they gave this guy a helluva deal and he turned it down?.. what he did warrants a trip to the back room in Vegas
-
Comment -
For the sake of discussion, let's say the proper odds for this bet was 7.5-to-1. If a bettor walks away from the betting window with a ticket that says it pays 10-to-1, that sounds like an "obvious" error to me. He's getting 33 percent more and no reputable book gives away 33 percent for nothing. Would you still be siding with the book that it shouldn't pay?
The sports book needs to have some responsibility in this mess; it's the one that screwed up.Comment -
the book should be held accountable...just bad luck for this guy.Comment -
It was a pain in the ass to find but I found this in DraftKings written rules under "Sportsbook Game Conditions" https://sportsbook.draftkings.com/he...ame-conditions
2. Definitions- "Error" is a mistake, misprint, misinterpretation, mishearing, misreading, mistranslation, spelling mistake, technical hazard, registration error, transaction error, manifest error, force majeure and/or similar. Examples of errors include, but are not limited to:
- bets accepted during technical problems that would otherwise not have been accepted;
- bets placed on events/offers that have already been decided;
- bets on odds containing incorrect participants;
- bets placed at odds that are materially different from those available in the general market at the time the bet was placed;
- bets offered at odds which reflect an incorrect score situation; or else,
- odds being clearly incorrect given the chance of the event occurring at the time the bet was placed.
Comment - "Error" is a mistake, misprint, misinterpretation, mishearing, misreading, mistranslation, spelling mistake, technical hazard, registration error, transaction error, manifest error, force majeure and/or similar. Examples of errors include, but are not limited to:
-
Good work LT!!!Comment -
The online mentality and approach, which everyone has been conditioned to accept, should not apply here.
I've gone online and reported mistakes to books, I even recently posted about one case. I've told book managers in Tahoe that the line looked like an error, and they had to call Vegas to adjust the board, but held me until it was complete, bringing down extra managers to talk to me.
"report a bad line and get rewarded" is from the old day of internet gambling, I doubt they reward that much anymore.
New Jersey is weak here.
What is the book going to do to insure this doesn't happen again? That's what lawmakers in New Jersey should be looking at here.
This is not online gambling. Guy should get paid, then tossed, then the book should not only be fined but should also lay out a plan to prevent them from selling bad lines.Comment -
There is no excuse for a bet place like this at a counter, online in an interface, maybe.
But when a live person procesess your request, it's a different story. There are two people there to check it and if it's not enough, get a supervisor for every transaction.
OR don't offer live betting.
"I don't know, I just work here" will not cut it.
The books should take actions to prevent this, again, this is not online gambling.
This shit pisses off the real gamblers out here, the one's who honor bets taken.Comment -
But as long as the BOOK has the law in writing and it is not in violation of state law (which in this case may not even exist as you alluded to), the book should be fine. If Jersey passes law tomorrow that all bets stand regardless, then DK would withdraw house rule, but it would still gave no bearing on this particular case.Comment -
I agree there too, but the brick and mortar books need to do more to avoid it. The online model is poor for this.
DK has rules, I don't commend them for something that is minimally expected to have.
This situation reminds me of the scene Casino where someone hits several jackpots in a row and the guy hired to sweep the floors gets fired.
The reasoning was that if the guy in the Casino standing there working who saw all these jackpots go off was either in on the scam or too stupid to work there.
The guy (and his supervisor) selling the +750 ticket at the counter is either in on the scam or too stupid to work there.
In reality, the clerks need training they won't get and shouldn't know what the going prices are, because computers do that.
The computers can be made to avoid this issue, and States should require it.Comment -
People are incorrectly throwing around that Nevada laws force brick and mortar to pay this. This is an obvious mistake. If a car lot accidentally put 5,000 and left off a 0 on a bmw they wouldn’t be forced to sell it for 5k. It’s an obvious error. The guy knew this. It wasn’t 1 second left from the 10 there was almost 2 mins left in a 2 point game with the ball.Consumer protections on their way.
Bottom line, by all accounts, the book should pay.
The poison of not honoring bets because of a "bad line" has spilled over from the internet world and all those internet players over the years are likely to accept it.
If a brick and mortar book took the bet, I side with Nevada laws and force it to be honored.
I'm conflicted though, because this live action blends the online rules with traditional rules.
It seems Jersey wants to be a real book, but still benefit from the online precedent that has been set about glitches and mistakes.
I'm really conflicted here. Obviously, the world is changing and this technology that has been bringing lines online for years is entering and being used in shops and books.
I just don't know, the future is clearly going to allow the book to make errors, but I'm not sure I agree with it.
They should pay the guy what they booked and then refuse to serve him again for "shot taking."
Basically give him the option to get paid but never play there again.
Does New Jersey have laws here or did they just get way ahead of themselves?
If a decision here isn't clear cut from laws on the Jersey books, then Jersey, despite all they've done, are just a bunch of hacks who have gotten ahead of themselves.
The books will win here, and reserve the right to not honor bets. Online, this was acceptable because the community in general could police decisions and determine what is "obviously a bad line."
Back in the day, in Vegas and Nevada, there was no such thing as a "bad line", not the way the use the words today, but there were shot takers, some of whom were trespassed in many places.
Comment -
That wasn’t DraftKings book it was Fanduel Sportsbook and the way they carry there self at the book is way out of control. The people that works there do not care about shit only they care about is there pay checkComment -
i know nevada used to have the law that all printed tickets had to be honored. im not sure if its changed though. your analogy is incorrect because the casino not only posted the bad line they also sold the bad line. the car dealership analogy would be them advertising that price then also selling the car to the person for 5k then asking for the car back the next day.
all this hate against shot takers is always hilarious to me. the whole point of gambling is to find lines that you think are not accurate so that you can profit from them. the book's job is to put up profitable lines. if they cant do that then they should lose money. its like a stock trading bot or poker bot (before bot rules) malfunctioning and the bot owner asking for a refund.Comment -
I agree. Understand that I am saying that live betting is different, for obvious reasons. If they left a "bad line" up for a week on the board in Nevada, they'd pay and boot you, most likely. These things have happened. It doesn't happen anymore, like I keep saying, things are different with a more aware community.
Live play is obviously different. There is much more room for errors that can't be caught.
That's why they need to use the software to catch these things real time, literally, real time; not after the fact. The book needs awareness so this won't happen.
It's so difficult when the lines are live unless there's an obvious wager/win limit involved. I don't know about DK.
It could be legislated and the books, as a way out for lining legislator's pockets, could be given a fine. They could choose to pay or opt for the business decision to go ahead with it.
If the player had lost, I doubt he would have gone for his money back. But if he had gone up to the counter for his money back, would he get it?
Was he free rolled here?
What's to stop books from allowing "mistakes" to just be free rolls on shot takers and everyone else?
I'm no liberal snowflake, but it's a matter of time before pressures come down.Comment -
Right now, the precedent is that the book can get out of a bet, by following their own policy, and offer a vacation or whatever.
Not sure that's a good precedent to set for the bettors. Online they weren't given a choice, now the online mentality is growing to the sportsbook counter space.
I don't like that trend without some kind of safeguards. Free rolling may be legal in New Jersey.
That's a little disturbing.
This case won't make them look at it, it's an obvious typo, but if there was a debatable case, then I don't know, maybe the book pays to avoid trouble.
My question, what are they doing to avoid selling a typo in the future? Is it in their best interest to do anything? Apparently not.
The losers here get freerolled and shot takers deserve it.
A funny little game within the game, at least when there's an error.Comment -
No, the liberal snowflake would want to hold people accountable, but then not want to be held accountable for doing it themselves.
But what I mean was more about how a liberal snowflake would make a big public deal out of it, bitch and moan and scream, like I am now, but then enact no actual reform. The liberal snowflake would want a dog and pony show to gain public credibility in the name of helping the people, but not help the people.
They, like I said, would allow the same transgression to still occur by doing something like a fine, of which the book could pay and then continue as is. I'm sure both sides of the political spectrum would likely opt for this but conservative policy could be a little more restrictive.
Don't get me wrong, the liberal snowflake might ignite reform, but the method of intervention will likely become a budget line, maybe even a whole new watchdog organization, that spends needless money. Too much need to show they are doing something, when they could actually do something.
The liberal snowflake would spend tax payer money to create a safe place for shot takers that got burned.Comment -
You seem to be getting bent out of shape for no reason, cases like this are only for egregious errors, and everyone agrees that 750/1 vs. 7.5/1 qualifies. Don't get so caught up on precedent, this sort of thing does not happen with smaller errors, in those cases, books would have honored the bet.Comment -
It is downright laughable that the bettor expects to get paid in this case when the book has the policy in writing. And knowingly betting line off by this much is a worse offense by the bettor than the book because the former did it intentionally while the latter posted line in error. Plus the line was up for what, a few minutes? So it was not as if the book even had a chance to adjust line before the next play.Comment -
Agreed LT, I don't think the bettor should get paid.
But what is the book doing to prevent this?
What's to stop them from adding a zero to the dog at the end of games, create a rush of live bets, then call out the mistake if bettors want to get paid?
Not one of those bettors are walking back up to that counter if the bet doesn't pay.
That creates the opportunity for a freeroll; what exists in the online world and now they are bringing it to the counter.
I don't like that look at all.Comment
There is no point in betting that because bettor should know he will not get paid, only bad can come of it, i.e., getting labeled as shot-taker.