[AC1318]

just curious

reverts to last inning or what

[bigboydan]

This game will be resumed the next time the Yankees play in Baltimore.

Now getting to the question your really seeking AC. Yankees ML bettors win the game, and the RL and total bettors push.

[moses millsap]

Baltimore ML are winners. Yankees ML are losers. RLs and totals are void.

[bigboydan]

Baltimore ML are winners.

You mean Yankees ML don't you Owned?

[Razz]

You mean Yankees ML don't you Owned?

No, he's correct, the O's win the game from a gambling POV.

[bigboydan]

No, he's correct, the O's win the game from a gambling POV.

Ya, You are both correct. For some reason I kept thinking it was reversed.

[Dark Horse]

Last full inning.

Crazy thing is that totals are void, even though the game went over in the last full inning.

[bigboydan]

I'd be fuming if I had that over after they got into that pen.

[AC1318]

I'd be fuming if I had that over after they got into that pen.

how about if you bet the yankees all though they didn't win, the game wasn't over but after giving up 4 runs stormed right back to score 4 of their own.

[Steve226]

Even though the game is resuming where it left off on July 27th, the game is still a loss for Yankee bettors? That's bullshit in my mind. I did a parlay with them and the White Sox and I don't see how that is fair.

[LT Profits]

Steve,

A rule is a rule is a rule. It seems unfair, but it's been on the books for decades, so this is nothing new. What is MORE unfair in my mind is if a game goes OVER in the early innings, and then is void because game does not go nine innings. I think that is ridiculous because once a game goes Over, it can't not go Over later (do they penalize runs in baseball...LOL).

[Crayzee]

i can vouch!
balt ml are winners!!
woo f'ing hoo!!

second time in a row one of these went my way

guess i'm due for a bad one

[Dark Horse]

What is MORE unfair in my mind is if a game goes OVER in the early innings, and then is void because game does not go nine innings. I think that is ridiculous because once a game goes Over, it can't not go Over later (do they penalize runs in baseball...LOL).

Exactly. A very poorly thought out rule that only survived because it hardly ever applies. This rule needs to be adjusted to: Total bets are void unless the game went over in the final completed inning.

[Razz]

Exactly. A very poorly thought out rule that only survived because it hardly ever applies. This rule needs to be adjusted to: Total bets are void unless the game went over in the final completed inning.

No, that's not fair to under players. A 1-0 game that is called in the 8th inning isn't going to be graded a winner for an under player.

[LT Profits]

Razz,

There is a big difference though. An Under always has a chance to go Over later. It doesn't matter how slim the chance is in a 1-0 game in the 8th, the point is there IS a chance. On the flip side, once a game is Over, it is Over. The rule should be if a game is Over and called early, Over wins and Under loses. If it is Under, THEN refunds for all.

[Dark Horse]

Example. Total is set at 7 runs, teams combine for 10 runs in the 1st inning, and weather interrupts the game after 8 full innings are in the book.

The wager was won after the 1st inning was completed. Nothing can take those runs off the board. The over bettor shouldn't have to think in the back of his mind that, although he won the wager, the weather might still interfere.

For the sake of argument, let's say that this would happen once a day. Do you think there would be any way that bettors wouldn't be all over the books about it?

[The HG]

This has the makings of an OG (Original Ganch) analysis, and we should probably move the thread to the main forum, since it is an interesting case.

But the rule as is, I am pretty sure, is actually completely fair.

The books want to give no artificial advantage to either an over or an under, even as small as this one would be, considering how relatively rarely rainouts happen.

If you grade a rain-shortened game that has already gone over as a win for the over, but don't grade a rain-shortened game that has stayed under as a win for an under, you are giving an edge to overs. Think of it this way: imagine completed games, some over and some under. If you lop off 3 innings, and grade games the way you are suggesting, then ALL of the under wins get erased. But only SOME of the over wins will get erased. This shows how that system gives an advantage to over bettors.

By the same token, if you decide ok, we'll just grade unders as wins if the game is under and gets called, even if it hasn't been finished, then you are giving an edge to under bets, because fewer innings obviously benefit an under bet and hurt an over bet. If you set a line assuming 9 innings, with the possibility of extra innings, but you will grade a rain-shortened under as a win, then you are giving an edge to under bettors, because they can get lucky and get a few fewer unplanned innings, while over bettors can't get a few extra unplanned innings (the possibility of extra innings is factored into the 9-inning line).

So the only fair way to do it is to cancel all bets that don't go 8.5 full innings.

Of course, they could, if they wanted to, grade games to have these edges for overs or unders, and then adjust the lines accordingly. But if they set the lines strictly assuming 8.5/9 innings, with the possibility of extra innings, the way they grade the games now is the only fair way.

[Razz]

Razz,

There is a big difference though. An Under always has a chance to go Over later. It doesn't matter how slim the chance is in a 1-0 game in the 8th, the point is there IS a chance. On the flip side, once a game is Over, it is Over. The rule should be if a game is Over and called early, Over wins and Under loses. If it is Under, THEN refunds for all.

I realize that. The point is, it's totally unfair to anyone who bets the under. The books can't offer a scenario - even one that happens only ten times a season or so - where an over bet can only win or be cancelled and an under bet can only lose or be cancelled.

[Razz]

This has the makings of an OG (Original Ganch) analysis, and we should probably move the thread to the main forum, since it is an interesting case.

But the rule as is, I am pretty sure, is actually completely fair.

The books want to give no artificial advantage to either an over or an under, even as small as this one would be, considering how relatively rarely rainouts happen.

If you grade a rain-shortened game that has already gone over as a win for the over, but don't grade a rain-shortened game that has stayed under as a win for an under, you are giving an edge to overs. Think of it this way: imagine completed games, some over and some under. If you lop off 3 innings, and grade games the way you are suggesting, then ALL of the under wins get erased. But only SOME of the over wins will get erased. This shows how that system gives an advantage to over bettors.

By the same token, if you decide ok, we'll just grade unders as wins if the game is under and gets called, even if it hasn't been finished, then you are giving an edge to under bets, because fewer innings obviously benefit an under bet and hurt an over bet. If you set a line assuming 9 innings, with the possibility of extra innings, but you will grade a rain-shortened under as a win, then you are giving an edge to under bettors, because they can get lucky and get a few fewer unplanned innings, while over bettors can't get a few extra unplanned innings (the possibility of extra innings is factored into the 9-inning line).

So the only fair way to do it is to cancel all bets that don't go 8.5 full innings.

Of course, they could, if they wanted to, grade games to have these edges for overs or unders, and then adjust the lines accordingly. But if they set the lines strictly assuming 8.5/9 innings, with the possibility of extra innings, the way they grade the games now is the only fair way.

Well put. The only rule to me that makes any sense other than the current rule would be something like a runs per inning clause - where if there were 6 runs in 7 completed innings and the total was 9, it would go under, etc.

But that's really too complicated. The rule as currently enforced is the simplest, best way to solve suspended games.

[Dark Horse]

This discussion isn't about fairness towards over or under bettors, but about honoring or not honoring wagers that are already decided. As long as the outcome is up in the air, by whatever margin of likelihood, cancel to your heart's delight. But, please, don't rewrite history because of a rain storm. If BAL won in the last completed inning, how on earth can the over not win in that same inning, when the total was already over at that time? We're not talking about projections. This is real.

Did NYY win?
No. Rain.
So they lost... OK. Fair enough. What score did BAL win by then?
6-4.
What was the total?
9 runs.
So my over bet won?
No. That wager was voided.
Err.... what score did BAL win by again?!

One can always try to make simple things complex, but isn't the intellect better pointed in the opposite direction?

[wrongturn]

I don't quite understand why the rule is fair to all sides. I think the rule actually gives an edge to under bettors, because they can still root for the rain-out if the total is already gone over. While for the over bettors, there is no 100% loser can be savaged.

[wrongturn]

Well if score is 0-0 and rain starts to pour at middle 9, it is a good break to over better, but still I think the edge to under bettors is larger.

[Dark Horse]

As anybody who bets a lot of MLB totals knows, the under is not ever guaranteed until the final out in the final inning. The over, on the other hand, can be in the books very quickly. That is the nature of betting totals. And it should be recognized by books, rainout or not.

[Dark Horse]

Ganch, does this silence mean you agree, or are you still chiseling away on your OG?

[Ganchrow]

This has the makings of an OG (Original Ganch) analysis, and we should probably move the thread to the main forum, since it is an interesting case.

But the rule as is, I am pretty sure, is actually completely fair.

The books want to give no artificial advantage to either an over or an under, even as small as this one would be, considering how relatively rarely rainouts happen.

If you grade a rain-shortened game that has already gone over as a win for the over, but don't grade a rain-shortened game that has stayed under as a win for an under, you are giving an edge to overs. Think of it this way: imagine completed games, some over and some under. If you lop off 3 innings, and grade games the way you are suggesting, then ALL of the under wins get erased. But only SOME of the over wins will get erased. This shows how that system gives an advantage to over bettors.

By the same token, if you decide ok, we'll just grade unders as wins if the game is under and gets called, even if it hasn't been finished, then you are giving an edge to under bets, because fewer innings obviously benefit an under bet and hurt an over bet. If you set a line assuming 9 innings, with the possibility of extra innings, but you will grade a rain-shortened under as a win, then you are giving an edge to under bettors, because they can get lucky and get a few fewer unplanned innings, while over bettors can't get a few extra unplanned innings (the possibility of extra innings is factored into the 9-inning line).

So the only fair way to do it is to cancel all bets that don't go 8.5 full innings.

Of course, they could, if they wanted to, grade games to have these edges for overs or unders, and then adjust the lines accordingly. But if they set the lines strictly assuming 8.5/9 innings, with the possibility of extra innings, the way they grade the games now is the only fair way.

It's not a question of what's "fair" or "not fair". A book can select any predefined set of rules it wants as long as it makes the rules clear ahead of time and enforces them uniformly. It just so happens that these rules regarding run lines and totals with respect to rainouts represent the standard by which the vast majority of books have chosen to abide.

If a book wanted to enforce a rules format that judged all totals as action provided the game had gone over (even in thje case of rainouts), there would be nothing inherently "unfair" about this -- the market would simply have to adjust to price in this modified rule. All else being equal, a rational bettor would choose to place his over bets at the book in question whenever possible and would choose to avoid placing his under bets at the book whenever possible. This would result in slightly fewer under bets and slightly more over bets being placed at that book, a situation that would persist until the bet price adjusted to take this modification into account.

In practice, however, because of the discrete nature of bet pricing, (i.e., bets may be priced at -110 or -111, but not at -110.5), and the fact that the additional value this rules modification would provide to over bets is quite de minimis, the market would never really be able to precisely adjust. Now that's not to say that this implies that the new state of affairs would necessarily be "less fair" that the status quo -- given a discrete pricing structure all we can say is that the status quo is more favorable towards unders and less favorable towards overs than the modified structure. The "fair" price (adjusting for all other externalities) would most likely lie somewhere in between (i.e., -110.5).

[The HG]

Ganch, does this silence mean you agree, or are you still chiseling away on your OG?

No, my silence means that they loaded up the schedule with 9 7 PM games, and that after them I either watched TV, strummed a guitar, searched for demented sh*t on the net, or most likely, sat and stared into space.

But anyway, I'm pretty sure I'm right on this one. Remember, I am NOT Master Ganch here, I am merely Ganch HG, which stands for "Handicapper General". A good guy, solid people, but, shall we say, perhaps a bit more "mentally pleasant" than Master Ganch. Or maybe more "intellectually laid-back", if you will. More on the Willie Bee side of things than the RickySteve side. You get what I'm saying?

Anyway, I'm sure there's a way you could represent this mathematically to show that everything cancels out the way rainouts are graded now, whereas if you used any of the other grading processes people are suggesting would be "more fair", you would actually be giving one side or the other an edge. Maybe Master Ganch will look into it for us.

[The HG]

Ok, looks like he already addressed this.

The point is, I think, that if you assume that the current lines are correct for the current grading practices, then if you changed the practice to credit a rainout as an over if it's over, but void if it's under, the correct lines would have to shift to be better for the unders, because you would be giving a new advantage to over bets.

And by the same token, if you changed the practice to credit a rainout as an over if it's over, and an under if it's under, the correct lines would have to shift to be better for the overs, because you would be introducing a new advantage to under bets.

[Ganchrow]

The point is, I think, that if you assume that the current lines are correct for the current grading practices, then if you changed the practice to credit a rainout as an over if it's over, but void if it's under, the correct lines would have to shift to be better for the unders, because you would be giving a new advantage to over bets.

And by the same token, if you changed the practice to credit a rainout as an over if it's over, and an under if it's under, the correct lines would have to shift to be better for the overs, because you would be introducing a new advantage to under bets.

Exactly.

[wrongturn]

Agree that books can select any predefined rules and stick to it, but it does not mean it is a "fair" rule. If the rule changes to "if games went over, then over/under bets stand", I don't think any reasonable bettors will complain the decision from the rule, no matter which side they are on. So instead of keeping receiving complains from over bettors in such situation, why not change it so all are happy.

[Ganchrow]

Agree that books can select any predefined rules and stick to it, but it does not mean it is a "fair" rule. If the rule changes to "if games went over, then over/under bets stand", I don't think any reasonable bettors will complain the decision from the rule, no matter which side they are on. So instead of keeping receiving complains from over bettors in such situation, why not change it so all are happy.

I think the people who'd complain would be those accustomed to the rule that a total/run line is only action if the game goes 8½/9 innings.

Like it or not an industry standard for grading bets in the face of a rain out is already in place and IMHO uniformity in bet resolution across books is really the most important issue here. Personally, I don't want to have to worry about rules differing from book to book. I don't care what standard is agreed upon -- I just want there to be a standard.

[wrongturn]

If the books worry about complains from people accustomed the existing rules, they should never change any rules. We all know that is not the case. The only reason this unfair rule is still in use is because such case has not happened frequently enough to affect their bottom line, and it probably never will.

[Ganchrow]

If the books worry about complains from people accustomed the existing rules, they should never change any rules. We all know that is not the case. The only reason this unfair rule is still in use is because such case has not happened frequently enough to affect their bottom line, and it probably never will.

You might not personally like the rule, but that doesn't make it inherently unfair.

The rule's in place at most offshore books because it's the Vegas standard. By all means you should factor it in to your handicapping.

That's really all there is to it.

[ShamsWoof10]

I couldn't find that thread about Houston dominating Col. but NICE CALL on that AC..

Talk about a nail biter for those games....

[wrongturn]

You might not personally like the rule, but that doesn't make it inherently unfair.

The rule's in place at most offshore books because it's the Vegas standard. By all means you should factor it in to your handicapping.

That's really all there is to it.

Fair or unfair is always a personal opinion. So I understand it does not make it inherently unfair, but by the same argument, it does not make it completely fair like GanchHG claimed. My feel of "unfair" is a little bit of common sense, in the way that, books will keep hearing the complain from new bettors every time this occurs, while changing the rule will perhaps get initial complains from experied bettors who factor the rule in the handicapping, but the complain will stop.

By all means that I agree with you that books need an uniformed rule to make things easier to handle. Although I don't know how to factor it in my betting, but I do know the result will even out.

[Dark Horse]

Exactly.

This game came up in the main forum, because of a player questioning the last full inning rule.

Ganch, about that full agreement with your alter self. Is it possible that this new edge introduced to overs would be nearly zero?