Two sports bettors who hit a long-shot play on a first-round leader in a golf tournament in Australia in November 2023 lost out on $68,200 in winnings in a ruling handed down last week by the Nevada Gaming Control Board.
The Board reaffirmed a decision by a hearing examiner denying a $28,000 payment to Melvin Fowler and $40,200 payment to Bret Tison. Both made the wagers on the William Hill mobile betting app, owned by Caesars Entertainment. The hearing examiner had overruled the decisions of two Gaming Control Board agents to award the payments.
In the case of Tison, the Board’s report said he placed an in-game wager on golfer Joel Nachshon to be the leader after the first round of the Fortinet Australian PGA Championship 2023 golf tournament. According to the World Golf Rankings, Nachshon was ranked number 1,162 in the world at the beginning of the round.
Tison made his bet at 5:52 p.m. at 200-1 odds for $200 to win $40,200 on the William Hill app.The tournament began at 1 p.m. Pacific Standard Time and Nachshon’s tee off time was at 2:40 p.m. At 5:52 p.m., the odds were 4-1.
The investigation revealed that the golf-feed supplier updated the name of the golfer from Joel MOSCATEL NACHSHON to Joel Moscatel Nachshon, which caused the William Hill system to interpret this as a new golfer in the event with initial odds of 200-1. Caesars later corrected the odds of both of the available selections to match, “causing the initial odds of 200-1 to be stale,” according to the investigation.
Both lines for Nachshon were active and available for wagering at 200-1, but only one line correctly updated the prices. The non-capitalized golfer Joel Moscatel Nachshon remained active on the board, but the 200-1 odds did not update as the round progressed.
Caesars/William Hill discovered the error 16 minutes after Tison’s wager at 6:08 p.m.
“Based on the price history of the odds that was updated correctly, William Hill determined that the correct odds for Tison’s wager should have been 4-1,” the report said.
William Hill didn’t request a rescission of the erroneous wager, as this was an “obvious error” according to its house rules. The house rules also allowed the resettlement of wagers, the report said.
According to William Hill’s house rules, under the section titled “voided wagers, situations that are subject to voids include when the ticket was inadvertently created for the wrong event or team and not the requested wager of the patron, if a patron is found to be an excluded, prohibited, or evicted person, if there is a printer jam or error, or an obvious error in the placement or acceptance of the sports wager. Errors include but are not limited to the sports wager being placed with incorrect odds; human error in the placement of the sports wager; the ticket does not correctly reflect the sports wager; or equipment failure rendering a ticket unreadable.”
The report said Tison noticed that William Hill had resettled his wager at 4-1 odds and paid him $1,000 instead of $40,200. Tison didn’t accept the $1,000 payment and left it unclaimed in his account, leaving a dispute on $39,200.
During the initial hearing, Tison testified that it was his first time betting on a golf tournament, choosing Nachshon out of 150 players, but didn’t do any research on him. He bet on Nachshon based on an “announcer’s comment” and didn’t notice that the odds were 200-1. He watched the game and Nachshon ultimately led after the first round. He didn’t bet on any other golfer, because $200 was all the money he had.
“Tison testified that he didn’t notice that the odds weren’t changing,” the report said. “He stated, “I didn’t even look at it again after that, because I made my wager. It was confirmed. Once I see the confirmation, it goes to my inbox.’ He denied seeing two sets of odds for Nachshon and stated it wasn’t an obvious error. Tison argued, “If this was such an obvious error, why didn’t every person that gambled on the app that day bet the same thing?”
The hearing-examiner report on which the Board based its decision concluded, “The fact that there were two sets of odds for the same player exposed that there was an error. Additionally, the stale odds were out of line with the event odds in the marketplace or the correct odds for Nachshon during the game’s progression. The incorrect line of odds was also not moving in proportion to the other golfers’ odds. When William Hill noticed the error, they resettled the wager at the correct odds, rather than seeking a rescission of the entire wager. While this may have resulted in a better outcome for Tison and was in alignment with its house rules, William Hill missed an opportunity for good customer service by failing to actively involve Tison in the resettlement process. Also problematic is William Hill’s definitions of terms that are outside normal linguistic interpretations.”
In appearing before the Board Wednesday, Tison called gambling in Nevada “sacred” and if this happened to him in an offshore account he would understand.
“I’ve been in gaming for 22 years in Nevada,” Tison said. “I don’t think I’m going to get paid out, but I don’t want this to happen to anyone else in Nevada. It’s just not right, erasing tickets and changing timestamps and altering tickets. That’s something that shouldn’t happen. If you go to the betting window and put it in your pocket, that ticket can’t be altered.”
In Fowler’s case, the report said he placed two in-game wagers on Nachshon. Fowler’s first wager was made at the correct odds of 65-1 at 5:03 p.m. for $300 to win $19,800.
Fowler’s first wager was properly settled according to its terms. His second wager, the one in dispute, was made at 5:12 p.m. at 200-1 odds for $200 to win $40,200.
Caesars/William Hill discovered the error 56 minutes after Fowler’s second wager at 6:08 p.m. Based on the price history of the odds that was updated correctly, William Hill determined that the correct odds for Fowler’s second wager should have been at 60-1 odds, the report said.
Fowler noticed that William Hill had resettled his wager at 60-1 and paid him $12,200 instead of $40,200. Fowler accepted the $12,200 payment, leaving $28,000 in dispute.
