Latest news with #DraftKingsInc.
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Iowa bettor sues over $14.2 million in ‘winnings' tied to rain-shortened golf tournament
(Photo by) An Iowa man who was watching weather forecasts and placing bets on what was shaping up to be a rain-shortened golf tournament is now suing to collect his $14.2 million in purported 'winnings.' Nicholas Bavas, a resident of Dallas County, is suing DraftKings Inc., a sports gambling website, and its subsidiary Crown IA Gaming, which is licensed by the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission to conduct sports wagering within the state. Bavas claims the defendants unfairly voided the bets he placed on the 2024 AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am golf tournament as rain threatened to cut short play after 54 holes. Aware there was a good chance of the final round being canceled, and with DraftKings still accepting bets on the tournament's outcome, bettors around the country, Bavas included, put their money on competitors then in the lead. The lawsuit alleges DraftKings applies a 'dizzying array of interlocking sets of rules that may or may not govern each bet depending on the type of wager placed, the specific event, and the particular sport … However, when DraftKings makes an error or accepts a bet it should not have, or when unforeseen events occur that require an unanticipated large pay out by DraftKings, then it seems different rules apply.' According to the lawsuit, Bavas placed five bets on the outcome of the Pebble Beach Pro-Am golf tournament in the late hours of Feb. 3 as historic rains and winds threatened to suspend all play. Shortly after 10 p.m. on Feb. 3, 2024, Bavas allegedly placed a $100 bet, which DraftKings accepted. The bet was a '20 Picks' parlay, in which the bettor chooses multiple competitors who must place as designated for the bet to pay out. Bavas selected the leading competitor, Wyndham Clark, as the tournament winner, and his other picks for the top finishers aligned with their rankings at that moment. At the time DraftKings accepted that bet, the lawsuit claims, DraftKings promised to pay Bavas $4,651,571 if every one of Bavas' picks were correct. At 10:18 p.m., Bavas wagered $25 on a different type of parlay in which he simply picked the top 20 finishers in no particular order, for a potential payout of $250,068. At 11:22 p.m., Bavas placed a third bet, this time for $50, that otherwise was identical to the first bet. That bet had an alleged payout of $2,325,786. At 11:59, he placed a fourth bet, identical to the first, for $100, with a $4,651,571 payout. Two minutes later, at 12:01 a.m. he placed a fifth bet, for $50, identical to his third bet, with a $2,325,786 payout. If he had lost the bet and said, 'I want my money back because I didn't think the weather was going to cancel things,' DraftKings would have kept his money, – Ben Lynch, attorney for Nicholas Bavas Later in the day on Feb. 4, 2024, PGA Tour referees continually delayed the scheduled start of the final round of tournament play due to rain and wind. At 9:15 p.m. that evening, the PGA Tour's rules committees announced there would be no play the following day and so the tournament results would be considered final through the conclusion of the 54 holes already played — which, Bavas' lawsuit claims, resulted in all five of his bets being winners, for a total potential payout of $14.2 million. However, the lawsuit alleges, DraftKings 'unilaterally voided' all five of his bets and refunded the wagered amounts, citing rules that say 'futures bets' placed after the last shot of what is later determined to be the final round are voided. Bavas' lawsuit alleges the cited rule doesn't appear to apply to bets on multiple players, as was the case with Bavas' parlay wagers. 'Had Bavas wanted to place a bet on only the single individual 'player' who would 'win the trophy' and become the 'tournament winner,' he would have done so,' the lawsuit claims, arguing that even if DraftKings could 'void' the portions of bets 1 through 4 that selected the tournament winner as Wyndham Clark, the odds should have been recalculated to reflect the remaining selections. The lawsuit seeks damages for breach of contract and violations of consumer-protection laws. Bavas' attorney, Ben Lynch of Clive, said it's worth noting that had Bavas bet on other golfers to win or place in a rain-shortened tournament, DraftKings would not have allowed him to cancel his bet after the fact and claim a refund. 'If he had lost the bet and said, 'I want my money back because I didn't think the weather was going to cancel things,' DraftKings would have kept his money,' Lynch said. 'The rules that DraftKings had in place at the time of the tournament did not allow them to void the bets. They changed the rules after this tournament.' Bavas wasn't the only person who guessed that weather would result in a rain-shortened pro-am. DraftKings sparked outrage on social media when it retroactively voided all bets placed after the close of play on Feb. 3, 2024. DraftKings and Crown IA Gaming have yet to file a response to the lawsuit, which was first filed in state court before being transferred to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. Stephen Miraglia, senior director of communications for DraftKings, declined to comment on the lawsuit. According to the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission, DraftKings accepted $838 million in bets from Iowans in 2023 and retained almost $70 million in revenue.
Bloomberg
05-04-2025
- Sport
- Bloomberg
Few Cinderellas Puts Sportsbooks' March Madness Earnings at Risk
Takeaways NEW This year's March Madness was anything but mad. For just the second time ever, all four number one seeds in the NCAA Division 1 men's basketball championship advanced to the Final Four. While it's a boon for bettors, who tend to pick the popular teams, it's a disaster for gambling companies like DraftKings Inc. and FanDuel parent Flutter Entertainment PLC, which count on a few stunning upsets to boost their first-quarter earnings.
Yahoo
15-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
DraftKings Inc. (NASDAQ:DKNG) Just Reported And Analysts Have Been Lifting Their Price Targets
The investors in DraftKings Inc.'s (NASDAQ:DKNG) will be rubbing their hands together with glee today, after the share price leapt 27% to US$53.49 in the week following its yearly results. Revenues came in at US$4.8b, in line with expectations, while statutory losses per share were substantially higher than expected, at US$1.05 per share. Following the result, the analysts have updated their earnings model, and it would be good to know whether they think there's been a strong change in the company's prospects, or if it's business as usual. Readers will be glad to know we've aggregated the latest statutory forecasts to see whether the analysts have changed their mind on DraftKings after the latest results. Check out our latest analysis for DraftKings Taking into account the latest results, the most recent consensus for DraftKings from 29 analysts is for revenues of US$6.42b in 2025. If met, it would imply a substantial 35% increase on its revenue over the past 12 months. DraftKings is also expected to turn profitable, with statutory earnings of US$0.57 per share. Yet prior to the latest earnings, the analysts had been anticipated revenues of US$6.38b and earnings per share (EPS) of US$0.57 in 2025. So it's pretty clear that, although the analysts have updated their estimates, there's been no major change in expectations for the business following the latest results. The consensus price target rose 6.1% to US$54.81despite there being no meaningful change to earnings estimates. It could be that the analystsare reflecting the predictability of DraftKings' earnings by assigning a price premium. Fixating on a single price target can be unwise though, since the consensus target is effectively the average of analyst price targets. As a result, some investors like to look at the range of estimates to see if there are any diverging opinions on the company's valuation. There are some variant perceptions on DraftKings, with the most bullish analyst valuing it at US$75.00 and the most bearish at US$35.00 per share. Note the wide gap in analyst price targets? This implies to us that there is a fairly broad range of possible scenarios for the underlying business. Of course, another way to look at these forecasts is to place them into context against the industry itself. We would highlight that DraftKings' revenue growth is expected to slow, with the forecast 35% annualised growth rate until the end of 2025 being well below the historical 46% p.a. growth over the last five years. By way of comparison, the other companies in this industry with analyst coverage are forecast to grow their revenue at 9.9% annually. Even after the forecast slowdown in growth, it seems obvious that DraftKings is also expected to grow faster than the wider industry. The most obvious conclusion is that there's been no major change in the business' prospects in recent times, with the analysts holding their earnings forecasts steady, in line with previous estimates. Fortunately, they also reconfirmed their revenue numbers, suggesting that it's tracking in line with expectations. Additionally, our data suggests that revenue is expected to grow faster than the wider industry. There was also a nice increase in the price target, with the analysts clearly feeling that the intrinsic value of the business is improving. Following on from that line of thought, we think that the long-term prospects of the business are much more relevant than next year's earnings. We have estimates - from multiple DraftKings analysts - going out to 2027, and you can see them free on our platform here. You can also view our analysis of DraftKings' balance sheet, and whether we think DraftKings is carrying too much debt, for free on our platform here. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Sign in to access your portfolio
