I'm not going to debate this any further because it would be fruitless; you have clearly made up your mind.
However, I will point out that it sounds like you'd demand the right to angleshoot without limitations. The rules and policies are in place for a reason.
Betting on a contract after the outcome is known is not only dishonest (read: fraud), it's also the equivalent of trading with inside knowledge on a stock exchange. A betting exchange is not just expected, but in fact required to void such trades.
And stock exchanges also have their policies about voiding (or "reversing") clearly erroneous trades. Such rules are not exercised often, but they will be invoked to protect the integrity of the market place. In case of a betting exchange, if the odds for a contract are clearly out of sync with reality, then trades made on that would be expected to have been done in bad faith. For example: football match is 75 minutes in, home team leads 4-0. No pending penalties or cards. If at that point there were quotes on the winner market which put home team on a 5% probability to win the game, those would be obviously erroneus.
Funnily enough - and this is not something many people would think about - if a betting exchange did not have policies and practices in place to handle such situations, they could be considered to be neglecting their AML (anti money-laundering) controls.
This thread has reached the limits of its purpose. I'll shut up now.
However, I will point out that it sounds like you'd demand the right to angleshoot without limitations. The rules and policies are in place for a reason.
Betting on a contract after the outcome is known is not only dishonest (read: fraud), it's also the equivalent of trading with inside knowledge on a stock exchange. A betting exchange is not just expected, but in fact required to void such trades.
And stock exchanges also have their policies about voiding (or "reversing") clearly erroneous trades. Such rules are not exercised often, but they will be invoked to protect the integrity of the market place. In case of a betting exchange, if the odds for a contract are clearly out of sync with reality, then trades made on that would be expected to have been done in bad faith. For example: football match is 75 minutes in, home team leads 4-0. No pending penalties or cards. If at that point there were quotes on the winner market which put home team on a 5% probability to win the game, those would be obviously erroneus.
Funnily enough - and this is not something many people would think about - if a betting exchange did not have policies and practices in place to handle such situations, they could be considered to be neglecting their AML (anti money-laundering) controls.
This thread has reached the limits of its purpose. I'll shut up now.