Appeal of Disqualification Call on 128-Man Louisiana Tech ML Play

[Checkerboard]

My thanks out to all involved in running the 128 Man Contest.

I have a concern regarding the call on the disqualification of my winning Louisiana Tech money line play in post #16 of the Round 1 contest thread i participated in; please see link:
http://forum.sbrforum.com/handicapping-contests/96535-128-man-r1-checkerboard-vs-fifawcs.html

A note to Diogee who scored the play - Diogee, please don't take this the wrong way or anything, but I would like to get a second opinion on the disqualification of the play.
As well as being curious to hear what other contestants think of the disqualification.

Disqualifying the selection effectively eliminates me from the contest - where I would have successfully moved on to the next round, so it's an important call.

The only rule I can see that deals with playing the same game is the second rule on the list which reads, "Contestants may not select the same game. First come, first serve."
This means contestants can't play on the same game as one another, but I don't see where it says a contestant can't make two distinctively different wagers on the same game themselves.

[BThe spirit of the rule not allowing contestants to play the same game, is to keep contestants from copying each other's picks. [/B]

I don't see where in the rules it says I can't correlate plays on the same game.
Please see 128 Man rules link:

http://forum.sbrforum.com/players-talk/91896-free-128-man-sbr-capper-final-four-signup-here.html

I also see, "Admin reserves the right to change the rules at any time, use discretion in addressing disputes or unforeseen circumstances, and basically do whatever we want."

I'm disappointed by the initial call here. All I can do is ask for a second opinion, as well as invite open forum feedback to learn what others think regarding the .

Naturally, I'll accept any final interpretation of the rules.

Thanks to all again for running the contest and to those who take the time to share their thoughts on this one,

Best of luck everybody!

Checkerboard.

[Checkerboard]

Working Link to the Round 1 Thread Containing the Play

http://forum.sbrforum.com/handicapping-contests/96535-128-man-r1-checkerboard-vs-fifawcs.html

[EaglesPhan36]

I can understand if they did not want you to be able to bet on two lines for the same game, but it is definitely not stated in the rules. You got hosed IMO. Just another thing that was not stated before hand or thought of.

I think SBR needs to clearly state a few things before Round 2. How the dummy picks work. Why you can't make picks like checkerboard did. Can you also not be on the total and a side in the same game? Things of this nature should be cleared up.

[onthewhat]

contest has been put together poorly, lots of miscommunication going on and just poorly put together

[pimike]

contest has been put together poorly, lots of miscommunication going on and just poorly put together

I am happy with the tourney, but rules can't be changed in the middle of the game. Shit I was taught that as a young kid.

[losturmarbles]

yeah dude you got hosed

the proper thing to do is let your plays stand, and ammend the rules for future rounds, no correlated plays

[picantel]

I am happy with the tourney, but rules can't be changed in the middle of the game. Shit I was taught that as a young kid.

The rules were changed 3 times in the middle of the game. Free contest or not that is inexcusable.

[pavyracer]

The rules were changed 3 times in the middle of the game. Free contest or not that is inexcusable.

You ain't seen nothing yet.

[rjt721]

As far as I can tell, taking Louisiana Tech minus the points and on the ML in no way violated the contest rules. Also, nowhere in the rules did I find a stipulation that contestants would be docked -1.00 unit, as you were in this instance. I understand the reasoning -- your ML play was deemed illegal (for lack of better word), leaving you with only 6 plays total. However, you were only made aware of this after the fact, which seems unfair. If the decision is that the play wasn't allowed, you should have been made aware of this in a more timely manner, giving you a chance to select an alternate play.

I say all of this knowing that CrazyL and diogee have been working extremely hard grading the contest, so I don't want it to seem as though I'm criticizing them.

[pimike]

Shit I picked Dallas Cowboys Friday night -3 then the money line -150 was credited a two time winner, then I do the same with Bowling Green over Pitt +13 +460, then all of a sudden I violated the made up rules towards the end of the tourney



My DAD told me years ago, son you can't change the rules in the middle of the game, was my dad wrong?? "NO" Therefore somebody else is wrong!

[diogee]

I am only being consistent with how I have graded the tourney in the past...I cannot find rules for this but this is directly from my listed rules in the first tourney.

# You can not play on the same team as your opposition. You can't play the ML/1H/or Spread on any team that your opposition has selected.
# You can not play the same team twice in the same game. ie. runline and moneyline, first five and game, first half and game.

[diogee]

Both of the above rules were added after round 1 of the first round last time due to many abusing them to better the chances of a good record by finding 1 solid game and using it twice (when the contest is 7 different plays) or choosing 1h etc of their opponents play to better the chances to hold a lead.

[pimike]

I am only being consistent with how I have graded the tourney in the past...I cannot find rules for this but this is directly from my listed rules in the first tourney.

# You can not play on the same team as your opposition. You can't play the ML/1H/or Spread on any team that your opposition has selected.
# You can not play the same team twice in the same game. ie. runline and moneyline, first five and game, first half and game.

Dig I wish these rules were present(MADE CLEAR/KNOWN) for this tourney. We shouldn't bring in rules from tourneys a year ago or even the most recent one. For not all have entered these before, so would have no ways of knowing.

Do you think if we did we would have made those plays?

Thanks for your help and all the hard work you and Crazyl have done I respect both of you. However I do think you guys dropped the ball here a little.

[durito]

I don't know what this last tourney was nor do I see how it's rules are applicable here. Crazyl said correlated plays were allowed.

The play should stand.

[HedgeHog]

Had CB been notified that the ML play was not allowed, he could have made a different 7th pick--avoiding the penalty and quite likely winning the match. Agree that the 1st round has been a real mess with the ever changing and ambiguous rules.

[pimike]

I don't know what this last tourney was nor do I see how it's rules are applicable here. Crazyl said correlated plays were allowed.

The play should stand.

Well then there it is

[diogee]

Pimike, I have just been grading on the rules how I know them from the tourney a few months ago. I do agree that most do not know those rules and am not sure how it reads for this tourney, which was based off of the last tourney.

durito, I would agree that if it was stated that correlated plays were allowed then the play should stand. This question was asked earlier in the contest and my response is consistent with how I graded this matter.

http://forum.sbrforum.com/players-talk/97057-contest-question.html?highlight=tourney+question

[pimike]

Pimike, I have just been grading on the rules how I know them from the tourney a few months ago. I do agree that most do not know those rules and am not sure how it reads for this tourney, which was based off of the last tourney.

durito, I would agree that if it was stated that correlated plays were allowed then the play should stand. This question was asked earlier in the contest and my response is consistent with how I graded this matter.
http://forum.sbrforum.com/players-ta...urney+question

No problem Dio I had fun, just have the future challenges very clear for ignorant people like myself.

Wish we were still in Vegas

[diogee]

Had CB been notified that the ML play was not allowed, he could have made a different 7th pick--avoiding the penalty and quite likely winning the match. Agree that the 1st round has been a real mess with the ever changing and ambiguous rules.

Agreed but it is hard to monitor these threads all the time. I have been working long hours and having only 8-10 hours off in between so it is hard enough as it is to find time. We will make a draft of all the rules and it will be stickied to the top of the handicapping forum...a little too much confusion in this round but I am only being consistent with how I have graded the other 2 tourneys I have done.

[HedgeHog]

Agreed but it is hard to monitor these threads all the time.* I have been working long hours and having only 8-10 hours off in between so it is hard enough as it is to find time.* We will make a draft of all the rules and it will be stickied to the top of the handicapping forum...a little too much confusion in this round but I am only being consistent with how I have graded the other 2 tourneys I have done.

Understood, and I'm certainly not blaming you.* It's just a tough beat for CB.

[Checkerboard]

Thanks for all the positive feedback and support everybody!

All I can say is it that I certainly played and won round one within the posted rules.

Please note: I haven't been in any previous 128-man contests, so I don't know anything about how things may have been done in the past.

It was mentioned earlier in this thread that CrazyL said correlated plays are okay, so hopefully I'll be re-instated and participating in round two.

Thanks,

Checkerboard.

[SBR Lou]

It was mentioned earlier in this thread that CrazyL said correlated plays are okay, so hopefully I'll be re-instated and participating in round two.

Thanks,

Checkerboard.

Hi Checkerboard,

My apologies for this confusion. Our stance on correlated plays was posted with the initial draft of the rules. It's just come to my attention now that somehow the line was zapped, a lot of mixing and matching was done and it may have been unintentionally erased.

This situation had come up so few times I didn't think there was an issue in so far as clarity, obviously there was, and that won't happen again. Diogee made the correct decision grading here. The rules for round 1 were, you may bet on a game side/total, but not on a game side/ML, game half/ML, game half/over game etc.

[Checkerboard]

Hi Checkerboard,

My apologies for this confusion. Our stance on correlated plays was posted with the initial draft of the rules. It's just come to my attention now that somehow the line was zapped, a lot of mixing and matching was done and it may have been unintentionally erased.

This situation had come up so few times I didn't think there was an issue in so far as clarity, obviously there was, and that won't happen again. Diogee made the correct decision grading here. The rules for round 1 were, you may bet on a game side/total, but not on a game side/ML, game half/ML, game half/over game etc.

hi Crazy L,

Apology accepted and appreciated thanks.

It's disappointing making a winning call onlt to have it disqualified because of a rule that didn't make it into a rules post by mistake.

However, I do understand that these kinds of things can happen from time to time and I can accept that along with your apology, thanks.

**************************************** *****

What makes it personally frustrating is that all day long on Saturday my intentions had been to play LA Tech ml with Mississippi -7.5 which would have put me through to the second round.

When I got the idea to correlate LA tech ml with LA Tech side, I actually did hold off to search out the rules thread (link at top post this thread), to re-read the rules about same game plays because I remembered having read something about that and I wanted to clarify before posting the two LA Tech plays.

In the rules thread (link at top post this thread) I found, there was nothing to indicate correlation is not allowed, so I went ahead and posted the double play on LA Tech; ml and pointspread. Had I come upon a rules version indicating no correlation allowed, I would have played the winning combination of LA Tech ml with Mississippi -7.5 to be sure.

Checkerboard.

[rjt721]

Because it wasn't until all games were off the board that Checker was made aware his LA Tech ML play wouldn't be allowed, how about giving him 1 play for Monday? Only seems right that, due to the confusion regarding the rules and the grey area, he at least be allotted his seventh and final play for a chance to move on in the tourney.

[SBR Lou]

Because it wasn't until all games were off the board that Checker was made aware his LA Tech ML play wouldn't be allowed, how about giving him 1 play for Monday? Only seems right that, due to the confusion regarding the rules and the grey area, he at least be allotted his seventh and final play for a chance to move on in the tourney.

Alright.

Checkerboard will be allowed to make one final play for tomorrow afternoon, considering there was an error/oversight in the rules and the gap between him and his opponent is narrow enough for one play to decide.

[fifawcs]

He should know that you can't make two plays on the same game. That is the same thing as laying two units on a game.

[SBR Lou]

He should know that you can't make two plays on the same game. That is the same thing as laying two units on a game.

I hear you, and this was positively listed in the rules because I even asked some others who remember seeing it, I just must've accidentally edited it out at some point when pasting in something.

[fifawcs]

But you realize that by not penalizing him, you are penalizing me since I don't have the luxury of waiting for today's lines. I was forced to make my final pick tomorrow.

[InTheHole]

But you realize that by not penalizing him, you are penalizing me since I don't have the luxury of waiting for today's lines. I was forced to make my final pick tomorrow.

Agree with you fifawcs but at the same time you have to wonder why your opponent would place a series of bets which he knew would lose. Doesn't negate that these rules were plastered all over the boards but the formal list was unclear. I was put into a similar situation (my opponent made a play for a game that just finished late Monday) but luckily the chips didn't fall his way.