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
