Here is the rule.
One full set must be completed for Money Line wagers to stand. If less than 1 set is completed, all Money Line wagers will be considered void.
This rule is illustrated like that :if Player 1 leads by 1 set and Player 2 retires in ( or before ) 2nd set Player 1 wins. ( the most obvious example which everyone will agree ) .
But unfortunatley they havent predict ( i know they does but anyway )that there would be matches ( like a one today Del Potro - Davydenko ) that the result will be 1-1 and a player could retire before 3rd set starts.what than?
Imagine Player 1 which is leading by 1 set suffers realy bad injury in 2nd set even if he is ahead in the result and he must retire, what than ? LOSE ! ( i believe this had happend in the past )This tiny rule is a pure robbery for me and its not fair .I dont know what costs them to put wagers void .it seems its very difficult for them when they preffer just to take the money.
One full set must be completed for Money Line wagers to stand. If less than 1 set is completed, all Money Line wagers will be considered void.
This rule is illustrated like that :if Player 1 leads by 1 set and Player 2 retires in ( or before ) 2nd set Player 1 wins. ( the most obvious example which everyone will agree ) .
But unfortunatley they havent predict ( i know they does but anyway )that there would be matches ( like a one today Del Potro - Davydenko ) that the result will be 1-1 and a player could retire before 3rd set starts.what than?
Imagine Player 1 which is leading by 1 set suffers realy bad injury in 2nd set even if he is ahead in the result and he must retire, what than ? LOSE ! ( i believe this had happend in the past )This tiny rule is a pure robbery for me and its not fair .I dont know what costs them to put wagers void .it seems its very difficult for them when they preffer just to take the money.
