8 ms·

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.
ddingus 8y ago
Exactly. What they could do is pay this guy off, then follow the good press for a very likely net gain.
- TwitchySeal 8y ago
  Except then they have to pay out every other time there's a bug.
  - draw_down 8y ago
    Sounds like a great incentive to fix the bugs to me!
  - heavymark 8y ago
    I imagine if they had to honor, they would make it priority number one resolving those bugs, and make changes to make the bugs more apparent to people in the process. If they don't have to pay, there isn't much of an incentive to prioritize the fixes, especially since I imagine if the bugs are in the favor of the company they can make a lot of money.
    - tomtheelder 8y ago
      I'm sure it is already a high priority, but it is a system built by humans, and it will always have mistakes. What if they were being forced to pay out 82 million instead of thousand? What about 82 billion? There should be clear cut laws surrounding clear errors, like there are in most places, and ones like this should not be forced to pay out.
      - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
        When SCADA software fucks up and runs a ship aground someone has to pay. When something breaks because some engineer relied too much on FEAs and didn't do any destructive tests someone has to pay. "Whoops, our bad" is not an acceptable excuse except in tech.
dumbfounder 8y 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.
- 51lver 8y 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.
  - ticmasta 8y ago
    Lots of grocery stores give you the product for free up to a limit (say $10) if it is priced incorrectly or rings through different from advertised
    - FireBeyond 8y ago
      That was a consumer protection issue from the introduction of scanners, to assure customers that the scanner wasn't a black box that would rip them off.
- cesis 8y 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.
  - dumbfounder 8y ago
    If you bought it online you bet they would come after you.
    - 51lver 8y ago
      Which is completely different than a digit falling off a window, right?
paulddraper 8y 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.
shawnz 8y 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 8y ago
Totally. Hopefully the judge orders they pay him over and above his deserved winnings if it gets that far.

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.

ddingus 8y ago

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

TwitchySeal 8y ago
Except then they have to pay out every other time there's a bug.
- draw_down 8y ago
  Sounds like a great incentive to fix the bugs to me!
- heavymark 8y ago
  I imagine if they had to honor, they would make it priority number one resolving those bugs, and make changes to make the bugs more apparent to people in the process. If they don't have to pay, there isn't much of an incentive to prioritize the fixes, especially since I imagine if the bugs are in the favor of the company they can make a lot of money.
  - tomtheelder 8y ago
    I'm sure it is already a high priority, but it is a system built by humans, and it will always have mistakes. What if they were being forced to pay out 82 million instead of thousand? What about 82 billion? There should be clear cut laws surrounding clear errors, like there are in most places, and ones like this should not be forced to pay out.
    - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
      When SCADA software fucks up and runs a ship aground someone has to pay. When something breaks because some engineer relied too much on FEAs and didn't do any destructive tests someone has to pay. "Whoops, our bad" is not an acceptable excuse except in tech.

dumbfounder 8y 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.

51lver 8y 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.
- ticmasta 8y ago
  Lots of grocery stores give you the product for free up to a limit (say $10) if it is priced incorrectly or rings through different from advertised
  - FireBeyond 8y ago
    That was a consumer protection issue from the introduction of scanners, to assure customers that the scanner wasn't a black box that would rip them off.
cesis 8y 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.
- dumbfounder 8y ago
  If you bought it online you bet they would come after you.
  - 51lver 8y ago
    Which is completely different than a digit falling off a window, right?

paulddraper 8y 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.

shawnz 8y 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 8y ago

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