[StackinGreen]

This gets into a dispute I have with a local. A ML was posted and because of timing and some reports I had seen, I thought a pitcher might not go. I liked the pitcher I was getting anyway and I loved the price, so I locked my guy must start (clicked him) and the other guy no must start (didn't click his must start box), which is then called action. I max bet it.

So, sure enough, the opposing pitcher scratches and I'm sitting on my nice ML, of course not knowing for sure who would fill, but not worried as I thought anyone else was fine at that price too for the opposing team. My team wins the game and when they grade it as a win, they use the new (later) money line with the new pitcher for the other team, which was approximately 40 points lower than my locked ML. The grading even states my original ML play and then has some BS underneath in italics with "new line" this pitcher vs. that pitcher, etc.

I call an agent and ask. I'm not following any argument how this is in any way legit, because if I can't do this, why would they ever offer "must start" or action in the first place? I'm hearing all this nonsense on the other side of "but if a new guy pitches, blah blah blah, the ML changes" which makes absolutely zero sense, if that were the case they'd call off all action unless the two guys listed at the time bet pitched --- which would obviate the need for ever clicking on the "must start" option.

Honestly, I can't think of anything more clearly obvious yet I'm still hearing excuses. I find the whole thing odd, just wondering if anyone has heard of this or can give any input. It also raised the question of why this option exists in the first place, of course given my info my whole angle was taking advantage of it. Thanks,

$G

[jtoler]

Weird that a sports betting expert would ask such a simple question.

[19th Hole]

You answered your own question.

[Bluehorseshoe]

You can't lock in a price if there's a pitching change.

[StackinGreen]

No, they have a nonsensical rule you have to seek out in the rules section to show why they screw you with an otherwise straight forward concept.

[funnyb25]

This is bad Stackin

[Blackballer]

Weird that a sports betting expert would ask such a simple question.

He asked the question because he got f u c k e d by his sportsbook.Nothing weird about that. I think you are right, you bought the line at that price and chose the pitching option, booked robed you there in case they addapted the line to pitching change. Good bookies have this option in case sth. likes this happens whereas bad books don't even offer this option at all.

[StackinGreen]

You can't lock in a price if there's a pitching change.

I understand what happened, but it's not a true "option"

I clicked my guy must start, I don't care about the other pitcher, in sports betting you lock at the time of bet. My ML should not change, otherwise, don't offer "action", just say THESE TWO MUST START for the listed ML.

[StackinGreen]

Weird that a sports betting expert would ask such a simple question.

I'm asking why a clearly nonsensical entity exists. The only answer, apparently, is "because."

[Bluehorseshoe]

So if the other pitcher was Kershaw and he doesn't go, would you want to be the book holding that plus action??

They have to make it that way.

[LT Profits]

Standard rule at all USA facing books. The only thing Action does is give you action in the event of a pitching change as opposed to an auto refund, Action does NOT lock in the price.

[funnyb25]

You guys are not being rational...

You lock in a pitcher because he must start for any action at all....

If here is any pitching changes you are locked in at the opening new price

This is nothing new

[funnyb25]

So if the other pitcher was Kershaw and he doesn't go, would you want to be the book holding that plus action??

They have to make it that way.

I see what you are saying...but bad example...Dodgers are -300 no matter who is pitching

[Blackballer]

You can't lock in a price if there's a pitching change.

Who says that? He could take the ml price early with both sides or just one side action and he could lock in the price.

Trust me if your book would do this regularly to you in case these occurences happen you would pull your money from there faster than a rabbit gets f' cked.

[funnyb25]

Who says that? He could take the ml price early with both sides or just one side action and he could lock in the price.

Trust me if your book would do this regularly to you in case these occurences happen you would pull your money from there faster than a rabbit gets f' cked.

Wrong...It is a standard rule....if you pick "LISTED" and a pitcher gets changed the new opening price applies always

[StackinGreen]

You guys are not being rational...

You lock in a pitcher because he must start for any action at all....

If here is any pitching changes you are locked in at the opening new price

This is nothing new

But I'm saying my lock pitched, the other guy didn't have to (or could have) I still would have had that same risk. I should get paid at my price lock (I know that's not their rule). The way it is right now though, the only thing that can happen is that I'm locked into an unknown scenario/ML, so it only helps them. If you can't lock a ML in at that price, do not offer "must start" or "action" Just don't do it. Because action doesn't REALLY mean action, that's my point. It means, "Action at some line we put up there, but you don't know"

[Blackballer]

So when San Antonio in the NBA is -7.5 favorite and Pop sits all of his starters and the lines changes to +1 San Antionio but you took Spurs at minus than what?? Then there should also be the rule "starters must start". Starting pitching is not like 99% influencing the moneyline of baseball but when a book cancels the early line and addapt the new then they act if the starting pitcher represents the moneyline, nonsense imo.

[Bluehorseshoe]

But I'm saying my lock pitched, the other guy didn't have to (or could have) I still would have had that same risk. I should get paid at my price lock (I know that's not their rule). The way it is right now though, the only thing that can happen is that I'm locked into an unknown scenario/ML, so it only helps them. If you can't lock a ML in at that price, do not offer "must start" or "action" Just don't do it. Because action doesn't REALLY mean action, that's my point. It means, "Action at some line we put up there, but you don't know"

The point of "Action" is, you don't care who's pitching.

The point of picking one "Listed pitcher" is you don't care who's pitching for the other team. It has nothing to do with locking in a price.

[funnyb25]

So when San Antonio in the NBA is -7.5 favorite and Pop sits all of his starters and the lines changes to +1 San Antionio but you took Spurs at minus than what?? Then there should also be the rule "starters must start". Starting pitching is not like 99% influencing the moneyline of baseball but when a book cancels the early line and addapt the new then they act if the starting pitcher represents the moneyline, nonsense imo.

Probably the worst analogy I have ever seen

[DwightShrute]

The point of "Action" is, you don't care who's pitching.

The point of picking one "Listed pitcher" is you don't care who's pitching for the other team. It has nothing to do with locking in a price.

end of thread

Probably the worst analogy I have ever seen

[Blackballer]

Wrong...It is a standard rule....if you pick "LISTED" and a pitcher gets changed the new opening price applies always

But not if your pitchers stays as the starter, the option makes sure that your bet gets accepted if the conditions match.
I his case it shouldn't be the new line. It should be either the first line or a push when the pitcher conditions doesn't match.

[Blackballer]

Probably the worst analogy I have ever seen

Good for you buddy!

[StackinGreen]

The point of "Action" is, you don't care who's pitching.

The point of picking one "Listed pitcher" is you don't care who's pitching for the other team. It has nothing to do with locking in a price.

We understand what their (dumb) rule is, the problem is that it is nonsensical and therefore dumb because this isn't horse racing, by definition in sports when you bet, you lock. Yes, there are conditions but as per the english language, as you stated above, I bet my guy and action means I don't care who the other guy is. I'm locking the ML at time of bet like any other bet I would make in all of sports.

I know they don't have the option in NFL but if I bet Green Bay vs. Pittsburgh and Roethlisberger, for example, doesn't start, my bet stands. Again, the point is don't offer ACTION for a side if it DOESN'T REALLY MEAN ACTION.

I get that that's just how it is. I'm only talking about it now because it's language trickery with a buried rule --- one that never helps the player, surprise surprise.

[funnyb25]

We understand what their (dumb) rule is, the problem is that it is nonsensical and therefore dumb because this isn't horse racing, by definition in sports when you bet, you lock. Yes, there are conditions but as per the english language, as you stated above, I bet my guy and action means I don't care who the other guy is. I'm locking the ML at time of bet like any other bet I would make in all of sports.

I know they don't have the option in NFL but if I bet Green Bay vs. Pittsburgh and Roethlisberger, for example, doesn't start, my bet stands. Again, the point is don't offer ACTION for a side if it DOESN'T REALLY MEAN ACTION.

I get that that's just how it is. I'm only talking about it now because it's language trickery with a buried rule --- one that never helps the player, surprise surprise.

I see your case but remember...the books ALWAYS have the edge

[TheMoneyShot]

We understand what their (dumb) rule is, the problem is that it is nonsensical and therefore dumb because this isn't horse racing, by definition in sports when you bet, you lock. Yes, there are conditions but as per the english language, as you stated above, I bet my guy and action means I don't care who the other guy is. I'm locking the ML at time of bet like any other bet I would make in all of sports.

I know they don't have the option in NFL but if I bet Green Bay vs. Pittsburgh and Roethlisberger, for example, doesn't start, my bet stands. Again, the point is don't offer ACTION for a side if it DOESN'T REALLY MEAN ACTION.

I get that that's just how it is. I'm only talking about it now because it's language trickery with a buried rule --- one that never helps the player, surprise surprise.

Stackin... you're a good poster. You keep on saying "nonsensical" in every post. Wagering doesn't have to make sense. Vegas makes the rule.... it's to their advantage. No matter how you reword everything.

So clearly... "must start" and "action" was for Vegas advantage. Certainly not your advantage. I agree... it's the dumbest thing ever made.

Only sportsbook that doesn't change ODDS and let's ACTION GO AS PROMISED is Nitrogen. From what I've read on the boards.

[StackinGreen]

Yes, I get it. In my view, list the starters, set a price for those, and be done with it. If they don't go (like totals or run lines), no action. Don't put MLs out, action next to a side and then say, oh, that's "not what we really meant". Ok, anyway, we can go about our business. I still won, lol

[funnyb25]

Yes, I get it. In my view, list the starters, set a price for those, and be done with it. If they don't go (like totals or run lines), no action. Don't put MLs out, action next to a side and then say, oh, that's "not what we really meant". Ok, anyway, we can go about our business. I still won, lol

[RudyRuetigger]

stackin WOW

I would ask mods to delete thread

this is very embarrassing for you

[StackinGreen]

Rudy, that's such a wannabe JJGold post

nice try bro

[mcaulay777]

Here is a question what about futures. Sonny Grey and Yu Darvish for wins on the year say they were at over 15.Is the bet still on if they get traded like they did.

[2daBank]

Yes, I get it. In my view, list the starters, set a price for those, and be done with it. If they don't go (like totals or run lines), no action. Don't put MLs out, action next to a side and then say, oh, that's "not what we really meant". Ok, anyway, we can go about our business. I still won, lol

That why I always bet listed because in a sport price is everything there no way you want to be on a game where you don't know what price you getting.

Your argument is basically you want a situation where you can take shots at the book. Why would they let you attempt to bet into bad lines? Clearly starting pitching is a huge part of the line and you know this which why you picked that your pitcher must start! This isn't some obscure rule nobody knows about it common knowledge and there really nothing shady about it.

I agree picking action is stupid but of course books will give the uninformed the option to bet into a line of books choosing, why wouldn't they? That just good business..

[StackinGreen]

Here is a question what about futures. Sonny Grey and Yu Darvish for wins on the year say they were at over 15.Is the bet still on if they get traded like they did.

this is a classic thing where you'd think it'd be the obvious "Add their NL and AL wins for the year" in the case of Darvish but who knows about books rules, as I've detailed above

[StackinGreen]

That why I always bet listed because in a sport price is everything there no way you want to be on a game where you don't know what price you getting.

Your argument is basically you want a situation where you can take shots at the book. Why would they let you attempt to bet into bad lines? Clearly starting pitching is a huge part of the line and you know this which why you picked that your pitcher must start! This isn't some obscure rule nobody knows about it common knowledge and there really nothing shady about it.

I agree picking action is stupid but of course books will give the uninformed the option to bet into a line of books choosing, why wouldn't they? That just good business..

you have to go digging, so to speak, for the rule

I know you all know this I'm just saying, the language is out and out deceptive

My point was that like in other bets, it should be listed or no action, especially when the precedent in sports is that WHEN YOU BET YOU LOCK

Please give me an example in any other sports wager where you get a conditional. It doesn't exist, which means that it is weird to maintain this totally stupid baseball vestige

[5918mike]

Makes sense to me, if you don't like the rule don't make the bet.

[Bluehorseshoe]

you have to go digging, so to speak, for the rule

You don't have to go digging. It's like any other rule.

You just assumed what it was.