A Texas bettor’s calculated gamble on a rain‑shortened golf tournament has evolved into a high‑stakes courtroom showdown. In early 2024, Nicholas Bavas of Dallas County, Iowa, placed five parlay bets with DraftKings based on the projected leaderboard at the AT&T Pebble Beach Pro‑Am.
Confident that bad weather would halt the final round, he locked in his picks; including winner Wyndham Clark–matching the top‑20 finishers in their exact order.
According to Des Moines Register:
10:18 p.m.– Bavas wagered $25 on a parlay picking the top 20 finishers in any order, with a potential $250,068 payout.
11:22 p.m.– He placed a $50 parlay identical to his first bet, worth up to $2.3 million.
11:59 p.m.– A $100 repeat of the same parlay pushed the possible payout to $4.65 million.
12:01 a.m.– His final $50 ticket mirrored the earlier $50 bet, again carrying a $2.3 million return.
When the PGA Tour called the tournament at 54 holes, those bets lined up perfectly for a staggering $14.2 million payday. But DraftKings refused to pay. Instead, it voided the wagers and refunded his stakes, citing its “Tournament Futures Winner” rule.
The fallout sparked outrage. Bavas responded by suing the sportsbook for breach of contract and consumer fraud. Filing in U.S. District Court in Iowa, he argues that the rule applied to single-winner futures; not complex parlays like his. Thus, even if the “winner” part of each bet was voided, the remaining picks should have been recalculated and paid out accordingly.
DraftKings Pushes Back with Fine Print and Legal Defenses
DraftKings hasn’t held back in its defense. In a sprawling 52‑page filing, the company listed 19 separate affirmative defenses, including the claim that Bavas “knowingly accepted the risk” that unforeseen circumstances could affect odds or payouts. Their position hinges on the user’s agreement to DraftKings’ terms of use–language that, they assert, absolves them of liability in such situations.
Further, the company accuses Bavas of acting in bad faith, suggesting he is exploiting contractual loopholes for financial gain. The filing claims that he either misinterpreted the fine print or is deliberately using precise contractual language to undermine DraftKings’ contractual protections. In their view, Bavas’ claim is less about gambling strategy and more about gaming the system.
Fair Play vs. Fine Print
At its core, this dispute underscores the tension between customer expectations and legal fine print. Bavas maintains that if players lose under rain-shortened conditions, DraftKings offers no refunds. Yet when a win materializes–albeit complicated by weather and timing; the same rules are wielded to void bets. His lawyers argue this inconsistency demonstrates unfair treatment and possible consumer-protection violations.
“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,” Bavas’ attorney, Ben 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.”
What’s at Stake Beyond the Dollars
On the flip side, DraftKings leans on long-established terms that bettors accept when opening accounts. That contractual backdrop gives sportsbooks legal latitude to void bets under certain defined circumstances; even if doing so seems unsporting to outsiders. The case is now a test of how much weight fine print carries when public perceptions of fair play collide with contractual protections.
The $14.2 million payout claim is massive. But beyond the figure lies broader implications for sports betting. Bettors who rely on research, like predicting weather outcomes, may now question whether sportsbooks will honor those insights. Casinos and sportsbooks might tighten their rules or change how they communicate risk. Meanwhile, regulators and courts may need to more closely scrutinize how terms of service are presented and enforced.
Currently, there’s no trial date set. Reports indicate that the case was originally filed in June, but media outlets suggest proceedings could extend into 2026. For golf fans and gamblers alike, this is more than just a legal battle; it’s an evolving drama that could redefine the relationship between bettors and the platforms they trust.
Like Heavy Sports’s content? Be sure to follow us.
This article was originally published on Heavy Sports
The post DraftKings Faces Heat for Shutting Down $14 Million Golf Win appeared first on Heavy Sports.