Betfred vs £1.7 million

lewisnadasurf

Experienced Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2008
Location
Earth
Don't think it stopped being random.

I would imagine it is same as anything and that it just glitched. Be like playing a slot and something goes wrong. By sounds of it this is first time it has ever happened so no amount of audits would pick up a glitch. Same as many computer programmes in every aspect of life balls up occasionally.

Never played the game but by sounds of it the cards were random. But on every hand certain cards contain a trophy and you can be dealt those cards.

Obviously only a few cards should have one and once they have been dealt those cards go back into pack and no longer have trophies . But for some reason the game glitched and instead of removing trophies the cards kept them. So as his game went on it was getting to stage where every card had a trophy as they were not getting removed from used cards.

Big error but doubt in all the testing it had ever happened before. Anything out computer wise can glitch at anytime, Hence reason all slots have the term error or malfunction voids bet as any slot could glitch at any time.

He should of taken the £60k offered. If it’s true then it was super obvious to anyone that it malfunctioned.
 

paul7388

Ueber Meister
MM
Joined
Jan 8, 2014
Location
glasgow scotland
He should of taken the £60k offered. If it’s true then it was super obvious to anyone that it malfunctioned.

Agreed.

Be interesting to see how the court case goes.

Since it was obviously a malfunction he should not get the money. But if the judge decided he won it and the casino should pay out as they should have protected themselves then it would set a precedent where every one that found a glitch in a game could hammer it for any amount knowing once the casino refused the winnings the law would be on their side and award them it.
 

lewisnadasurf

Experienced Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2008
Location
Earth
Agreed.

Be interesting to see how the court case goes.

Since it was obviously a malfunction he should not get the money. But if the judge decided he won it and the casino should pay out as they should have protected themselves then it would set a precedent where every one that found a glitch in a game could hammer it for any amount knowing once the casino refused the winnings the law would be on their side and award them it.

Yep. The fact BetFred offered £60k doesn’t look good on them. Bit silly to do that.
 

colinsunderland

Experienced Member
webmeister
MM
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Location
uk
Agreed.

Be interesting to see how the court case goes.

Since it was obviously a malfunction he should not get the money. But if the judge decided he won it and the casino should pay out as they should have protected themselves then it would set a precedent where every one that found a glitch in a game could hammer it for any amount knowing once the casino refused the winnings the law would be on their side and award them it.
I hope they make a point of asking how many games rounds were tested where players lost, and were any losing players refunded.
If a game has a glitch that causes it to pay too much, then it stands to reason it could work the other way too.
 

paul7388

Ueber Meister
MM
Joined
Jan 8, 2014
Location
glasgow scotland
I hope they make a point of asking how many games rounds were tested where players lost, and were any losing players refunded.
If a game has a glitch that causes it to pay too much, then it stands to reason it could work the other way too.

Agreed.

Same old story.

Like when a slot glitches and people win loads on it. Game gets pulled and anyone winning loads from it does not get paid if casino discovers it was faulty in time. But rarely if ever do they say the game was faulty and paying some too much so by same aspect it could have been paying others less so we will refund all stakes.
 

Kroffe

เ๓ ค Ŧคภςץ ๒єคг
MM
Joined
Mar 2, 2019
Location
sweden
Agreed.

Same old story.

Like when a slot glitches and people win loads on it. Game gets pulled and anyone winning loads from it does not get paid if casino discovers it was faulty in time. But rarely if ever do they say the game was faulty and paying some too much so by same aspect it could have been paying others less so we will refund all stakes.
Its pretty weird the kind of terms casinos are allowed to have in place.
Most have terms that basically say "we can do what we feel like"

Even those that have a dedicated mediator have terms that say "if we dont like the decision we dont have to follow it"... like wtf is that?
:what:

Another thing that ukgc&other regulatory bodies could&should look into.
 

colinsunderland

Experienced Member
webmeister
MM
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Location
uk
Its pretty weird the kind of terms casinos are allowed to have in place.
Most have terms that basically say "we can do what we feel like"

Even those that have a dedicated mediator have terms that say "if we dont like the decision we dont have to follow it"... like wtf is that?
:what:

Another thing that ukgc&other regulatory bodies could&should look into.
And Videoslots who's T&C's say any decision by whichever third party ADR they use is binding on them, then just decide not to pay anyway.
 

shadow123

Ueber Meister
MM
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Location
midlands
Cant work out if the game paid out more trophy cards than was possible if the game was working correctly
or if it was just very lucky streak and the player was dealt the cards fairly and happenned to keep
hitting the trophy cards.
If it was the first case and the game sequence was fully logged, there would no doubt that it was a malfunction.Tricky as it must be possible to get the cards fairly otherwise the jackpot couldnt be won.
 

Kroffe

เ๓ ค Ŧคภςץ ๒єคг
MM
Joined
Mar 2, 2019
Location
sweden
And Videoslots who's T&C's say any decision by whichever third party ADR they use is binding on them, then just decide not to pay anyway.
I dont remember if it was videoslots, but wasnt there a site that only abided by the adr decision when the amount was less than 10k.

Imo it should be a requirement for all licensed casinos to have a ADR , and the casinos should be forced to go with the decision made by them.
Casinos get away with way too much.
 

Slottery

Meister Member
PABnoaccred
MM
Joined
Aug 21, 2017
Location
Malta
Have no idea of this particular game, but if understood near right, there are these trophy cards which give you bigger win what more you get. As described, these should vanish always after game round but what happened is that they didn't and you got them all staying and never gone away.

Think it could be bit similar if you would start to get sticky wilds which would stay for ever and wouldn't go away after youf DOA bonus round is over. If that what happened, it sounds quite clear mistake but really hard to understand why it was so difficult from provider/operator to describe that issue on earlier stage (maybe they for some reason didn't want to without NDA, private person could possibly keep sharing his way of story next 20 years with little more spicies or what ever), as if that's what happened, it seem to be very near of that famos malfunctioning what all speak in their T&C:s but you hardly see them.
 

SpinUk

Meister Member
PABnonaccred
MM
Joined
Oct 10, 2012
Location
London
Playtech too - don’t they have form for not paying jackpots? Good result on the court case.

Interesting point ->


“Betfred also contends that the game's rules stated "pays and plays" would be void in the event of a malfunction.”

yet there was no evidence that they had refunded anyone playing the defective game. Hence they lost.
 

hugobroke

Newbie member
Joined
Feb 16, 2021
Location
UK
Playtech too - don’t they have form for not paying jackpots? Good result on the court case.

Interesting point ->


“Betfred also contends that the game's rules stated "pays and plays" would be void in the event of a malfunction.”

yet there was no evidence that they had refunded anyone playing the defective game. Hence they lost.
Also wasn't part of the case that they said there was a malfunction but were not prepared to say what it was - seems kind of silly to defend if you aren't going to offer evidence of a malfunction however tenuous the evidence might be.
 

Davey86

They make things hard for us because they can
MM
Joined
Feb 6, 2020
Location
Newcastle upon tyne
Good on the bloke think I would of took the token gesture of £60.000 as I wouldn’t of wanted to go to court regarding the terms and conditions but well done a win for the punter

Casino owners running to the legal department to change terms and conditions and making terms and conditions for the terms and conditions :laugh:
 

CasinoNinja

Senior Member
MM
Joined
Apr 27, 2017
Location
UK
"Betfred apologised for the delay in Mr Green receiving his money and said it would not appeal against the ruling."

Good on him
 

Mr_Slot5

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2019
Location
Cheshire
Good on the guy for persevering and getting his dues. Life changing money.
 

dunover

Unofficial T&C's Editor
Staff member
webmeister
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
CAG
mm3
Joined
May 22, 2012
Location
the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall

colinsunderland

Experienced Member
webmeister
MM
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Location
uk
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


one of the rulings on it

This bit, in particular, is interesting

Betfred rely on acceptance of the EULA terms in 2013 some 4½ years before Mr Green actually played the Game (it had been in operation only for hours when the events in issue happened). I do not hold that it is, without more, impermissible to bind a regular player in this way. However, the commensurate burden upon the trader who wishes to exclude liability is all the greater. In all the circumstances it is almost impossible that Mr Green was reasonably aware, even in 2013, that the Terms and Conditions and the EULA contained clauses that purported to support a refusal to pay his winnings in these circumstances. In real terms it is fanciful to suggest that what he last saw in the EULA in 2013 was sufficiently brought to his attention for the purposes of the gaming session on the newly introduced Game in January 2018 absent a reminder, and the more ready availability of the EULA itself.

For reasons which have been given in relation to the context of the clauses in issue, I agree with the submission of Mr Couser that each of the clauses which purports to allocate the burden of the risk of an undetected and undetectable defect to Mr Green, are inadequately drawn to his attention in order to do so.
 

hugobroke

Newbie member
Joined
Feb 16, 2021
Location
UK
Im staggered the player won his case. Brilliant news!!
Yes, considering Ivy lost it seems courts would favour the casinos. I appreciate it's not exactly the same but in his case he made ridiculous demands of the casino and they went along with them and then didn't like the outcome and seemed to be saved by the courts for their own lack of oversight.
 

dealer wins

Meister Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Location
London the sh$thole
Yes, considering Ivy lost it seems courts would favour the casinos. I appreciate it's not exactly the same but in his case he made ridiculous demands of the casino and they went along with them and then didn't like the outcome and seemed to be saved by the courts for their own lack of oversight.
Phil Ivy is a genius, how any casino would allow him in at all, let alone allow the rules to be changed is beyond me looool He should have been paid though, they took the bets.
 
Top