4 ms·

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.

by gojomo 8y 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.

DannyBee 8y 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.
- gojomo 8y ago
  I am not a lawyer. I grew up in NJ but I'm more familiar with the policies of Nevada gambling firms. But, I have a perhaps-unreasonable amount of confidence in my understanding of regulator-regulatee dynamics. I further think FanDuel competently understood their legal environment before making their statements defending the non-payment to the press. (If their experts knew they'd eventually have to pay anyway, why take the PR hit?) And finally, I believe that on general principles of fairness, such blatant errors should be voidable. So, would you like to bet me $20, even-money, that your "FanDuel is gonna lose this one" prediction comes to pass? Me, a rando non-lawyer armchair commenter, versus your many credentials, familiarity-with-the-gambling-regs, and confirming opinions from other NJ lawyers? You win if FanDuel ever pays this bettor the full $82,610 – whether due to public outcry or any action by relevant legal authorities. I win if the bettor accepts a settlement for less, such as the tokens-of-apology that FanDuel has already offered.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > And finally, I believe that on general principles of fairness, such blatant errors should be voidable. If they’re voidable when the house loses, then they must be void ab initio and refunded when the house wins, otherwise it's a system of fraudulently inducing bets. I'm surprised your “general principles of fairness” are so biased in favor of the party with more power and control. > You win if FanDuel ever pays this bettor the full $82,610 – whether due to public outcry or any action by relevant legal authorities. I win if the bettor accepts a settlement for less, such as the tokens-of-apology that FanDuel has already offered. That's a bad bet, because even if FanDuel legally owes the full amount and the trial outcome was somehow not in any doubt by the claimant, settlement for less because reimbursement of costs is not guaranteed to the victor in US civil process would still be a normal outcome.
    - gojomo 8y ago
      Yes, if against all odds the house won a bet with similarly-erroneous odds, the betters would be entitled to a void by the same principle. Typos, data-entry-mistakes, system glitches, software bugs which remain even after normal levels of care, data-corruption, etc shouldn't create liabilities of arbitrary magnitude between people when the error is manifestly obvious. Relative "power" has nothing to do with it. "Control" maybe a little, but here the bettor had the control necessary to strike during the short erroneous window. > That's a bad bet Not according to ~DannyBee's "Fanduel is gonna lose" and "law on this is pretty clear" and "checked with other NJ lawyers" confidence, I would think. If the law is so clear, the bettor could possibly get interest or punitive damages, as well! But if you'd consider taking some fairer version of the bet, suggest stakes/odds/victory conditions, and I might be game! My core prediction is that Fanduel will only pay some token amount as a gesture-of-apology, at their own discretion, and nothing close-to the full amount, because the precedent is that important to them.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > Yes, if against all odds the house won a bet with similarly-erroneous odds “Against all odds”? We're talking about a event that erroneously gets posted highly attractive odds for bettors, with no special features of the original odds or probabilities. You'd expect, over time, about half of the bets for such contracts to be won by each side.

by gojomo 8y ago

DannyBee 8y 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.

gojomo 8y ago
I am not a lawyer. I grew up in NJ but I'm more familiar with the policies of Nevada gambling firms. But, I have a perhaps-unreasonable amount of confidence in my understanding of regulator-regulatee dynamics. I further think FanDuel competently understood their legal environment before making their statements defending the non-payment to the press. (If their experts knew they'd eventually have to pay anyway, why take the PR hit?) And finally, I believe that on general principles of fairness, such blatant errors should be voidable. So, would you like to bet me $20, even-money, that your "FanDuel is gonna lose this one" prediction comes to pass? Me, a rando non-lawyer armchair commenter, versus your many credentials, familiarity-with-the-gambling-regs, and confirming opinions from other NJ lawyers? You win if FanDuel ever pays this bettor the full $82,610 – whether due to public outcry or any action by relevant legal authorities. I win if the bettor accepts a settlement for less, such as the tokens-of-apology that FanDuel has already offered.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > And finally, I believe that on general principles of fairness, such blatant errors should be voidable. If they’re voidable when the house loses, then they must be void ab initio and refunded when the house wins, otherwise it's a system of fraudulently inducing bets. I'm surprised your “general principles of fairness” are so biased in favor of the party with more power and control. > You win if FanDuel ever pays this bettor the full $82,610 – whether due to public outcry or any action by relevant legal authorities. I win if the bettor accepts a settlement for less, such as the tokens-of-apology that FanDuel has already offered. That's a bad bet, because even if FanDuel legally owes the full amount and the trial outcome was somehow not in any doubt by the claimant, settlement for less because reimbursement of costs is not guaranteed to the victor in US civil process would still be a normal outcome.
  - gojomo 8y ago
    Yes, if against all odds the house won a bet with similarly-erroneous odds, the betters would be entitled to a void by the same principle. Typos, data-entry-mistakes, system glitches, software bugs which remain even after normal levels of care, data-corruption, etc shouldn't create liabilities of arbitrary magnitude between people when the error is manifestly obvious. Relative "power" has nothing to do with it. "Control" maybe a little, but here the bettor had the control necessary to strike during the short erroneous window. > That's a bad bet Not according to ~DannyBee's "Fanduel is gonna lose" and "law on this is pretty clear" and "checked with other NJ lawyers" confidence, I would think. If the law is so clear, the bettor could possibly get interest or punitive damages, as well! But if you'd consider taking some fairer version of the bet, suggest stakes/odds/victory conditions, and I might be game! My core prediction is that Fanduel will only pay some token amount as a gesture-of-apology, at their own discretion, and nothing close-to the full amount, because the precedent is that important to them.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Yes, if against all odds the house won a bet with similarly-erroneous odds “Against all odds”? We're talking about a event that erroneously gets posted highly attractive odds for bettors, with no special features of the original odds or probabilities. You'd expect, over time, about half of the bets for such contracts to be won by each side.