I agree. The guys who lost just need to let it go. What they have to realize is if the books really did balance action, then they have 50% of their bettors happy and 50% no happy.
The books get paid by their juice. . .do these people not understand why the books wouldn't want to call all bets no action? It can't be really that hard to understand can it?
SIMPLE - Books don't get paid juice when all bets go no-action!
The books get paid by their juice. . .do these people not understand why the books wouldn't want to call all bets no action? It can't be really that hard to understand can it?
SIMPLE - Books don't get paid juice when all bets go no-action!
But the books would certainly have the incentive to grade one way or the other based on how much action they got on that particular game. From what I've read, MGM Mirage graded their wagers differently than the normal rule would indicate, so something tells me they had more Phillies action than Rays action. If they had more Phillies action than Rays action, they'd happily grade the bets no action.
Correct Illini,
I am just stating that the rule is that way because they want as much action as they can get. The more action the more juice. The wins/losses will even out so the rule they hold makes sense. In this particular game it obviously would have been more beneficial for them to cancel bets.
Am I off here?
