wins often on a specific sport/league, and they make a big bet for it that doesn't really make sense, maybe the line is wrong or that person knows something everyone else doesn't.
[+] [-] barrkel|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] subjectHarold|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RcouF1uZ4gsC|7 years ago|reply
Because of this, mistakes in the interaction between an individual and a corporation should favor the individual. However, it seems that the system favors the corporation.
Gaming companies are especially bad about this. Their whole setup is designed to take advantage of human weaknesses in evaluating risks. However, when they make a mistake they are often the first to say that the bet is invalid.
[+] [-] lifeisstillgood|7 years ago|reply
I am in two minds here. Firstly this is a "contract" - honour it.
Secondly, I understand the industry practise, but Indont think it is in line with society needs - that is a human bookmaker would never have given 750-1 with the team leading and minutes to go.
So either you write software that won't do that and take the risk, or you stop using software to rinse every last penny out of human addiction
my preference is that mistakes in the software can bankrupt you. That way you pay attention to the software process
[+] [-] alehul|7 years ago|reply
Finance has seen its fair share of this. As an example, I was ashamed to see the difference in reactions between when it was Knight Capital [0] vs Goldman Sachs [1].
For Knight Capital, the entire company floundered after a trading glitch, and they closed shortly after.
When it was Goldman who suffered a glitch, many of their trades "qualified for cancellation". Co-author of the Black Scholes formula even spoke up against this hypocrisy.
Both companies lobbied to the exchanges and the SEC, but one had more capital. If this is any indicator, a company like FanDuel may be let off.
[0] https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/knight-capital-says-... [1] https://www.ft.com/content/37fff9c6-0b36-11e3-bffc-00144feab...
[+] [-] krupan|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] girvo|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xae342|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JamesBarney|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] theandrewbailey|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] turtlecloud|7 years ago|reply
With bookies your honor and reputation is #1.
When you gamble, you take a risk and the counterparts takes a risk. Then it is up to Lady Luck to decide.
If you take a bet, you can’t back out. Just don’t take the bet in the first place.
In this case the guy sure had his stars aligned. To not honor that is insulting to all gamblers who respect the unknown and risk taking. They broke the social contract between the gambler and bookie.
Fanduel absolutely does not deserve to be company and should be grouped together with all the shady overseas bookies.
[+] [-] zacharycohn|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] OG_BME|7 years ago|reply
Edit: to add, if users saw unresolved bugs in the platform, the contract could be forked and improved or users could just leave. If code is law, and that code is deployed publicly for everyone to see, then nothing is left to the discretion of "owners" because the "owners" don't have discretion to begin with.
[+] [-] stanleydrew|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TomMarius|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] librish|7 years ago|reply
Whenever there's doubt side with the customer but this was such an obvious error that any reasonable better would have realized it. Had the better lost the money I'm pretty confident they would have refunded the bet as well (since the bets were voided).
[+] [-] mdpopescu|7 years ago|reply
You should not encourage a business to have a "head we win, tails you lose" policy.
[+] [-] paulclinger|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dragonwriter|7 years ago|reply
But, essentially every bet is exactly the bettor assessing that the odds represent an assessment of the likelihood of an event that is wrong; from the bettor’s position gross errors of the market (the other bettors whose actions are the input to odds-setting) that they should mercilessly exploit are indistinguishable from gross errors of the aggregation system which you suggest they should not.
Especially with a human-in-the-loop system for taking bets, the protection for the oddsmaker should be that their agent refuse to accept bets when there is such an “obvious(ly attributable to the odds-setting mechanism) error”.
[+] [-] benmmurphy|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fabricexpert|7 years ago|reply
Somehow everyone else seems to think otherwise, so maybe I'm just a sucker.
[+] [-] kolanos|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noja|7 years ago|reply
Wait - what? What the hell is a line error?
[+] [-] nodesocket|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ReedJessen|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drfuchs|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sctb|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mijoharas|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] warent|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] matt_the_bass|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] barking|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blah-blahblah|7 years ago|reply
Fan Duel should send him some tickets to a game, try to create a positive interaction for him, and let's move on.