What if it were a 1% fudge above normal? That's frequent. Is it the liability of the pundit to check global markets? A billion to one odd would be unusual grant

What if it were a 1% fudge above normal? That's frequent. Is it the liability of the pundit to check global markets? A billion to one odd would be unusual granted, but where is the cut off? Clearly this argument is not appropriate. Conversely, bookies do not have to take into account whether pundits are likely making a mistake. Betting schemes thrive on the appearance that the bookie made a mistake. Either way, the places I know limit possible wins (e.g. 1000$ for a bigger, casual one). And even if not, they should be allow to take bets only if they can back it up. That a pundit could not nullify the bet for the same reason is an edge the bank system abuses to no end. It's institutional. Since they don't have rigid rules for liability in computer security (e.g. in IOT and all the data ex-filtration cases) or code correctness only means the court would resort to opinionated decision on a case by case basis and precedent would only mean they can, not that they should, if the situation isn't exactly the same. There is bound to be precedent for exactly this case, which would open an avenue for abuse by the bookies. I don't think it's clear at all.