over/under rule

[Optional]

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.

You're probably right that the idea was to not have to adjust totals for rain.

I'm not at all sure how to calculate any adjustment. How much advantage do you think it gives?

Probably worth looking for spots to hammer the under on a Euro book if it's enough.

[bubba]

You're probably right that the idea was to not have to adjust totals for rain.

I'm not at all sure how to calculate any adjustment. How much advantage do you think it gives?

Probably worth looking for spots to hammer the under on a Euro book if it's enough.

if a game is 95% to get called early and overs freeroll on rainouts, The total would be effected absurdly. a number of 7.5 could become 19.5 or way more. I have no clue how to begin the calculation.

[HedgeHog]

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

Likewise, books could offer you an insurance bet to grade your over bet a win instead of a push if it rains out and the game is already over the total. Kind of like blackjack rules to guard against 21 by the dealer. I'm sure the insurance option would be heavily juiced, but if that's important to you, go for it. Personally I don't think shortened Over games happen much at all.

[mrpapageorgio]

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.

All overs push, but there's no way for them to win if they go over in a rainout. It confronts your rationale that grading overs in an early game gives overs a freeroll. Also, why does the line need to be 20 or so in case of rain? Where does rain give that much of an advantage or correlate to higher scoring that you need to double the line? If the teams blast the over before all 9 innings, you shouldn't deserve to push anyway. It just creates an unfair bailout for the under.

Likewise, books could offer you an insurance bet to grade your over bet a win instead of a push if it rains out and the game is already over the total. Kind of like blackjack rules to guard against 21 by the dealer. I'm sure the insurance option would be heavily juiced, but if that's important to you, go for it. Personally I don't think shortened Over games happen much at all.

Bet365, as demonstrated by Optional, grades the bets as how I suggest and I don't see people in arms in over how they grade. It probably doesn't happen much at all.

If grading an over/under if the over already crossed in an early called game is such a no-no, why even grade ML bets then also? Why should someone get hosed in a 1-2 run game if called final early in the 7th where comebacks are always possible?

[bubba]

All overs push, but there's no way for them to win if they go over in a rainout. It confronts your rationale that grading overs in an early game gives overs a freeroll. Also, why does the line need to be 20 or so in case of rain? Where does rain give that much of an advantage or correlate to higher scoring that you need to double the line? If the teams blast the over before all 9 innings, you shouldn't deserve to push anyway. It just creates an unfair bailout for the under.

It coincides with exactly what I said. It is not a freeroll right now, but with YOUR RULE, it would be.

As for my rain example I gave, I think you just dont understand what I am saying (or you are pretending not to). Its not that complicated, see if u can follow the logic I am giving. It has nothing to do with rain causing runs. absolutely nothing.

[mrpapageorgio]

It coincides with exactly what I said. It is not a freeroll right now, but with YOUR RULE, it would be.

As of RIGHT NOW, the UNDER gets to free roll because their bet is saved in a blowout if it rains where it would otherwise lose. Why does the under deserve to free roll? Why can't I get a simple explanation why the under gets a free insurance policy if they get blown out in 5 innings, but it's unthinkable to payout an over that would've paid but for the rain ending the game early? As of right now, the rainout policy encourages under betting because even if your bet gets destroyed early, you have a chance of getting a push because of rain.

I'll be honest, I'm not following your logic on juicing the line to 20, how about explaining it instead of just reiterating it? I don't see a money line juiced when the forecast calls for rain, so I don't see why a total needs to be juiced so high if the forecast calls for it.

[Cubs2016]

If you bet Unders you're a LOSER!!! Over hits always!!

[bubba]

As of RIGHT NOW, the UNDER gets to free roll because their bet is saved in a blowout if it rains where it would otherwise lose. Why does the under deserve to free roll? Why can't I get a simple explanation why the under gets a free insurance policy if they get blown out in 5 innings, but it's unthinkable to payout an over that would've paid but for the rain ending the game early? As of right now, the rainout policy encourages under betting because even if your bet gets destroyed early, you have a chance of getting a push because of rain.

I'll be honest, I'm not following your logic on juicing the line to 20, how about explaining it instead of just reiterating it? I don't see a money line juiced when the forecast calls for rain, so I don't see why a total needs to be juiced so high if the forecast calls for it.

It all comes down to the reason the rule is there in the 1st place. to prevent the books from getting killed when a game is likely to not go 9 innings. there have been many baseball games destined to not go 9 innings in the history of baseball. its rare but it happens due to weather. before the game people know they wont go 9 innings. in those scenarios, everyone can just bet overs knowing they will either be refunded or graded a winner (in your scenario). thats the reason. its so simple. thats why the rule is there. its to prevent the books from getting massively freerolled in this scenario.

I dont care for the rule 1 way or another as long as its clear. Its really not the hard to understand. You can want any rule you wanna want, but thats the logic why what you wish for is unlikely to happen on a mainstream basis. Sorry!

[mrpapageorgio]

It all comes down to the reason the rule is there in the 1st place. to prevent the books from getting killed when a game is likely to not go 9 innings. there have been many baseball games destined to not go 9 innings in the history of baseball. its rare but it happens due to weather. before the game people know they wont go 9 innings. in those scenarios, everyone can just bet overs knowing they will either be refunded or graded a winner (in your scenario). thats the reason. its so simple. thats why the rule is there. its to prevent the books from getting massively freerolled in this scenario.

I dont care for the rule 1 way or another as long as its clear. Its really not the hard to understand. You can want any rule you wanna want, but thats the logic why what you wish for is unlikely to happen on a mainstream basis. Sorry!

The only problem with that logic is how often does the over hit and then a rain out happens where a book would have to worry about getting killed? A handful? I doubt it's that often that puts a book in serious financial jeopardy if it hits considering Bet365 uses the "over pays if it hits" rule. I think it's more of a laziness factor.

Plus, assuming they changed the rule, for every time a person gets a "free roll" betting the over and it either pays or gets voided, there would likely be games that (assuming what you hypothesize is true) people would pound the over with rain in the forecast assuming a "free roll", but the rain either misses or the umps find a way to get all 8.5/9 innings in come hell or high water and the overs get burned on that supposed "free roll".

[bubba]

The only problem with that logic is how often does the over hit and then a rain out happens where a book would have to worry about getting killed? A handful? I doubt it's that often that puts a book in serious financial jeopardy if it hits considering Bet365 uses the "over pays if it hits" rule. I think it's more of a laziness factor.

Plus, assuming they changed the rule, for every time a person gets a "free roll" betting the over and it either pays or gets voided, there would likely be games that (assuming what you hypothesize is true) people would pound the over with rain in the forecast assuming a "free roll", but the rain either misses or the umps find a way to get all 8.5/9 innings in come hell or high water and the overs get burned on that supposed "free roll".

You have convinced me. the books dont know what they are doing. bet365 (which i hear has huge limits on prop bets) clearly has the answer and every other sportsbook on earth is living in the dark ages. The books protecting themselves is costing them big-time. Even though we know the rules before wagering, the books are cheating over bettors with this rule. Its bad for the players, its bad for the books, its bad for society. I am on your side now. I will sign any and all petitions you create on the subject.

[mrpapageorgio]

You have convinced me. the books dont know what they are doing. bet365 (which i hear has huge limits on prop bets) clearly has the answer and every other sportsbook on earth is living in the dark ages. The books protecting themselves is costing them big-time. Even though we know the rules before wagering, the books are cheating over bettors with this rule. Its bad for the players, its bad for the books, its bad for society. I am on your side now. I will sign any and all petitions you create on the subject.

I'm not trying to be a @$$ on the subject. I just never understood the point of voiding a bet when the outcome is already determined. If the game is postponed where the stats are wiped out, that's one thing, but if it's called final and the total is definitively over, then pay it.

[relaaxx]

I get bubba's point. makes sense. I would definitely bet the over in games that looked like the game would not get to completion. thinking I get a win or a push. also think the rule is there so it does not get too confusing for some people. easier to push all total bets if not a complete game , instead of a few rules for different possibilities when game is not complete.

[DukeSnider]

Interesting responses yet not convinced of the actual rational of this policy by most SB's.It is what it is is the bottom line though.

[DukeSnider]

I get bubba's point. makes sense. I would definitely bet the over in games that looked like the game would not get to completion. thinking I get a win or a push. also think the rule is there so it does not get too confusing for some people. easier to push all total bets if not a complete game , instead of a few rules for different possibilities when game is not complete.

wouldn't a SB simply put a limit on such games ?

[relaaxx]

wouldn't a SB simply put a limit on such games ?

yes. or some other side notes or limits for rules when not complete games. the easier way - all total bets cancel if not complete game. that's what I mean. the least complicated, 1 rule, 1 way, the same for all.

[DukeSnider]

no offense but how complicated is it to say that if the total goes over after 5 1/2 innings it's a winner for the over and a loser for the under ?

[bubba]

wouldn't a SB simply put a limit on such games ?

Better to have a rule in place so you dont have to monitor the thousands of baseball games a year to see which games set up freeroll situations.

[bubba]

no offense but how complicated is it to say that if the total goes over after 5 1/2 innings it's a winner for the over and a loser for the under ?

Not complicated at all. But there are reasons they dont do this.

[4nic8ing]

Most software used by the books for games is standard 2 way offering where you enter the result and it grades across the accounts based on result. So they have to have a standard rule for claims.

How would you grade this using your example of game going over total for some bettors in first 6 innings before rain PPD's. Total for game opens at 8 ov 20 and closes at 9.5 un 20. Score is 8-1 after 6 innings and game is called.

[DukeSnider]

Not complicated at all. But there are reasons they dont do this.

And that remains the mystery,at least to me,what are those reasons. I realize that there is method to their madness, just trying to better understand "why".