|
as mentioned earlier in the thread, this type of situation sometimes occurs with sportsbook and the in the UK a rule called palpable error is used.
there are 2 scenarios
a) the odds of a selection are 1/100 but are inputted as 100/1
b) the odds of a selection are considered to be 100/1 by others but are priced up by one firm as 150/1.
the palpable error rule is a sensible rule, because without it in case a) above the firm would go bankrupt all because of some lowly paid input operator making a typo. In this day and age of the internet typos will happen all the time, plus any reasonable person would realise that this is a mistake.
however you couldn't use it in case b) because a DECISION WAS TAKEN to give that price, and if one firm gives the best price they cant invoke this rule because they have found they have been more generous than other firms or otherwise then the next best price firm would then claim they offered the biggest price and declare their price void, and then the next firm.
to sum up you cant use it in b) because an odds complier would just declare all of his wrong calls void with the use of hindsight
Although this deals with sportsbooks, the principle of what is a fair regarding what is a reasonable and unreasonable mistake should still apply.
on first looks i would rule this problem with joyland a scenario a) situation above as the comp points were overly generous and it would appear at first glance that this is a typo type error by an operator.
however as the facts have begun to emerge in the thread it appears that this is definitly not the case. for example when it was realised that there was a problem with the comp points they were changed from a 100 to a $1 to 150 to a $1. if it had been a typo then surely it would have been changed to a 1000 a $.
the fact that it was changed to 150 shows not only was it not a typo, but also that the management had called the situation wrong because they had made the same mistake TWICE as the comp system still made some of the games advantageous to a shrewd player.
the fact they changed it to 150, shows that they realised they had made a mistake with the comp points, however it does indicate that the INTENTION was for them to be a 100 to the $ because the difference between 100 & 150 is not that much, its not as if we are talking factors of 10 or greater.
so its quite clear that this is no typo and that the promo manager made a bad call just like an odds compilers sometimes do.
on reflection the generousity of their mistake is not that great either, as i gather that the points mistake gave the shrewd player a H.A. in his favour of appox 4%, well i can go and sign upto at plenty of casinos that when the bonus is taken into account i will have a H.A. in my favour in excess of this. its hardly a cash machine spitting out money type of mistake.
the advatage for the player was 4%, this is similar to the % for some of the games, especially slots, so although some are arguing that the casino was giving money away, the fact is that if you apply the same logic to the player then he should be able to void all of his play every time he plays at a casino. the casino does not have a divine right to have the house advantage on their side. the only reason why they do have the house advantage on their side is because they provide the games, so when their games and software give a advantage to the player they should swallow it.
|