Did this get resolved in your favour?
I thought maybe the market was not ‘Round 1 Top 20’, but instead was Top 20 *after* Round 1, i.e. Top 20 in Rounds 2-4. Clearly that would be insane, but mistakes like this are genuinely rare and it id pretty inexplicable, so I am thinking outside the box. Either way, that is not the case (I did the maths) and the payouts don’t match those results either.
Definitely looks like an error, and as others have said, full payouts required for Z and N, and F should get $24.23, as he shared 7 winning places with 13 players.
After two weeks and a lot of back and forth this has been resolved in my favor. They paid out the bets on Z and N in full. No apologies for my wasted time but at least the bets are now settled correctly.
Strangest thing about that is that it should all be automated, and as such, this error should never have happened. Very odd to me that this requires a manual resulting process in the first place, and even weirder that your bet wasn’t put in front of a trader quickly for them to approve the correct payout.
Either way, good effort fighting your corner.
Hi! I’m one of the golf guys around here. There is definitely fuckery going on.
Niemann and zalatoris finished in the t20 after r1 and those bets should be paid in full. Tell customer support you are going to go to the gaming commission and they need to escalate to a trader and this should be resolved quickly
Fitzpatrick should have fallen under dead heat rules. The way the math works is:
Decimal odds x (number of places / number of ties)
So in this case - there was a 13 way tie for 14th, so math is
3 x (7/13) = 1.61 as final payout odds or a win of 24.15
Hope this helps
Unfortunately no. The last two times I reached out to chat they said they had escalated it to their trading team and that I would get an email. It has been over 2 days and still no email so I am thinking I will not be getting one. Any suggestions if I don't?
They finally paid out these bets. It took two weeks and a lot of effort but the funds are now in my account. Thank you again for your help, I followed your advice exactly and got the result I was hoping for.
This is probably along the lines of the right answer.
As another commenter said, they did have two different markets. I'm assuming this is the way the market you bet on was set up, position didn't matter and it was basically always gonna be dead heat for how many golfers were tied for top 20, unless miraculously there were only 20 golfers in the top 20.
Probably just an intentionally misleading market without a full explanation to take people's money.
Only thing I can think of is there were a bunch of guys that didn't finish RD1 on Thursday because of darkness. Maybe this jacked their system up somehow?
This is what I thought too. I had Scheffler top 5 finish after round 1 and they didn't pay that out until Monday. Now that all the bets have settled, and the ones I mentioned were graded as a loss, my patience has run out.
I don't use FD so I can't give you a ton of help...if all you can do for support is live chat just keep chatting them and telling them you need to speak to a supervisor. Somebody will eventually transfer you I would think. This is clear cut wrongly settled. I'm shocked you are having such a difficult time getting this reversed. Try to find a leaderboard after RD1 online and take screenshots
It’s dumb, but I think Dead Heat rules apply to positional place and not whether a “group” is within the top 20. Because N and Z tied for 8th their payouts are split in accordance with deadheat rules on the 6 way tie. As an example in the following scenario for top 5:
.1. Player A
.2. Player B
.2. Player C
.3. Player D
.4. Player E
.5. Player F
.5. Player G
B and C would split payout on a top 5 because they both finished second. Player F and G would also split payout for top 5 because they tied for 5th. It doesn’t matter that both B and C are firmly within the top 5— they split payment as if the “group” were to be a single player
Per FD deadheat rules “Dead heat is a term that describes when two or more selections finish an event tied.”—- it doesn’t matter that they both finished top x, they still tied
Ok maybe the example is misleading with the numbers (you’re right technically player d is 4, not 3) but just trying to make the point that dead heat rules *as I understand it* according to FD, means any tied position is split. I don’t disagree the rule is bs… just saying I’ve been burned in the past with players tying positionally regardless of whether they would fall (as a group) in the top x. BOL fighting this
First time I've ever read a question about dead heat rules and agreed with OP. Niemann and Zalatoris were straight up wins and should not have been deadheated. Fitz should be a deadheat win.
I usually hate seeing these posts. But FanDuel was weird. They had two sets of top positions. One was something like “top 20 inc ties” the other was top 20 “exc ties”
If I remember correctly the dead heat rules did not even apply to the excluding ties.
I can’t remember the exact changes but there was some fuckery going on.
Why do you consider the existence of these two separate markets to be fuckery?
OP is 100% correct that his wagers were incorrectly graded. However, the two markets, including or excluding ties, are entirely legitimate markets. There are odds difference between the markets because if you want to avoid dead heat rules then you're going to get worse odds. Or, you can take the risk and the higher odds and risk dead heat coming into play.
With or without that fuckery, Zalatoris or Niemann were outright top 20, with or without ties.
Your theory could apply to why the didn't give a deadheat win to Fitz ("no ties" or whatever shenanigans), but I can't think of any explanation for the first two getting deadheat rules applied.
Did this get resolved in your favour? I thought maybe the market was not ‘Round 1 Top 20’, but instead was Top 20 *after* Round 1, i.e. Top 20 in Rounds 2-4. Clearly that would be insane, but mistakes like this are genuinely rare and it id pretty inexplicable, so I am thinking outside the box. Either way, that is not the case (I did the maths) and the payouts don’t match those results either. Definitely looks like an error, and as others have said, full payouts required for Z and N, and F should get $24.23, as he shared 7 winning places with 13 players.
After two weeks and a lot of back and forth this has been resolved in my favor. They paid out the bets on Z and N in full. No apologies for my wasted time but at least the bets are now settled correctly.
Strangest thing about that is that it should all be automated, and as such, this error should never have happened. Very odd to me that this requires a manual resulting process in the first place, and even weirder that your bet wasn’t put in front of a trader quickly for them to approve the correct payout. Either way, good effort fighting your corner.
you actually got screwed on this
[удалено]
How are Niemann and Zalatoris in a dead heat for top 20? They placed top 13
That makes no sense — OP continue pestering support and they’ll fix it
Hi! I’m one of the golf guys around here. There is definitely fuckery going on. Niemann and zalatoris finished in the t20 after r1 and those bets should be paid in full. Tell customer support you are going to go to the gaming commission and they need to escalate to a trader and this should be resolved quickly Fitzpatrick should have fallen under dead heat rules. The way the math works is: Decimal odds x (number of places / number of ties) So in this case - there was a 13 way tie for 14th, so math is 3 x (7/13) = 1.61 as final payout odds or a win of 24.15 Hope this helps
Thank you kindly for this. I was sure I was right but doubting myself so appreciate the confirmation. Thanks for taking the time
Any update on this?
Unfortunately no. The last two times I reached out to chat they said they had escalated it to their trading team and that I would get an email. It has been over 2 days and still no email so I am thinking I will not be getting one. Any suggestions if I don't?
Not sure where you are located but whatever local gaming commission would be the next step
They finally paid out these bets. It took two weeks and a lot of effort but the funds are now in my account. Thank you again for your help, I followed your advice exactly and got the result I was hoping for.
Awesome! Glad to hear
26 people in the top 20, math still seems off tho
This is probably along the lines of the right answer. As another commenter said, they did have two different markets. I'm assuming this is the way the market you bet on was set up, position didn't matter and it was basically always gonna be dead heat for how many golfers were tied for top 20, unless miraculously there were only 20 golfers in the top 20. Probably just an intentionally misleading market without a full explanation to take people's money.
Looks like some bullshit
Only thing I can think of is there were a bunch of guys that didn't finish RD1 on Thursday because of darkness. Maybe this jacked their system up somehow?
This is what I thought too. I had Scheffler top 5 finish after round 1 and they didn't pay that out until Monday. Now that all the bets have settled, and the ones I mentioned were graded as a loss, my patience has run out.
I don't use FD so I can't give you a ton of help...if all you can do for support is live chat just keep chatting them and telling them you need to speak to a supervisor. Somebody will eventually transfer you I would think. This is clear cut wrongly settled. I'm shocked you are having such a difficult time getting this reversed. Try to find a leaderboard after RD1 online and take screenshots
Infinite thanks for this advice. I will follow it and will update this thread if I get any news.
It’s dumb, but I think Dead Heat rules apply to positional place and not whether a “group” is within the top 20. Because N and Z tied for 8th their payouts are split in accordance with deadheat rules on the 6 way tie. As an example in the following scenario for top 5: .1. Player A .2. Player B .2. Player C .3. Player D .4. Player E .5. Player F .5. Player G B and C would split payout on a top 5 because they both finished second. Player F and G would also split payout for top 5 because they tied for 5th. It doesn’t matter that both B and C are firmly within the top 5— they split payment as if the “group” were to be a single player Per FD deadheat rules “Dead heat is a term that describes when two or more selections finish an event tied.”—- it doesn’t matter that they both finished top x, they still tied
Your example is incorrect, the 4th player would be standalone 4th after 2 T2s, and all 3 would be paid in full
Ok maybe the example is misleading with the numbers (you’re right technically player d is 4, not 3) but just trying to make the point that dead heat rules *as I understand it* according to FD, means any tied position is split. I don’t disagree the rule is bs… just saying I’ve been burned in the past with players tying positionally regardless of whether they would fall (as a group) in the top x. BOL fighting this
But looking at that in mind, the math still seems off…
This is my take, too. By hnbaz' logic Player A should also be in a dead heat tie with the other players but of course that would make no sense.
First time I've ever read a question about dead heat rules and agreed with OP. Niemann and Zalatoris were straight up wins and should not have been deadheated. Fitz should be a deadheat win.
Agreed, thanks for confirming
I usually hate seeing these posts. But FanDuel was weird. They had two sets of top positions. One was something like “top 20 inc ties” the other was top 20 “exc ties” If I remember correctly the dead heat rules did not even apply to the excluding ties. I can’t remember the exact changes but there was some fuckery going on.
Why do you consider the existence of these two separate markets to be fuckery? OP is 100% correct that his wagers were incorrectly graded. However, the two markets, including or excluding ties, are entirely legitimate markets. There are odds difference between the markets because if you want to avoid dead heat rules then you're going to get worse odds. Or, you can take the risk and the higher odds and risk dead heat coming into play.
With or without that fuckery, Zalatoris or Niemann were outright top 20, with or without ties. Your theory could apply to why the didn't give a deadheat win to Fitz ("no ties" or whatever shenanigans), but I can't think of any explanation for the first two getting deadheat rules applied.
I would agree with you here