| Recurring |
one_organization |
(a) The software failure incident having happened again at one_organization:
The incident involving the software glitch at Betfred where a gambler was not paid £1.7 million due to a malfunction in the blackjack game is a case of a software failure incident happening within the same organization. The bookmaker Betfred claimed that there was a 'glitch' in the software which led to the winnings being voided [106705]. This incident highlights a recurring issue within the organization's software systems.
(b) The software failure incident having happened again at multiple_organization:
There is no information in the provided articles indicating that a similar software failure incident has occurred at other organizations or with their products and services. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design |
(a) The software failure incident in the articles can be attributed to the design phase. Betfred claimed that there was a 'glitch' in the software which led to the jackpot win being voided. The glitch was related to the malfunction of the system in handling the trophy cards in the blackjack game, where the cards were not being reset as intended. This design flaw allowed for the accumulation of trophy cards, potentially leading to exponential growth in winnings for the player [106705, 106704].
(b) The software failure incident does not seem to be directly related to the operation phase or misuse of the system. The focus of the issue was on the design flaw in the software that caused the malfunction in handling the trophy cards, rather than any operational error or misuse by the player [106705, 106704]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system, outside_system |
(a) within_system: The software failure incident in the Betfred case was attributed to a glitch within the system itself. Betfred claimed that there was a 'defect' in the software that caused the issue. The glitch specifically involved the malfunction of 'trophy cards' in the blackjack game, which were not being reset as intended, leading to an exponential increase in potential winnings for the player [106705].
(b) outside_system: The software failure incident was also linked to external factors, such as the involvement of a software provider. Betfred mentioned a 'software glitch' that was blamed for the jackpot payout issue, indicating that the problem may have originated from the software provider rather than Betfred's own software [106704]. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions, human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident in this case was attributed to a glitch in the software used for the online blackjack game. Betfred claimed that there was a 'defect' in the software which led to the malfunction. The glitch specifically involved the 'trophy cards' not being reset as they should have been, causing them to accumulate and potentially lead to exponential growth in the player's pot [106705].
(b) On the human side, the gambler, Andrew Green, contested Betfred's claim of a software glitch and argued that no evidence of such a glitch was ever presented to him. He mentioned that Betfred congratulated him on his win and even advised him on managing his winnings before later retracting the payout due to the alleged software malfunction. Green also mentioned being offered a settlement with a non-disclosure agreement, which he turned down [106704]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
software |
(a) The software failure incident in the articles was primarily attributed to a software glitch rather than hardware issues. Betfred claimed that there was a 'software malfunction' which led to the jackpot, making the winnings void [106704]. The glitch was related to the software not resetting the 'trophy cards' as intended, causing them to accumulate and potentially lead to exponential winnings for the player [106705]. The issue was described as a defect in the software where the trophy cards were not being reset as they should have been, resulting in an abnormal gameplay situation [106705].
(b) The software failure incident was specifically linked to a software glitch in the system. The glitch in the software caused the jackpot to occur and subsequently led to the dispute over the payout [106704]. Betfred's lawyer mentioned that software can contain errors and defects, indicating that the root cause of the incident was a software issue [106705]. The glitch in the software resulted in the accumulation of 'trophy cards' in the game, which was not the intended behavior and led to the player's significant winnings being withheld [106705]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
non-malicious |
(a) The software failure incident in this case appears to be non-malicious. Betfred claimed that the £1.7 million payout to the gambler was void due to a 'software glitch' in the blackjack game [106704]. The glitch was described as a defect in the software where the 'trophy cards' were not being reset as intended, leading to an exponential growth in the player's pot if he continued playing [106705]. Betfred's lawyer mentioned that software can contain errors and defects, and in this case, the cards were meant to be random but were not [106705]. The gambler, Andrew Green, also mentioned that he was never presented with any evidence of the glitch that caused the payout issue [106704].
(b) The software failure incident does not appear to be malicious. There is no indication in the articles that the software glitch was introduced with the intent to harm the system or the player. Instead, it seems to be a case of unintended consequences resulting from a defect in the software. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions, accidental_decisions |
(a) The intent of the software failure incident related to poor_decisions:
- Betfred claimed there was a 'glitch' in the software that led to the jackpot win by Andrew Green being voided. The glitch involved the malfunction of the "trophy cards" in the game, which were not being reset as intended, leading to an exponential growth in potential winnings for the player [106705].
- Betfred's lawyer argued that there was a clause stating that winnings are void if a machine malfunctions, indicating a decision to protect the company from paying out in such situations [106705].
- Betfred's lawyer also mentioned that there are ways to protect against catastrophic losses caused by software defects, implying a decision to have safeguards in place to limit potential payouts [106705].
(b) The intent of the software failure incident related to accidental_decisions:
- Andrew Green, the gambler who won the £1.7 million jackpot, claimed that Betfred never presented any evidence of the software glitch that led to his winnings being voided. He stated that he was led to believe he had won the jackpot legitimately and was congratulated by Betfred before being informed of the glitch [106704].
- Mr. Green mentioned that he was offered £60,000 with a non-disclosure agreement, which he turned down, indicating a potential attempt to settle the issue without disclosing the details of the software glitch [106704].
- Mr. Green expressed frustration and disbelief at the situation, indicating that he felt robbed and devastated by the turn of events, suggesting that the failure was not intentional on his part [106704]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence |
(a) The software failure incident in the articles seems to be related to development incompetence. Betfred claimed that there was a 'glitch' in the software that led to the jackpot win being voided. The glitch was described as the trophy cards not being reset as they should have been, leading to an exponential growth in Mr. Green's potential winnings if he had continued playing [106705].
(b) The software failure incident could also be seen as accidental. Mr. Green, the gambler who won £1.7 million, claimed that no evidence of the software problem was ever presented to him. He mentioned that Betfred congratulated him on being a millionaire for five days before informing him of the software glitch that voided his winnings. Mr. Green stated that he never received any evidence of this glitch and was offered £60,000 with a non-disclosure agreement, which he turned down [106704]. |
| Duration |
temporary |
From the provided articles [106705, 106704], the software failure incident related to the blackjack game at Betfred can be categorized as a temporary failure. The incident was described as a 'software glitch' that occurred during the gameplay, leading to the jackpot win being voided. This temporary failure resulted in the company withholding the payout to the gambler, Andrew Green, who had won £1.7 million. The glitch was specifically mentioned as a contributing factor introduced by certain circumstances during the gameplay, rather than being a permanent issue with the software itself. |
| Behaviour |
crash, omission, value, other |
(a) crash: The software failure incident in the articles can be categorized as a crash as the system lost its state and did not perform its intended functions. The glitch in the software led to the jackpot winnings being voided, causing the system to crash and not pay out the £1.7 million to the gambler, Andrew Green [Article 106705, Article 106704].
(b) omission: The software failure incident can also be classified as an omission as the system omitted to perform its intended functions at an instance(s). The glitch in the software caused the system to omit paying out the winnings to Andrew Green, despite him winning the £1.7 million jackpot [Article 106705, Article 106704].
(c) timing: The timing of the software failure incident is not explicitly mentioned in the articles. However, it can be inferred that the system did not perform its intended functions correctly in terms of timing, as the glitch caused the jackpot winnings to be voided after Andrew Green had already won and expected to receive the payout [Article 106705, Article 106704].
(d) value: The software failure incident can be attributed to a failure in the system performing its intended functions incorrectly. The glitch in the software led to the system incorrectly handling the jackpot winnings, resulting in the failure to pay out the £1.7 million to Andrew Green [Article 106705, Article 106704].
(e) byzantine: The software failure incident does not exhibit characteristics of a byzantine failure where the system behaves erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions. The glitch in the software, in this case, led to a clear failure in paying out the winnings rather than exhibiting inconsistent behavior [Article 106705, Article 106704].
(f) other: The software failure incident can be considered as a case of a system behaving in a way not described in the options (a to e). In this instance, the software glitch resulted in the system failing to correctly handle the jackpot winnings, leading to a dispute between the gambler and the bookmaker regarding the payout [Article 106705, Article 106704]. |