You can’t have accumulator bets on the weather of neighboring regions…

… because “if it snows in one city, it’s likely to snow in another city.” In other words, these weren’t independent events.

Via Barry Ritholtz (author of Bailout Nation)

About Chris F. Masse

Founder and President of Midas Oracle
This entry was posted in Betting and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to You can’t have accumulator bets on the weather of neighboring regions…

  1. An interesting case. Obviously the Ladbrokes policy of not taking accumulator bets on “novelty wagers” is reasonable, for just the reason noted, pricing them is much more complicated than pricing accumulator bets over independent events and they didn’t have a mechanism to price them fairly. (This is, of course, exactly what created the opportunity that the bettor was pursuing.)

    I wonder, has the company ever repaid a wager that was erroneously accepted contrary to policy after the events wagered upon had concluded? Or is their real policy to take the money and keep it if the wager doesn’t pay, and offer a very small payout as ‘settlement’ when such wagers actually turn out to win? Perhaps they want to argue, after the fact, that the payout should be at an amount closer to a fair bet on this series of non-independent novelty bets. But, of course, the bettor was attractor to the accumulator bets specifically because he saw an opportunity for a big payoff.

Leave a Reply