Riddle me this...........?

[yyz]

I don't know the logic behind this thinking, and perhaps someone here does:

"Why does a baseball wager count in a shortened game if you have the side, but not the total?"

Now, I need to clarify a bit.....

I understand if the game is called and the total has not been met, but if the total has already been decided, (gone over) why don't the books honor that play?

It can't make a bit of differance to them, and certainly benefits the guy who LOST the bet, but it is a slap in the face to the over bettor, who should get a win!

Do you agree?

------------------
"You didn't lose your girlfriend.....you just lost your turn!"

 

[RobertBIrish]

Well I think in all fairness if you aren't going to pay the guy that bet the under you shouldn't pay the guy that got the over, of course I used to book so I might be prejiduced LOL!

 

[yyz]

But the "under" can't be certain til all 9 innings are over.

If the "over" gets hit in the first inning, and it rains in the 9th, that seems a bit harsh!

 

[layinwood]

Robert, that is the first time I have ever heard a good reason why. I now agree with calling a total a no play.

 

[RobertBIrish]

I agree but you have rules so that everyone gets treated the same and if you aren't going to pay the guy that has the under then you shouldn't pay the guy that has the over as the rules are put their to keep it fair because you know how the world works as soon as you change the rule to favor the guy that has the over the guy that has the under will make the same argument.

 

[RobertBIrish]

Thanks layingwood and welcome to the board! I hope we all put up winners and beat down the man together!

 

[yyz]

Bob......all due respect, but they are not the same arguement.

How fair is it that the guy who had the 'under" in a 15-14 rain out in the 9th gets his money back on a bet he lost, and the "winner" gets screwed?

The fact is, to me, once the total goes "over" the bet should be complete. there is never a chance for the under to come back into play.

To me, it is far more fair to let the decision stand on the total, than it is to pay the side on a game that is called. End of 6 innings, 5-4 game, and you give the lead team the game? THAT is the wager that should be refunded!

 

[RobertBIrish]

How fair is that a guy that has a 1-0 rain out in the 9th not get paid it is the same exact argument I really doubt that it is going over I understand what you are saying believe me but the rules are their to keep it even on both sides.

 

[yyz]

I had the under in the Seattle rain out last week that was two outs from being done, and 6 runs under at the time, yet, I realized that it was still possible for the over to cover. Unlikely? Sure....but possible.

So, using your line of thought, why don't they refund all wagers on a called game?

That would seem the most fair.

Since it will never change, I guess it was dumb to bring up.

 

[RobertBIrish]

No not dumb! But a game is called complete on the side bet after 5 that is the rule and just like that is the rule so is the other on the total it has to be final to be a bet on the under or over.