Gambler who kept winning could lose £650,000 jackpot

[gingerpaul]

A guy managed to win £650,000 in 3.5 hours on an online casino back in 2009 from an initial stake of £17 is in court to try to get the casino to pay up after they claimed that the bets were null and void due to a software error.

It sounds like quite an interesting case to me so I thought I'd share it.

Telegraph link.

[DarrenL]

The software fault isnt this poor guys fault. He played fairly, and the casino should pay up. Simples.

[KrazyIvan]

DarrenL said:

The software fault isnt this poor guys fault. He played fairly, and the casino should pay up. Simples.

Exactly, he play the game and they lost. The fact it was due to a fault with their software is surely neither here no there. Hope he wins and they loose even more money.

[anonymous-user]

If he'd lost £650k in a bet then could he refuse to pay them because of a "Software error"?

Didn't think so.

[nick s]

Saw this earlier. I hope that guy gets his money! Not his fault at all. How dare they try and not pay him!

[Soovy]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I imagine they'll be relying on some sort of manifest error argument, but this would rely on them having tight terms and conditions which allow them to void a bet if there is an obvious problem or mistake/error in play (for exampl eif the punter keeps winning and winning without fail this would indicate that there is a manifest error).

It's an interesting one this, for sure. I it wasn't such a decent chunk of change I would have expected the company to let him keep it as good publicity.

But over half a bar? No.

Edited by Soovy on Friday 15th June 12:04

[The Wookie]

The house hates losing. A business colleague of my Dad who likes his gambling won something ridiculous like 1.5 million quid from an initial 10 grand or so outlay using a type of spread betting (a Yankee or something) that was endorsed by the betting house.

After he claimed his winnings the (large and well known) betting house shut his account and banned him!! Talk about sore losers!

[gingerpaul]

They're falling back on their t&cs from what I can see. Are they allowed to have "in the event of a software fault we can void all bets" in there? Seems pretty harsh to me. I'm surprised that there were no big red flashing lights and a klaxon going off in their head office when the bets were piling up!

[gingerpaul]

Soovy said:

I imagine they'll be relying on some sort of manifest error argument.

For the nonlegal could you explain what this means please? Is it along the lines of not charging appropriately for the risk that is being taken on? If so I'm surprised that is a defense if they were in full control of the systems (ie hadn't been hacked or whatever).

[The Flying Ox]

So if they win and don't have to pay out due to this "software error", how much will it cost them to pay back everyone who lost money at the same time chappy was winning? Because it works both ways, right?

[anonymous-user]

Is it an urban myth that gambling debts are unenforceable?

Or are the rules different in respect of online betting?

[Soovy]

gingerpaul said:

Soovy said:

I imagine they'll be relying on some sort of manifest error argument.

For the nonlegal could you explain what this means please? Is it along the lines of not charging appropriately for the risk that is being taken on? If so I'm surprised that is a defense if they were in full control of the systems (ie hadn't been hacked or whatever).

As I said, it depends, and as tonker points out I have to be careful what I say for professional reasons, but a manifest error is basically something whcih woul db obvious to the punter - i.e. if you play an online fruit machine and keep winning every spin, then it's manifestly obvious that there is a problem and the bets should be voided (so the provider will say) if there is a provision in the terms which allows them to void bets when a manifest error occurs.

[Soovy]

desolate said:

Is it an urban myth that gambling debts are unenforceable?

Or are the rules different in respect of online betting?

Urban myth.

They were unenforcebale at one time but now they are very much enforceable.

Edited by Soovy on Friday 15th June 12:13

[fido]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Testing is never going to be 100% foolproof. As said by previous poster, they should have the equivalant of a risk management system for want of a better description, or basically software that keeps track of each client's win ratio and blocks them automatically. £17 -> £10k should have set off alarm bells .. let alone £650k!

[anonymous-user]

Soovy said:

Urban myth.

Thanks. Can go to the pub with a clear conscience now I have learned something today.

[odyssey2200]

Bruno Venturi


Porn star name if ever I heard one

Seriously, they gambled and lost.

[Ozzie Osmond]

Soovy said:

desolate said:

Is it an urban myth that gambling debts are unenforceable?

Or are the rules different in respect of online betting?

Urban myth.

They were unenforcebale at one time but now they are very much enforceable.

There are a some points worth adding,

• If a bookie or casino lets you go on gambling after you've run out of money on the basis of your assurance that you will pay them back in future then they can't enforce that debt against you.

• But if you borrow money (from a mate, bank, credit card or whatever) to go gambling than that debt is very much enforceable against you.

• With online gambling you can "load" your online account from a credit card. This is not gambling on credit and the credit card company can enforce the debt against you.

[blindswelledrat]

Soovy said:

Urban myth.

They were unenforcebale at one time but now they are very much enforceable.



]

Otherwise known as NOT an urban myth
Incidentally, I was just reading about this elsewhere and the 'software glitch' was one that mean it was only charging him for 1 in every 6 games i.e. 5 of the six were effectively free credits. I would imagine this fall under your criteria for refusal to pay?
It seems reasonable enough to me.

Interestingly this company is part of Coral but has now ceased to trade. I wonder if this is related?

Edited by blindswelledrat on Friday 15th June 12:37

[ofcorsa]

Were there not other players at the same time with the same issue?

[sinizter]

The Flying Ox said:

So if they win and don't have to pay out due to this "software error", how much will it cost them to pay back everyone who lost money at the same time chappy was winning? Because it works both ways, right?

If there was an error which meant only 1 in 6 bets were charged, probably less than they had to pay out.