[raiders72001]

I saw this across the street. This was live betting.

Third TD in Bills/SF game prop. Who will score?

Listed options included Allen, Mostart, Davis, Diggs and Moss. There was no "any other player" option on the list.

Knox scored.

If you had one of those five and there's no option for Knox or any other player, is the play a push or a loss?

[cincinnatikid513]

u would hope a push

[pilebuck13]

That a loss who cares if it’s not on the list player you picked did not get it auto loss just because they didn’t list any other player means basically if your player does not get it you lose

[icon]

I saw this across the street. This was live betting.

Third TD in Bills/SF game prop. Who will score?

Listed options included Allen, Mostart, Davis, Diggs and Moss. There was no "any other player" option on the list.

Knox scored.

If you had one of those five and there's no option for Knox or any other player, is the play a push or a loss?

I see it as a loss because the terms were clear, only the players listed could determine the outcome of the bet.
Since it was none of the options listed its a loss.

Oh and the book knew exactly what it was doing and took advantage of the wording of the wager, it created a freeroll for itself without being too obvious or sleazy looking.

If I was considering a play on this prop I would have inevitably decided to not make a wager because I could see something like this happening.

I think the book was counting on people believing they would get a push if an unlisted option ended up scoring. The Knox score was the best possible outcome for the book as all wagers lost.


Experienced bettors know the books are not giving an advantage like this (push being implied) to the players.

[ronald]

Loss

[raiders72001]

Thanks for the input guys.

[RudyRuetigger]

it probably depends on the lines offered

[Chi_archie]

Loser

[pologq]

i would think a push if there was no "other" option

[johnnyvegas13]

Scam book to not offer field imo