I never understood why a game like tonight's Phillies-Reds game should have no action on totals. Would the extra half inning played affect the total? It's already over and it's an official game. I didn't have a play on the total on this game but feel for those that had an easy over taken away from them. Any thoughts?
Consensus rule for totals:
When wagering on total runs (over/under) the game must go 9 innings (8.5 if the home team is ahead) to have action. If a game is called or suspended in extra innings, the score will be determined after the last full inning unless the home team scores to tie, or takes the lead in the bottom half of the inning, in which case the score is determined at the time the game is called.
wil.
When wagering on total runs (over/under) the game must go 9 innings (8.5 if the home team is ahead) to have action. If a game is called or suspended in extra innings, the score will be determined after the last full inning unless the home team scores to tie, or takes the lead in the bottom half of the inning, in which case the score is determined at the time the game is called.
wil.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wilheim:
The rule is simply a buyer beware rule. Know it exists before you wager, and really there is no room to beef. Suppose this game was 1-0 when it was called, is that not an equally bad beat as the over tonight?
wil.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Almost as bad.....however there was NO WAY this game could go under tonight if it was completed, in the other example there is a miniscule chance of it still going over.
The rule is simply a buyer beware rule. Know it exists before you wager, and really there is no room to beef. Suppose this game was 1-0 when it was called, is that not an equally bad beat as the over tonight?
wil.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Almost as bad.....however there was NO WAY this game could go under tonight if it was completed, in the other example there is a miniscule chance of it still going over.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DougJ:
What's the book supposed to do ? Pay the overs, and void the unders ? The rules are standard, no under bettors are complaining !
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There would be no need to void the unders....the game already went over. There was no chance of the game going under. Of course the under bettors aren't complaining, they pushed on an otherwise losing wager.
That said, we all know the rules, so bitching about it does very little. But one can easily argue that it is a weird rule.
What's the book supposed to do ? Pay the overs, and void the unders ? The rules are standard, no under bettors are complaining !
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There would be no need to void the unders....the game already went over. There was no chance of the game going under. Of course the under bettors aren't complaining, they pushed on an otherwise losing wager.
That said, we all know the rules, so bitching about it does very little. But one can easily argue that it is a weird rule.
Could this be the reason? If the books paid on games that didn't go a full nine, then only the games that go over would have action. Therefore, sharps would seek out games with a very good chance of rain and play the overs, knowing that if the game doesn't go nine, they could only win and couldn't lose.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The MD Kid:
Could this be the reason? If the books paid on games that didn't go a full nine, then only the games that go over would have action. Therefore, sharps would seek out games with a very good chance of rain and play the overs, knowing that if the game doesn't go nine, they could only win and couldn't lose.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ding ding ding, we have a winner!
Weathermen would be rich if books paid the over/under on games that didn't go 9 innings.
Hmmmmm. Or weathermen would be poor, depending on your opinion of weathermen.
Could this be the reason? If the books paid on games that didn't go a full nine, then only the games that go over would have action. Therefore, sharps would seek out games with a very good chance of rain and play the overs, knowing that if the game doesn't go nine, they could only win and couldn't lose.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ding ding ding, we have a winner!
Weathermen would be rich if books paid the over/under on games that didn't go 9 innings.
Hmmmmm. Or weathermen would be poor, depending on your opinion of weathermen.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The MD Kid:
Could this be the reason? If the books paid on games that didn't go a full nine, then only the games that go over would have action. Therefore, sharps would seek out games with a very good chance of rain and play the overs, knowing that if the game doesn't go nine, they could only win and couldn't lose.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But in reality, this situation happens mabe 2 or 3 times in a season, if ever at all. Its not like this is a common occurance. Same thing happens to run line plays too i believe, ML plays get paid, but -1 1/2 or +1 1/2 get refunded.
Could this be the reason? If the books paid on games that didn't go a full nine, then only the games that go over would have action. Therefore, sharps would seek out games with a very good chance of rain and play the overs, knowing that if the game doesn't go nine, they could only win and couldn't lose.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But in reality, this situation happens mabe 2 or 3 times in a season, if ever at all. Its not like this is a common occurance. Same thing happens to run line plays too i believe, ML plays get paid, but -1 1/2 or +1 1/2 get refunded.
