Fletcher

[kcwolf]

Not denying the rule is questionable, but the rule has always been there.

And I do have a heart, and feel for anyone that had the over. It's the risk in playing a total, and I've been burned many times myself.

 

[yyz]

Wayne,

Does the rule make sense?


Most of us know that the rule is in place, the question is "why"?


Why do you "refund" a wager that has, for all intents and purposes, been decided?


I would love to see a book who has the stones to let the wager stand. That is to say.....change that stupid rule.

 

[shultz]

SOS is the same. Called this afternoon, cause had philly -1 1/2, said it did not go the 8 1/2. Got Jobbed.

 

[Gumby]

YYZ, I think it has to do with balancing money on both sides of the wager. For a game played with inclimate (sp) weather, if the game is called early, the under could never win. However, a game could go over the number if it was called before nine. It might lead to a disproportionate number of people playing the over on games that look to have bad weather and may not reach completion. In essence giving the bettor a freebie in games that would not reach nine (8.5) innings. Can't lose, but might win on games called early.
I certainly don't have the experience of many who post on this site, but that would be my guess.

P.S. I was bailed out on the under of the Philly game, but took a horrendous "beat" earlier in the year when I had Philly in the first five innings and after Cincy batted in the top of the fifth, Philly lead 5-3. The game was then called and my easy winner became a void.

 

[yyz]

Gumby,

That scenario wouldn't happen.


All bets would be returned if the total was not surpassed. (Same as you have now)

BUT if the total was passed, the bets should be paid/collected, as the rest of the game has no bearing on the total any longer.


It's really quite simple. The books make it difficult. It has no affect one way or the other on their bottom line. You can't get a "free ride" on this wager.

 

[heleanth]

The reason the rule is in place is just as Gumby put it:

The books would get flooded with over bets if the weather was predicted to be bad. No one (except the occasional uninformed) would ever bet an under when the weather is marginal.

Makes sense to me.

:shrug:

 

[yyz]

Okay, I am about ready to give up on you guys.


heleanth......please give me an example of what you mean. Show me how a book would get flooded with plays that would kill them, please.


If you are going to place a wager on a game soley with the hope that it will be rain shortened, then you have more dollars than sense.

 

[heleanth]

I don't know if any books would get "flooded" with over bets, but the point is this: If the books didn't have this rule, they would put themselves in a position where they could only lose. Everyone who was going to bet a total would, as a matter of procedure, not bet any unders when there was a chance that the game might not go the distance. Overs would be OK to play, since you can only win and not lose if the game is stopped.

If the forecast was for rain, I would say that the books would have the usual number of over bets (maybe a few more) and no under bets, if they had to pay off when the overs came in.

Anyway, I understand your point. But you know the books are never going to cut any slack for the player. I do understand their position, in this case.