Stupid Bookmaker Rule

[infamousbacardi]

Just got screwed out of $100 because Bookmaker has a rule that says any run line bets (+1.5/-1.5) are null and void if the game is shortened by weather...

I bet the Red Sox +1.5 along w/ the Orioles on the ML parlayed, Red Sox win 14-1 in basically a game that went 8 innings, and I only get paid for the Orioles part of the parlay...just senseless. If a game is good enough to be official if it goes 5 innings, it should be good enough to count against the run line...and even further, they could modify the rule and call it 7 innings or something...no one can take advantage of the system trying to bet +1.5 teams in games where weather may figure into the decision if a game lasts 7 innings...just doesn't equate mathematically....

Anyway, this ignorant "book friendly" rule just cost me a c-note, be aware of it before you put money into Bookmaker's coffers if you play run lines fellas!!

[gilbert91016]

I think all books have this rule

[infamousbacardi]

I think all books have this rule

If they do, it should be modified. I have no will, want nor time to check on that statement's accuracy...but surely if they all do, it should be modified to at least say 7th inning is sufficient or something...the books likely don't want people taking cracks at teams +1.5 where rain is likely, a game to go 5 innings and be called due to weather, then have to pay someone on the run line...
If the game is good enough to count for a ML play, no reason it doesn't for the run line...if they are worried about people trying to hit the +1.5 in a shortened game, then extend the rule to the 7th inning or so. There is no reason a game that is called in the 8th inning shouldn't pay the run line, if it pays the ML.
This rule is just a book friendly safe guard, and just another example of how in the end, we will always lose because the house forever has the advantage.

[onacloud]

read before you bet so you don't get upset..

[yisman]

Yes, all books do this.

Also for totals. The exception for totals is if the game is over the total they may grade that.

But standard ruling is that if it's shortened by weather, ML counts, RL and total don't.

[infamousbacardi]

read before you bet so you don't get upset..

That's another thing...they don't have this caveat posted in their "run line" rules. They have it in a separate section called "game time". While that may work for them to void my bet, it doesn't suffice for someone who merely knows that they want to bet run lines, goes to the run lines section of the rules, and reads them...how hard would it be to post this nugget of information in the run lines section?!
"Game must go 8.5 or 9 innings to count as eligible wager" or something to that effect...
And don't act like you read all the rules of everything you're subject to onacloud...have you ever read the full fine print on a sporting event ticket? Did you read everything in your cell phone contract? We both know the answer.

[infamousbacardi]

What up Yisman...the O/U rule makes sense...that clearly opens up the book to people trying to take advantage of a rain shortened game...this rule is still a little different...

And even if "every book" does this, still, bringing awareness to it and finding out why it is or isn't a good rule is helpful and informative to all bettors of baseball.

[firehoyt]

Well said infamous!

[infamousbacardi]

Well said infamous!

Thanks buddy...love your avatar.

[wiffle]

bullsiht rules even if they are standard

tigers lose ml

over is cancelled

[infamousbacardi]

bullsiht rules even if they are standard tigers lose ml over is cancelled

I have no problem w/ Tigers losing on the ML...because that game wouldn't have been called if they were in Detroit (as they were) if it was a 2 or even 3 run game...but the OVER losing is bullshit as well

[yisman]

Well, the more cogent one when we're fixing rules is to make books stop including OT for spreads/totals. It's very unfair.

OT should only affect ML.

The amount of times I've taken a team getting points in basketball, have them force OT, and then lose the cover in OT is too many to count.

[jscol]

Very common rule.

[starfire]

A young Buck that doesnt know the Rules

[BiffTFinancial]

on the under, very happy to see the final of "Red Sox 14-1 F/8"

[8ArIvd5]

detroit would have scored 12 in the 9th. 13th run would have been 3rd out at home.

[infamousbacardi]

Well, the more cogent one when we're fixing rules is to make books stop including OT for spreads/totals. It's very unfair. OT should only affect ML. The amount of times I've taken a team getting points in basketball, have them force OT, and then lose the cover in OT is too many to count.

I completely agree w/ you on this one Yis! No reason OT is included on O/U wagers!!

[quote=starfire;10166299]A young Buck that doesnt know the Rules

It's not about knowing or not knowing, it's as much about "why" the rule is in place and if there is a better option...but, a young buck like yourself who doesn't read the whole thread wouldn't be aware of that.... ""

on the under, very happy to see the final of "Red Sox 14-1 F/8"

Haha, where someone loses, someone else wins! Nice one!

detroit would have scored 12 in the 9th. 13th run would have been 3rd out at home.

Lol, Mrs. Cleo was a secretary before she decided to start fortune telling idea, she made millions doing nothing...you may have a future in the fortune telling business!!

[Vin_vermillion]

I've been screwed out of the "over " as well - for instance had you taken sox and tigers "over" they still wouldn't have paid it despite the fact that nothing could have happened to change the outcome. Nice little bullshit rule for the books.

[pinchylarue]

reAd the fineprint bro

[infamousbacardi]

reAd the fineprint bro

Again...it's more about a discussion of why it exists and if it should exist, and why the rule isn't printed in the section of sport specific run line rules even if it does exist...
Yisman also brought up a great point as well about O/U's counting toward OT...absolutely shouldn't...same concept...a rule that should or shouldn't exist, and how it helps, or in most cases, hurts us as gamblers and helps books even more.

reAd the rest of the thread bro

[MrZ]

Just ******* brutal man, tough luck

[LLXC]

Seriously complaining about a standard rule on all books?

[infamousbacardi]

Seriously complaining about a standard rule on all books?

Why shouldn't we complain about a standard rule that hurts us?? Reductive thinking like yours that keep us behind the 8-ball w/ the house. Nice thinking ace.

[Degenerate]

The rule isn't to the houses advantage as it works both ways.