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.

[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).

[gingerpaul]

Soovy said:

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.

I see, thanks for that. I thought you were in oil so I'll leave related questions.

I can see from a gamblers point of view. If they felt they were on a winning streak they would keep playing to keep it going. You see it with fruit machines in pubs all the time, only they would run out of money before it got to this sort of scale.

I'm still surprised that someone didn't need to authorise or approve the wins he was getting as they happened. I bet they do now!

[gingerpaul]

hairykrishna said:

I'm surprised that this hasn't happened anywhere else to be honest. I think Sky were a re-skinned Coral site and ran Playtech software which is used by hundreds, if not thousands, of the online casinos.

This is what I understood too. Interesting that this is from back in 2009 so it's clearly been ongoing for a while!

[gingerpaul]

wormburner said:

Apropos of nothing, If a hypothetical punter spots a roulette wheel behaving in a non-random manner, and bets profitably on it, can the house claim back his winnings when they discover the problem.

And is there a difference between a punter who wins after spotting the dodgy wheel, and a punter who wins without spotting the dodgy wheel?

The difference is that there is always someone manning the wheel and always someone keeping a close eye on the person manning the wheel in a proper casino. I'm amazed there isn't, or wasn't in this case, something similar in place to monitor the games, alert the company when someone is doing well and automatically stops the account if it starts getting out of hand.