Betting on the independence referendum has smashed all records for political events with as much as £12m being gambled across the UK betting industry.
One punter in London placed what has been described as "the biggest bet of the century" - £900,000.
The unnamed man, who has placed his money on a No vote, stands to collect a cool£1,093,333.33, if the Scottish electorate decides to reject independence.
Of course, if it is a Yes vote, he loses his entire £900,000 stake.
Britain's biggest bookmaker, William Hill, said it had taken £2,750,000 in bets on the outcome of the referendum.
"The referendum has surpassed all expectations for the total gambled with between £10m and £12m gambled industry-wide," said Graham Sharpe, William Hill's spokesman.
"However, perhaps the most extraordinary aspect has been that some 70 per cent of all bets placed have been for Yes but 70 per cent of all the money staked has been for No."
This, he underlined, meant that a "No vote will cost us rather a lot more than if it's a Yes vote".
Mr Sharpe also noted how the amount of money bet on the referendum for the first time had exceeded that placed on a top football match like, say, Liverpool versus Manchester City.
"That's unprecedented," he declared.
A No vote has been the favourite from day one of the campaign with odds as short as 1/12 and as long as 2/5 while a Yes vote has always been the outsider with odds as short as 7/4 but as long as 6/1.
Apart from the £900,000 bet, the largest for a No with William Hill has been one of £200,000 from a punter in Glasgow.
While the largest punt on a Yes vote has been £10,000, twice. The average bet is only about £10.
Meantime, Dundee is placed as the favourite to have the highest percentage of Yes votes at 4/6 while Dumfries and Galloway at 4/1 is the favourite to have the highest percentage of No votes.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article