Panel blows any chance of long-term good.

This was the panel's first published opinion I have seen. If it were a decent one, other sportsbooks might ask for arbitration, and these opinions might even carry weight going forward. There was a golden opportunity here.

A betting ticket is simply a contract. While you can find many of the terms of this contract on Olympic's site, US and English Contract law says Olympic was in the right to cancel those wagers. Olympic made the "mistake" in assuming more than 6 players would race. The player may or may not have made that mistake. In either case, if it was a reasonable mistake, Olympic would be entitled void such a contract. That's all the analysis you would need in a real court.

The "Majority opinion" blew it here. The single most important thing the law should do, is have a fair result that is predictable. Their opinion stated the "It is important to note that much of both the Player’s and Olympic’s statement to this panel related to the concept of which party might have been taking a “shot” here. I note that such discussion is wholly irrelevant to the adjudication of this case."

This one statement shows that the panel (save the dissent) has no clue what the purpose of law is. The whole concept of "shot taking" is why there are hundreds of cases on unilateral and mutual mistakes. If a panel looks for answers without trying to be fair as they have here, there will never be 2 parties that ever agree to arbitration again.

It's too bad this opinion was blown so badly. A lot of good could come from a uniform set of "gaming laws" to resolve disputes.

panel was right,bets should stand

If this was a legal contract any court in the US would rule in favor of the player. Olympic's mistake was not being as aware and on top of things as the player; that's the chance you take when you book bets. Mistakes don't void contracts; remember when the Denver Nuggets misplaced a decimal in Blair Rasmussen's contract and ended up paying him $35 million instead of $3.5 million (I think those are the correct numbers)? That contract stood, despite the obvious mistake.

Get your head out of the sand. This was not the first published opinion by the panel. I have seen a few here already. There decision is correct. While I feel bad for the sportsbook and realize the book is getting the short end of the stick, it is the right decision. I've followed the case since day one across the street and alsways felt the players should get paid, no matter how much I like The Greek.

daringly said:

The "Majority opinion" blew it here. The single most important thing the law should do, is have a fair result that is predictable. Their opinion stated the "It is important to note that much of both the Player’s and Olympic’s statement to this panel related to the concept of which party might have been taking a “shot” here. I note that such discussion is wholly irrelevant to the adjudication of this case."

This one statement shows that the panel (save the dissent) has no clue what the purpose of law is. The whole concept of "shot taking" is why there are hundreds of cases on unilateral and mutual mistakes. If a panel looks for answers without trying to be fair as they have here, there will never be 2 parties that ever agree to arbitration again.

Click to expand...

So are you suggesting that some of the bettors on this race should have been paid, but others who were determined to have taken a shot not be paid? So basically wagers should be graded on a player by player basis? Seems rather chaotic to me.

Actually I sort of agree that this decision could cause fewer cases to become disputed (and this is a GOOD thing) and here's why: If you're going to be willing to ignore written rules and try to serve some notion of "fariness" on a case by case basis then you're only going to cause MORE disputes and have LESS PREDICTABILITY.

The single most important thing the law should do, is have a fair result that is predictable.

I agree with this. I just happen believe that the most predictable and fair thing to do is to follow the rules as written. Sometimes the result seems fair, sometimes it doesn't, but it is predictable.

I almost put this in the opinion, though I didn't think it was important enough, but I'll mention this anecdote here. I had a wager that was no action recently that I didn't think was fair and was ready to go nuts over. But then I calmed down, read the rule and decided that based on the wording of the rules the no action was correct grading...

I bet on an NFL prop:
Thomas Jones + Cedric Benson + 25.5 (or so) rushing yards vs.
2 other RB's on Cincy (can't recall names) -25.5 rush yards

Anyway, Thomas Jones had a good game and gained like 100 yards while the Cincy backs gained around 80. So I had it won by like 45 yards. BUT, Cedric Jones did not play (coaches decision, though he was active and available). The "Note" to the prop said something like "All listed players must play". Given that it was my running back that didn't play and even if he had 1 carry would have won for certain, I felt (and still feel) the "fair" result is that it's a winner. BUT the rule says what it says. It said that each player had to play. That didn't happen. I didn't like the result, but if I was on the other side I would have expected a literal reading of the rule. When we start discarding rules after the fact because we don't like the particular result, what we get is more unpreditability and more dispute.

As usual, great points D2

Dude, whatever. Have been on the BM side of things for 15 years. After looking at what transpired I thought bet should be paid. You are entitlled to your opinion. If I would have booked these bets, I would have paid them.

Let's assume for the sake of argument, that sportsbooks might look to these opinions for guidance. What does this ruling encourage in the future?

It encourages players to take shots at unfair opportunities. If you can find a way to make a can't-lose bet that isn't prohibited in the rules, do it. No matter what the circumstance, it is permissible for a player to do this, because (in the majority's opinion) "The grading of an event is based... not on any notion of common sense or the fairness of the result". By the majority's same reasoning, if a book put up odds on a driver that wasn't even in the race (like SIA and scratched horses), that bet should stand, notwithstanding a 0% chance of it winning.

From a sportbook perspective, this ruling could have a few consequences. You might have more rules included in wagering sections. You might see some ridiculous rules (we know them when we see them. "If a line is 1/2 point different from the market, we reserve the right to cancel the wager as a "bad line".) But more likely, you'll just see books ignore offers of arbitration.

If arbitrations became more common, and were written with the future in mind, they could easily become de facto "regulatory" - we know the industry needs it. The arbitration's conclusion bypassed English and American contract law to reach it's conclusion, and made it seem somewhat arbitrary (although the dissent's fairness argument was very much in line with how a US court would rule).

Belch one - if gambling were legal in the US, I'm pretty sure a court would find for Olympic (I've practiced law for 10 years, so this isn't just off the cuff). You do raise one factual issue of interest though: was it unreasonable for Olympic to be unaware that all these drivers would drop out? I have assumed it was reasonable (as I'm not aware of any sportsbooks that saw this coming). If you think it was unreasonable, Olympic wouldn't get the benefit of the "mistake" defense, and my opinion (as well as any US court) would be different. But this issue wasn't even considered by the panel, so I guess it is irrelevent.

If the panel wanted to find for the player, be predictable, and possibly set precedent, it could have done so. The reasoning might have considered a two-part test. Was there a mistake made, and was it unreasonble. If you answer yes to both, the wager stands. If there was a mistake, but it was reasonable, the wager would be cancelled - standard contractual analysis.

Sorry if I seem down... It's frustrating though. This industry desparately needs to be regulated, and the forums/watchdogs are in a better position than any government. But hey, to each their own opinion.

Will be brief. The info on the boycott was out there all week. Was no sure thing the boycott would occur. Oly chose to hang a line. They could have dealt a line with the stipulation that if the boycott occured, no action. They didn't. Won't argue with anyone on the other side of the fence. Some of my friends who's opinion I respect a great deal, disagree with me on this one. If Oly knows the guy is a shot taker, boot him. But I still think the wager should be honored. Just my humble opinion, which is all I have to offer in these cases. As to the future of this panel and others like it in relation to the industry, not something I consider when looking at a dispute. I can say we all spent a shitload of time on this one. If you gave the same case to 3 other people who have knowledge of the industry, the vote very well may go the other way.

I don't think it's possible for a book to make a "reasonable" mistake by not being on top of breaking information; as I stated earlier, when you book bets you take a chance that you can get burned and you better be alert; if it's impossible to stay on top of all events being offered then the book has the option to downsize. I don't think it's relevant that the bet was a can't-lose when the event went off; the fact is that when the player made the bet it was eminently "loseable". The player took a chance that it would turn into a can't-lose, risking his money, and he was right. By the way, I have seen several horses listed on futures boards here in Las Vegas that had already been retired or declared out of the particular race and, in one case, a dead horse (Flagship Commander) was on the board and none of these wagers are refundable.

daringly, you are clueless! If Olympic was in Las Vegas, they would lose this dispute. The Nevada Gaming Commission would have ruled in the players favor. You see in Las Vegas unless covered by a rule, you accept a bet, you pay if it wins. Incompetence or stupidity(Olympic) is not a defense!!!

It was public knowledge days before the race that many cars may not race. Olympic chose to continue to accept wagers on the race. You can't decide AFTER the race that because you got caught with your pants down that you will now void the bets.

Belch One said:

I don't think it's relevant that the bet was a can't-lose when the event went off; the fact is that when the player made the bet it was eminently "loseable". The player took a chance that it would turn into a can't-lose, risking his money, and he was right.

Click to expand...

You make a good point here.

When I looked at the case, in my opinion, this was the strongest thing that the Player had in his favour ... that if the Michelin drivers DID NOT boycott, then he almost certainly would have lost these bets, as Olympic wouldn't be giving his money back to him if a full field raced.

However, although it would have sucked to be in his position if the Michelin drivers did indeed race, I didn't feel that his potential bad position (if the Michelin drivers raced) was enough to justify ruling in his favour. I equated this potential situation to betting against the Miami Heat on the assumption that Shaq would be sitting out, only to find out at game time that Shaq would be playing ... it would suck that you bet against Miami, thinking Shaq would be out, but that's life, and you would just have to deal with it.

But it was very much a borderline case, no matter what anyone says on either side of the issue.

If the panel wanted to find for the player, be predictable, and possibly set precedent, it could have done so. The reasoning might have considered a two-part test. Was there a mistake made, and was it unreasonble. If you answer yes to both, the wager stands. If there was a mistake, but it was reasonable, the wager would be cancelled - standard contractual analysis.

So let me get this straight, the decision was not long enough for you? I am sure you are aware, counsel, that unilateral mistake (it clearly can't be mutual here) is an AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE that must be raised by the party claiming that defense. It is NOT "standard contractual analysis". Standard contractual analysis is offer, acceptance, consideration and interpretation of the terms, and performance. Mistake was not pleaded to the panel and so I didn't feel it was necessary to make the opinion even longer and more muddied by raising and rejecting an affirmative defense that was not raised, but which I had considered and rejected myself. I've never known any court to run through every possible defense, included affirmative ones not pleaded to a court, in issuing its opinion. I could write another 10 pages on why I would reject the defense and several others, but I don't feel that it's necessary. And counsel, I might add that you have ignored several elements of the unilateral mistake defense, including what party bears the risk of mistake, particularly in the context of an adhesion contract. Counsel, maybe you can cite me some reported opinions from any court that has allowed the drafter of an adhesion contract to rescind that contract based on its own unilateral mistake (other than the common case of a typo in a contractor's bid, or something of that nature). And I might add that I'm not even sure there was any "mistake" here but I don't even want to go into that. You mgith also consider the difference between a void and a voidable contract and what burden that adds to the party purporting to rescind a voidable contract.

I suspect that if you had represented Olympic that the opinion's analysis would have gone down an additional and different route, but the result would have been the same.

I'm sure that counsel daringly is also aware that when there is an ambiguity in an adhesion contract that courts resolve the ambiguity in favor of the non-drafting party who was not in a position to negotiate its terms.

Again, I could have gone on and on and on but I thought the opinion was just maybe long enough as it was and the salient points relating to the arguments that were actually made by the parties had been hit.

I probably shouldn't even had waded into this thread...

Halifax said:

You make a good point here.

When I looked at the case, in my opinion, this was the strongest thing that the Player had in his favour ... that if the Michelin drivers DID NOT boycott, then he almost certainly would have lost these bets, as Olympic wouldn't be giving his money back to him if a full field raced.

However, although it would have sucked to be in his position if the Michelin drivers did indeed race, I didn't feel that his potential bad position (if the Michelin drivers raced) was enough to justify ruling in his favour. I equated this potential situation to betting against the Miami Heat on the assumption that Shaq would be sitting out, only to find out at game time that Shaq would be playing ... it would suck that you bet against Miami, thinking Shaq would be out, but that's life, and you would just have to deal with it.

But it was very much a borderline case, no matter what anyone says on either side of the issue.

Click to expand...

The problem I have with this line of reasoning is that Olympic adjusted the odds prior to the start of the race to account for the possibility that the michelin cars wouldn't race.

According to the decision the odds went from 40/1, 25/1, 25/1 and 30/1 to 10/1, 6/1, 6/1 and 6/1 respectively. This means that Olympic was still willing to wrtie action on the event taking into account that these six long shots were more likely to finish in the points due to the other cars not starting.

If someone wagered on the driver that ended up at 6/1, when he should of been a 30/1 longshot with a full field, one of two things were going to happen. Either a full field would race and they would be stuck getting 6/1 on a driver that should of been paying 30/1 or a full field would not race and their bet would be arbitrarily cancelled. I don't think this is fair to the player nor is allowing the wagers to be cancelled a good precedent to set.

I like your example of betting an NBA game, but it does seem a bit hypocritical. If a player bets on a game and prior to the game there is a change in the lineup that is significant enough to substantially change the odds in the favor of the book the player has to accept that it is just life and "deal with it", then why if the opposite happened (where the odds change in the favor of the player as happened in this case) shouldn't the book have to accept that is the risk of doing business and "deal with it"?

In the end I think all that matters is that at the moment the wager was accepted by both sides the result of the event was unknown.

D2bets said:

I'm sure that counsel daringly is also aware that when there is an ambiguity in an adhesion contract that courts resolve the ambiguity in favor of the non-drafting party who was not in a position to negotiate its terms.

Click to expand...

That settles it.

D2Bets wrote "I am sure you are aware, counsel, that unilateral mistake (it clearly can't be mutual here) is an AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE that must be raised by the party claiming that defense."

In any informal hearing (such as an arbitration, mediation or small claims court) the purpose is to get a just and fair result. Getting to the right result is more important than procedure - which is why a judge often considers and rules on issues that the parties weren't even aware WERE issues, even if they would qualify as affirmative defenses.

D2Bets also wrote "And counsel, I might add that you have ignored several elements of the unilateral mistake defense, including what party bears the risk of mistake, particularly in the context of an adhesion contract."

Is a prop wager an adhesion contract? Wager rules were up on the site. Professional prop players ALWAYS read site rules. Players have the ability to ask about rules, and even request rule changes or clarifications. Given the context of how a player makes a wager, I would hardly consider that an adhesive contract. Regardless though, it was not an ambiguity or unreasonable term that caused this dispute, which makes the entire adhesion analysis moot.

Which party "bears the risk?" I have no idea, and am not aware of any case law on point. Absent that, a unilateral mistake on Olympic's part would be voidable in two instances... If the bettor knew about the mistake and Olympic didn't; or if the enforcement is unconscionable. I would argue that a wager for top-8 on a driver who retired in the parade lap (which cannot be won) is as unconscionable as permitting a wager on a driver virtually guaranteed to win. When the whole element of chance is removed from the result, you clearly have a frustration of purpose (at least from the Bookmaker's side, and the player's as well if a wager is impossible to win).

You are wrong daringly, that is all there is to it. The point of the panel is to make a fair decision not to see how many books they can get on board because of the decisions. Doing it that way would not result in fair decisions. Not sure what is hard to understand about this, but you seem to be having one hell of a struggle.

Daringly-

Can you identify the facts that support your contention that Olympic made a mistake by assuming there were going to be 20 cars in the race? The evidence I see, namely the lowering of the odds on the non-michelin cars, seems to make it fairly evident that Olympic was well aware that the race would likely start with less than a full field.

D2bets point, which I think you are missing, is that even in an informal setting like those you mentioned a contract would not be voided due to a unilateral mistake without at the very least confirmation by that party that they had actually made a mistake. To the best of my knowledge Olympic hasn't claimed that they thought more than 6 cars were race, in fact I believe if they were asked they would confirm that they knew that it was possible that the michelin cars would not race before the wagers in question were placed.

Baker