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

MonkeyF0cker · 05-17-09, 03:40 PM

No, it didn't. To keep with the analogy, the other runner may have retired, but your runner still has to cross the finish line.

pavyracer · 05-17-09, 03:41 PM

I don't think the race argument is valid. We are not arguing about who should win a game. If one team is up 13-0 in 4th inning it doesn't necessarily mean they will win the game. But if 13 runs are scored on a 9 run total it doesn't matter if another pitch is thrown. You can't change the past and you can't take runs off the board.

losturmarbles · 05-17-09, 03:41 PM

the winner of the race is contingent on the race finishing, just like a team side.

if the race doesnt finish (or doesnt have rules stated that whoever is leading when the race is canceled) then the bet is canceled.

with the current rule, any game where there is a chance of the game being rained out, you have a clear edge betting the under, since a suspended game will never take away a win, but could take away a loss.

totals are prop bets, "will the teams score 9 runs?" if the prop is met, the game being ended early shouldnt matter.

like i said, the only reason i can see having the rule like it is, is to make it easy for everyone to understand how the totals will be graded.

it's clearly not out of fairness.

i'll ask again, how is a "player A has to _____" prop graded in this situation?

MonkeyF0cker · 05-17-09, 04:05 PM

The rules make it fair for both sides of a total. There would obviously be a higher expectancy for unders if they were graded in shortened games as well. A minimum inning rule is the only way to create fairness.

donjuan · 05-17-09, 05:23 PM

Is this what I've missed the last few days? I really need to take more time away from PT.

20Four7 · 05-17-09, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by donjuan

Is this what I've missed the last few days? I really need to take more time away from PT.

YOu didn't miss anything donjuan.... same shit different day.

donjuan · 05-17-09, 06:10 PM

YOu didn't miss anything donjuan.... same shit different day.

Please someone x-post this to S&I. I await the ensuing LOLZ.

Mudcat · 05-17-09, 06:12 PM

Monkeyfocker truly is the Prince of Lost Causes.

losturmarbles · 05-17-09, 06:23 PM

wow you guys should find a message board to lick each other's nut sacs, oh wait.. you have.

pavyracer · 05-17-09, 06:26 PM

Mudcat posted one pick in 4 years. And you guessed it right. It was the only time Halladay lost this year. Other than that he knows all the rules in every book and milks their bonuses like a farmer.

reno cool · 05-17-09, 07:05 PM

last three posts are great.

btw a rain out can easily hurt the under, as in it can be a huge fav at time of cancellation.

donjuan · 05-17-09, 08:39 PM

wow you guys should find a message board to lick each other's nut sacs, oh wait.. you have.

You expect anyone to take you guys seriously when you can't wrap your head around MonkeyF0cker's point about freerolling on overs?

losturmarbles · 05-17-09, 09:07 PM

you want someone to take you serious when you cant argue a point.

the outcome of the prop has already been decided when the game gets called.

the only freerolling is taking an under on game that may get rained out.

wanting an over bet where the total has gone over to be graded as a win isnt a freeroll.

wanting an under bet where the total has gone over to be graded as a push IS a freeroll.

just because it's a standard rule doesnt mean it's a good rule.

one would think that the so-called math guys could understand common logic. instead they focus on making offhanded snide comments and stroking each other's egos. how pathetic.

durito · 05-17-09, 09:08 PM

lol

tacomax · 05-17-09, 09:10 PM

Good debate, I just don't know which side to believe.

pavyracer · 05-17-09, 09:18 PM

I think everytime donjuan replied to one of my posts it was to tell me how stupid and square I'm but I always take it is as a compliment because I at least do something right.

donjuan · 05-17-09, 10:14 PM

you want someone to take you serious when you cant argue a point.

the outcome of the prop has already been decided when the game gets called.

the only freerolling is taking an under on game that may get rained out.

wanting an over bet where the total has gone over to be graded as a win isnt a freeroll.

wanting an under bet where the total has gone over to be graded as a push IS a freeroll.

just because it's a standard rule doesnt mean it's a good rule.

one would think that the so-called math guys could understand common logic. instead they focus on making offhanded snide comments and stroking each other's egos. how pathetic.

Whatever "common logic" is, it sure fails in comparison to anything based in reality. Again, you can't figure out that you're freerolling the over if the game gets shortened and you expect anyone to take you seriously. You're either a troll or a moron. For your sake, I hope it's the former.

LT Profits · 05-17-09, 10:40 PM

NO North American books would grade it as a win, because they all follow the Vegas industy standard that a game must go nine innings (8.5 if home team is winning) for Totals and Run Lines to have action.

reno cool · 05-17-09, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by 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)

This kind of sounds like Heads I win, Tails you lose.
But I guess there's no reason the books couldn't make it this way they would just need to adjust the line.

Shortstop · 05-18-09, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by topgame85

Ok So I bet the over 10.5/11 at several sites yesterday for the Nationals game that I went to the game got rained out in the 6th inning score is 7-5. A few sites graded this as a win as it clearly should be and some graded it NO ACTION which is bullshit, had the game gone nine innings it is factually impossible there could have been less than 12 runs, you can't lose runs, I'm thinking they grade under bets as losses and over bets as no action. They all state the rule totals must go 9 innings or 8.5 if home team is winning but betjam and other grade this as a win as common sense dictates overs should be paid and unders lost because the result had been determined. Am I right or wrong?

Which sites? I find this very hard to believe.

MonkeyF0cker · 05-18-09, 01:00 AM

Originally posted by losturmarbles

you want someone to take you serious when you cant argue a point.

the outcome of the prop has already been decided when the game gets called.

the only freerolling is taking an under on game that may get rained out.

wanting an over bet where the total has gone over to be graded as a win isnt a freeroll.

wanting an under bet where the total has gone over to be graded as a push IS a freeroll.

just because it's a standard rule doesnt mean it's a good rule.

one would think that the so-called math guys could understand common logic. instead they focus on making offhanded snide comments and stroking each other's egos. how pathetic.

Let's put it this way... If you were to book my action with your rules, you'd either change your rules fast or go broke. I'd bet every single over on every game that had a near certainty of being shortened or cancelled. I can't lose. Is booking this action an exhibition of common sense (as you call it) or just pure idiocy? Why do you think we'd like to know which book(s) are grading this way?

Do you understand this yet?

reno cool · 05-18-09, 01:19 AM

excellent point Monkey. Even adjusting the line across the board wouldn't help much in that example.

The bookie would have to weigh the chances of cancelation on every individual event.

losturmarbles · 05-18-09, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by donjuan

Whatever "common logic" is, it sure fails in comparison to anything based in reality. Again, you can't figure out that you're freerolling the over if the game gets shortened and you expect anyone to take you seriously. You're either a troll or a moron. For your sake, I hope it's the former.

wow, here i am talking about the theoretical and you make reference to reality. how about this dose of reality: youre a pompous jerk that doesnt seem to know how to make a valid, or even coherent point.

the only way you would be freerolling the over is if you were to scalp the under at a book that would grade a rainout as a push.
this is irrelevant to my argument.

but then again you didnt enter this thread to counter my argument, now did you?
so exactly who is the troll again...?

losturmarbles · 05-18-09, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by reno cool

This kind of sounds like Heads I win, Tails you lose.
But I guess there's no reason the books couldn't make it this way they would just need to adjust the line.

you do realize what you quoted is how the current rule applies, don't you?

losturmarbles · 05-18-09, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by MonkeyF0cker

Let's put it this way... If you were to book my action with your rules, you'd either change your rules fast or go broke. I'd bet every single over on every game that had a near certainty of being shortened or cancelled. I can't lose. Is booking this action an exhibition of common sense (as you call it) or just pure idiocy? Why do you think we'd like to know which book(s) are grading this way?

Do you understand this yet?

so what's stopping you from betting all the unders now?

so far this season (i think) there has been 4 rainouts:
covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/results/2009/boxscore291757.html&t=0
covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/results/2009/boxscore289349.html&t=0
covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/results/2009/boxscore290899.html&t=0
covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/results/2009/boxscore291635.html&t=0

2 went over before the game was called.

since the game was called, all the over/under bets were voided.
if you had bet the under on all these games and they were NOT rained out, you wouldve been down at least 2.2 units.
the rainout gives you a net of +2.2 units.
(betting the over on these games, the rainout gives you a net of -2)

now lets say the standard rule was unders have to go 8.5 to win, overs have to go 8.5 to lose.
you say this gives you an advantage betting the over?
you bet the over on 4 games, they get rained out, 2 are graded as wins, +2 units.
now if the rainout did NOT happen, you wouldve been up those 2 units also. the other games couldve easily gone over or under, you dont know and it doesnt matter.
the rainout doesnt give you anything that you wouldnt have already had, the rainout gives you a net of 0 units.
(betting the under, the rainout gives you a net of 0 also)

now i understand that if only one or a few books grade it the way it should be graded (as described above) that scalpers are going to take advatange of it. (not that any of you all have made this point)
and i understand (as vegas dave said) that over time, the rule will probably help you just as often as it hurts you.
both valid points.
however the rule in itself is inherently unfair.

pavyracer · 05-18-09, 06:36 PM

The rules have been there for a long time. Just like the ten commandments. I learned that from the Think Tank group boys.

reno cool · 05-18-09, 06:45 PM

If you know the game will get stopped before the 9 innings are up (lets say). You bet the over. If many runs score early you win, if not you push...by your rule. That's why it's a freeroll. The bookie would have to weigh the chances of suspended game due to weather or any other factor for every game separately to set a good line.

donjuan · 05-18-09, 07:01 PM

LOL. If there is a scalp available, at least one side has to have +EV. Which side do you think would have the +EV in the scenario you are talking about?

losturmarbles · 05-18-09, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by donjuan

LOL. If there is a scalp available, at least one side has to have +EV. Which side do you think would have the +EV in the scenario you are talking about?

there would obviously be 2 different markets, if books were using 2 different sets of rules. (and having 2 markets wouldnt be prudent)

are you saying using different rules against the current market lines would have +EV lines?

gee, you ARE a genius@!@!