FanDuel not honoring bet that would have paid over $82,000 due to line error

http://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id/24726426/fanduel-not-honoring-bet-paid-more-82000-due-line-error

by ikeboy • 8 years ago

163 224 8 years ago

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.

wccrawford2• 8 years ago

Fan Duel should send him some tickets to a game, try to create a positive interaction for him, and let's move on.

They offered that and $500. He refused and got a lawyer.

minikites• 8 years ago

They did:

FanDuel instead offered to pay him around $500 and give him tickets to three New York Giants games. Prince declined to take FanDuel's offer and told News 12 New Jersey that he planned to hire an attorney.

komali2• 8 years ago

They tried 500$ and 3 Giants tickets, which he declined in favor of getting a lawyer.

I think they should bite the bullet, pay it out, turn to their software engineers, and say "it's worth 82,000$ to this company to ensure that never happens again."

setr• 8 years ago

Its accidentally $82,000. If you allow such a bug to be honored, then potentially it could manage a near-infinite payout.

Such bugs becomes not a costly mistake but instead existentially threatening

And we certainly don’t have a software industry capable of supporting that environment

maxerickson5• 8 years ago

What's obvious about that? To me the obvious thing is that bookies have to honor the bets they sell and get to eat their delicious mistakes.

It's within their power to improve their automated system to not offer stupid bets.

dumbfounder5• 8 years ago

What if there was another zero on there? How about 8 more zeroes? Still think they should need to honor the bet? They offered him $500 and tickets to a game, I think he is getting greedy.

EpicEng8• 8 years ago

It's within their power to improve their automated system to not offer stupid bets

So then it's also within your power to never write bugs. Have you ever written any? How did that happen? It was within your power not to do so, right?

goobynight4• 8 years ago

It might be within their power, but they are going to need to collect even more juice to get the system to that point.

That or they might need to close up shop.

Most people prefer the current system where they are able to make very dynamic sports bets, sometimes in real time, with the rare mistake.

DisruptiveDave• 8 years ago

as humans, we understand and allow for the possibilities of mistakes.

Yes, but corporations aren't humans. If the mistake went the other way, it likely wouldn't matter. The human would have to deal with it. I say give him the $80k+ and learn to deal with your mistakes.

InitialLastName• 8 years ago

Yes, but corporations aren't humans.

Mitt Romney gave your opponents their line: "Corporations are people, my friend"

bdcravens• 8 years ago

I presume Mr. Prince's idea of a "positive interaction" is to get his $82k.

dragonwriter5• 8 years ago

It's pretty obvious what should happen here because, as humans, we understand and allow for the possibilities of mistakes.

If a better makes a mistake, they still lose their money.

The same should apply on the other side.

supercanuck• 8 years ago

PaddyPower's revenue is 1.75 billion. Why wouldn't Bill Gates just eat the cost of the mistake.

This isn't a "human interaction". A corporation isn't a human and is governed by the "make as much money as possible" theory (Shareholder Primacy), so why would we treat them the same as if this is a human interaction?

foobaw• 8 years ago

Eat the cost? Why doesn't Bill Gates just donate a few million dollars to every charity? Based on his net worth, that's not a lot. I think it's about setting the precedent.

girvo3• 8 years ago

Do we really have much sympathy for a gambling company? If you make an error, they expect you to pay. Why shouldn’t they? Oh no, their huge profits take a one time $80k hit. I hope he wins in court.

drstewart2• 8 years ago

Exactly, we shouldn't apply the law equally, we should apply it to how morally tasteful we find the business and how much money the company makes.

wccrawford2• 8 years ago

And yet, you can bet that they'd collect if the error were in their favor. And they probably have.

Absolutely disgusting.

pweissbrod• 8 years ago

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

frgtpsswrdlame• 8 years ago

I don't see why that should matter. What is the definition of a "palpable" error that the bettor can make and get his bet refunded after the fact? Of course none exists, it doesn't matter if your kid clicks a bet or you fat finger the wrong number or even if your own homebrew betting algo has a glitch, if you don't notice until after the bet has resolved you're just out of luck.

As long as there is no "I made a mistake, get out of jail free" card for bettors there shouldn't be one for the companies serving those bets either. FanDuel would have collected this man's money if the Broncos had lost and they would have collected his money if he had clicked this bet accidentally, to that end he deserves to collect his money.

alwaysdoit• 8 years ago

If it can be mathematically defined, then they can add that code to make that check in their system.

dkrich• 8 years ago

They would probably rather pay this out and have it go away instead of being a widely circulated ESPN article and potentially still losing in a lawsuit.

I think the reason they won't is they don't want to set a precedent for future similar mistakes. If they pay out here they would almost certainly lose future similar disputes in court.

ddingus6• 8 years ago

Exactly.

What they could do is pay this guy off, then follow the good press for a very likely net gain.

TwitchySeal2• 8 years ago

Except then they have to pay out every other time there's a bug.

dumbfounder5• 8 years ago

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.

cesis• 8 years ago

It's more like - dealer sold you the car for $19.95, then came after you and demanded the rest $19k because of the error.

51lver2• 8 years ago

Totally different issues. Making a bad sale and then later backing out, vs advertising a price that is not able to be confirmed at the time of sale resulting in no sale.

tom_2• 8 years ago

The price sticker is an advertisement, not a binding contract. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invitation_to_treat

corobo• 8 years ago

The bet was already made, the details agreed upon. In your scenario if the dealer said "Yerp, whatever's on the window is whatever you're paying" and you hand over your $20 and they accept it as payment then yes, I would expect them to honor it.

Would FanDuel void your bet if you misread the odds?

paulddraper• 8 years ago

That's because the terms (ignoring conflicting laws for a minute) choose FanDuel as the arbiter.

The imbalance is obvious even before the bet is placed.

shawnz2• 8 years ago

Do you have any evidence to show this? Or are you just making an assumption based on your dislike for the gambling industry?

lowlevel• 8 years ago

Totally. Hopefully the judge orders they pay him over and above his deserved winnings if it gets that far.

barking12• 8 years ago

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.

barrkel• 8 years ago

It looks to be usual practice across the industry in the UK: https://www.theguardian.com/global/2015/aug/02/betting-horse...

barking12• 8 years ago

That article mentions Barney Curley, I'd recommend his book giving a little back. In it he documents a coup he pulled off against the bookies on a horse running at a small English course Cartmel in the 70s iirc. The key point was that there was just one telephone at the course. Most bets are settled at SP which is the on-course starting price. If the big chains are getting a lot of money on a horse they'll get their agents to put money on that horse at the course to bring the price down and reduce their liability. On that day Curley's people put a fortune of money on before they bookies realised there was something up. They hid it by betting in doubles where there's less scrutiny but then they pulled the other horses out of races which had the effect of converting those bets into singles. The routine would be for the on-course agent to phone head office to see what they had to do. On that day, Curley had a burly crony hogging the phonebox as he tried to keep up with the health of his aunt who'd been taken ill. No one was able to shift him until the race went off.

kevindqc• 8 years ago

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.

barking12• 8 years ago

That's why I'm very suspicious of Paddy Power's ownership of betfair. They won't ban people there because their angle is as a broker working earning commission but they do potentially gain insider knowledge that they can then apply in their conventional business.

subjectHarold2• 8 years ago

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.

DannyBee4• 8 years ago

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.

[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).

Arzh• 8 years ago

Good reply, I'm wondering they they will try to tie it to how slot machines handle errors ("All errors void play") which just payback the bet but don't payout.

DannyBee4• 8 years ago

In most states the regulations covering slot machines explicitly cover error. one of the most interesting parts is I can't find any part of the wagering regulations that cover error here. It's entirely possible they should but as far as I could tell they currently do not

bsder• 8 years ago

Setting the odds incorrectly isn't considered to be an "error".

If your slot machine is supposed to pay out 1000:1 and you set it for 1:1000, sucks to be you, but it isn't an "error".

Actually: I apparently stand corrected. The situation generally gets investigated by the state board who works out the appropriate remedy.

nikanj• 8 years ago

Slot machines go through an absolutely grueling certification process. Interesting to see if FanDuel is willing to subject their software to it.

stochastic_monk• 8 years ago

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.

sandworm101• 8 years ago

But these are still contracts, subject to the basics of contract law. Contracts are not meant to be gotcha moments where one side leverages the mistakes of another. Look to the booking of flights. A small error here and there on price will be enforced. But a monumental error leveraged by people who would otherwise not fly will nullify the contract (ie hundreds of people suddenly booking first class travel London-Johannesburg because the website underpriced such tickets).

So in this case, where the remarkable odds were spotted by someone who knew it was a probable error, and would not have otherwise made the bet except for the error, I think a court will nullify.

What if it were billion-to-one odds? Should a company be destroyed because of a single numerical mistake? There is a line and I think this situation crosses it.

posterboy• 8 years ago

What if it were a 1% fudge above normal? That's frequent. Is it the liability of the pundit to check global markets? A billion to one odd would be unusual granted, but where is the cut off? Clearly this argument is not appropriate.

Conversely, bookies do not have to take into account whether pundits are likely making a mistake. Betting schemes thrive on the appearance that the bookie made a mistake. Either way, the places I know limit possible wins (e.g. 1000$ for a bigger, casual one). And even if not, they should be allow to take bets only if they can back it up.

That a pundit could not nullify the bet for the same reason is an edge the bank system abuses to no end. It's institutional. Since they don't have rigid rules for liability in computer security (e.g. in IOT and all the data ex-filtration cases) or code correctness only means the court would resort to opinionated decision on a case by case basis and precedent would only mean they can, not that they should, if the situation isn't exactly the same. There is bound to be precedent for exactly this case, which would open an avenue for abuse by the bookies. I don't think it's clear at all.

turtlecloud4• 8 years ago

Well if you tell the Wall Street bankers... it’s not their fault and they require a bailout.

Yes they should honor it or else thy have 2 options.

1. Close business 2. Request a bailout.

Someone more competent should take their place. Fanduel is not above the law.

kodablah• 8 years ago

Seems to me like they'll get in trouble for not consulting the Division and getting prior written approval before rescinding the wager, but not necessarily that the Division will side with the gambler. I am familiar, at least in Oklahoma, where gambling operations have famously been allowed to skirt on mistakes.

gojomo6• 8 years ago

I wouldn't trust a surface reading of one section of the regulations, unless you're a lawyer with specific expertise in New Jersey gambling law and precedent.

There could easily be other offsetting law, regulation, or precedent. There might have been a prior decision which effectively gave "written approval" to void future egregious odds/payout errors. There may have been "prior written approval" of the house rules allowing recision.

Regulators & the industry have a converging interest in a predictable business, without "gotchas", and with precedents that protect against other potential larger future errors.

I would bet even-money that Mr. Price, the bettor, is never paid the full $82,610, either as a private settlement or at the direction of any regulator or court.

DannyBee4• 8 years ago

1. I am a lawyer, licensed in 4 states (among other bars) :)

2. I grew up in NJ and am quite familiar with the gambling regs (but i admit to not having paid attention in the past few years)

3. I checked with other NJ lawyers.

lifeisstillgood• 8 years ago

>> 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

krupan2• 8 years ago

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.

girvo3• 8 years ago

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?

alehul• 8 years ago

Well put.

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...

jessaustin• 8 years ago

Goldman have a strong political game. Even over those periods in which the Secretary of the Treasury is not one of theirs, they occupy lots of other appointed positions in government.

RcouF1uZ4gsC• 8 years ago

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.

zacharycohn• 8 years ago

This is why smart contracts aren't nearly as good as people make them out to be.

TomMarius11• 8 years ago

What do you mean? A smart contract would force them to fulfill the bet, no?

dx87• 8 years ago

No, because as has happened before, the developers just go "oops, we made a mistake in the smart contract" and nullify the gains of anybody who profited off of it.

rocqua2• 8 years ago

Yes, smart contracts give no recourse when there is an error.

Whether or not that is good here, in general it is an issue. That is a large reason why we have courts.

6nf• 8 years ago

Yea that's the problem. Let's say the smart contract accidentally burns the money instead of paying it out due to a bug in the contract code. No recourse.

OG_BME• 8 years ago

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.

stanleydrew• 8 years ago

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?

emodendroket5• 8 years ago

Yes, that's the usual argument against "smart" contracts.

xae342• 8 years ago

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.

theandrewbailey• 8 years ago

Did the early automotive industry move fast and break things? Almost certainly.

delecti• 8 years ago

I think an important difference is how easy it is to deploy absolutely garbage software. It's just not as easy to make a million cars, or fix a million busted cars, as it is to distribute an app across a million devices, so there's less incentive to get it right when you can "move fast and break things".

JamesBarney3• 8 years ago

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.

kolanos• 8 years ago

Surely there's insurance for such errors?

nlawalker• 8 years ago

Yeah this was my first thought too. My sincere hope is that the law's response is "Pay up, this is how your business works. If this kind of thing is going to be a problem for you, buy insurance for it."

drstewart2• 8 years ago

My sincere hope is that you accidentally fat finger a button while banking one day and wipe out your checking account sending a transfer or something. We'll see if you feel the same way then.

dsfyu404ed2• 8 years ago

If a small business was out 82k because of human error as a result of a faulty product (the algorithm in this case) that's exactly what the court would say.

hailmike• 8 years ago

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.

emodendroket5• 8 years ago

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.

TillE• 8 years ago

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.

bo1024• 8 years ago

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.

fabricexpert• 8 years ago

In this case the punter must have known it was an error, so it doesn't seem moral to pick up the 82k.

Somehow everyone else seems to think otherwise, so maybe I'm just a sucker.

_carl_jung2• 8 years ago

I totally agree with you. I think a lot of the other criticism is a buildup of frustration against bad customer rights, but in this case I am aligned with FanDuel.

It is so obviously a genuine mistake that some dude is trying to capitalise on and make a big media hoo-hah out of. He's getting $500 and three free games, just take it and be happy.

okmokmz3• 8 years ago

It is so obviously a genuine mistake that some dude is trying to capitalise on and make a big media hoo-hah out of

If the situation were reversed, and due to a genuine mistake FanDuel showed that the customer owed the company the money, do you think they would simply accept that it was a mistake and fix it? If I had to bet I would guess that they'd attempt to collect the money using any means necessary just like the customer

okmokmz3• 8 years ago

In this case the punter must have known it was an error, so it doesn't seem moral to pick up the 82k.

If we lived in a world where companies did their best to be reasonable and fair to customers, particularly when mistakes occur, I would agree. However, considering most companies are quite hostile and willing to use any advantage they may have to maximize profits or minimize costs at the expense of customers I believe we need to act the same. If companies are going to hold us accountable and punish us for mistakes or errors to the fullest extent then we should do the same

Obi_Juan_Kenobi• 8 years ago

That's a bunch of generalities, though; are the specific accusations about fanduel or records of them benefiting from mistakes like this?

"Well, they probably took advantage of people" isn't a very good argument.

ReedJessen• 8 years ago

They will settle this for half.

oliwarner• 8 years ago

It'll cost them that much to settle on top of the settlement. Lawyers aren't cheap!

This is pocket money for them. They should honour it and move on.

drfuchs2• 8 years ago

You might want to reconsider using “welching” in this context. And don’t change it to “gyping”, either.

matt_the_bass3• 8 years ago

Care to clarify?

warent3• 8 years ago

They're old racist terms against Welsh and Romani people

warent3• 8 years ago

I don't know why this comment is receiving downvotes. Both of those terms are pretty derogatory.

barking12• 8 years ago

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.

drfuchs2• 8 years ago

Sure, back when I was a kid, both were in common usage, and I used them freely and unknowingly into adulthood. So, I was quite taken aback to belatedly learn of their etymology three decades ago.

I'm happy to hear your data point that "gyp" may already have fallen into disuse; or did you mean that you now intend to start using it now to signal your non-PC-ness? If so, others that I recall hearing in childhood but not lately, which you might also consider adopting, include: "indian-giver" (one who reneges), "jewing down" (bargaining excessively), "n....r work" (which seemed to mean "hanging around and not working" back in the day, but now Urban Dictionary has it as "easy, repetitive work").

mijoharas• 8 years ago

I just now learnt the etymology for Welch. Thanks!

sctb2• 8 years ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18025244 and marked it off-topic.

librish• 8 years ago

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).

mdpopescu• 8 years ago

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.

freditup• 8 years ago

But a client entering a couple extra zeroes is not a clean and obvious mistake. A person could reasonably bet either $5 or $500 for example.

On the other hand, offering something like a 1000x payout for an event that has a 50% chance of happening is a clear and obvious error.

If an error is egregious and obvious, it seems reasonable that a company (in this case FanDuel) not honor the deal.

Similarly, say a grocery store meant to have a "Buy 1 get 2 free" steak sale but accidentally keyed it in as a "Buy 1 get 200 free" sale. Nobody would expect the grocery store to actually give away 200 free steaks to every customer who bought a single steak.

paulclinger• 8 years ago

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.

dragonwriter5• 8 years ago

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”.

noja• 8 years ago

Oh a "line error". That explains it.

Wait - what? What the hell is a line error?

ac29• 8 years ago

Almost certainly this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odds#Moneyline_odds

benmmurphy• 8 years ago

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.

turtlecloud4• 8 years ago

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.

nodesocket• 8 years ago

At Vegas sports books I have personally seen tickets invalidated due to error. It is not just FanDuel, this practice happens industry wide.

FanDuel not honoring bet that would have paid over $82,000 due to line error

Related Stories