[mrpapageorgio]

Originally Posted by JoeCool20
LOL Where did you get the word SUCCESSFUL? Out of your ass?

If the word SUCCESSFUL was in the prop bet, then it's crystal clear and we aren't on here posting are we?



"Read a dictionary and look up what it means when a 2 point try is converted. It doesn't mean attempted, it means successful."






LOL Where in a dictionary can you find the definition of "what it means when a 2 point try is converted."

Nowhere? I thought not.

I will try this for a SECOND time now.

You have included the word SUCCESSFUL into the prop bet when that word ISN'T in the bet!

If the word SUCCESSFUL WAS in the prop bet, then it would be crystal clear,

and we wouldn't be on here posting about it would we?

So for the second time, where did you get the word SUCCESSFUL? Out of your ass?

You clearly fail reading comprehension because I said successful is what is required for the 2-Point attempt to be converted.

[JoeCool20]

You clearly fail reading comprehension because I said successful is what is required for the 2-Point attempt to be converted.

LOL Well, It is even MORE obvious that you can't read AT ALL!

So for the THIRD TIME now...

If they had simply worded the prop bet "SUCCESSFUL CONVERSION YES + 325 / NO - 400"


Then we wouldn't be on here posting, would we?


BUT WHERE THE HELL DOES IT SAY THE WORD SUCCESSFUL IN THE PROP BET?

NOWHERE??!! OK THEN! SO WHERE DID YOU GET THE WORD SUCCESSFUL? OUT OF YOUR ASS?

[mrpapageorgio]

LOL Well, It is even MORE obvious that you can't read AT ALL!

So for the THIRD TIME now... WHERE THE HELL DOES IT SAY THE WORD SUCCESSFUL IN THE PROP BET?

NOWHERE??!! OK THEN! SO WHERE DID YOU GET THE WORD SUCCESSFUL? OUT OF YOUR ASS?

Where did I say the word successful is the exact wording in the prop bet? In post 14, I said I didn't remember the exact wording, but the wording of the prop indicates the attempt must be successful to be graded as yes. Clearly you failed reading comprehension.

[JoeCool20]

Where did I say the word successful is the exact wording in the prop bet?

OMG THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING YOU!!! FOUR TIMES NOW!! READ IT! (IF YOU EVER LEARN TO READ!!)


"SO WHERE DID YOU GET THE WORD SUCCESSFUL? OUT OF YOUR ASS?"

[JoeCool20]

I said I didn't remember the exact wording, but the wording of the prop indicates the attempt must be successful to be graded as yes.

OK lets go down to a 3rd grade level then and see if you can come along.

So where did you get that:

"the wording of the prop indicates that the attempt must be successful to be graded as yes." ?

Out of your ass?

[5918mike]

Seems correctly graded to me.

[bubba]

for those of you saying the grading is correct, why dont you think the wager is listed as too sides- "conversion" is side A and "no attempt" is side B.

I am shocked how close this is to 50-50 considering how obvious to me it appears.

[JoeCool20]

for those of you saying the grading is correct, why dont you think the wager is listed as too sides- "conversion" is side A and "no attempt" is side B.

I am shocked how close this is to 50-50 considering how obvious to me it appears.

Yes the wording is bad and maybe he will get his money back. "Conversion yes +325 no conversion/attempt -400"

They told him that since a conversion was ATTEMPTED that the "No" bet lost.

I'm guessing that he knows that's what he intended to bet.

But since the wording is bad, he is getting to say he didn't bet that there would be no conversion/attempt,

but that instead he meant to bet that no conversion attempt would be successful. Well I say great! And go for it!

Because hell, I'm a player, not the S-book, so I hope he gets away with it & gets a refund!

[Alfa1234]

I am reading this clear as day as:

Conversion attempt yes +325
no conversion attempt -400"

Whether the conversion was successful or not has nothing to do with it.

To me it's very obvious the bet lost...I see why you guys are discussing this but the BOL intent was very clear imho.

[rangerz2478]

I am reading this clear as day as:

Conversion attempt yes +325
no conversion attempt -400"

Whether the conversion was successful or not has nothing to do with it.

To me it's very obvious the bet lost...I see why you guys are discussing this but the BOL intent was very clear imho.

No it did NOT say attempt. +325 just said conversion. A failed attempt is NOT a win at +325, the other side is. The player won, clear as day.

[Optional]

for those of you saying the grading is correct, why dont you think the wager is listed as too sides- "conversion" is side A and "no attempt" is side B.

I am shocked how close this is to 50-50 considering how obvious to me it appears.

As someone who took a bunch of attempts before being able to see both points of view, I'm not surprised it is 50/50 at all.

I was very sure the OP was 'obviously' wrong at first. But now see why you think it's obviously the other way too.

[Barrakuda]

If you try to re-think why you came to the conclusion that this prop was a loser on both sides the situation will become clearer for you;


How do you figure this prop would lose on both sides?

"Game Props - New York Jets @ Jacksonville Jaguars - 2pt Conversion - No Conversion/No Attempt -400"

What a fukkin idiot. If there is only one person at SBR I can bet on being in the bag for only one book, it's Optional for BOL. He has never once sided against them, despite legitimate complaints about them arising at least once a month. It's sad.

[Barrakuda]

Its an attempt to be clear that if there is no attempt, then no is the winner. I have seen this wager hundreds if not thousands of times, and I never had any confusion on what it meant. When you look at post #12, is there any other way in can be interpreted?

This is obvious to anyone with a shred of experience betting NFL props. Sad that the majority of thread participants have zero clue.

[LT Profits]

Yes the wording is bad and maybe he will get his money back. "Conversion yes +325 no conversion/attempt -400"

They told him that since a conversion was ATTEMPTED that the "No" bet lost.

I'm guessing that he knows that's what he intended to bet.

But since the wording is bad, he is getting to say he didn't bet that there would be no conversion/attempt,

but that instead he meant to bet that no conversion attempt would be successful. Well I say great! And go for it!

Because hell, I'm a player, not the S-book, so I hope he gets away with it & gets a refund!

For the Umpteenth time, read the wording of the bet in post 12:

Here is the full bet —

Side 1: Conversion +325
Side 2: No Conversion/No Attempt -400

He CLEARLY won the bet, Side 2 is No Conversion OR No Attempt, so for him to lose the bet there had to be a successful conversion, and there was not. No need to add "Successful" to prop because, by definition, "Conversion" means it was successful. Not sure why you are not comprehending that.

[LT Profits]

BOL could make things much easier by substituting "or" for the "/", that way the bet details on ticket in Post 1 would be more obvious.

[Alfa1234]

No it did NOT say attempt. +325 just said conversion. A failed attempt is NOT a win at +325, the other side is. The player won, clear as day.

Just saying how I would interpret that wording. For me I never had a doubt as to whether it won or lost, but again, I see what you mean.

[Microbetter]

Maybe it's best to frame my thinking as a question.

Here is the full bet —

Side 1: Conversion +325
Side 2: No Conversion/No Attempt -400

Which side of this bet do you think wins in the case where there is an unsuccessful 2-point conversion attempt?

There are 3 outcomes to a bet like this.
1.) Attempt success
2.) Attempt fail
3.) No attempt at all

The way this bet is written, only 1.) will ever be paid since 2 and 3 are lumped together thus cancelling each other.

[LT Profits]

There are 3 outcomes to a bet like this.
1.) Attempt success
2.) Attempt fail
3.) No attempt at all

The way this bet is written, only 1.) will ever be paid since 2 and 3 are lumped together thus cancelling each other.

No, 2 is No Conversion OR No Attempt. It seems the "/" is tripping people up.

[5918mike]

No, 2 is No Conversion OR No Attempt. It seems the "/" is tripping people up.

I agree, and there was an attempt so he lost. This is an easy one.

[LT Profits]

I agree, and there was an attempt so he lost. This is an easy one.

WRONG Again. There was No Conversion so he won. OR means either of the two options is a winner. This actual bet was Conversion vs. No Conversion, the "No Attempt" was tacked on to the NO option to specify that No Attempt is also a winner as opposed to a Push. Follow the logic?

[bozeman]

wording is abolutely wrong - whatever the other option states - if a player bets on NO CONVERSION/No ATTEMPT - how do we prioritize no conversion over no attempt? What happened in the game was NO conversion/YES ATTEMPT, so he should get a refund - cause half of his prediction was right.

ABSOLUTELY stupid wording - It should be either CONVERSION YES/NO or ATTEMPT YES/NO not both

[bubba]

I agree, and there was an attempt so he lost. This is an easy one.

It's not no conversion AND no attempt, it's no conversion OR no attempt(could have just been left as no conversion. They added "no attempt to clarify that this side wins even if there is no attempt. Man did that backfire). The no conversion OR no attempt side came through. Clear as day. This debate is blowing my mind.

[swordsandtequila]

OK lets go down to a 3rd grade level then and see if you can come along.

So where did you get that:

"the wording of the prop indicates that the attempt must be successful to be graded as yes." ?

Out of your ass?

Actually it's you who needs to get down to a 3rd grade level (or lower). One more time:

Here is the full bet —

Side 1: Conversion +325
Side 2: No Conversion/No Attempt -400

Conversion implies success therefore successful conversion is redundant. Nowhere in Side 1 is attempt stated.
In the English language the forward slash is a symbol for "and/or", so Side 2 states No Conversion and/or No Attempt. If either is true the bet wins. The only one pulling something out of their ass is you, making assumptions about the op's motives.

[bubba]

wording is abolutely wrong - whatever the other option states - if a player bets on NO CONVERSION/No ATTEMPT - how do we prioritize no conversion over no attempt? What happened in the game was NO conversion/YES ATTEMPT, so he should get a refund - cause half of his prediction was right.

ABSOLUTELY stupid wording - It should be either CONVERSION YES/NO or ATTEMPT YES/NO not both

Think of the "/ " as an "or" and not as an "and". Do you still feel this way?

[bozeman]

For the Umpteenth time, read the wording of the bet in post 12:

Here is the full bet —

Side 1: Conversion +325
Side 2: No Conversion/No Attempt -400

He CLEARLY won the bet, Side 2 is No Conversion OR No Attempt, so for him to lose the bet there had to be a successful conversion, and there was not. No need to add "Successful" to prop because, by definition, "Conversion" means it was successful. Not sure why you are not comprehending that.

You can add two words to side 1: A. Successfull conversion or B. Conversion Attempt. what the penetrate is no attempt on side 2 is written for - for the empty sound of it?

To decide if the graded wager was fair or not - he has to look what odds were offered at other books for attempt vs. successfull conversion and see which odds seem to be close to +325 vs -400.

And if their interpretation goes against other books just bet opposite results in different books and make betonline pay for their "Bad odds"

[Alfa1234]

Reading these last posts made me change my mind. They should pay the man.

[LT Profits]

wording is abolutely wrong - whatever the other option states - if a player bets on NO CONVERSION/No ATTEMPT - how do we prioritize no conversion over no attempt? What happened in the game was NO conversion/YES ATTEMPT, so he should get a refund - cause half of his prediction was right.

ABSOLUTELY stupid wording - It should be either CONVERSION YES/NO or ATTEMPT YES/NO not both

Because the "/" is really an OR and that is how BOL should display it. There would be no argument if ticket read "New York Jets @ Jacksonville Jaguars - 2pt Conversion - No Conversion or No Attempt -400". That was the actual bet per the wording of the bet in Post 12. There is no prioritizing, the OR means that EITHER No Conversion or No Attempt is a WIN. Which makes 100% perfect sense with the opposite side being Conversion (i.e., conversion made).

[swordsandtequila]

You can add two words to side 1: A. Successfull conversion or B. Conversion Attempt. what the penetrate is no attempt on side 2 is written for - for the empty sound of it?

To decide if the graded wager was fair or not - he has to look what odds were offered at other books for attempt vs. successfull conversion and see which odds seem to be close to +325 vs -400.

And if their interpretation goes against other books just bet opposite results in different books and make betonline pay for their "Bad odds"

Conversion implies success therefore successful conversion is redundant. Nowhere in Side 1 is attempt stated.
In the English language the forward slash is a symbol for "and/or", so Side 2 states No Conversion and/or No Attempt. If either is true the bet wins.

[bozeman]

ok i read the bettor statement again - bookie was right grading his bet, but then bookie collects money on both sides in case of failed conversion, what a smart move by betonline, is this right now?

[swordsandtequila]

ok i read the bettor statement again - bookie was right grading his bet, but then bookie collects money on both sides in case of failed conversion, what a smart move by betonline, is this right now?

No. BOL was, is, will always be wrong regarding this bet.

[LT Profits]

You can add two words to side 1: A. Successfull conversion or B. Conversion Attempt. what the penetrate is no attempt on side 2 is written for - for the empty sound of it?

No need to add successful because Conversion by definition was successful. If you prefer, think of it as Conversion Made. And the extra wording in option 2 is because they are two different things. He wins bet if EITHER there are only unsuccessful 2-point conversions OR if neither team attempts a 2-point conversion. Capeesh? Don't know how I could make it any clearer.

And remember, by reading only Post 1 initially, I too thought the bet was a loser. It was reading the bet wording in Post 12 that made the play obvious.

[LT Profits]

No. BOL was, is, will always be wrong regarding this bet.

Please re-read my last few posts, he OBVIOUSLY won the bet. I am spending way too much time explaining something that should be obvious from wording of bet in Post 12 (NOT from wording of ticket in Post 1).

[swordsandtequila]

Please re-read my last few posts, he OBVIOUSLY won the bet. I am spending way too much time explaining something that should be obvious from wording of bet in Post 12 (NOT from wording of ticket in Post 1).

Think you have confused me with someone else. We're on the same page. Read my posts, I couldn't have made it any simpler.

[LT Profits]

Think you have confused me with someone else. We're on the same page. Read my posts, I couldn't have made it any simpler.

Oh Shit, sorry buddy! All the double-negatives in this thread had me confused for a minute.

[LT Profits]

What is even more shocking is fact that BOL is correct gained a vote in last few minutes!