- May 22, 2018
- AFL Club
- West Coast
I think this is the bit that could screw SB. If the market was simply a single of "no player to get 40+ in this round @120" (the non boosted odds price people use) they could claim it was an obvious error and meant to be @12. But since it was actually 9 legs that when looked at individually can be described as "generous odds" they might not be able to claim it as an abvious error.If taken in isolation, getting $1.50 or so for no player under 40 in a match, isn't a wild stretch (i.e. no obvious error) from a casual perspective.
However, the multiplying effects of a bet that has odds thereabouts makes the payout large.
(Along with the fact they continued to change odds and counted 'yes' bets as losses)