I had emailed Pinny previously on the home/away runs as the same thing happened to me. They emailed me the section of thier rules that clearly showed they will cancel that bet if any game does not go the full distance. Kinda makes sense as they are making the lines based on the full game results. If a game ends prematurely it ends any "come back" runs.
If you get wager webs home / away runs play within 2 minutes of it coming up you can get a scalp almost every day with the same play at Pinny.
If you get wager webs home / away runs play within 2 minutes of it coming up you can get a scalp almost every day with the same play at Pinny.
Doug, for the 500th time, the bet was not a runs bet. The game is a completed game in the books. The amount of runs can be cancelled all they want. The bet was the away teams. Do I expect them to change it, no I don't. But the rule should be clearer with regard to home and away, not simply runs.
Rule four under props http://www.pinnaclesports.com/wageringinfo.asp#Baseball
This total is kind of like a grand salami. .. .
Total Away Runs vs Total home runs
Because the home team did not get thier full number of at-bats in because of the rain. This is fair in my opinion. You got on the wrong side of this one to be happy!
If you were on home teams and they didnt refund the loss you would have been e-mailing them because the home team got 6 less outs.
Total Away Runs vs Total home runs
Because the home team did not get thier full number of at-bats in because of the rain. This is fair in my opinion. You got on the wrong side of this one to be happy!
If you were on home teams and they didnt refund the loss you would have been e-mailing them because the home team got 6 less outs.
Kruser6 said:
No I wouldn't, because that would be the same as me complaining I lost on the Marlins for it not going the distance on the ML.
If it's considered a prop bet, it should at least be listed as a prop bet and listed in the prop bet/futures section which it wasn't.
Tony,
Tough beat there, but I have to agree with Doug on the interpretation of the rules....
As for the logic of it, there is some, albeit very nitpicky...
If a game is shortened, then it doesn't affect which side is more likely to win, but it does affect the WEIGHT which is applied to that game compared to the others because the expected run differential in favor of the favorite will be lower.
Tough beat there, but I have to agree with Doug on the interpretation of the rules....
As for the logic of it, there is some, albeit very nitpicky...
If a game is shortened, then it doesn't affect which side is more likely to win, but it does affect the WEIGHT which is applied to that game compared to the others because the expected run differential in favor of the favorite will be lower.
Come to think of it the same logic applies to regular ML plays because the longer the game, the more likely the favorite's strength advantage will show through.
If the game were to last 1000 innings, then the chances of the favorite winning will be very close to 100% while if it only lasted 1 inning then it would be mostly luck and closer to 50-50.
This means that if you know there is a good chance the game will be shortened, then the dog becomes a more attractive bet, assuming it's not already priced into the line. If it is priced into the line and you argue that that's the way it should be, then I could argue that the RL's and totals should work the same way.
So technically you could justify canceling moneyline wagers also. I guess the reason ML plays are not cancelled is that the effect of the game shortening is small compared to the RL and total. Also the volume is larger which gives the books more incentive to make the bets stand since they make their juice when it stands, as opposed to breaking even on pushes. The players may prefer it too making it better for everyone.
So the conclusion here is that Tony gets a push because of the rules which are based on subjective considerations and not purely on logic.
The key to whether any scamming took place is whether anyone ever lost a similar bet when at least one game was shortened. Knowing Pinnacle I'd say the answer is probably no.
If the game were to last 1000 innings, then the chances of the favorite winning will be very close to 100% while if it only lasted 1 inning then it would be mostly luck and closer to 50-50.
This means that if you know there is a good chance the game will be shortened, then the dog becomes a more attractive bet, assuming it's not already priced into the line. If it is priced into the line and you argue that that's the way it should be, then I could argue that the RL's and totals should work the same way.
So technically you could justify canceling moneyline wagers also. I guess the reason ML plays are not cancelled is that the effect of the game shortening is small compared to the RL and total. Also the volume is larger which gives the books more incentive to make the bets stand since they make their juice when it stands, as opposed to breaking even on pushes. The players may prefer it too making it better for everyone.
So the conclusion here is that Tony gets a push because of the rules which are based on subjective considerations and not purely on logic.
The key to whether any scamming took place is whether anyone ever lost a similar bet when at least one game was shortened. Knowing Pinnacle I'd say the answer is probably no.
Darryl Parsons said:
Exactly!!! It's completely subjective what is considered action or what is considered a push.
Was there a ML advantage when betting Atlanta last night. Taking the ML road team in a game that might get rained out might be considered that. You know you're at least getting the same amount of innings as the home team and maybe, a 1/2 inning more.
(as in the Braves game last night.) Those people cashed. Why then?
Just as many times as not, the books are hoping the games go their required innings because at least half of the time more or less, they need your side (that got cancelled)! I commiserate with all the over players (and likewise the home/away salami players) when a game has already gone over when it was cancelled earlier than 8 and 1/2 innings(obviously with the home team ahead). I don't know how many times I have had to listen to a player rant on and on and on how he already won his total play, and it's not fair. Well, we know, like I said, about half the time the book was wishing the same thing because our decision would have been going our way! Good or bad, we have rules and must stand by them. P.S. That is a good point about the home/away salami though, I guess we could see a rule change there that if the home team finishes its' half of an inning the home/away salami stands. Or do like our rule on the side, if the home team does not complete its' at bat the scoring on the home/away salami reverts to the last completed inning! Thanks to all!:toast:
