The spirit of the rule means you should have got a push. There is no question about that. The rule they are using to grade it as a loss is the multiple player rule, which is intended for things such who will score the first TD in the game or who will hit the first home run and things like that. They have simply copied and pasted a line from Olypic here and then tried to sabatoge the situation IMO. I assume they will make it right as they have always been a good book but I will lose a lot of respect for them if they don't.
es125, you are getting screwed over big time. Of course all 4 players have to play to have action. Its crooked to say otherwise.
royalfan is correct about the pool rule. The pool rule does not apply to match-up bets. ABC Islands better rectify this or they will move into shit book status.
royalfan is correct about the pool rule. The pool rule does not apply to match-up bets. ABC Islands better rectify this or they will move into shit book status.
royalfan said:
Seems to me should have graded the other side a winner already, since they graded this guy's side as a loser. Tough to take it back, now !
Fish seems to think if taken literally by THEIR rules, ABC can let present grading stand, although it would be bad publicity.
Interesting if we were argueing this the other way ?
Nobody would be arguing it the other way. With Bell in street clothes, Dayne & Anderson alternating series, the guy had almost no chance to win his bet. I have never seen a book rule it a loser when one of the players in a pair match-up was scratched from the game.
ABC Islands is using the pool match-up rule which clearly does not apply in this bet. The player is being screwed over.
ABC Islands is using the pool match-up rule which clearly does not apply in this bet. The player is being screwed over.
If Fishhead interprets their rules that way is he also saying that had Anderson and Bell BOTH not played that the wager would still stand due to their multiple player rule that is intended to be for pool type wagers? That would be insane but that would have to be the ruling in that situation also then. That rule would be the dumbest ever as they would be completely exposed in that situation. They know what the correct ruling is but took advantage of the players here if it isn't corrected as they likely had more money that way.
I hate to say this, but their rules cover this situation. Under the props header, they have these rules:
"Football, Basketball and Hockey player props:
Head to head player props both players must play in the game to have action.
In props involving multiple players from each team all player are action unless otherwise specified on the wager."
The third rule covers what happened. While it could be written more clearly, you know how your prop will be graded if you read it. Their rule is different from other books, but it is listed.
Was this rule in existence when you made the bet?
"Football, Basketball and Hockey player props:
Head to head player props both players must play in the game to have action.
In props involving multiple players from each team all player are action unless otherwise specified on the wager."
The third rule covers what happened. While it could be written more clearly, you know how your prop will be graded if you read it. Their rule is different from other books, but it is listed.
Was this rule in existence when you made the bet?
