Ah, "google it," should have thought of that, lol, thanks. So I can chill with the Solzhenitsyn bit for now.
* * * *
In this page, at least, the $50K level was still there . . . but it does carry that July 19 update date that you mention . . . so maybe it's an archived version that's not fully up to date. I didn't dig deeper into other hits in the Google search.
https://dknetwork.draftkings.com/fa...ickem-contest-official-rules-terms-conditions
But I'd have to win that MegaMillions prize to even think about that level.
Interesting concept to have the tiered buy-in levels all operating within the one overall contest.
* * * *
Re: tearing down, get a load of these provisions in the rules:
8. By entering or participating in the Contest, Contestants: (i) agree to refrain from acting as a brand ambassador for, and from in any way promoting or endorsing for commercial purposes, any company other than DraftKings; . . .; (v) agree, at all times while participating in the Contest, to use their best efforts to uphold the good name, image, and reputation of DraftKings and to refrain from making any statements or engaging in conduct that could damage or bring into disrepute the name, image, and/or reputation of DraftKings; and . . . .
(See also Rule 5, where they can can you as a contestant for any reason, "including but not limited to" things you'd of course rightfully expect like fraud.)
So you can't go on social media and say good things about another contest (depending on what a "brand ambassador" is)?
And you can't say anything negative about the DraftKings contest?
As a contestant? I can see such requirements for someone employed by DraftKings. But a contestant????
When I was practicing, I always admired the management executives who pushed back against lawyer nonsense in documents (as well as the senior lawyers who pushed back against that sort of thing in drafts presented by junior lawyers). Just because an over-caffeinated (or worse) lawyer can think it doesn't mean it properly should go in the final document.
* * * *
In that general vein, if the "say something good, but . . ." formulation is specific to lawyers, then some women must be lawyers at heart.
As in, "You're nice, but . . . ."
Nice guys don't finish last, they're not even in the game.
* * * *
Consistent with my earlier discussion, I do like that Avello and DFK ("they're nice . . . ") are leading the way with a multi-state pool in the 16 jurisdictions where they're licensed to book traditional sports betting.
Again, maybe they've overplayed their hand vis-a-vis the Wire Act, or possibly instead they've got a potentially viable legal rationale that gets by the Wire Act issue that perhaps should be considered by the SuperBook, Circa and Nevada gaming.
Nevada gaming did look in 2018 or so at bets being placed from other states into Nevada -- perhaps due to the Nevada gaming industry wanting to try to preserve and secure market share before sports betting really proliferated following the Supreme Court decision overturning PASPA.
But I'm not sure that the legal issue necessarily is the same with regard to a multi-state contest pool where sports betting is legal in each one of the states in the multi-state pool.
So, yeah, I'm going to be hopefully constructively critical (as opposed to scorched earth shrill) of what I'd like to see done better in football contests. But Avello, et al. at DraftKings get a hat tip on carrying the ball at the moment with multi-state contest pools.
Last edited:
