hno: 
This post got my eye when I glanced over this thread. The problem here is this: what rules would be fair enough for both the book/customer to allow the customer to complete a rollover bonus that the book gave? I see one example where someone said "the book counted the lesser amount of the RISK/WIN amount", which is probably the fairest of all ideas. Just that if we do bet on 1st-round tennis, -10 NFL/NBA favorite *on the ML* at -600 or such, where is the line drawn?Judge Wapner said:
Is it right that if someone wants to risk 1 unit on a football fav at -600 ($600 to win $100) that only $100 is counted towards the rollover bonus because the person really feels that the fav will win but just not to lay 10 points?
What about other sports like hockey where the ML is the "main" way of making bets? If a -180 ML team is bet on (risk $180 to win $100) but that book have the practice of selecting the smaller amount to rollover the bonus, is that fair?
Books already price the ML accordingly to make the risk/reward ratio to be fair so laying $1K on a on a -1000 selection to win $100 is the way the books are trying to discourage bettors from laying a lot of $$ because "it's still not guaranteed money". So to sum up:
If a book has a published rule where they say "your deposit + bonus must be rolloved 5 times; that is, you must wager (D+B) x 5 to be allowed to withdraw the rollover bonus" I am going to take their word for it regardless of whether I play several -500 favorites or +500 dogs on the ML.
Just my thoughts on this...
* CalvinTy
