Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, back when I was a kid, both were in common usage, and I used them freely and unknowingly into adulthood. So, I was quite taken aback to belatedly learn of their etymology three decades ago. I'm happy to hear your data point that "gyp" may already have fallen into disuse; or did you mean that you now intend to start using it now to signal your non-PC-ness? If so, others that I recall hearing in childhood but not…
It seems like a bit of a stretch to assume the idioms someone uses can reliably indicate their moral character. As with anything, granting people the most charitable interpretation of their actions can go a long way. Is the person using the term gyping actually showing their hatred for the gypsies? It's not impossible, but that's not a very charitable interpretation of their actions
FanDuel not honoring bet that would have paid over $82,000 due to line error
171–180 of 232 posts
Re: FanDuel not honoring bet that would have paid over $82,000 due to line error
#172Yeah, 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…
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.
Re: FanDuel not honoring bet that would have paid over $82,000 due to line error
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Re: FanDuel not honoring bet that would have paid over $82,000 due to line error
#174Oh a "line error". That explains it. Wait - what? What the hell is a line error?
Re: FanDuel not honoring bet that would have paid over $82,000 due to line error
#175Owned 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.
Re: FanDuel not honoring bet that would have paid over $82,000 due to line error
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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).
Re: FanDuel not honoring bet that would have paid over $82,000 due to line error
#177Surprised 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).
Re: FanDuel not honoring bet that would have paid over $82,000 due to line error
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
The price sticker is an advertisement, not a binding contract. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invitation_to_treat
A lot of places have consumer protection laws about price signage and labeling which take precedence over contract law.
Re: FanDuel not honoring bet that would have paid over $82,000 due to line error
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think most adults are fine with hearing, "hey that word comes from a bigoted place" and replying, "oh I had no idea, I'll try to use a different word in the future."
That sounds like a very odd conversation between two adults to me. Sounds more like a mother teaching her child. The word welch is fine, the fact that it has historical origins makes the word even more interesting. It's survived until now and we're no more enlightened than previous generations who also used it. In fact thinking we are, as we do, is one of the conceits every period seems to have.
Re: FanDuel not honoring bet that would have paid over $82,000 due to line error
#180Surprised 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).
But, essentially every bet is exactly the bettor assessing that the odds represent an assessment of the likelihood of an event that is wrong; from the bettor’s position gross errors of the market (the other bettors whose actions are the input to odds-setting) that they should mercilessly exploit are indistinguishable from gross errors of the aggregation system which you suggest they should not.
Especially with a human-in-the-loop system for taking bets, the protection for the oddsmaker should be that their agent refuse to accept bets when there is such an “obvious(ly attributable to the odds-setting mechanism) error”.