4 ms·

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-mi

by 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.
- gojomo 8y ago
  Right, I should have said "this bet". But the same goes for any other bet with clearly erroneous odds. However, bettors choose which offered odds to bet (while books accept whatever matches their 'board', within limits). And, good bettor practice is to check slips before leaving the window. Thus a bettor can in practice exercise more discretion/control, in such a situation of odds-error-against-them, than (non-managerial) window clerks. They can simply not bet at bad odds, in a way that's harder for the bookie'srote systems, and they can usually even cancel a slip printed with surprisingly bad odds, on-the-spot. So errors-in-the-houses-favor will become actual live slips, needing exceptional voiding, very rarely.

by gojomo 8y ago

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.

gojomo 8y ago
Right, I should have said "this bet". But the same goes for any other bet with clearly erroneous odds. However, bettors choose which offered odds to bet (while books accept whatever matches their 'board', within limits). And, good bettor practice is to check slips before leaving the window. Thus a bettor can in practice exercise more discretion/control, in such a situation of odds-error-against-them, than (non-managerial) window clerks. They can simply not bet at bad odds, in a way that's harder for the bookie'srote systems, and they can usually even cancel a slip printed with surprisingly bad odds, on-the-spot. So errors-in-the-houses-favor will become actual live slips, needing exceptional voiding, very rarely.