over/under rule

[DukeSnider]

Never could understand if betting the over and game is halted in the 7,8,9th and the total score is already over the bet is cancelled....any clarification out there ?

[HedgeHog]

Canceled. Game must go full 9 innings for Totals and Run Lines

[relaaxx]

if playing under - game only goes 8 innings - score 1-0 - u/o 8 or 9

you have to cancel bets, under could still lose, over could still win

just easier to cancel all bets on totals unless games completed

can't say bets are cancelled if you have under or over if the total has not gone over but if you have under or over and the total runs already exceeded the total the bet is not cancelled.

[DroopyDog]

This is a rule that should change. If a total has already been decided, by going over, it should be graded as such. Shouldnt get penalized..and definitely shouldnt get rewarded if you had the under.

[bubba]

This is a rule that should change. If a total has already been decided, by going over, it should be graded as such. Shouldnt get penalized..and definitely shouldnt get rewarded if you had the under.

Sort of gives a freeroll to over betters if a game is destined to get rained out early. Always bet over with heavy rain due 2 hours after game starts. I imagine thats the reason for the current rule.

In general, while I would prefer rules to be certain ways, my big concern is clarity. And this rule is clear as day at every sportsbook I have ever seen, and thats whats important to me.

[HedgeHog]

This ^

[rangerz2478]

This is a rule that should change. If a total has already been decided, by going over, it should be graded as such. Shouldnt get penalized..and definitely shouldnt get rewarded if you had the under.

What if you had the over in a game that ended 2-1 after 5? Works both ways.

[DukeSnider]

What if you had the over in a game that ended 2-1 after 5? Works both ways.

except that if the over has already been reached in the 5th it obviously can not go under.Yes the rule is clear but still illogical at least to me.

[bubba]

except that if the over has already been reached in the 5th it obviously can not go under.Yes the rule is clear but still illogical at least to me.

Did you read my explanation? Do you not follow that logic?

[mrpapageorgio]

Sort of gives a freeroll to over betters if a game is destined to get rained out early. Always bet over with heavy rain due 2 hours after game starts. I imagine thats the reason for the current rule.

In general, while I would prefer rules to be certain ways, my big concern is clarity. And this rule is clear as day at every sportsbook I have ever seen, and thats whats important to me.

That's like saying a "Will there be a score in the first inning" bet should be canceled if the game gets called in the 7th inning. Why does the bet need to be voided if you only cared about what happened in the first inning or the outcome has already been decided before the game was called?

You could look at the proposed scenario as free rolling over bettors, but the current situation provides free insurance for under bettors. I can check out the weather forecast and if it's gonna rain, bet the under and get bailed out by the rain on a technicality if the pitchers get lit up early.

The rule could be simple. "Games called final before 9 innings (8.5 if the home team is leading) are completed will have the game total bets voided except in cases where the game total was over before the game was called. In this case, game total bets will be graded accordingly." I just don't see why an under bettor should get bailed out on a technicality if his bet lost in the 4th inning and the remaining innings would've just been a formality.

[KVB]

...In general, while I would prefer rules to be certain ways, my big concern is clarity. And this rule is clear as day at every sportsbook I have ever seen, and thats whats important to me.

I agree here.

I had an Over called back this week. It is what it is.

[bubba]

That's like saying a "Will there be a score in the first inning" bet should be canceled if the game gets called in the 7th inning. Why does the bet need to be voided if you only cared about what happened in the first inning or the outcome has already been decided before the game was called?

You could look at the proposed scenario as free rolling over bettors, but the current situation provides free insurance for under bettors. I can check out the weather forecast and if it's gonna rain, bet the under and get bailed out by the rain on a technicality if the pitchers get lit up early.

The rule could be simple. "Games called final before 9 innings (8.5 if the home team is leading) are completed will have the game total bets voided except in cases where the game total was over before the game was called. In this case, game total bets will be graded accordingly." I just don't see why an under bettor should get bailed out on a technicality if his bet lost in the 4th inning and the remaining innings would've just been a formality.

Its nothing like the 1st inning wager.

You dont refute my claim. It's to protect the books when rain is imminent. If game is destined to rain out in 5th inning, bet the over. Only overs can win. That's why the rule is there (at least 1 reasom).

If you open a sportsbook, feel free to make the rule anything you please. Just make it clear to us bettors.

[bubba]

I agree here.

I had an Over called back this week. It is what it is.

Me too

[mrpapageorgio]

Its nothing like the 1st inning wager.

You dont refute my claim. It's to protect the books when rain is imminent. If game is destined to rain out in 5th inning, bet the over. Only overs can win. That's why the rule is there (at least 1 reasom).

If you open a sportsbook, feel free to make the rule anything you please. Just make it clear to us bettors.

It is like the first inning in that if the over hits in the 5th inning, why does what happens in the 6th-9th inning (or whether they even continue playing) matter for the sake of over/under? I agree if the game is postponed early where there's no official record, then all bets should be void. However, if it get's called official after 7 innings and it's 7-4 with the o/u 8, pay the over bettors.

How does it protect the books when rain is imminent? If you're a competent book, you should have enough action on both sides to profit. If you're a book and the chance of rain is causing that much of a liability to you, don't put up a line for that game or adjust your lines accordingly.

Don't be a pot and call me a kettle when you're not refuting my claim that the current system serves as a free roll for under bettors. As it stands now, if the forecast calls for rain, then I can bet the under knowing if the pitchers get lit up, then I can get bailed out on account of rain if the game is called early. Yes, it adds risk to under bettors, but you can't say under bettors don't have an unfair advantage now.


At least if you go with my proposal, under bettors can't argue once a total goes over, there's a chance the outcome could change to make their bet a win. With a run line, the bet could bounce between winning and losing 18 times in a game which makes the outcome uncertain until the very end. Because of that it's best to just void that bet if a full game isn't played. Here, your bet is winning until it loses (or is losing until it wins), you can't argue as an under bettor there's a chance you could come back to win once the total goes over.

[DukeSnider]

Did you read my explanation? Do you not follow that logic?

Sort of gives a freeroll to over betters if a game is destined to get rained out early. Always bet over with heavy rain due 2 hours after game starts. ....Sorry but "sort of" doesn't meet my criteria for "logic"...

[DroopyDog]

Since we are discussing rule changes, the one I most want to see is American sports to be graded like soccer. Regulation time ONLY.

The way currently structured, OT only benefits the favorite and the over. No OT has ever helped an under dog or under.

[bubba]

Sort of gives a freeroll to over betters if a game is destined to get rained out early. Always bet over with heavy rain due 2 hours after game starts. ....Sorry but "sort of" doesn't meet my criteria for "logic"...

Attack my choice Of words, instead of the point. Solid argument

[bubba]

It is like the first inning in that if the over hits in the 5th inning, why does what happens in the 6th-9th inning (or whether they even continue playing) matter for the sake of over/under? I agree if the game is postponed early where there's no official record, then all bets should be void. However, if it get's called official after 7 innings and it's 7-4 with the o/u 8, pay the over bettors.

How does it protect the books when rain is imminent? If you're a competent book, you should have enough action on both sides to profit. If you're a book and the chance of rain is causing that much of a liability to you, don't put up a line for that game or adjust your lines accordingly.

Don't be a pot and call me a kettle when you're not refuting my claim that the current system serves as a free roll for under bettors. As it stands now, if the forecast calls for rain, then I can bet the under knowing if the pitchers get lit up, then I can get bailed out on account of rain if the game is called early. Yes, it adds risk to under bettors, but you can't say under bettors don't have an unfair advantage now.


At least if you go with my proposal, under bettors can't argue once a total goes over, there's a chance the outcome could change to make their bet a win. With a run line, the bet could bounce between winning and losing 18 times in a game which makes the outcome uncertain until the very end. Because of that it's best to just void that bet if a full game isn't played. Here, your bet is winning until it loses (or is losing until it wins), you can't argue as an under bettor there's a chance you could come back to win once the total goes over.

Do you not understand what I am saying? Or do you refute it?

There is obviously a reason every sportsbook I know of has the rule in place. Do you think it's just because and no reason? I think iunderstand why they do it. And I understand why a wagerer wouldnt like it. In theory it protects the books. I'm not defending it, or saying it's fair. It protects the books from having to "keep a game off the board" or adjust the lines as you suggest. They'd prefer a rule in place so they have to monitor the weather as little as possible. This is it.

[bubba]

Think about that red Sox game the other night. 95% to start on time 85% to rain out before 9 innings. What would a fair total on that game have been if a rainout over can only win but cant lose. 22?18? 25?17? Serious question. Yes my %s are made up.

[mrpapageorgio]

Do you not understand what I am saying? Or do you refute it?

There is obviously a reason every sportsbook I know of has the rule in place. Do you think it's just because and no reason? I think iunderstand why they do it. And I understand why a wagerer wouldnt like it. In theory it protects the books. I'm not defending it, or saying it's fair. It protects the books from having to "keep a game off the board" or adjust the lines as you suggest. They'd prefer a rule in place so they have to monitor the weather as little as possible. This is it.

I refute that my suggestion provides an unfair advantage to an over bettor as the current situation provides an unfair advantage to an under bettor. As I said before, if you’re an under bettor, what logical argument can you come up with that the bet should be voided if the over hits in the 5th inning besides a technicality (assuming the game is called final)? You seem to be avoiding this question.

[bubba]

I agree with you! I am not refuting. But I'm just explaining why the rule is there.

[bubba]

Pushing on an over for rain stinks. But we all know the rules.

[LT Profits]

That's like saying a "Will there be a score in the first inning" bet should be canceled if the game gets called in the 7th inning. Why does the bet need to be voided if you only cared about what happened in the first inning or the outcome has already been decided before the game was called?

No it is NOT the same thing. 1st inning bets are complete after 1st inning, just like 5-inning bets are complete after 5 innings. Therefore, those wagers count . Per the rules, totals are not complete until after 9 innings.

[mrpapageorgio]

No it is NOT the same thing. 1st inning bets are complete after 1st inning, just like 5-inning bets are complete after 5 innings. Therefore, those wagers count . Per the rules, totals are not complete until after 9 innings.

And as I said, if the over is hit in the 5th inning what do the other innings matter? Just like the 1st inning and 5-inning, in the scenario I gave, the over/under is COMPLETE because there's no way for the outcome to be any different once the run total crossed the over. The rest of the game is just a formality at that point. What argument does an under bettor have besides a technicality? "The ump might take off some of the runs!"?

Keep in mind, I'm not saying this should apply if the game is called off in its entirety and the slate is wiped clean (because there's no official stats on the books), I'm just saying if it gets called final early, treat it like the ML if the game has already gone over.

[bubba]

And as I said, if the over is hit in the 5th inning what do the other innings matter? Just like the 1st inning and 5-inning, in the scenario I gave, the over/under is COMPLETE because there's no way for the outcome to be any different once the run total crossed the over. The rest of the game is just a formality at that point. What argument does an under bettor have besides a technicality? "The ump might take off some of the runs!"?

Keep in mind, I'm not saying this should apply if the game is called off in its entirety and the slate is wiped clean (because there's no official stats on the books), I'm just saying if it gets called final early, treat it like the ML if the game has already gone over.

So on games that end early all overs either push or win. All unders either lose or push. That's how you want it? That's the most fair?

[HedgeHog]

I refute that my suggestion provides an unfair advantage to an over bettor as the current situation provides an unfair advantage to an under bettor. As I said before, if you’re an under bettor, what logical argument can you come up with that the bet should be voided if the over hits in the 5th inning besides a technicality (assuming the game is called final)? You seem to be avoiding this question.

The Under bettor gets screwed often when a low scoring game goes extra innings, or overtime in other sports like basketball. Is it so bad he gets a rare break on a rainout game that was a sure over?

[LT Profits]

And as I said, if the over is hit in the 5th inning what do the other innings matter?

I am not debating that, I was specifically addressing what you said equating 1st inning bets to full game totals in games called in 7th inning.

[Optional]

Just one of the unique things about US betting. There are more than a few funny rules like this that are different elsewhere.

For example, Bet365 rule; Most Hits, Total Hits, Team Hits - Subject to 8½ innings rule EXCEPT where the total has already gone over, where bets on the over will be settled as winners, with bets on the under settled as losers.

[bubba]

Just one of the unique things about US betting. There are more than a few funny rules like this that are different elsewhere.

For example, Bet365 rule; Most Hits, Total Hits, Team Hits - Subject to 8½ innings rule EXCEPT where the total has already gone over, where bets on the over will be settled as winners, with bets on the under settled as losers.

Interesting, nice find. Like I said 100 times, I dont care what the rule is. Just make it clear.

[mrpapageorgio]

So on games that end early all overs either push or win. All unders either lose or push. That's how you want it? That's the most fair?

As it stands now, all overs either lose or push. Do you think that's the most fair?

If your under bet is wrong and you get blown out early, you can get bailed out on a technicality. Where is that fair to someone who correctly bet the over?

I am not debating that, I was specifically addressing what you said equating 1st inning bets to full game totals in games called in 7th inning.

I was just using the 7th as an example. My main point is that like the 1st inning bet, if the over/under has already been decided before the game is called final, then grade it like a 1st inning bet.

[relaaxx]

Interesting, nice find. Like I said 100 times, I dont care what the rule is. Just make it clear.

agree. want to know exactly what my bet means to the sportsbook.

[mrpapageorgio]

The Under bettor gets screwed often when a low scoring game goes extra innings, or overtime in other sports like basketball. Is it so bad he gets a rare break on a rainout game that was a sure over?

If OT is such a concern, then make it like a 3 line bet in soccer or hockey, regulation only.

[Optional]

Interesting, nice find. Like I said 100 times, I dont care what the rule is. Just make it clear.

There is some logic in your explanation for the Vegas rule on this. But honestly I think it is mostly just historical precedent and not logic that makes it this way in the US.

USA wants to do so many things differently. Spelling, dates, odds format, home team listed second (???), pay the vig up front on faves. I'm sure you don't see it this way, but America is sooooo contrarian when it comes to this industry. You are the weird ones compared to even the Asians.

[bubba]

There is some logic in your explanation for the Vegas rule on this. But honestly I think it is mostly just historical precedent and not logic that makes it this way in the US.

USA wants to do so many things differently. Spelling, dates, odds format, home team listed second (???), pay the vig up front on faves. I'm sure you don't see it this way, but America is sooooo contrarian when it comes to this industry. You are the weird ones compared to even the Asians.

What would you put the total on a game 95% to get rained out before 9 innings are complete (doesnt happen often but maybe 1nce or twice a year)? Without this rule the number would be 20? Im sure there are many weird things on the books that serve no purpose but this serves a purpose.

[bubba]

As it stands now, all overs either lose or push. Do you think that's the most fair?

.

False. As it stands now in a rainout all overs push. they cannot lose. all under push. they cannot lose. disagree with the reasoning fine, but dont state falsehoods please.