Hacker News Reader

"But, I have a perhaps-unreasonable amount of confidence in my understanding of regulator-regulatee dynamics."

I also lived and worked in DC for 10 years :-)

I'm just not gonna bet or gamble here[1]. I expressed an opinion. I stand by that opinion. I will note you twisted it a little bit. I also gave what FanDuel's strongest argument will be, and I expect if they do win, it will be on those grounds.

But i do think you are very mistaken about at least one thing:

"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?)"

Because there is no meaningful PR hit - gamblers are not going to stop using it either way.

I also strongly doubt they "completely understood their legal environment" before making that statement, because pretty much no companies fanduel's size do so. You are suggesting a level of organized legal process that is uncommon. :)

[1] There are also too many paths where fanduel loses but the bettor does not get anything meaningful, or the question doesn't get decided because the person runs out of money or their lawyer sucks.

Fair enough, but I can't see how I "twisted it a little bit".

I don't see how any reasonable reader can interpret "Fanduel is gonna lose this one" as anything other than they pay the full ticket price.

There has absolutely been a PR hit, already, because most stories and lots of comments (like yours!) have implied FanDuel is in the wrong, and disliked for their behavior. (Even if it's a negligible effect among significant gamblers, it's not good for their brand among casual and new players. I had no idea they were operating actual betting windows, as opposed to online real-money "contests", so I've lowered my estimation of FanDuel from "novel online innovator" to "same old casino sportsbook".)

And further, if Fanduel were to confidently say they wouldn't pay, and then "lose" in a legal action as you predicted, there'd be deeper hits. First, a second round of stories that "Fanduel loses". Then, many more gamblers emboldened, in future similar situations, to insist on payment-of-errors rather than accepting the casino's "house rules".

And I believe definitionally, there are no "FanDuel loses but the bettor does not get anything meaningful" paths. If the bettor "doesn't get anything meaningful", for whatever reason – including that the rules are murky enough the bettor gives up, or the courts/regulators are stacked against such complaints – then those are precisely "FanDuel wins" paths. As I'm predicting, and willing to bet on, while you're predicting they "lose".

> 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.

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.

> 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.

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.

I’ll talk you on your bet. Don’t back out like Fanduel!!!

OK, we have a bet! How can I ping you if I win? (My contact info is in my profile.)

(Still open to more action, on same or similar terms, from ~DannyBee, ~dragonewriter, or others.)