
FanDuel not honoring bet that would have paid over $82,000 due to line error - ikeboy
http://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id/24726426/fanduel-not-honoring-bet-paid-more-82000-due-line-error
======
DannyBee
Yeah, a quick read of the relevant regs tells me Fanduel is gonna lose this
one (Unless i've missed something)[1,2]

The law on this is pretty clear, and they can't unilaterally decide not to
apply the gaming regulations of the state, or change them through their
contracts.

(They can decide not to do business in states they don't like the regulations
of course)

BTW, somewhat hilariously, the part they "..."'d is just 4 words.

[1]
[http://state.nj.us/lps/ge/docs/Regulations/CHAPTER69N.pdf](http://state.nj.us/lps/ge/docs/Regulations/CHAPTER69N.pdf)

[2] (c) Upon accepting a wager pursuant to this chapter, a wagering cashier
shall cause the wagering system to generate a wagering ticket.

(IE them generating the ticket is acceptance)

(d) A wagering operator shall not unilaterally rescind any wager pursuant to
this chapter without the prior written approval of the Division.

(h) Winning wagering tickets shall be redeemed by a wagering cashier after
verifying the validity of the wagering ticket through the wagering system.

(IE they should have redeemed it because it was valid)

(k) No wagering ticket shall be voided after the start of the wagering event
on which a wager has been placed

Another reason the could not have voided it.

Essentially the best argument they have is that it's a house rule under
13:69N2-2 . This only works if their internal controls were approved by the
division. Even then, a reasonable court would likely find that clearly
contrary to the written regulations (and thus, not a reasonable interpretation
of the regulations by the commission).

~~~
Arzh
Good reply, I'm wondering they they will try to tie it to how slot machines
handle errors ("All errors void play") which just payback the bet but don't
payout.

~~~
DannyBee
In most states the regulations covering slot machines explicitly cover error.
one of the most interesting parts is I can't find any part of the wagering
regulations that cover error here. It's entirely possible they should but as
far as I could tell they currently do not

------
wccrawford
And yet, you can bet that they'd collect if the error were in their favor. And
they probably have.

Absolutely disgusting.

~~~
dumbfounder
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.

~~~
cesis
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
If you bought it online you bet they would come after you.

~~~
51lver
Which is completely different than a digit falling off a window, right?

~~~
dumbfounder
No, it isn't. It's still a mistake. A programmer could have dropped a digit
just as easily as a person failed to properly tape a digit to a window.

~~~
mikeash
When you go to buy that car where the digit fell off the price, the sales
person will tell you that the erroneous price is wrong, and tell you the
correct one.

If for some reason the sales person does not do this and goes through with the
sale at the erroneous price, sucks to be them. They had their chance to
correct it and they failed to do so.

This is the same situation, except instead of a sales person, it’s a computer.

It seems to me that this is yet another instance where companies automate
processes that previously involved humans, then compensate for the newly
introduced errors by blaming the customer.

If you don’t want software bugs resulting in sales at absurd prices, maybe you
should have a human review each order to make sure the numbers are sensible.

~~~
shawnz
> this is yet another instance where companies automate processes that
> previously involved humans, then compensate for the newly introduced errors
> by blaming the customer

In either the digital or analog cases of your example, the end result is that
the customer ends up paying the intended price. The only difference is that
with the digital case, they might find out about it slightly later. How is
this a "newly found error" in that case and how is it "blaming the customer"?
It sounds to me like the potential for error has always been there and nothing
about the assignment of blame has changed whatsoever between the two examples.

~~~
mikeash
That’s not the end result at all. There are three possibilities:

1\. The error is corrected before the sale and the customer pays the corrected
price.

2\. The error is corrected before the sale and the customer changes their
mind.

3\. The error is not corrected before the sale and the customer pays the
erroneous price.

Companies are trying to change a 3 into a 1 by blaming computers and saying
the error should have been clear to the customer, when in fact it’s their own
fault for not noticing the error before completing the transaction.

~~~
mmt
To be fair, they may also be trying to change a 3 into a 2 (or providing that
option), but "trying" is the key word. There are enough high-value and/or
physically large items that aren't cars (e.g. HDTVs, furniture) where undoing
the transaction can be a huge imposition, even not considering that the
merchandise is now no longer brand new and the customer must duplicate effort
in the purchase process.

------
hailmike
It's a nice reminder to stay away from the gambling industry. Any company that
doesn't play by the same rules as you, doesn't deserve your business. Try
voiding a bet you made due to your algorithm error once. I'm sure they would
just laugh.

~~~
TillE
I had my account closed by a major betting site shortly after winning (and
withdrawing) a few hundred euro, multiplying the original stake by around 10x
in a series of bets.

These companies operate completely arbitrarily, and they really hate winners
of course.

------
barking
Owned by Paddy Power. Not surprised they are welching on the bet, they make a
great play on what good sports they are in their advertising but will ban you
if you show signs of not being a complete mug.

~~~
kevindqc
I worked for a betting company for a bit, and they actually liked people who
were great at betting. They get flagged along with the sport/league they are
good at, and the traders used these people to adjust their lines.

If someone bets and wins often on a specific sport/league, and they make a big
bet for it that doesn't really make sense, maybe the line is wrong or that
person knows something everyone else doesn't.

~~~
barking
That's why I'm very suspicious of Paddy Power's ownership of betfair. They
won't ban people there because their angle is as a broker working earning
commission but they do potentially gain insider knowledge that they can then
apply in their conventional business.

~~~
subjectHarold
"Insider knowledge" isn't illegal and they couldn't care less what the outcome
is. They make money by attracting customers who aren't sophisticated. If they
want to know what the "right" price is, they just look at the Asian books
(they don't employ people to help predict outcomes either).

~~~
barking
maybe you're right but it being a well documented fact that they discourage
successful punters to the extent of circulating photographs to betting shops
makes me wonder. If someone is doing unusually well on their exchange why
wouldn't they use that data, PP are extremely good at maximising every edge
they have.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
Our system has this exactly backwards. An individual should get the benefit of
the doubt, and their mistakes should be mitigated. An individual human gets
tired, hungry, emotional, etc and other such experiences which cloud
judgement. A corporation on the other hand is supposed to systematically avoid
these things.

Because of this, mistakes in the interaction between an individual and a
corporation should favor the individual. However, it seems that the system
favors the corporation.

Gaming companies are especially bad about this. Their whole setup is designed
to take advantage of human weaknesses in evaluating risks. However, when they
make a mistake they are often the first to say that the bet is invalid.

------
lifeisstillgood
>>> industry practice, which specifically address such obvious pricing errors.

I am in two minds here. Firstly this is a "contract" \- honour it.

Secondly, I understand the industry practise, but Indont think it is in line
with society needs - that is a human bookmaker would never have given 750-1
with the team leading and minutes to go.

So either you write software that won't do that and take the risk, or you stop
using software to rinse every last penny out of human addiction

my preference is that mistakes in the software can bankrupt you. That way you
pay attention to the software process

~~~
alehul
Well put.

Finance has seen its fair share of this. As an example, I was ashamed to see
the difference in reactions between when it was Knight Capital [0] vs Goldman
Sachs [1].

For Knight Capital, the entire company floundered after a trading glitch, and
they closed shortly after.

When it was Goldman who suffered a glitch, many of their trades "qualified for
cancellation". Co-author of the Black Scholes formula even spoke up against
this hypocrisy.

Both companies lobbied to the exchanges and the SEC, but one had more capital.
If this is any indicator, a company like FanDuel may be let off.

[0] [https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/knight-capital-
says-...](https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/knight-capital-says-trading-
mishap-cost-it-440-million/) [1]
[https://www.ft.com/content/37fff9c6-0b36-11e3-bffc-00144feab...](https://www.ft.com/content/37fff9c6-0b36-11e3-bffc-00144feabdc0)

~~~
jessaustin
Goldman have a strong political game. Even over those periods in which the
Secretary of the Treasury is not one of theirs, they occupy lots of other
appointed positions in government.

------
xae342
I feel like we need the Second Software Crisis movement to address the bug
riddled software were still making, it’s as though we’re just acclimated to
bugs everywhere as being expected. Perhaps in 2100 they’ll look back on this
time in software as we do on the early automotive industry today.

~~~
theandrewbailey
Did the early automotive industry move fast and break things? Almost
certainly.

~~~
delecti
I think an important difference is how easy it is to deploy absolutely garbage
software. It's just not as easy to make a million cars, or fix a million
busted cars, as it is to distribute an app across a million devices, so
there's less incentive to get it right when you can "move fast and break
things".

------
turtlecloud
Obviously from reading these comments, most people here are not gamblers and
prob do not have much interaction with bookies.

With bookies your honor and reputation is #1.

When you gamble, you take a risk and the counterparts takes a risk. Then it is
up to Lady Luck to decide.

If you take a bet, you can’t back out. Just don’t take the bet in the first
place.

In this case the guy sure had his stars aligned. To not honor that is
insulting to all gamblers who respect the unknown and risk taking. They broke
the social contract between the gambler and bookie.

Fanduel absolutely does not deserve to be company and should be grouped
together with all the shady overseas bookies.

------
zacharycohn
This is why smart contracts aren't nearly as good as people make them out to
be.

~~~
TomMarius
What do you mean? A smart contract would force them to fulfill the bet, no?

~~~
dx87
No, because as has happened before, the developers just go "oops, we made a
mistake in the smart contract" and nullify the gains of anybody who profited
off of it.

~~~
TomMarius
That was only possible because the miners have united. It's not going to be
that easy in the future or on a larger chain (e.g. Bitcoin).

~~~
bearjaws
"non centralized block chains" and other hilarious jokes you can tell yourself

------
librish
Surprised at most of the comments here. If the line error had been for
$82,000,000 would you have expected them to honor it as well?

Whenever there's doubt side with the customer but this was such an obvious
error that any reasonable better would have realized it. Had the better lost
the money I'm pretty confident they would have refunded the bet as well (since
the bets were voided).

~~~
mdpopescu
Or 82 billion, or trillion... yes, I would expect them to go out of business.
Same if they made a mistake that killed someone, for example. As others have
said, what if the client (or they kid!) had made the bet online and entered a
few extra zeroes (and lost) - would they have accepted "I made a mistake" as
an excuse and canceled the bet?

You should not encourage a business to have a "head we win, tails you lose"
policy.

~~~
freditup
But a client entering a couple extra zeroes is not a clean and obvious
mistake. A person could reasonably bet either $5 or $500 for example.

On the other hand, offering something like a 1000x payout for an event that
has a 50% chance of happening is a clear and obvious error.

If an error is egregious and obvious, it seems reasonable that a company (in
this case FanDuel) not honor the deal.

Similarly, say a grocery store meant to have a "Buy 1 get 2 free" steak sale
but accidentally keyed it in as a "Buy 1 get 200 free" sale. Nobody would
expect the grocery store to actually give away 200 free steaks to every
customer who bought a single steak.

~~~
dragonwriter
> But a client entering a couple extra zeroes is not a clean and obvious
> mistake.

Neither is an oddsmaking posting odds out of line with your perception of thpe
likelihood of events—if you are gambling, that's exactly what you are looking
for normally.

> If an error is egregious and obvious, it seems reasonable that a company (in
> this case FanDuel) not honor the deal.

This bet was made over the counter: if there was such an obvious and egregious
error, it should have been refused at the counter. Would FanDuel have tested
the bet induced by the odds as null and returned the funds if the bettor had
lost? If not, why should it get to nullify it when the bettor wins?

------
benmmurphy
This is pretty standard. I've had a really angry email from a bookmaker after
betting on a line that was like 10% off. From the bookmakers POV if they had
to honour these bets either a) spreads would be much or higher or b) spreads
would be so high there would be no market for bookmakers. I would hope the
bookmakers do the honourable thing and void all bets on the misplaced line,
not just the losing side. It's pretty scummy to freeroll your customers.

------
fabricexpert
In this case the punter must have known it was an error, so it doesn't seem
moral to pick up the 82k.

Somehow everyone else seems to think otherwise, so maybe I'm just a sucker.

~~~
okmokmz
>In this case the punter must have known it was an error, so it doesn't seem
moral to pick up the 82k.

If we lived in a world where companies did their best to be reasonable and
fair to customers, particularly when mistakes occur, I would agree. However,
considering most companies are quite hostile and willing to use any advantage
they may have to maximize profits or minimize costs at the expense of
customers I believe we need to act the same. If companies are going to hold us
accountable and punish us for mistakes or errors to the fullest extent then we
should do the same

~~~
Obi_Juan_Kenobi
That's a bunch of generalities, though; are the specific accusations about
fanduel or records of them benefiting from mistakes like this?

"Well, they probably took advantage of people" isn't a very good argument.

~~~
emodendroket
[https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/sports/fanduel-
draftkings...](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/sports/fanduel-draftkings-
fantasy-employees-bet-rivals.html)

------
kolanos
Surely there's insurance for such errors?

~~~
nlawalker
Yeah this was my first thought too. My sincere hope is that the law's response
is "Pay up, this is how your business works. If this kind of thing is going to
be a problem for you, buy insurance for it."

~~~
drstewart
My sincere hope is that you accidentally fat finger a button while banking one
day and wipe out your checking account sending a transfer or something. We'll
see if you feel the same way then.

~~~
xenadu02
There is a clear incentive for gambling operators to claim “error” anytime
they might lose money.

That makes it somewhat different, no?

------
noja
Oh a "line error". That explains it.

Wait - what? What the hell is a line error?

~~~
ac29
Almost certainly this:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odds#Moneyline_odds](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odds#Moneyline_odds)

------
nodesocket
At Vegas sports books I have personally seen tickets invalidated due to error.
It is not just FanDuel, this practice happens industry wide.

------
ReedJessen
They will settle this for half.

~~~
oliwarner
It'll cost _them_ that much to settle on top of the settlement. Lawyers aren't
cheap!

This is pocket money for them. They should honour it and move on.

------
drfuchs
You might want to reconsider using “welching” in this context. And don’t
change it to “gyping”, either.

~~~
matt_the_bass
Care to clarify?

~~~
warent
They're old racist terms against Welsh and Romani people

~~~
barking
I've read the Welsh being described as loquacious, dissemblers, immoral liars,
stunted, bigoted, dark, ugly, pugnacious little trolls, but I cannot confirm
its truth or otherwise.

~~~
sctb
Please don't post troll comments here.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
barking
The insults against the Welsh in that post are rather notorious being from a
column in the Sunday Times by the late A.A. Gill. A complaint about them was
thrown out by the Commission for Racial Equality. Not everyone, but many
people in the UK view insults against the other nations of the UK as banter, a
wind-up probably because we're all part of the same greater in-group.

------
blah-blahblah
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.

~~~
maxerickson
What'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
>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?

~~~
moate
And if that bug cost his company say, $80,000 for some reason, there's plenty
of instances where his company just has to eat that.

I've literally made tens of thousands of dollars in mistakes over my careers
(try not to make the same one twice) and 9 out of 10 times the company would
go "shit dude, don't ever let that happen again!"

~~~
EpicEng
And what if it were 1M? 500M? 1B? They just go out of business? Your logic
doesn't scale well and seems overly harsh. They offered $500 and a pair of
tickets. The guy lost nothing, I think that's fair.

~~~
iends
You may be surprised to learn that software bugs put companies out of
business. They also can kill people.

~~~
EpicEng
I'm certain I wouldn't considering I've spent my entire career in cancer
diagnostics and finance.

This is a completely reversible mistake and no one was harmed in any way
(feelings don't count). Let's not go off the rails and start making Therac-25
like comparisons. This isn't some abstract problem; the issue is well defined,
so let's stay within the realm of reason.

~~~
iends
Do you also think bugs in HFT code should be able to "undo" their mistakes
instead of losing lots of money?

~~~
EpicEng
And how do you propose that would be done? You've totally jumped the shark
here. Comparing this, an easily reversible incident, to HFT is simply
nonsense. Thousands (probably a lot more?) of transactions would have occurred
within the context of the bug, and decisions were made based on bad data once
the bug was in the wild. There's no way you could undo that.

