Is that the Fred Done who started a business from nothing with his brother and who in his late 70s is still working full time, and a substantial philanthropist to boot. Good luck to them.I guess BILLIONAIRE Fred Done will end up firing someone or perhaps many...
No, that can be proved but in this case we are not told what the glitch was or how it occurred.If a cash machine overdispenses because of a problem then it's moral to keep the cash, presumably?
It was accepted as evidence that the software was defective, meaning a multiplier effect took place, contrary to the design of the game. That is, someone didn't do their job right, so the bettor won a great deal more than he should have been able to win. It could be proved. What it turned on was that the drafting of the terms of the game were insufficient to allow the company to withhold payment - that's why I was making the point around morality.No, that can be proved but in this case we are not told what the glitch was or how it occurred.
Don't know why they just didn't give it the guy in the first place, they can afford it and it would have been fantastic publicity.
You're welcome.OK - post above seems to contradict what I have seen on new channels
it seems that my impression was partly wrong - maybe the odds are not so bad
quote from Wikipedia (yes I know but...)
FOBTs have been criticised due to the potential for addiction when playing the machines. They have been dubbed the "crack cocaine" of gambling by critics. In response to this criticism, in 2014 bookmakers represented by the Association of British Bookmakers introduced the facility for customers to set time and money limits when using FOBTs. In October 2017, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport began studying the possibility of reducing the £100 maximum bet limit and a decision was made in May 2018 to limit the maximum bet to £2. This new maximum bet limit came into effect on 1 April 2019. Multiple bookmakers argued that the resultant loss of revenue could force them to downsize their high street operations (with the industry estimating that 2,100 shops could be collectively closed): in July 2019, William Hill announced plans to close 700 shops, primarily citing the new regulation. MP Tracey Crouch countered these arguments, noting that industry statistics showed downward trends in revenue from physical betting shops in favour of online betting, even before the restriction came into effect.
however - I point out the comment about 'the crack cocaine of gambling' which is what I was commenting on
I was not, however, aware of the fact (apparently) that the odds are not as bad as the new media have given
but the concept that the EFFECT on problem gamblers - and potential problem gamblers - still remains
just show how complex this is - and how the big businesses use psychology to make profits
But thanks to the above poster for pointing out that impressions from media miss out some things in this case
but in a way if those odds are right this makes is morally even worse
in spite of the odds being kinda OK
they STILL con people into loosing massive amount of money using them
the gambling industry is seriously screwed up!!
I expect that they will now recover from the supplier who c*cked up their code.So - as an ex programmer
you (BetFred) have a computer system that you commissioned - or designed
to you specification
and you tested - or were so irresponsible to implement without testing
and then implemented
and released to the public for them to use
and promised that you would get £x if them win
and then the YOUR software
that you designed - or commissioned
and you tested - or decided not to test
and that you implemented
is not your responsibility when it hands out a win that was not what you intended????????
I wonder if they have checked every loosing spin and checked if the software performed correctly - or maybe some people should have won something - but some bug or other meant that they didn't
or do they only challenge and check when someone wins big
don;t bother replying - I think we all know the answer
I seem to remember that when I implemented a program on a computer (which this is) and it produced 'unintended results for the customers - the company took the hit - and the customer wither gained or was not affected
of course - if I did the programming there was never a fault
comes down to the morality of the company
Agreed - but if the computer system was implemented by e.g. Betfred then they are - morally at least - responsible for the resultsI expect that they will now recover from the supplier who c*cked up their code.
I'm sure that BetFred tested the product they bought. We both also know that UAT covering every permutation is impossible with what are complex products. Unfortunately one party got lucky and one got unlucky and the fault was discovered. The bettor won money beyond what he had expected. He did nothing wrong. Nor did BetFred who have an expectation that a product will be delivered which meets the requirements outlined in the contract.
If it's okay with you I will answer a point you made. It's notable that it was the game supplier who seems to have confessed to the fault, presumably when Fred Done asked them what the actual f is going on such that a bettor won £1.7m on a (say) .5m maximum win game. A lucky man indeed, and doubly lucky that the terms were badly written and thus unenforceable.
It's people like you that give the betting industry aI appear to be an odd statistical anomaly who only occasionally bets, sees the money as an entertainment fee, doesn't expect to ever see it again, and yet never seems to exactly win or lose at gambling. I probably bet 4 times a year and always come out even. I do the grand national and pick 2 horses each way, costs me about 20 quid and I always seem to get about 20 back.
I once bought 200 dollars of chips to sit at a lower end (5 bucks stake) blackjack table in Las Vegas, hoping it would last me a couple of hours maybe. I saw that 200 as my entertainment money for the evening, so no expectation of keeping it. Just my entry fee for a once in a lifetime experience of pretending to be something I'm not.
I walked back to my room 4 hours later, blind drunk, with precisely 200 dollars of chips in my pocket.
If this glitch awarded a prize of say £50 Billion, I am sure the Court would not have awarded the sum even if the same faulty terms and conditions exist. I think the company did not want to appeal to avoid further negative publicity.Agreed - but if the computer system was implemented by e.g. Betfred then they are - morally at least - responsible for the results
and if the system does not perform as expected - as defined in their contract with the supplier - then it is down to them to claim recompense from their supplier
e.g. when I worked in a school - the school uniform supplier changed
turned out than when the new jumpers were washed they faded dramatically - from red to pink - and then more after 2nd and 3rd wash
the shop took responsibility and replaced the jumpers
and sued the suppliers for supplying substandard jumpers
the suppliers caved immediately and supplied replacement jumpers at no cost to the parents
and the parents got to keep the old jumpers if they wanted to
Ok - a few quid and not £1.7 million - but the morals are the same
|Unknown device attached to my house||DIY, Home & Garden||24|
|housing is getting worse for people who cant afford to buy 30 years on||CC Cafe - General Chat||0|
|Ideas wanted for a very cold house extension.||DIY, Home & Garden||10|
|Absolutely wonderful (formerly absolutely useless) housing association||CC Cafe - General Chat||298|