I had a future from my book on Miami over 8.5 wins,and they cancelled the wager due to not playing 12 games as they has the game with Arizona st cancelled due to the hurricane.Now i know the rule of having to play so many games,but they were not exactly a half a game over it,they were 1.5 over the total,...just wanted to share this as its been working on me from yesterday
I understand what you are saying. The difference here is that he has already won the bet. Being up 10-7 or 20-0 while likely a win is NOT a win. Did they just recently pull the wager? Didn't they know this game wasn't going to be replayed? If so....it should have been pulled at the beginning of the season
I know that is the rule, but I never understood the logic behind it. If the game is over the total and gets shortened, over should still be a winner and under still a loser. What possible claim do under bettors have that their bet should be cancelled? They don't take runs off the board.
Same for season win totals. If the cancelled games could have had any impact on determining the winner, all bets are cancelled. IF NOT, all bets stand.
Books should change this rule and make it right. They must have done the analysis and determined that since they're almost always holding more on overs than unders, it would cost them $X/yr to change the rule. That's why I don't like the "if they cancel both sides it's fair" argument; nah, it's still not fair, still a goofy rule that only exists because it is advantageous to the house on the aggregate.
Hard enough to beat the juice, now we need to beat fucked up rules too that make no sense?
Maybe they can change the retire rule in tennis while they're in there tinkering.
