Hello there.
I recently made a bet at Pinnacle (tennis props: will Fish win 3-0 - I said no, he will not).
And he didn't. His opponent won one set. But what happened, my bet was voided, due to Fish's opponent retiring later on in the match.
I think that's wrong and I was cheated out of my winnings. If it was two sets to love for Fish, and there was a retirement, sure, we don't know what would have happened, I'd accept a voided bet. But when Fish had already LOST A SET and thus had no theoretical chances of winning 3-0, Pinnacle should have paid.
Same if I take say Nadal at +2 against Federer and the first two sets go 6:0 6:7... now even if Federer was to win the final set without losing a game, I can't lose this bet, the moment the score reaches 6:6 in the second set the bet is effectively won.
So what kind of stupid practice is this to void bets on unfinished events that have no theoretical chances of losing... that's just wrong!
On the other hand, when I bet "who's gonna win the first set", the bets are always properly graded, whether there's a retirement or not. If you lose your bet, because the wrong person won the first set, you won't get your money back because the match didn't finish - since only the first set needed to be finished. Why is it different when it comes to: will player X win 3-0??
What has match duration to do with winning the first set? Nothing.
Why should match duration or a retirement have anything to do with whether a player will or will not win a set, if he has already won it? The bet should stand. If that player has not yet won it, however, and there's a theoretical chance that he either may or may not win it, then a push is obviously fine.
Do I have a case for a complaint here? Based on common sense and fairness, I think I do. But based on Pinnacle's rules, I don't.
But this is stupid and has to be changed... I won this bet!