The house does NOT always win.. Thankfully

Bonefish Blues

Banging donk
Location
52 Festive Road
In which case they must have had very poor legal advice to take it that far.
If they ran it, I'd say there had to have been a reasonable prospect of success The Dones aren't fools, and they will have weighed this very carefully**.

It absolutely won't have looked like this to the outside world, but for the industry it was an important case where a punter benefited for an accepted error and profited beyond their own expectations and the parameters of the game.

Consider the parallel with a mispriced item on a retailer's shelves, say a TV for £100, not £1000. Fortunately the law of contract gets the retailer out of jail there, as it does online, too, if a manifest error has been made - we've all seen the cases. Here, the only reason that the action succeeded was because the Terms were badly written.

**As in, they knew the sh1tstorm that would happen (is happening!) if they lost - and perhaps if they had won, too.
 

Pale Rider

Legendary Member
The name of this game interested me - Frankie Dettori Blackjack.

In football, people professionally involved in the game are not allowed to advertise on behalf of football betting.

Seems sensible, so how come Jose Mourinho, the manager of Tottenham Hotspur, appears in Paddy Power adverts?

Ah well they said, he's not advertising football betting, he's advertising Paddy Power's other games - in a commercial shown at half time on Sky during a game of football.

So much for regulation in that case.

I suspect Dettori may have swerved around similar rules for horse racing in a similar manner.
 

Cycleops

Legendary Member
Location
Accra, Ghana
I'm sure their counsel was egging them on as they could see a nice fat pay cheque but surely a small town lawyer could see their chance of winning was very small.
They could have well afford to pay out and look big and it would have been great publicity.
 

Bonefish Blues

Banging donk
Location
52 Festive Road
I'm sure their counsel was egging them on as they could see a nice fat pay cheque but surely a small town lawyer could see their chance of winning was very small.
They could have well afford to pay out and look big and it would have been great publicity.
I'm sure that was weighed.

I bet (see what I did there) that these were their legacy game terms that they had used routinely, and that this was the first time they were legally tested. That's perhaps another reason why they were almost duty bound to contest this.
 

Beebo

Firm and Fruity
Location
Hexleybeef
The name of this game interested me - Frankie Dettori Blackjack.

In football, people professionally involved in the game are not allowed to advertise on behalf of football betting.

Seems sensible, so how come Jose Mourinho, the manager of Tottenham Hotspur, appears in Paddy Power adverts?

Ah well they said, he's not advertising football betting, he's advertising Paddy Power's other games - in a commercial shown at half time on Sky during a game of football.

So much for regulation in that case.

I suspect Dettori may have swerved around similar rules for horse racing in a similar manner.
The advertising is my biggest bugbear.
Every program has betting ads. It suggests to viewers that you can’t enjoy a game without betting on it. And many of the bets are completely spurious. Number of throw ins, first corner, colour of Kane’s boots.
The presenters are often fronting the ads too.
It seems far too easy to bet now. Just a few taps on your phone without really thinking about it. The money just comes and goes from your account.
When you actually had to go to the betting shop and hand over cash it meant you actually had to really want to do it.

TL: DR it’s too easy nowadays.
 
Last edited:

Pale Rider

Legendary Member
When you actually had to go to the betting shop and hand over cash it meant you actually had to really want to do it.
That sounds rather quaint now, but the easier you make betting and the higher you make the stakes, the more problem gamblers with ever bigger problems will be created.

There was a bloke near me who somehow ended up in debt to one of the online bookmakers for more than £1m.

I think what happened is that he built up a big stake by winning big - six figures - which put him in the high roller category from the bookmaker's point of view.

But as an ordinary bloke in a council house, when he lost big, he literally had no means or assets to use to clear his account.
 

Scotty55

Well-Known Member
When I did A' level law we were told that gambling debts couldn't be recovered through the courts. Things have obviously changed since the 1980s.
Sponsionus ludicrae is the term I recall from uni law in second year.
 

Dan77

Well-Known Member
Location
Worcester
Gambling debts didn't used to be recoverable by law but this changed with the gambling act I believe.

It's the reason that old school bookies had a reputation that you didn't mess with them. They had to find other ways to get their money if people didn't pay up and find ways they did...at least a large enough number of them did to make people think twice about trying to avoid paying up.
 
OP
dutchguylivingintheuk

dutchguylivingintheuk

Senior Member
He could just as easily have gambled away his life savings- these gaming and gambling sites should be closed down.
There are so many things people can spend there life savings on, it a free choice at the end of the line, gambling sites are already forced to put a lot of safety measures in their sites, but just like alcohol or drugs addiction there comes a point where it up to the individual to seek help. If someone buys all the liqior in the store it's also not mandortory for the store owner to stop him for example.
The facts seem to be these:

It was not disputed that there was a software issue.
It didn't mean he won, it did mean that he won very significantly more than he would otherwise have done without the issue, by multiplying the winnings.
The Bookmakers declined to pay him the hugely inflated amount.
The Judge ruled in the bettor's favour because the contractual arrangements were not sufficiently robust to be enforceable by the bookmaker in these circumstances.

Had the rules been better drawn, the Judgement would have gone in the Bookmakers favour.

Not great publicity, for sure, but a very great deal of money was at stake.
From the article ''However, Mrs Justice Foster ruled that the wording of the clauses relied upon was "inadequate", and "not transparent or fair and Betfred were not entitled to rely upon them". So the question whether or not a software error is a valid excuse remains as Betfreds terms are rendered inadequate. Si it is ruled in his favor just on the basis of that. I don think they would have lost anyway as i dont be;eive releasing the source code to prove a software error outweights in this case a nearly 2 million payout. (software is made by playtech they run millions of sites in the uk and beyond. )


All you need to know about bookmakers is the naming of the slot machine in their 'shops'
they are called 'fixed odds" or something similar
sounds OK - sounds sensible and controlled
In reality they appear to be carefully designed to get gambling addicts - or potential addicts - to put as much money in as possible with the lowest possible chance of winning
OK - a very well defined and real chance of winning a huge amount -
but basically the vast majority of people who use them loose -
and they are designed to get people to loose A LOT.
but the name kinda sounds OK
IMO a cynical way of attracting the vulnerable and making the highest possible profit from them
of course - I may be wrong - feel free to enlighten me .............
In the uk they are forced to publish their rtp ratings (stands for return to player) and lots of other regulations both mandoratory and volumatory, but the bottom line is just as with alcohol known your limits, if i gamble for example i never put in more then 10£.
 

Bonefish Blues

Banging donk
Location
52 Festive Road
so from what i can gather, it was a poorly designed game rather than a 'glitch'
Para 189 (summary of the Judgement) refers:

Summary of My Conclusions 189. I have concluded that the Claimant succeeds in his application for summary judgment under a number of heads of argument. In summary:
a. This case involves the resolution of a number of relatively short points of contractual construction and there are sufficient materials before the court for it to decide the issues, and there is no other good reason as to why the court should not do so.
b. The wording of each of the clauses relied upon is inadequate as a matter of the natural meaning of the language in context to exclude liability to payout Mr Green’s winnings in the events which happened.
c. The manner in which the relevant clauses were presented and the failure adequately to draw them to his attention meant that the three purported exclusions, even had they been effective to exclude liability, were not incorporated in the contract between the parties.
d. Even if the words of the clauses relied upon by Betfred were adequate to encompass the fault in the Game and adequately brought to Mr Green’s attention so as to be incorporated in the contracts of gaming, they were not transparent or fair and Betfred were not entitled to rely upon them. e. The doctrine of mistake is inapplicable to these facts.


Yes there was a fault, no the exclusions were inadequate to allow them to avoid the payout, even though there was a fault - much as I have been explaining.

@dodgy Yes I expect so - an earlier Poster said this was a Playtech developed game. They are huge players in this market, and this will be very damaging for them in the industry. I speculated as much last night, but I don't think this dirty laundry will be decided in public, as it were - there will be a Settlement between the parties.
 
Top Bottom