6 ms·
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 huma
by 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 agoThey did: >FanDuel instead offered to pay him around $500 and give him tickets to three New York Giants games. Prince declined to take FanDuel's offer and told News 12 New Jersey that he planned to hire an attorney.
- komali2 8y agoThey tried 500$ 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 agoIts 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 agoHedge 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 agoRight. 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 agoI'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 agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigorish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigorish
- hart_russell 8y agoThis 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 agoBest use humans then. Otherwise there is no trust. You know they did not inform people of errors the other way.
- jonknee 8y agoThe best part is they did use humans, this bet was placed in person. > The bettor, who identified himself to News 12 New Jersey as Anthony Prince, placed the wager over the counter at the sportsbook at the Meadowlands Racetrack
- fastball 8y agoThe software industry absolutely does have ways to prove a much higher level of code correctness than Paddy Power is demonstrating.
- krupan 8y agoWe do too have software that can be that reliable. A aviation and space flight are quick examples. Gambling houses probably don't want to pay the cost of that software, but it could be done.
- goobynight 8y agoIt wouldn't just be bookies paying that cost. It would be forwarded to the customers placing bets. I'd prefer to keep the costs low, since nobody is going to die and things aren't going to blow up. The worst that will happen is someone thinking they scored a huge payout and not getting it.
- girvo 8y agoSure, but in this case it’s not an infinite payout. And the courts will care about that more than an engineering hypothetical, i would wager.
- jonknee 8y agoIf you can't afford the errors you should not be in the business (but they can easily afford this error).
- maxerickson 8y agoWhat'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 agoI'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 agoSo 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 agoSure, I'm entirely comfortable making life difficult for bookies.
- EpicEng 8y agoAnd 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 agoI 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 agoPaddyPower'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 agoEat 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 agoDo 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 agoExactly, 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 agoAnd 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?