20 ms·

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

163 points by ikeboy 8y ago

blah-blahblah 8y 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.
- wccrawford 8y 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 8y ago
  They did: >FanDuel instead offered to pay him around $500 and give him tickets to three New York Giants games. Prince declined to take FanDuel's offer and told News 12 New Jersey that he planned to hire an attorney.
- komali2 8y ago
  They tried 500$ 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 8y 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
    - jazzyjackson 8y ago
      Hedge funds seem to automate things in an environment where certain bugs are existentially threatening. They hire doctors of math and get their code correct. It's not impossible, just expensive.
      - goobynight 8y ago
        Right. If you make system creation more expensive, the house needs to collect more juice. I think most sports betting consumers here prefer the current, lower cost, more diverse system with a slightly higher error rate. I'd reckon most people complaining here don't even bet on sports, but want to grandstand against bookies. I can understand that I guess.
        thejenk 8y ago
        I'm not going to comment on moral or legal responsibilities of bookies and gambling companies, because I am uneducated on both subjects, but I found your use of the term "collect more juice" really interesting. It seems odd to relate pulling revenue from fruit to pulling revenue from people's incorrect bets. Is that an industry term?
        LocalH 8y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigorish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigorish
    - hart_russell 8y ago
      This isn't a nonprofit charity. It's a bookie. They decided to offer automated betting systems, in the hopes of winning money from their customers. They should stand behind those same systems when they don't work in their favor.
    - ddingus 8y ago
      Best use humans then. Otherwise there is no trust. You know they did not inform people of errors the other way.
- maxerickson 8y 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.
  - EpicEng 8y 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?
    - maxerickson 8y ago
      I've never written a bug in a system designed to earn me money and then denied responsibility for the consequences of the bug, no. That is, my argument is about how you decide responsibility, not about technical excellence.
      - EpicEng 8y ago
        So now it only matters in finance? No one lost anything here. It's ridiculous to expect a payout due to an error like this. You wouldn't get one at a casino if e.g. a slot machine malfunctioned. What if the payout was $500M? Should they have to pay that as well?
        maxerickson 8y ago
        Sure, I'm entirely comfortable making life difficult for bookies.
        EpicEng 8y ago
        And why is that? The rest of society has deemed it a ligitimate business. So you simply don't like gambling and that's why you want them to eat it? Not a very strong argument.
- DisruptiveDave 8y 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 8y ago
    > Yes, but corporations aren't humans. Mitt Romney gave your opponents their line: "Corporations are people, my friend"
- bdcravens 8y ago
  I presume Mr. Prince's idea of a "positive interaction" is to get his $82k.
- dragonwriter 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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.
- girvo 8y 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.
  - drstewart 8y 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.
    - ssambros 8y ago
      And what does the law say in this case? Can they refuse to pay out if they themselves decide it was a mistake to take the bet in the first place?
wccrawford 8y ago
And yet, you can bet that they'd collect if the error were in their favor. And they probably have. Absolutely disgusting.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- pweissbrod 8y 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 8y 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 8y ago
    If it can be mathematically defined, then they can add that code to make that check in their system.
  - dkrich 8y 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.
barking 8y 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 8y ago
  It looks to be usual practice across the industry in the UK: https://www.theguardian.com/global/2015/aug/02/betting-horses-gambling-bookmakers-accounts-closed https://www.theguardian.com/global/2015/aug/02/betting-horse...
  - barking 8y 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.
    - barking 8y ago
      I just looked it up and I think I was confusing two different events. Curley's coup was at bellewstown in Ireland while he wasn't involved with the Cartmel one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Sam_betting_coup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Sam_betting_coup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Future https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Future
- 8y ago
DannyBee 8y 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 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 8y 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.
  - DannyBee 8y 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 8y 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.
lifeisstillgood 8y 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
- krupan 8y 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.
- girvo 8y 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 8y 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-trading-mishap-cost-it-440-million/ https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/knight-capital-says-... [1] https://www.ft.com/content/37fff9c6-0b36-11e3-bffc-00144feabdc0 https://www.ft.com/content/37fff9c6-0b36-11e3-bffc-00144feab...
RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y 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 8y ago
This is why smart contracts aren't nearly as good as people make them out to be.
- TomMarius 8y ago
  What do you mean? A smart contract would force them to fulfill the bet, no?
  - dx87 8y 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.
    - TomMarius 8y ago
      That was only possible because the miners have united. It's not going to be that easy in the future or on a larger chain (e.g. Bitcoin).
      - bearjaws 8y ago
        "non centralized block chains" and other hilarious jokes you can tell yourself
  - rocqua 8y 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.
    - TomMarius 8y ago
      You can program space for mistakes into your smart contract, though (e.g. no payout without final approval). Everyone would know exactly what is going to happen when.
xae342 8y 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 8y ago
  Did the early automotive industry move fast and break things? Almost certainly.
  - delecti 8y 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".
- JamesBarney 8y 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 8y ago
Surely there's insurance for such errors?
- nlawalker 8y 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."
  - drstewart 8y 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.
    - matt_the_bass 8y ago
      Though I see where you are coming from. These seem like two different cases. One is a contract the other is a transaction.
    - xenadu02 8y ago
      There is a clear incentive for gambling operators to claim “error” anytime they might lose money. That makes it somewhat different, no?
    - okmokmz 8y ago
      >you accidentally fat finger a button while banking one day and wipe out your checking account sending a transfer or something Completely different situations
  - dsfyu404ed 8y 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 8y 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.
- emodendroket 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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_jung 8y 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.
  - okmokmz 8y 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
    - albertgoeswoof 8y ago
      That’s not the debate though, that would be morally wrong obviously. The fan is trying to get money that he/she doesn’t really deserve, and it’s immoral. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and setting a precedent that it’s a feee for all makes thing much worse for everyone.
      - emodendroket 8y ago
        That ship sailed ages ago.
    - _carl_jung 8y ago
      Maybe, maybe not. And if that were the story we'd be having a different discussion. My points still stand though. I don't think a company should have to shell out tens of thousands of dollars because a software bug resulted in a couple of extra zeros somewhere. Do you? Quick edit: A thought experiment. What if the bug created odds orders of magnitude higher than this? Should FanDuel be forced into bankruptcy from the debt to the customer?
ReedJessen 8y ago
They will settle this for half.
- oliwarner 8y 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.
drfuchs 8y ago
You might want to reconsider using “welching” in this context. And don’t change it to “gyping”, either.
- matt_the_bass 8y ago
  Care to clarify?
  - warent 8y ago
    They're old racist terms against Welsh and Romani people
    - barking 8y ago
      I've read the Welsh being described as loquacious, dissemblers, immoral liars, stunted, bigoted, dark, ugly, pugnacious little trolls, but I cannot confirm its truth or otherwise.
      - warent 8y ago
        What a repugnant and confused comment.
      - sctb 8y ago
        Please don't post troll comments here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        barking 8y ago
        The insults against the Welsh in that post are rather notorious being from a column in the Sunday Times by the late A.A. Gill. A complaint about them was thrown out by the Commission for Racial Equality. Not everyone, but many people in the UK view insults against the other nations of the UK as banter, a wind-up probably because we're all part of the same greater in-group.
    - 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
librish 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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.
    - bharris62 8y ago
      I am pretty sure that would fall under pricing error laws,and at least in California, they would have to honor it.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > But a client entering a couple extra zeroes is not a clean and obvious mistake. Neither is an oddsmaking posting odds out of line with your perception of thpe likelihood of events—if you are gambling, that's exactly what you are looking for normally. > If an error is egregious and obvious, it seems reasonable that a company (in this case FanDuel) not honor the deal. This bet was made over the counter: if there was such an obvious and egregious error, it should have been refused at the counter. Would FanDuel have tested the bet induced by the odds as null and returned the funds if the bettor had lost? If not, why should it get to nullify it when the bettor wins?
noja 8y ago
Oh a "line error". That explains it. Wait - what? What the hell is a line error?
- ac29 8y ago
  Almost certainly this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odds#Moneyline_odds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odds#Moneyline_odds
benmmurphy 8y 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.
turtlecloud 8y 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 8y ago
At Vegas sports books I have personally seen tickets invalidated due to error. It is not just FanDuel, this practice happens industry wide.

163 points by ikeboy 8y 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.

wccrawford 8y 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 8y ago
They did: >FanDuel instead offered to pay him around $500 and give him tickets to three New York Giants games. Prince declined to take FanDuel's offer and told News 12 New Jersey that he planned to hire an attorney.
komali2 8y ago
They tried 500$ 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 8y 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
  - jazzyjackson 8y ago
    Hedge funds seem to automate things in an environment where certain bugs are existentially threatening. They hire doctors of math and get their code correct. It's not impossible, just expensive.
    - goobynight 8y ago
      Right. If you make system creation more expensive, the house needs to collect more juice. I think most sports betting consumers here prefer the current, lower cost, more diverse system with a slightly higher error rate. I'd reckon most people complaining here don't even bet on sports, but want to grandstand against bookies. I can understand that I guess.
      - thejenk 8y ago
        I'm not going to comment on moral or legal responsibilities of bookies and gambling companies, because I am uneducated on both subjects, but I found your use of the term "collect more juice" really interesting. It seems odd to relate pulling revenue from fruit to pulling revenue from people's incorrect bets. Is that an industry term?
        LocalH 8y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigorish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigorish
  - hart_russell 8y ago
    This isn't a nonprofit charity. It's a bookie. They decided to offer automated betting systems, in the hopes of winning money from their customers. They should stand behind those same systems when they don't work in their favor.
  - ddingus 8y ago
    Best use humans then. Otherwise there is no trust. You know they did not inform people of errors the other way.
maxerickson 8y 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.
- EpicEng 8y 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?
  - maxerickson 8y ago
    I've never written a bug in a system designed to earn me money and then denied responsibility for the consequences of the bug, no. That is, my argument is about how you decide responsibility, not about technical excellence.
    - EpicEng 8y ago
      So now it only matters in finance? No one lost anything here. It's ridiculous to expect a payout due to an error like this. You wouldn't get one at a casino if e.g. a slot machine malfunctioned. What if the payout was $500M? Should they have to pay that as well?
      - maxerickson 8y ago
        Sure, I'm entirely comfortable making life difficult for bookies.
        EpicEng 8y ago
        And why is that? The rest of society has deemed it a ligitimate business. So you simply don't like gambling and that's why you want them to eat it? Not a very strong argument.
DisruptiveDave 8y 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 8y ago
  > Yes, but corporations aren't humans. Mitt Romney gave your opponents their line: "Corporations are people, my friend"
bdcravens 8y ago
I presume Mr. Prince's idea of a "positive interaction" is to get his $82k.
dragonwriter 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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.
girvo 8y 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.
- drstewart 8y 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.
  - ssambros 8y ago
    And what does the law say in this case? Can they refuse to pay out if they themselves decide it was a mistake to take the bet in the first place?

wccrawford 8y ago

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

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
pweissbrod 8y 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 8y 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 8y ago
  If it can be mathematically defined, then they can add that code to make that check in their system.
- dkrich 8y 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.

barking 8y 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 8y ago
It looks to be usual practice across the industry in the UK: https://www.theguardian.com/global/2015/aug/02/betting-horses-gambling-bookmakers-accounts-closed https://www.theguardian.com/global/2015/aug/02/betting-horse...
- barking 8y 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.
  - barking 8y ago
    I just looked it up and I think I was confusing two different events. Curley's coup was at bellewstown in Ireland while he wasn't involved with the Cartmel one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Sam_betting_coup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Sam_betting_coup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Future https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Future
8y ago

DannyBee 8y 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 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 8y 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.
- DannyBee 8y 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 8y 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.

lifeisstillgood 8y 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

krupan 8y 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.
girvo 8y 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 8y 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-trading-mishap-cost-it-440-million/ https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/knight-capital-says-... [1] https://www.ft.com/content/37fff9c6-0b36-11e3-bffc-00144feabdc0 https://www.ft.com/content/37fff9c6-0b36-11e3-bffc-00144feab...

RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y 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 8y ago

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

TomMarius 8y ago
What do you mean? A smart contract would force them to fulfill the bet, no?
- dx87 8y 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.
  - TomMarius 8y ago
    That was only possible because the miners have united. It's not going to be that easy in the future or on a larger chain (e.g. Bitcoin).
    - bearjaws 8y ago
      "non centralized block chains" and other hilarious jokes you can tell yourself
- rocqua 8y 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.
  - TomMarius 8y ago
    You can program space for mistakes into your smart contract, though (e.g. no payout without final approval). Everyone would know exactly what is going to happen when.

xae342 8y 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 8y ago
Did the early automotive industry move fast and break things? Almost certainly.
- delecti 8y 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".
JamesBarney 8y 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 8y ago

Surely there's insurance for such errors?

nlawalker 8y 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."
- drstewart 8y 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.
  - matt_the_bass 8y ago
    Though I see where you are coming from. These seem like two different cases. One is a contract the other is a transaction.
  - xenadu02 8y ago
    There is a clear incentive for gambling operators to claim “error” anytime they might lose money. That makes it somewhat different, no?
  - okmokmz 8y ago
    >you accidentally fat finger a button while banking one day and wipe out your checking account sending a transfer or something Completely different situations
- dsfyu404ed 8y 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 8y 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.

emodendroket 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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_jung 8y 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.
- okmokmz 8y 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
  - albertgoeswoof 8y ago
    That’s not the debate though, that would be morally wrong obviously. The fan is trying to get money that he/she doesn’t really deserve, and it’s immoral. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and setting a precedent that it’s a feee for all makes thing much worse for everyone.
    - emodendroket 8y ago
      That ship sailed ages ago.
  - _carl_jung 8y ago
    Maybe, maybe not. And if that were the story we'd be having a different discussion. My points still stand though. I don't think a company should have to shell out tens of thousands of dollars because a software bug resulted in a couple of extra zeros somewhere. Do you? Quick edit: A thought experiment. What if the bug created odds orders of magnitude higher than this? Should FanDuel be forced into bankruptcy from the debt to the customer?

ReedJessen 8y ago

They will settle this for half.

oliwarner 8y 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.

drfuchs 8y ago

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

matt_the_bass 8y ago
Care to clarify?
- warent 8y ago
  They're old racist terms against Welsh and Romani people
  - barking 8y ago
    I've read the Welsh being described as loquacious, dissemblers, immoral liars, stunted, bigoted, dark, ugly, pugnacious little trolls, but I cannot confirm its truth or otherwise.
    - warent 8y ago
      What a repugnant and confused comment.
    - sctb 8y ago
      Please don't post troll comments here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - barking 8y ago
        The insults against the Welsh in that post are rather notorious being from a column in the Sunday Times by the late A.A. Gill. A complaint about them was thrown out by the Commission for Racial Equality. Not everyone, but many people in the UK view insults against the other nations of the UK as banter, a wind-up probably because we're all part of the same greater in-group.
  - 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

librish 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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.
  - bharris62 8y ago
    I am pretty sure that would fall under pricing error laws,and at least in California, they would have to honor it.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > But a client entering a couple extra zeroes is not a clean and obvious mistake. Neither is an oddsmaking posting odds out of line with your perception of thpe likelihood of events—if you are gambling, that's exactly what you are looking for normally. > If an error is egregious and obvious, it seems reasonable that a company (in this case FanDuel) not honor the deal. This bet was made over the counter: if there was such an obvious and egregious error, it should have been refused at the counter. Would FanDuel have tested the bet induced by the odds as null and returned the funds if the bettor had lost? If not, why should it get to nullify it when the bettor wins?

noja 8y ago

Oh a "line error". That explains it. Wait - what? What the hell is a line error?

ac29 8y ago
Almost certainly this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odds#Moneyline_odds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odds#Moneyline_odds

benmmurphy 8y 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.

turtlecloud 8y 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 8y ago

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