[Halifax]

Most books have a rule regarding teasers ... if there is a "Push" or "No-Action" on one of the legs of the teaser, the teaser payout reduces to the next lowest level of teaser. For example, if you have a 4-team teaser, and one of the legs is a Push or No-Action, your teaser (and resulting payout odds) essentially becomes a 3-team teaser.

This rule is fine and fair for 3-teamers, 4-teamers, 5-teamers, etc. ... but what about when we have a 2-team teaser? What happens to a 2-team teaser if one of the legs of the teaser is a Push or No-Action ?

Well, in my experience, roughly half of the sportsbooks (including WSEX, BetOnline, Canbet, and many others) automatically No-Action the teaser and refund the bettor's money ... whether or not the 2nd leg of the teaser Wins or Loses is irrelevant ... as long as one of the legs of the teaser is a Push or No-Action, then the 2-team teaser is No-Actioned. This is the fair and proper way to handle a 2-team teaser where one of the legs is a Push or No-Action.

The other group of sportsbooks (including, apparently, SportsBook.com, Olympic, CRIS/DSI, and many more) handle the situation much differently. If a 2-team teaser has a Push / No-Action on one leg, and a Win on the 2nd leg, they will grade the teaser as No-Action (just as they should). However, the problem arises when the 2-team teaser has a Push / No-Action on one leg, and a Loss on the 2nd leg ... these books would grade this teaser as a Loss, and that is grossly unfair.

Why is grading this 2-teamer (with a Push / No-Action on one leg and a Loss on the 2nd leg) as a Loss so blatantly unfair to the player ? Because if the first leg of the teaser is a Push / No-Action, then the book basically gets a free roll against the player on the 2nd leg of the teaser ... that's why it's so unfair.

Last week, for example, if I had Redskins -2 as one of the legs in a 4-team teaser, then the Push on the -2 would result in my teaser reducing to a 3-team teaser ... which is fine. But if I had Redskins -2 as the first leg in a 2-team teaser, then I'm screwed ... I have no way to Win ... I can only Lose or Push ... if the 2nd leg of my teaser Loses, my teaser Loses ... if the 2nd leg of my teaser Wins, my teaser is No-Actioned ... I have no upside, and the book has no downside.


And as unfair as the above example is, it's even more unfair to the player to grade a 2-team teaser as a Loser, if that teaser has a leg that is No-Actioned. A prime example would be the situation that may occur this weekend with the Chargers game. What if the Chargers game is moved to Arizona or elsewhere? What happens if someone bet a 2-team teaser a couple of days ago, with Chargers -4 and Green Bay +9 ? Presumably, according to the rules of most books, the change of venue would cause bets on this game to be No-Actioned ... and presumably this rule would carry over to the teasers as well, which would cause the first leg of this particular 2-team teaser to be No-Actioned. If this happened, a player holding this 2-team teaser would be really screwed ... the first leg of this teaser would be No-Actioned, meaning that the best they could possibly hope for now from this teaser would be a Push ... once again, the book now has a freeroll versus the player ... if the Green Bay +9 teased leg Loses, the player Loses the teaser ... if the Green Bay +9 teased leg Wins, the teaser is No-Actioned and the stake refunded ... the player has no shot at all at Winning this teaser, only Losing or having it No-Actioned ... and the worst thing about this situation, is that the player is put in this no-win situation before the Chargers even step on the field - as soon as the change of venue is announced, this player would be automatically screwed.

-------------

SBR, hopefully you can use your clout in the industry to put forward a uniform rule for 2-team teasers which is fair and equitable for both parties ... a 2-team teaser with a Push or No Action on one of the legs, has to be No-Actioned.

[SBR_John]

SBR, hopefully you can use your clout in the industry to put forward a uniform rule for 2-team teasers which is fair and equitable for both parties ... a 2-team teaser with a Push or No Action on one of the legs, has to be No-Actioned.

I thought if one leg lost the bet lost no matter what the other legs did. Are you saying a Push and a loss on a two team teaser it should be a no action? Forgive me Im not a teaser player.

[BigBollocks]

I thought if one leg lost the bet lost no matter what the other legs did. Are you saying a Push and a loss on a two team teaser it should be a no action? Forgive me Im not a teaser player.

John he's referring to books taking a shot at players. Really there are several ways to grade them. The two classic ways of grading is to revert down to the lowest number of teams and grade from there should one of the bets push, or to just no-action pushes and grade the entire teaser as a push irrespective of how the other bets do.

A few books, however, clearly take a shot at the player by combining the worst of both of the classic ways of grading above. They'll no action a teaser bet with a push in it should the rest of the bets involved win, but grade the entire bet a loss should any of the other bets that went alongside the pushed bet lose. It's a blatant shot taking attempt that should no doubt be frowned upon.

As always, obviously the individual player should read the rules carefully of any book he or she wishes to place a bet with....

[Halifax]

I thought if one leg lost the bet lost no matter what the other legs did. Are you saying a Push and a loss on a two team teaser it should be a no action? Forgive me Im not a teaser player.

Well, we'd better wait for the resident SBR teaser expert then LOL.

But, in summary, any time a book grades a 2-team teaser as a Loss if one of the legs is a Push / No-Action, then that book effectively has a freeroll against the player on the 2nd leg of the teaser .. if one leg of the teaser is a Push or No-Action, then there is no possible way the player can win this teaser, no matter what happens on the 2nd leg of the teaser .. the player can only end up losing or breaking even ... this equates to a freeroll for the book, which is a no-no.

Read my whole post if you want the full explanation. I know it's approaching McIrish-like length, but it explains my point.

[biggamer3]

He brings a valid point to the table

[Justin7]

Halifax,

You've identified the two sets of rules on teasers. For those that don't know...

"Las Vegas" rules treat a tie+loss (ir tie+win) as a no-action, with ties reducing if there are more than 3 legs.

The books that follow "Las Vegas" rules for teasers is fairly small - so few, that I actually refer to "Offshore rules" if a book treats a tie+loss as a loss.

Teasers are profitable for players - many pros play those as their bread and butter. Vegas got clobbered last year, and consequently changed a lot of their payouts for the worse. Even playing against "Offshore" rules, the player has a monster advantage. I don't see it as a problem, as long as the rule is clearly spelled out.

One other observation - "Offshore" rules don't hurt professional players nearly as much, as they tend to play 3 or 4 teamers a lot more than 2-teamers.

[Halifax]

The inherent unfairness exists with the books that grade a 2-team teaser as a Loss, if one of the legs of that teaser is a Push / No-Action and the other leg of the teaser is a Loss.

To summarize the grading of 2-team teasers at these books:

1. Push / No-Action + Loss = Loss
2. Push / No-Action + Win = Push

The reason this type of grading is unfair, is that in Scenario 1 (Push + Loss) you are penalized because the 2nd leg of the teaser lost (which leads to the teaser being graded a Loss) ... but in Scenario 2, you are NOT rewarded for the fact that the 2nd leg of the teaser was a Winner (you don't Win anything, you only get your original stake refunded).

The player has no upside (Loss or Push), while the book has no downside.

[Halifax]

Halifax,

You've identified the two sets of rules on teasers. For those that don't know...

"Las Vegas" rules treat a tie+loss (ir tie+win) as a no-action, with ties reducing if there are more than 3 legs.

The books that follow "Las Vegas" rules for teasers is fairly small - so few, that I actually refer to "Offshore rules" if a book treats a tie+loss as a loss.

Teasers are profitable for players - many pros play those as their bread and butter. Vegas got clobbered last year, and consequently changed a lot of their payouts for the worse. Even playing against "Offshore" rules, the player has a monster advantage. I don't see it as a problem, as long as the rule is clearly spelled out.

One other observation - "Offshore" rules don't hurt professional players nearly as much, as they tend to play 3 or 4 teamers a lot more than 2-teamers.

Very suprised you don't see it as a problem, paticularly the scenario that might unfold with the Chargers game. Obviously these rules have been in place for some time, but just because Players haven't complained much before, doesn't mean that the situation needs to be accepted.

It's all about the Books not having a freeroll against the Player.

That has been one of the underlying themes here in Book vs Player disputes over the years .. that the Player not be put in a position where the end result could only be negative for the Player, with the Player having no chance of Winning.

The example with the possible change of venue with the Chargers game, and the resulting No-Actioned leg of a 2-team teaser, which in turn would result in that teaser either Pushing (at best) or Losing (at worst) ... well, it's damn near impossible to find a more blatant freeroll situation than that.

[Bill Dozer]

Very suprised you don't see it as a problem, paticularly the scenario that might unfold with the Chargers game. Obviously these rules have been in place for some time, but just because Players haven't complained much before, doesn't mean that the situation needs to be accepted.

It's all about the Books not having a freeroll against the Player.

That has been one of the underlying themes here in Book vs Player disputes over the years .. that the Player not be put in a position where the end result could only be negative for the Player, with the Player having no chance of Winning.

The example with the possible change of venue with the Chargers game, and the resulting No-Actioned leg of a 2-team teaser, which in turn would result in that teaser either Pushing (at best) or Losing (at worst) ... well, it's damn near impossible to find a more blatant freeroll situation than that.

It's inconsistent but if listed in the rules the player has to calculate that in when figuring payoffs. I'm sure Ganchrow could caluclate the push+loss frequency in to the payouts and tell us how much better teasers at the first group of books are assuming they used the same payouts.

[Ganchrow]

This is a free market and books are thereby free to set whatever terms they deem appropriate. You and I as customers are then free to patronize whatever book sets its terms most favorably for our particular purposes.

Obviously, "Offshore rules" teasers are less favorable for players than "Vegas rules" teasers, but as long as books are upfront about what rules set they choose to employ, there's no duplicity involved. While we might not like such rules, a book's doing nothing wrong by offering them.

[Justin7]

It's all about the Books not having a freeroll against the Player.

That has been one of the underlying themes here in Book vs Player disputes over the years .. that the Player not be put in a position where the end result could only be negative for the Player, with the Player having no chance of Winning.

The example with the possible change of venue with the Chargers game, and the resulting No-Actioned leg of a 2-team teaser, which in turn would result in that teaser either Pushing (at best) or Losing (at worst) ... well, it's damn near impossible to find a more blatant freeroll situation than that.

First, there are plenty of "freerolls" - look at a "Ties lose" parlay card. 2 INTs, 2 Fumbles, 3 FGs. All are the most likely event, and the card loses. Teasers are no different - you're in a potential ties lose/push IF you play 2-teamers. It is spelled out clearly, so I don't object.

Second, re: change of venue. If one of your legs on a 2-teamer changes venue, that is a "no-action" on that leg, which is different from a push. Most offshore books don't address what happens if there is a "no-action". When that happens, it follows Las Vegas rules, which makes the entire 2-legger a no-action. I'm gotten in some heated discussions with books about this, and they've always given in.

I hope no book ever tries to adopt "offshore rules" to include a no-action in a 2-legger.

[bigboydan]

This is a free market and books are thereby free to set whatever terms they deem appropriate. You and I as customers are then free to patronize whatever book sets its terms most favorably for our particular purposes.

Indeed Ganchrow...

[Halifax]

This is a free market and books are thereby free to set whatever terms they deem appropriate. You and I as customers are then free to patronize whatever book sets its terms most favorably for our particular purposes.

Obviously, "Offshore rules" teasers are less favorable for players than "Vegas rules" teasers, but as long as books are upfront about what rules set they choose to employ, there's no duplicity involved. While we might not like such rules, a book's doing nothing wrong by offering them.

So you see nothing wrong with betting a 2-team teaser a couple of days ago with Chargers -4 as the first leg of the teaser, finding out that the game is being moved to Arizona, and then having your book apply a rule such as the following (from Sportsbook.com) to put you in a no-win situation? :

A "Tie" or "No Action" and a "Win" on a two team teaser shall constitute a "No Action" wager. A "Tie" or a "No Action" and a "Loss" on a two team teaser shall constitute a "Losing" wager

----------------

Just because a book has something written in its rules, doesn't mean it should necessarily be accepted as gospel ... it has been a long-held belief at SBR, that if a rule at a particular book is grossly unfair to a player, that that particular rule should not be binding.

I think in the above example, given the scenario that I mentioned, that that rule would be grossly unfair to the player.

It's one thing to have one book offering -110 on a 6 x 2 teaser, versus another book that offers +100 on the same teaser ... then the player has the choice of playing at the book with the higher payout odds, or playing at the book with the inferior odds.

But to have a book have a rule in place (such as the one above) that basically says "if there's a venue change, then you have no possible way to win this teaser, although you could easily lose it" ... that's a whole different ballgame ... it's not as simple as saying "well, you should have played your teaser at a book that offered Vegas teaser rules" .. it's more of a situation where you should be saying "that book is screwing players over by using that particular rule for 2-team teasers that is grossly unfair, and it should not be allowed to continue".

[raiders72002]

What Ganch said.

Books set juice, parlay and teaser odds independently. Play at the book that suits your needs.

Some Offshore Books pay better then Vegas rule teasers.

[Ganchrow]

What I think we can probably all agree on is that in the case of a change in venue or date, it would be unreasonable for a book to treat a teaser in such manner (no action/loss only).

That said, I think it might be a straw man insofar as I'm not aware of a single case of that actually occurring.

[m3vr6]

anyone know which reputable books offer the 4 teamer 13pts on sides and totals Monster teaser at 10% juice? also you can tease sides/totals combo.

[Halifax]

What Ganch said.

Books set juice, parlay and teaser odds independently. Play at the book that suits your needs.

Some Offshore Books pay better then Vegas rule teasers.

LOL ... feel free to read the thread at some point, Raiders ... it has nothing at all to do with how the books "set juice, parlay and teaser odds" ... also has nothing to do with the fact that "Some Offshore Books pay better then Vegas rule teasers".

[raiders72002]

As you said it's a McIrish post. I'm not going to read it again. You were whining about rules for a 2 team teaser. Payouts for 2 team teasers are different at from book to book and SBR can't change that.

[Halifax]

As you said it's a McIrish post. I'm not going to read it again. You were whining about rules for a 2 team teaser. Payouts for 2 team teasers are different at from book to book and SBR can't change that.

You're not going to read it again ? LOL .. it's painfully obvious you never read it a first time.

That's fine, by the way ... I don't care if you read it or not ... but if you don't want to bother reading it, you might as well save your comments ... this thread has ZERO to do with the payout odds on 2-team teasers.

[raiders72002]

Give me the cliff notes. If a teaser is reduced to a 2 team teaser it still has everything to do with a 2 team teaser.

And if it doesn't concern 2 team teasers then why the title

2-Team Teasers : SBR Should Use Their Influence To Change This Grossly Unfair Rule

[Halifax]

Give me the cliff notes. If a teaser is reduced to a 2 team teaser it still has everything to do with a 2 team teaser.

And if it doesn't concern 2 team teasers then why the title

Yes, the thread is about 2-team teasers, but it's not about the payout odds on 2-team teasers ... it's about how the books handle a Push / No Action on one of the legs of a 2-team teaser.

If you want the Cliff notes version, go back and read post # 13. The rule in boldface is the rule that Sportsbook.com has in place.

What does that rule mean to you ? Well, it means that if you happened to have placed a 2-team teaser at Sportsbook.com using Chargers -4 and Green Bay +9 (for example), you will be screwed if the Chargers game ends up being moved to a different venue.

According to their rule, they will No-Action the Chargers -4 leg of the teaser, which will leave you in a position where the best thing that can happen to you is a Push on the teaser ... if the Green Bay +9 2nd leg of the teaser loses, you lose the teaser ... but if the Green Bay +9 leg wins, your teaser bet is a Push ... there's no upside for you, you either Lose the teaser or you Push ... the book has a freeroll against you, as soon as that change of venue is announced, because your Chargers -4 leg will get No-Actioned and it will be impossible for you to win the teaser.

[Dark Horse]

Contact the book, ask them what their policy is in this confusing situation, and tell them that you will post their answer on a public forum.

[raiders72002]

I agree that change of venue should not be graded the same as a push and that the bet should be considered "no action" in a two team teaser.

[3put]

Well, in my experience, roughly half of the sportsbooks (including WSEX, BetOnline, Canbet, and many others) automatically No-Action the teaser and refund the bettor's money ... whether or not the 2nd leg of the teaser Wins or Loses is irrelevant ... as long as one of the legs of the teaser is a Push or No-Action, then the 2-team teaser is No-Actioned. This is the fair and proper way to handle a 2-team teaser where one of the legs is a Push or No-Action.

In this case the player has a freeroll.

If the first leg loses Sunday the player can hope for a push/no action on the second leg Monday.

[Halifax]

In this case the player has a freeroll.

If the first leg loses Sunday the player can hope for a push/no action on the second leg Monday.

That's not a freeroll for either side.

The Player cannot win if the first leg of the teaser loses ... he can either lose or push, and 98% of the time or so, the Player will lose (since a push is so unlikely). If the first leg of the teaser were to win, then the Book is in the position of hoping for a Push / No-Action (in addition to hoping for a Loss) on the 2nd leg.

The "Any 2-Team Teaser with a Push / No-Action and a Loss is Graded as No-Action" rule gives equal opportunity to both the Player and the Book.

It is a fair rule. Given a Push / No-Action on one of the legs of the teaser, you aren't rewarded for the win if you win on the 2nd leg, but neither are you penalized for the loss if the 2nd leg loses.

[bigboydan]

So you see nothing wrong with betting a 2-team teaser a couple of days ago with Chargers -4 as the first leg of the teaser, finding out that the game is being moved to Arizona, and then having your book apply a rule such as the following (from Sportsbook.com) to put you in a no-win situation? :

A "Tie" or "No Action" and a "Win" on a two team teaser shall constitute a "No Action" wager. A "Tie" or a "No Action" and a "Loss" on a two team teaser shall constitute a "Losing" wager

No... Thats not right at all !!

I don't play teasers or parlays at all, but it's clear as day it's a no win situation, but then again look at the book you use as an example though Halifax.

[tacomax]

Halifax - I presume that this is related solely to NFL. With this assumption, what % of games has this affected in, say, the past 5 years?

[Patrick McIrish]

Read my whole post if you want the full explanation. I know it's approaching McIrish-like length, but it explains my point.

[Patrick McIrish]

I've said this for a long time, doubt it's going to change though. Like in poker when you go from casino to casino, the rules are not always uniform. They should be, especially on things that are always going to be reoccurring. What can happen changes from place to place. Same with teasers, I think there should be some sort of standard set that everyone followed, save us all a lot of problems. Does this have a shot in hell? Of course not, nice idea though.

[Dumb_lucK]

Simply put.. Ask your book how can you make a 2 team teaser with only one selection. Tell them you feel that using 2 selections you know one will push and would rather just tease your single wager with the points offered. If they tell you it is not possible, ask them how it is possible to grade a 2 team teaser a "Loss" when you can't have a 2 tearm teaser with only one valid selection

Does this make sense? LOL

[bigboydan]

Don't be mad at Halifax for using some of your manifestos as an example Pat. I mean they might be a tab long and all, but never the less they are usually good reads.

[raiders72002]

Irish- At least use paragraphs when you post your War and Peace novels. It would make it somewhat easier.

[HedgeHog]

Use ABCIslands.com. Ties win on 2 and 3 teamers.

[tacomax]

Halifax - I presume that this is related solely to NFL. With this assumption, what % of games has this affected in, say, the past 5 years?

Since it appears that SD will be playing this weekend as planned, can you answer the question?

[raiders72002]

1