A gambler is suing DraftKings over the latter’s refusal to honor a $14.2-million betting payout, according to the plaintiff
A player who used the weather forecast to one-up bookmakers is now suing DraftKings over the latter’s alleged refusal to pay out and honor a $14.2-million win.
The winner of a series of wagers for the 2024 AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am has locked horns with the sportsbook, accusing it of breach of contract, trampling of consumer rights, and refusing to pay.
Gambler Uses the Weather Forecast to Win North of $14M
The Iowa resident, Nicholas Bavas’ story is not as clear-cut or straightforward from a legal standpoint, but the player believes his argument stands to reason. In 2024, he placed wagers on the event’s finishers across five parlays with DraftKings.
His total amount wagered was $325, but the potential for the payout, if he got all five, ran in the millions of dollars. Because the event’s final round had to be cancelled due to bad weather, Bavas predicted that he would be able to get the wagers right, and he was correct.
The PGA Tour referees waited for the weather to clear up, but with no respite in sight, the final round was cancelled, and the player standings, such as they were up to that point, were considered to be the final placements.
Bavas welcomed the news. He had just won all of his five wagers and turned the measly $325 into the payout of a lifetime – $14.2 million off a single event, a feat that would put even Drake and Mattress Mack to shame.
DraftKings, however, said that it had decided to void the wagers and return the stake to the player. The sportsbook explained that there was a specific rule connected to future bets that it applied in the case, and thus was able to avoid the wagers.
However, the plaintiff has argued against this by explaining that the rule applied to single tournament winners, rather than the multiple selections made by Bavas in this case.
Betting on the Weather Doesn’t Change TOC, Argues DraftKings
Even if one wager was subject to the DraftKings-stated rule, if not all the rest would have been payable, with their amounts adjusted.
Bavas also raised a rhetorical question – would DraftKings have thought to refund his wager if it were a loss? Bavas argued that DraftKings’ rules seemed to favor the sportsbook in the sense that it was protected if it happened to make a mistake that would cost it, but the same rules were not upheld the other way around.
Bavas may not be the only punter to have consulted the weather forecast to make selections.
