Reply from Independent Betting Adjudication Service
We do understand your disappointment
with this situation.
For the benefit of readers, the reviewer placed a bet with a
bookmaker on a player to score MORE than one goal in a football match. The official
data agency for the league in question determined that the player had only scored ONLY
one goal.
Then, two days later, they updated their data to say - after review - that
the player had actually scored two goals.
The IBAS Adjudication Panel accepted the
bookmaker's argument that there needs to be a cut off point for all bets, otherwise no
bet would ever be closed in case data was amended at a later date. The cut off point
used by this bookmaker was the final whistle of the match.
The bookmaker's rules
clarified that any subsequent changes to match results/data would not affect the
settlement of bets.
As a result the reviewer had good reason to consider themselves
unlucky. Had the data provider credited the second goal to the player on the day he
would have won his bet. The delay in changing that data caused his bet - which would
have been a winner - to be a loser.
However, bad luck is not the same as unfairness. In
this case, another player was credited with the second goal and people who bet on that
player to score will have been lucky. The reviewer was unlucky. But we did not agree
that he was treated unfairly.
Kind regards
Richard
IBASTEAM