3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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 agoIf it can be mathematically defined, then they can add that code to make that check in their system.
- dkrich 8y agoThey 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.