In August 2023, Kris Benton bet on an obscure international women's soccer game, throwing up three long odds prop bets, all of which won.
This netted him $214k for a $3250 bet. Benton is a teacher, and not a pro sportsbettor.
There was public outrage over this, an attorney got involved, and BetMGM ended up paying the bet for publicity's sake.
But who was in the right? A description of the situation is here: https://www.actionnetwork.com/news/b...a-math-teacher
So basically Netherlands was the MUCH better team here, yet there were 66-1 props on things such as scoring first or having the most corner kicks.The bet, a same game parlay for Netherlands to have the most corners in their game against Vietnam (bet three times), a clean sheet (bet twice) and for Netherlands to score first had 66/1 odds, despite Netherlands being a -10000 favorite.
These bets should have been big favorites, not huge dogs.
Benton saw this and attempted to fire. I don't blame him for trying, but he can't cry foul when he doesn't get paid. This has long been the policy of offshore books, and legalized books are also typically allowed to invalidate bets when the odds are so egregiously wrong that the bettor is expected to know at the time he's placing the wager.
It is a similar legal concept to merchandise pricing.
If there is a laptop computer advertised for sale for $1020, but the store made a mistake and meant to advertise $1200, they have to honor it. This is because a reasonable person could believe a $1200 laptop might be on sale for $1020. However, if the $1200 laptop is advertised as being on sale for $12, the store could refuse to honor it, stating that this was an obvious mistake that any consumer would know must be a misprint.
These laws and regulations exist to protect businesses from catastrophic losses due to massive pricing misprints or malfunctions. I agree that this is fair.
In short, no hate on Benton for trying this angle, but he shouldn't have cried foul when it didn't work. I guess it paid off, though.
Reply With Quote
