Exactly...at 2:11 for hILLary, you look at the total wagers and compare them to the bets for Trump at 9:2 and see where the lowest risk is before you end up losing your shirt.
If I had bet Trump I would be very angry that they paid out before it was over. Especially, if Trump wins. It amounts to theft.
You took my bet, declared a winner before it was over, paid them out, and stiffed me who actually won. How is that not theft?
They paid out those who bet on a Hillary win. If trump wins, those who bet on a Trump win would also be paid out, the contract is not cancelled.
Read Paddy Power’s article on their website, it’s actually fairly balanced. Says they’ve gotten decisions wrong before and if Trump wins it will trigger the biggest payout in political betting history and leave very expensive pie on their faces.
This is a free publicity move to attract more gamblers for their much more lucrative sports book. Paddy could have also insured themselves against a Trump win as well given the low odds.
hmmm...welll I guess I assumed that the Trump bets remained open, and that the early pay outs for her were sort of optional (ie, both parties to the bet have to agree to get paid now, thus giving both parties something now...though they might get more later depending on how the bet played out....sort of like early retirement).
I confess though that I didn’t look too closely at the particulars.
If in fact they paid out to ALL “winners” of the bet, and kept the money from those who bet on our guy....you are so right. How could that be legal? Doesn’t make sense (unless of course in the context of the contract pursuant to which the better makes the bet, the house always has an option to close it down when it looks like their exposure is getting out of control.....note that there are no default swaps in the betting world...which probably shows why banking crises are limited to large banks, not comparatively legitimate operations like betting houses!).