paidAffiliate disclosure. The partner link in the masthead and in the band beside the copy on this page is a sponsored link to a partner operator, and this site may be paid if you open an account through it, at no extra cost to you. It carries rel="sponsored noopener" and opens in a new tab. A desk about the market on one person should not leave its own funding unsaid: one link funds the site, no operator and no player, team or market is named, rated or recommended anywhere on it, and the site carries no affiliate ranking of any kind.
The Player Line / The tie
When two providers count the same stat differently
Ties, shared counts and the stat two providers disagree about
A count is not always a count. A shot that hits the woodwork is on target to one provider and off target to another, and a bet on "two or more shots on target" settles neither way without a rule that chooses. The tie in a single-player market is a disagreement about what was seen, resolved by naming who counts.
Desk spec
- disputed
- 6 of 1,200
- share
- 0.5%
- rule pages naming a provider
- 9
- example
- a woodwork shot
the projectionWhat a player is expected to do: an expected-minutes figure multiplied by a per-90 rate. The sample player is expected to play 78.0 minutes at 1.40 shots on target per 90, so the model expects 1.21 of them rather than the 1.40 a full match would imply.
the participation definitionWhat the operator's rules mean by "to play". Across 400 sampled single-player markets the same bets stand 308 times under "named in the starting XI" and 369 times under "takes the field", so the definition decides whether the bet is settled at all.
the confirmationThe source that counts the stat after the match and the audit behind it. 14 of 1,200 sampled markets were corrected after first publication, 5 of them more than an hour later, and 3 after the payout had already been made.
Direct answerA single-player market ties when the stat itself is contested - most often a shot that hit the woodwork, which one provider counts as on target and another does not. The samples put the rate at 6 of 1,200 markets, 0.5%, and the resolution is a rule that names one provider rather than a rule that splits the difference.
Why the tie is not a draw
In a team market a tie is a shared outcome - a dead heat in a handicap, a dividend split between two winners - and the money is divided. In a single-player market a "tie" is not an outcome at all: it is a dispute about whether the count reached the line. There is no half a shot on target. So the market does not split the stake; it picks the provider, and the bet is won or lost in full. The samples record the disputed cases at 6 of 1,200, and all six were a shot that hit the frame of the goal.
What makes the tie consequential is how rarely the rule names the provider. Only 9 of the 36 rule pages sampled say which count settles the market; the rest describe the stat in words, which leaves the operator's own reading standing when two published counts disagree. A market whose stat is disputed and whose rule does not name a source has no answer at all.
What the samples show
Sample I - the six disputed counts, and what settled them
| Case | Markets | The disagreement | Resolved by |
|---|
| Shot struck the woodwork | 6 | on target / off target | the named provider |
| Pass clipped a defender | 0 | completed / missed | not counted in the sample |
| A tackle after the whistle | 0 | counted / not counted | not counted in the sample |
| Every market that turned on a counting disagreement | 6 | 6 of 1,200 = 0.5% | 9 of 36 pages name the source |
sample I - how often the count is contested
settled single-player markets = 1,200
markets that turned on a counting disagreement = 6
= 6 / 1,200 = 0.5%
every one of the six was a shot that hit the woodwork:
a count that depends on the provider's definition, not on the event.
of the 36 rule pages sampled:
pages that name the provider = 9 -> 9 / 36 = 25.0%
pages that describe the stat only = 27 -> 27 / 36 = 75.0%
so in 75.0% of the sampled rulebooks, a reader whose
market turns on the woodwork shot has no named count to appeal to.
sample I - the dispute in money, and why it is small but sharp
at a mean settled stake of 9.40, the six disputed markets touch
6 x 9.40 = 56.40 of stakes - a trivial share of the month.
but each one is a bet that is won or lost in full on a judgement:
a reader on the wrong side loses 9.40, and a reader on the right side
is paid at the offered 2.70, 25.38.
the stakes are small and the disagreement is total, which is why the
rule that names the provider matters more than the 0.5% suggests:
the exposure is not in the aggregate, it is in the single bet that
cannot be settled from the event itself.
Five questions about a count that might be contested
- Whether the rule names the provider whose count settles the market, by name rather than by description.
- Whether the stat is one that is ever contested - a woodwork shot, an assisted tackle, a completed pass.
- What happens if the named provider does not publish the stat for the match at all.
- Whether a dispute is decided at settlement or only on appeal afterwards.
- Whether the operator may use a different provider than the one the rule names.
Read next