Bringing this question to the forum, opinions appreciiated Baseball Total grading

[losturmarbles]

What if you have over 8.5, and the game gets called at the end of the 5th inning with 8 runs scored. Is it fair that you lost?

Industry standard is clear: no action on totals or runlines unless game goes 8.5/9.

what if you have under 8.5 and the game gets called after 5 with 9 runs scored. is it fair that you get a refund?

[topgame85]

Fair is not even really the point justin they could or could not get that extra run in this game THE TOTAL HAD BEEN COVERED! That is the difference, if they game went 1 more secon or the extra 4 innings made no difference, you bet the over and it hit you should be paid

[durito]

What book(s) gave you a win?

[durito]

Your definition of fair is not the point.

The rule is standard. If you don't know the rules or don't like them, don't bet. This rule has been in place for a long time and I'm skeptical that any legitimate book gave you a win.

[topgame85]

I bet over 10.5/11 for the game, 12 runs scored, the rule is not intended for this circumstance it is intended to give games whoms outcome has not been decided 100% fully completely sufficient time to be resolved and everyone knows that to not grade a game where 100% no chance of the outcome being changed is inexcusible and practically theft, IMO and most bettors it seems, the only ones defending the books are the mods/industry people as, I said I'm not goinbg to mention either of the 2 books who I feel ripped me or the 2 that actually paid me because the point of this thread was not to bash or promiote anyone and soley to get opinions. Which I did and I now see its just a question of common sense vs. THE RULES, its like you have those 2 cops out of 100 that don't arrest you for stupid little shit and will give you a ride home or give you a warning and then you have those 98 who say well its the law and it says it here in my handbook so we have to do it this way

[MonkeyF0cker]

Fair is not even really the point justin they could or could not get that extra run in this game THE TOTAL HAD BEEN COVERED! That is the difference, if they game went 1 more secon or the extra 4 innings made no difference, you bet the over and it hit you should be paid

It isn't fair because the opposite scenario could never be true. If you have a total of 11 in a 1-0 game that is cancelled in the 7th inning, then the under should be paid as well. That is the only question of fairness here. Instead, they have a cutoff to make both scenarios fair. Any book that grades your wager as action had better be paying the unders in that circumstance. Otherwise, you are being freerolled in this situation. The book may be applying or not applying this rule to their own benefit.

[losturmarbles]

winning the over prop (or losing the under prop) shouldnt be contingent on how many innings are played.

how do they grade props where player A has to accomplish a certain task, he meets the criteria however the game is called early? win or push?

[topgame85]

It isn't fair because the opposite scenario could never be true. If you have a total of 11 in a 1-0 game that is cancelled in the 7th inning, then the under should be paid as well. That is the only question of fairness here. Instead, they have a cutoff to make both scenarios fair. Any book that grades your wager as action had better be paying the unders in that circumstance. Otherwise, you are being freerolled in this situation. The book may be applying or not applying this rule to their own benefit.

not actually though because it would be POSSIBLE for ten more runs to be scored in 3 innings it happens semi-frequently even, The over bet NEVER could have lost whereas that under COULD have lost

[losturmarbles]

It isn't fair because the opposite scenario could never be true. If you have a total of 11 in a 1-0 game that is cancelled in the 7th inning, then the under should be paid as well. That is the only question of fairness here. Instead, they have a cutoff to make both scenarios fair. Any book that grades your wager as action had better be paying the unders in that circumstance. Otherwise, you are being freerolled in this situation. The book may be applying or not applying this rule to their own benefit.

the under is contingent on going at least 8.5 innings

again, why is it ok to cancel a under 11 bet in a game where the total is 12-0?

[MonkeyF0cker]

the under is contingent on going at least 8.5 innings

again, why is it ok to cancel a under 11 bet in a game where the total is 12-0?

You can't have different rules for two sides of the same bet. That's the issue here.

[durito]

Again:

Which book gave you a win?

[losturmarbles]

You can't have different rules for two sides of the same bet. That's the issue here.

its not different rules. if the outcome has already been decided, having a rule that cancels the wager is a bad rule.

the under has to go 8.5 innings to win, can lose anytime
the over has to go 8.5 innings to lose, can win anytime

same rules

[topgame85]

its not different rules. if the outcome has already been decided, having a rule that cancels the wager is a bad rule.

the under has to go 8.5 innings to win, can lose anytime
the over has to go 8.5 innings to lose, can win anytime

same rules

thats the way it is meant to be understood and should be treated by the book

[losturmarbles]

so these are ok rules?

the under has to go 8.5 innings to win, can lose anytime (but is canceled if game gets called early)
the over has to go 8.5 innings to lose, can win anytime (but is canceled if game gets called early)

[Mudcat]

Again:

Which book gave you a win?

I am curious about this too. Because they have no idea what they're doing.

It's no action everywhere I have ever played forever.




All the debate is pointless. You might as well argue that they should play the bottom of the ninth when the home team is ahead. Have fun debating it but that's just not how it works.

[losturmarbles]

winning the under & losing the over are contigent on the game going 8.5 innings, losing the under and winning the over are not (or shouldnt be).

[MonkeyF0cker]

its not different rules. if the outcome has already been decided, having a rule that cancels the wager is a bad rule.

the under has to go 8.5 innings to win, can lose anytime
the over has to go 8.5 innings to lose, can win anytime

same rules

That rule would give additional expectation to the over. And that is what wouldn't be fair.

[losturmarbles]

I am curious about this too. Because they have no idea what they're doing.

It's no action everywhere I have ever played forever.




All the debate is pointless. You might as well argue that they should play the bottom of the ninth when the home team is ahead. Have fun debating it but that's just not how it works.

its pointless to keep asking what book after he's already answered the question.

backing a bad rule might be pointless also.

[WileOut]

durito he has said like 5 times in this thread that he isn't giving the info on which books paid.

topgame I have to agree with you here. However it can't happen now because it would be against the books rule. But they should change the rule. It doesn't make sense, you are right. If the total is 11 and 12 runs are scored before the game goes official and is called early, it just doesn't make sense to not pay out the overs and collect on the unders. It makes no sense at all.

Pavy's bomb threat scenerio doesn't apply either because what is stopping anyone from calling a bomb threat in every single game they are losing on the moneyline? Moneylines are official after 4.5/5 innings. So what is stopping somebody from calling in a bomb threat if they are losing 12-0 in the 3rd? It just doesn't happen. People don't go to that extreme or else it would be happening all the time.

[losturmarbles]

That rule would give additional expectation to the over. And that is what wouldn't be fair.

so i guess we shouldn't count runs scored in extra innings either then, right?

[pavyracer]

Any overs in any sport that are achieved before the game is over should be automatic payouts.

Examples:

over 8.5 in baseball - score 5-4 at end of 4th inning
over 2.5 in soccer - score 2-1 at halftime
over 37.5 in football - score 21-17 after 3 quarters
over 4.5 in hockey - score 2-2 after 1st period
over 180 in basketball - score 90-90 with 1 min left

I don't care if it rains, there is an earthquake, tornado, fire, bomb blast, every person at the stadium gets sick or dies. You can't turn back time and ALL overs should be paid. There is no arguement in the world that changes my opinion.

[Mudcat]

LOL! Noobie central.

[losturmarbles]

LOL! Noobie central.

the wise owl shares his sage insight.

[WileOut]

so i guess we shouldn't count runs scored in extra innings either then, right?

Extra inning runs are accounted for in the totals already.

My argument is that the books should change the rules for over unders on games that go official and end early. If the game is already gone over, collect the unders and pay the overs. If the game is still under, no action, refund all the wagers.

[losturmarbles]

Extra inning runs are accounted for in the totals already.

My argument is that the books should change the rules for over unders on games that go official and end early. If the game is already gone over, collect the unders and pay the overs. If the game is still under, no action, refund all the wagers.

yeah, i know. my post was in response to mf

[MBENZ]

I don't know what is so hard to grasp about what Topgame is trying to get across.If the total goes over,it is over and the unders are losers as long as the game is in the books,5 home team innings.They don't take runs off the board,so there is no fukkin way the game goes under,it is a stupid rule with the books.

[losturmarbles]

That rule would give additional expectation to the over. And that is what wouldn't be fair.

actually the current rules gives additional expectation to the under.

the rules i posted would remove it (not add to the over)

[MonkeyF0cker]

There is no point in discussing this if you don't understand the skew in expectations that it would create.

[MonkeyF0cker]

actually the current rules gives additional expectation to the under.

the rules i posted would remove it (not add to the over)

No. The current rules give fairness to both. If the under isn't paid under the same ruleset that the over is, how is that "fair?"

[losturmarbles]

the under has to go 8.5 innings to win, can lose anytime (but is canceled if game gets called early)
the over has to go 8.5 innings to lose, can win anytime (but is canceled if game gets called early)

betting the over, your wager can be canceled even if you won the prop
betting the under, your wager can be canceled even if you lost the prop

if you bet the over, there's a chance a winning bet can be canceled
if you bet the under, there's a chance a losing bet can be canceled

the only reason i can see of having the current rule is to make it easy for everyone to understand how the totals will be graded. but it's not out of fairness.

[Fischnasty]

i constantly operate under the cynical assumption that the book will fukk you over at every available opportunity.

[losturmarbles]

again, how is a "player A accomplishes a task" prop graded?

i'm assuming the game has to go 8.5 innings also, even if the player accomplishes the task?

[Mudcat]

So how we doing in here? Have we changed the rules of gambling yet?

[MonkeyF0cker]

the under has to go 8.5 innings to win, can lose anytime (but is canceled if game gets called early)
the over has to go 8.5 innings to lose, can win anytime (but is canceled if game gets called early)

betting the over, your wager can be canceled even if you won the prop
betting the under, your wager can be canceled even if you lost the prop

if you bet the over, there's a chance a winning bet can be canceled
if you bet the under, there's a chance a losing bet can be canceled

the only reason i can see of having the current rule is to make it easy for everyone to understand how the totals will be graded. but it's not out of fairness.

If we were to bet on a race between two runners and both runners had an equal chance to win the race, but if the race were to be cancelled in the middle of it for some reason, one of the runners, if he were ahead, would be declared the winner. The other, it would be called no action. Which bet do you think has better expectation?

[topgame85]

neither bet was "ahead" the over had WON no chance the under could have "come back" this is the identifying difference