White xmas

[Dice Man]

That's exactly what happened ITT, where a guy bet on the conjunction of two dependent propositions, i.e. if either of them came true it was more likely that the other would as well. It's a bit poor practice for them to take these bets and then void them later, but it's probably written into the terms and conditions somewhere that they can. The cost of having somebody on hand all the time to tell whether bets are dependent before they get processed is probably too much. There's no way that guy will be able to claim breach of contract for millions of pounds even if there are no terms and conditions relating to the illegitimacy of accumulators on dependent bets.

[swinebag22]

This is why football scorecast bets exist (where you pick first goal scorer and a correct score)

You are never able to have an accumulator from first goalscorer and correct score matkets.

[rfph1]

yeah, pretty obvious really. The guy has no chance of getting the money. Just think about it simplified - if the chance of it snowing on my house tomorrow is 10:1, the same as on my neighbours, and all the other houses on the street, then an accumulator bet on the 10 houses on my street enables me to obtain a 1000000000:1 payout for what would be a 10:1 chance.