The Formula 1 "Top 8 finish" dispute

TTinCO · Jul 27, 2005

I spoke with Spiro today about this race and their grading decisions that are being disputed.

Olympics F1 rules clearly state (and did prior to this race) that

"For wagering purposes, the start of the race is defined to be when the first car/bike crosses the start/finish line when the start of the race is officially signified."

Although these rules differ from those at many European books, they are consistent with the rules that many offshore books have. Several offshores with the same or a very similar rule in place also cancelled "Top 8" wagers, and some went a step further and cancelled all wagers.

Olympic is committed to doing the right thing here, but as it stands, they feel that it is only logical to void “Top 8” tickets in a race in which only 6 cars participated.

There is much more discussion about this issue here http://forum.therx.com/showthread.php?t=290460 but I started a new thread to save people from having to root through 5 pages of discussion to get to the jist of the story.

InsideThePylons · Jul 27, 2005

TTinCO said:
Olympics F1 rules clearly state (and did prior to this race) that

"For wagering purposes, the start of the race is defined to be when the first car/bike crosses the start/finish line when the start of the race is officially signified.".

What does that rule have to do with the bet?

Did he make the bet 4 hours before the race......YES (has not been disputed)
Did his drivers start the race (as per Oly rules/or anyone else's)......YES
Did his drivers finish in the Top 8......YES

Did OLY cancel the wager in a reasonable time frame (before or immediately after start).........NO
Did OLY have a rule that a minimum number of cars must start.......NO

So what is Oly's case exactly?

ZZZSpeedster · Jul 27, 2005

I agree here

His bet was for TOP 8
Did he come in the TOP 8...Yes

Was it an "official" race according to F1 ....YES
Was it an "official" race according to Olympics Rule....YES

It would be different if he had the guy to finish 8TH

ClipJoint · Jul 27, 2005

TTinCO said:
Olympics F1 rules clearly state (and did prior to this race) that

"For wagering purposes, the start of the race is defined to be when the first car/bike crosses the start/finish line when the start of the race is officially signified."

The bet is no action as the race (by their own documented rules) only started with 6 cars. This is a no-brainer if that rule is posted.

royalfan · Jul 27, 2005

I don't see what that rule has to do with the wager Clip. I think it should be paid also, the whole key here is that when the bet was made it was not known that there would be just 6 racing.

ClipJoint · Jul 27, 2005

royalfan said:
I don't see what that rule has to do with the wager Clip. I think it should be paid also, the whole key here is that when the bet was made it was not known that there would be just 6 racing.

The same is true when the odds were made. That is why the rule is there.

JamesHunt · Jul 27, 2005

Clip Joint, thank you for your contribution to the debate. I would like to join in myself at this stage as the facts are now public enough.

As a matter of fact the bet is listed in my account as "Drivers to win the Points Finish". Does this make any difference?

Suppose one concedes the point that only six drivers started the race according to Olympic rules.

(This is debatable as it would have been legal for any driver to join the race from the pitlane after the start proper. Every driver appears in the official result as withdrew lap zero.)

There's nothing in Olympic rules about refunds, minimum number of drivers, exceptional circumstances, or even Las Vegas rules.

So why do you suppose my bets are not action?

ClipJoint · Jul 27, 2005

I don't think it makes any difference. The odds for the race would be drastically different (more than likely off the board) if the race was planned as a 6 car race.

That is what the race was based on Olympics rules.

TTinCO · Jul 27, 2005

Great responses from everyone so far. Very civil, and all very good differing opinions. :103631605

James does have a good point about the drivers being in the points-since the official ruling did have them in the points. That FIA rule seems to conflict with what to me seems like a "common sense" reasoning that a Top 8 ticket is is void in a 6 car race (back to the horse tri in a two horse field comparison and also their official F1 start of the race rule).

JamesHunt · Jul 27, 2005

This summarizes my arguments. Comments welcome.

* Olympic took the bets, changed the lines, and made no effort to cancel before the start. They cannot claim to have been taken by surprise or that I bet unfairly.

* Olympic rules just state that all bets will be settled on the race day result. There's nothing about refunds, minimum number of drivers, or even Las Vegas rules.

* My drivers finished in the points as per my bets in the official result. The majority of the field were classified as retired lap zero. Note that they were pitted, not irrevocably withdrawn at the start of the race.

* The bet was not a slam dunk. I bet speculatively and shrewdly thinking anything could happen. That is the nature of F1 as any experienced F1 bettor or layer should know. If the full field had raced my drivers' prospects of finishing in the points would have been near-zero. And my drivers still had to finish to collect points, otherwise I would have lost.

* Bottom line I believe it's the book's responsibility to have rules to cover all eventualities. What happened here was rare but not inconceivable. When the book's rules are less than comprehensive they are still there to be applied, player's benefit of the doubt. Making up new rules ad lib is not just.

ClipJoint · Jul 27, 2005

JamesHunt said:
* My drivers finished in the points as per my bets in the official result. The majority of the field were classified as retired lap zero. Note that they were pitted, not irrevocably withdrawn at the start of the race.

You are wrong on this one though...per Olympics rules this is the case. The race field was not officially set until the first car finished.

Common sense has to play a role into "bad lines" and with a race involving 6 cars, this would easily fall under that category.

JamesHunt · Jul 27, 2005

In my view the "no-contest" argument, i.e. six cars on an eight-winner market so no action, is an example of making up a rule "ad lib" as per my last point. If anything, Olympic rules suggest that this is an "all-in", "win the competition" type market with up to eight winners.

ClipJoint · Jul 27, 2005

JamesHunt said:
In my view the "no-contest" argument, i.e. six cars on an eight-winner market so no action, is an example of making up a rule "ad lib" as per my last point. If anything, Olympic rules suggest that this is an "all-in", "win the competition" type market with up to eight winners.

I hope you don't take offense because I am not insulting your intelligence, but doesn't "common sense" tell you that the odds would be much different in a 6 car race?

With their documented rules, this race started with 6 cars. I don't think there is any doubt that this would be deemed a "bad line".

Granted, it sucks and I feel for you, but I don't think there is any doubt Olympic has every right to void the bets.

JamesHunt · Jul 27, 2005

Formula One / 500cc Motorcycles

For wagering purposes, the start of the race is defined to be when the first car/bike crosses the start/finish line when the start of the race is officially signified.
All bets are on the driver/rider competing in the race.
Bets will be settled on the basis of the result as declared on the race day by the controlling authority (podium finish) irrespective of any subsequent undecided protest.

These are the Olympic F1 rules. I can't see where you're coming from there CJ.

ClipJoint · Jul 27, 2005

JamesHunt said:
Formula One / 500cc Motorcycles

For wagering purposes, the start of the race is defined to be when the first car/bike crosses the start/finish line when the start of the race is officially signified.

These are the Olympic F1 rules. I can't see where you're coming from there CJ.

That is the rule I am referring to. This race started with 6 cars. The odds were not made for a 6 car race so those odds would come off the board.

It would be similar to betting an UNDER in a baseball game that was cancelled after the 5th inning. Granted, your bet would of still had a chance to lose, but the odds are greatly reduced. The odds are made for a full game just as the odds for this race were made for a full field. Just like in baseball with my example, the bets are "no action" because that is not the same event the odds were made on.

JamesHunt · Jul 27, 2005

We are confusing everyone by cross-posting CJ.

No I don't feel insulted. But I find no reference to commonsense in Olympic rules. All they say is pay out on the official result.

ClipJoint · Jul 27, 2005

JamesHunt said:
We are confusing everyone by cross-posting CJ.

No I don't feel insulted. But I find no reference to commonsense in Olympic rules. All they say is pay out on the official result.

Right...but the odds were not made for a 6 car race, hence the bad line.

JamesHunt · Jul 27, 2005

With your baseball example I assume every sportsbook has rules to cover the case of a shortened or unfinished game. When the situation arises, the rules are applied without argument. That is all I am asking for here, for the book to apply its own rules.

ClipJoint · Jul 27, 2005

JamesHunt said:
With your baseball example I assume every sportsbook has rules to cover the case of a shortened or unfinished game. When the situation arises, the rules are applied without argument. That is all I am asking for here, for the book to apply its own rules.

Are you saying the odds you bet on were set for a 6 car race?

royalfan · Jul 27, 2005

Although I think that it should be paid, would a compromise be in order here, perhaps Olympic paying half the wagers or even a third. I think that anyone looking at it with an open mind can at least see the other sides argument here. Opinions obviously are different as to who is right. Ultimately, I guess it is Olympic's call but I would think they should offer to pay at least some of it.