I know you are.
But the definition isnt if it is obvious to you, it's if it is obvious in normal bookmaking terms. It's mathematically obvious in that respect.
And we'll have to just agree to disagree about treating an obvious shot taker differently to someone making an innocent bet on a book's error.
I have used the argument that bettors took errors in good faith and the rules should be ignored to get them paid regularly.
But the definition isnt if it is obvious to you, it's if it is obvious in normal bookmaking terms. It's mathematically obvious in that respect.
And we'll have to just agree to disagree about treating an obvious shot taker differently to someone making an innocent bet on a book's error.
I have used the argument that bettors took errors in good faith and the rules should be ignored to get them paid regularly.