I don't know why. I was told the rules hold up and that pool rule handles such matchups that are not one against one which is a bunch of crap and they know it.
They did tell me that the other side was graded as a winner. However, if that was incorrectly done, which it certainly is incorrect, then it isn't my fault.
They did tell me that the other side was graded as a winner. However, if that was incorrectly done, which it certainly is incorrect, then it isn't my fault.
royalfan - I still disagree with your take on this.
Rules have to be read "as written". The rule on point states "In props involving multiple players from each team all player are action unless otherwise specified on the wager."
It doesn't matter how what you think their intent was - the rule as written means that prop should have action. If you cannot count on a site's own rule to be read as written, there is no point to any internet site having rules. If that rule was not in existence though, the prop would be ambiguous and all players (winning, losing or pushing) have a gripe.
Was that rule there? I went back and checked ABC's site, and saw they had a 4th rule: "In Pool events all players are action." I'm 80% sure that rule wasn't there 24 hours ago; if they are making changes to their site in the middle of this discussions, then they might have added the rule I referenced.
On a related topic: what should a book do if it posts an ambiguous prop? Pretend you have a prop where you can bet on "event A" and "not event A". The prop looks clear, but something odd happens. Both sides have an argument on why they should win. What should a book do with that situation? I'm curious, and would like to see what people think.
Rules have to be read "as written". The rule on point states "In props involving multiple players from each team all player are action unless otherwise specified on the wager."
It doesn't matter how what you think their intent was - the rule as written means that prop should have action. If you cannot count on a site's own rule to be read as written, there is no point to any internet site having rules. If that rule was not in existence though, the prop would be ambiguous and all players (winning, losing or pushing) have a gripe.
Was that rule there? I went back and checked ABC's site, and saw they had a 4th rule: "In Pool events all players are action." I'm 80% sure that rule wasn't there 24 hours ago; if they are making changes to their site in the middle of this discussions, then they might have added the rule I referenced.
On a related topic: what should a book do if it posts an ambiguous prop? Pretend you have a prop where you can bet on "event A" and "not event A". The prop looks clear, but something odd happens. Both sides have an argument on why they should win. What should a book do with that situation? I'm curious, and would like to see what people think.
I respect daringly's opinion, I know he's an atty, plus a bit more about him, he's given me free advice before via e-mail. I think he gives fair analysis.
My personal take is no huge sums were involved on this prop, ABC can slip away quietly for not too much money here, refund the few losers that balk, and want a push, quietly rewrite the rules ( not sure if that was done ,d.)
How much money ( in relative terms) could have been written on this ? Certainly not a huge amount ! Rather obscure prop to start with !
Pay the other guy, and ABC should be done with it, they can keep the money from others entitled to a refund, that will never know it, but I question if any exist.
My personal take is no huge sums were involved on this prop, ABC can slip away quietly for not too much money here, refund the few losers that balk, and want a push, quietly rewrite the rules ( not sure if that was done ,d.)
How much money ( in relative terms) could have been written on this ? Certainly not a huge amount ! Rather obscure prop to start with !
Pay the other guy, and ABC should be done with it, they can keep the money from others entitled to a refund, that will never know it, but I question if any exist.
the INTENT of the prop is that ALL 4 PLAYERS PLAY
It was an ambigious prop in the sense that there SHOULD be a stipulation under the prop (all 4 must play).....
It is OBVIOUS that their INTENTION was that all 4 players play...It was not a 2 Players vs 1 play prop
Just like if you have WHO WILL SCORE MORE POINTS
SHAQ
YAO
Both players must play
Sounds a little hokey if you ask me
It was an ambigious prop in the sense that there SHOULD be a stipulation under the prop (all 4 must play).....
It is OBVIOUS that their INTENTION was that all 4 players play...It was not a 2 Players vs 1 play prop
Just like if you have WHO WILL SCORE MORE POINTS
SHAQ
YAO
Both players must play
Sounds a little hokey if you ask me
A few points:
* I alsways liked ABC Island for props when I played. Lots of scapling opportunities.
* If you ever have a problem, ask for Harvey. He can solve anything, and quickly.
* Same situation happened to me a few years back. Initial response from CS was that my side (loser) was graded loss, but the other side (winner) was graded as No Action. I told them that seemed blatantly unfair, that only the book could win and the players had no chance. CS did not really understand, but they kicked it to the higher ups. Wager was graded as No Action within 24 hours. I was pleased.
Glad it woked out for you.
* I alsways liked ABC Island for props when I played. Lots of scapling opportunities.
* If you ever have a problem, ask for Harvey. He can solve anything, and quickly.
* Same situation happened to me a few years back. Initial response from CS was that my side (loser) was graded loss, but the other side (winner) was graded as No Action. I told them that seemed blatantly unfair, that only the book could win and the players had no chance. CS did not really understand, but they kicked it to the higher ups. Wager was graded as No Action within 24 hours. I was pleased.
Glad it woked out for you.
My wager still wrongly graded as a loser. This was clearly a matchup and not a bulk pool wager and I should get my money back without question. Seems bizarre the player invloved would not get on here thanking the RX and stuff. I am curious what the circumstances were leading to the account closing. There is a missing piece to this puzzle and it would be nice if someone could clear it up.
In a side note, to show you how ridiculous their claim is, lets say Anderson and Bell both came down with food poisoning and it came out ten minutes before the game they weren't playing. Is ABC going to tell me that if I wagered on the Dallas backs it would be a winner as multiple players were involved and some played. Hell no. Same situation is applicable here. It obviously is not a fair line unless all play. They know that also but graded as to come out with the most money on the deal.
In a side note, to show you how ridiculous their claim is, lets say Anderson and Bell both came down with food poisoning and it came out ten minutes before the game they weren't playing. Is ABC going to tell me that if I wagered on the Dallas backs it would be a winner as multiple players were involved and some played. Hell no. Same situation is applicable here. It obviously is not a fair line unless all play. They know that also but graded as to come out with the most money on the deal.
daringly said:
daringly, not to be a dick about it, but that "rules have to be read as written" concept didn't seem to be your opinion in the F1/Olympic case, when you just wanted to see a "fair" result, despite the rules as written.
I actually had this exact thing earlier in the season at V-Wager. It was a 2-player vs. 2-player rushing yards prop. One of the players (on my side) did not play (though he was active and suited up). My single rusher easily covered the number vs. the opponents but V-Wager graded it no action. I was initially angry but the rule did say something like "all listed players must play for action" so I accepted the result because of the rule as written. I didn't think it was fair, but I lived with it.
I get your point D2 but even that is fairly cut and dry since one didn't play. Me not getting a refund here is much worse than that as he didn't suit up let alone play. Them trying to use the pool rule is ridiculous and to top it off nobody wanting to sort out the missing piece to the mysterious puzzle as to why one is refunded and another is not is very bothersome.
royalfan said:
Yeah, I think that "props involving multiple players is intended to cover props with gorups of unnamed players -- like team rushing yards, or passing yards...things like that. I think this is more in the mold of a "head to head" player prop even though it is 2 heads vs. 2 heads and even though the language of "both seems to indicate only two. I think there is some ambiguity here and which rule covers the situation, though I just looked at it now and haven't studied it all that closely.
Again, my v-wager thing was grossly unfair but I accepted the rule as written (Olympic graded that same prop also no action).
I wonder what daringly's opinion would be if in your prop you had found out that neither listed player would play and then played the other side. Wouldn it still be "rules as written" or would then it be "unfair" to the books because they couldn't win?
A little consistency is all I ask.
