Doesn't less likely = longer odds?
I mean I realise that him taking the money means he won even when his bet didn't come in, but it seems back to front to me that as something gets less likely you stand to win less money.
But why would you get more money from cashing out when it's looking likelier that you will lose the bet, as opposed to when you're looking relatively safe to win it?
Because you're liable to lose it completely if Everton equalise. The risk increases, which is the whole principle behind betting, surely.
From the betting companies point of view, the chance you'll cash out at Man U 4-2 Everton is pretty slim, therefore they can stand to offer a larger proportion of what you'd stand to win. As soon as it goes to 4-3 and Everton look like they might get a draw from the game, more people will think about cashing out and therefore they offer you a lower amount to compensate for that fact. You have to remember the betting company holds all the power here, and it's a bit like Ashley-style brinksmanship in that they can offer a fairly naff sum to you and you'll still consider it because the chance of ending up with nowt is far greater.