Why are unders/overs cancelled if a game only goes 7 innings when . . .

Kruser6 · Apr 11, 2007

The game gets called due to rain. I remember last year I think I had the over in Boston and they called the game with 1 out to go. There had been like 14 runs scored, but they still refunded the bet.

If you have over/under 9 and the score is 5-7 or something then it doesn't matter if there is another 2 innings played. That wager is already decided.

Now if the score is 2-2 in the 7th I can see refunds on both sides, but not when the number is already of the total.

gynecologist · Apr 11, 2007

You make a great point.. It makes no sense.

GreenDoberman · Apr 11, 2007

Over/unders and run lines are always listed pitchers. Rules state that listed pitcher games must go 9 innings.

Santo · Apr 11, 2007

There are a few UK books who pay if the bet is already decided.

It's easy to take advantage of. Bet over if rain is forecast. You have a good percentage bet, in that it wins if it goes over, and if it goes under there's a chance it's shortened.

Books don't like being taken advantage of, ergo they have the rule they do.

yanni_gogolak · Apr 11, 2007

Santo said:
There are a few UK books who pay if the bet is already decided.

It's easy to take advantage of. Bet over if rain is forecast. You have a good percentage bet, in that it wins if it goes over, and if it goes under there's a chance it's shortened.

Books don't like being taken advantage of, ergo they have the rule they do.

by that you are saying that there is a good chance that it will be called if it rains, i doubt that is even 50%, how often do you rely on the weatherman?

joeyfitzclick · Apr 11, 2007

The wager is cancelled exactly due to what Santo mentioned above. You can't have it both ways, If the game is 1-0 with one out left and you took the over 10.5 you get the refund. No complaints there right ? They set a precedance so there can be no advantage to the player and absolutly no ambiguity regarding this issue; all bets are refunded if the game does not go 8.5 innings...PERIOD. The actuak score at the time irrelevant.

BadCo · Apr 11, 2007

I remember a game in Coors Field,Rockies batting in bottom of 9th and trailing by 4 or 5 and they were called off the field because of lightning and never resumed and the game was way over the total and I got fucked!

ClipJoint · Apr 11, 2007

joeyfitzclick said:
The wager is cancelled exactly due to what Santo mentioned above. You can't have it both ways, If the game is 1-0 with one out left and you took the over 10.5 you get the refund. No complaints there right ? They set a precedance so there can be no advantage to the player and absolutly no ambiguity regarding this issue; all bets are refunded if the game does not go 8.5 innings...PERIOD. The actuak score at the time irrelevant.

But I think the point he is making is in the scenario you created, the outcome has not yet been decided. The game can still go over. In a game where the total has already gone over, the bet outcome has been decided. The under cannot win in any scenario.

CalvinTy · Apr 11, 2007

joeyfitzclick said:
The wager is canceled exactly due to what Santo mentioned above. You can't have it both ways, If the game is 1-0 with one out left and you took the over 10.5 you get the refund. No complaints there right ? They set a precedence so there can be no advantage to the player and absolutely no ambiguity regarding this issue; all {totals} bets are refunded if the game does not go 8.5 innings...PERIOD. The actual score at the time irrelevant.

Exactly right, Joey (cleaned up the post a little bit). Just as Green Doberman said, O/U and RL are always listed pitchers. So for a wager to be graded, the game has to go 8.5 innings regardless of the score (1-0 with 1 out to go in top of 9th; or 11-9 in the 6th inning).

Sucks, but think about it... what would be the fair alternative? Keeping in mind we are talking about bets being accepted BEFORE the first pitch... the prices of the sides are based on listed pitchers (but you have the choice of Action) just as the O/U are affected by the listed pitchers playing.

Hmmm, I finally see the irony now, Kruser6. Yeah, you are basically saying, "what's wrong with allowing us to play Action on the O/U as the books already let us do so with Action on the pitchers?"

(Thinking about it a little bit... it may depend on book, but since I always use listed pitchers, I'm not sure but books would "cancel action bets" if the price dramatically changes... i.e. the ace got scratched in late morning & the team puts a long reliever in as an emergency starter???) Not fair to the books if they have to EAT the impact of the changes?

* CalvinTy

CAPNCRUNCH · Apr 11, 2007

joeyfitzclick said:
The wager is cancelled exactly due to what Santo mentioned above. You can't have it both ways, If the game is 1-0 with one out left and you took the over 10.5 you get the refund. No complaints there right ? They set a precedance so there can be no advantage to the player and absolutly no ambiguity regarding this issue; all bets are refunded if the game does not go 8.5 innings...PERIOD. The actuak score at the time irrelevant.

Well said. I do not comprehend how people cannot understand this. I believe they can, they just don't want to. Hell, it's happened to all of us. That's life.

CalvinTy · Apr 11, 2007

Clip Joint said:
But I think the point he is making is in the scenario you created, the outcome has not yet been decided. The game can still go over. In a game where the total has already gone over, the bet outcome has been decided. The under cannot win in any scenario.

I thought of that, but to play devil's advocate, what about a game that went 11-9 in 3rd inning with wild errors and all kinds of hits due to rain.... then it gets called & postponed? A person who has the Over would be pissed off but the game is now considered non-existent as if it was never played to begin with.

Just because a game become official after 6 innings doesn't mean that the O/U is IMMEDIATELY decided once something goes over the O/U. What if a game in the 7th innning gets called with 8-8 tie and gets postponed... but then due to scheduling conflicts, this game is NEVER restarted according to the new MLB rules? Then this game is not counted anymore then how would an Over bet be graded as a win even if it's obviously decided as an Over? (I think MLB eliminated the concept of ties... not sure, but someone would have to check any updated rule books if they have the language of not recognizing a tied game).

* CalvinTy

Kruser6 · Apr 11, 2007

Clip Joint said:
But I think the point he is making is in the scenario you created, the outcome has not yet been decided. The game can still go over. In a game where the total has already gone over, the bet outcome has been decided. The under cannot win in any scenario.

Exactly.

Only when the wager has yet to be decided should the money be refunded is my argument

CalvinTy · Apr 11, 2007

Kruser6 said:
Exactly.

Only when the wager has yet to be decided should the money be refunded is my argument

I understand your logic, heck, I would make that same logic.

But how about answering this scenario from my post with the new MLB rules?

"What if a game in the 7th innning gets called with 8-8 tie and gets postponed... but then due to scheduling conflicts, this game is NEVER restarted according to the new MLB rules? Then this game is not counted anymore then how would an Over bet be graded as a win even if it's obviously decided as an Over?"

You can't. The wager would have to be refunded as a "No Action" result.

* CalvinTy

Kruser6 · Apr 11, 2007

CAPN CRUNCH said:
Well said. I do not comprehend how people cannot understand this. I believe they can, they just don't want to. Hell, it's happened to all of us. That's life.

For the same reason that you can't comprehend my argument.

Its not like Vegas would be paying out winning bets and refunding losers. If a game is 5-5 and the over is 9, why should the under bettors get their money back and why shouldn't people who bet the over get their money? They obviously predicted the outcome correctly while the under bettors didn't. REGARDLESS if it is an official game or not, but even stronger if it was lets say - a 8 inning game.

Only in games in which the the total has yet to be decided does the game warrant a refund in my opinion. If it is 1-1, obviously there would be refunds on both sides of the total. Sure the under bettors get shafted, but as you said thats life. Same goes for over bettors when the game is 5-4 and the total is 9.5 with 3 innings to go, but those things would even out over time.

Kruser6 · Apr 11, 2007

CalvinTy said:
I understand your logic, heck, I would make that same logic.

But how about answering this scenario from my post with the new MLB rules?

"What if a game in the 7th innning gets called with 8-8 tie and gets postponed... but then due to scheduling conflicts, this game is NEVER restarted according to the new MLB rules? Then this game is not counted anymore then how would an Over bet be graded as a win even if it's obviously decided as an Over?"

You can't. The wager would have to be refunded as a "No Action" result.

* CalvinTy

Why would this be any different from any other scenario? Any under bet is toast, and any over bet is a win REGARDLESS whether the game starts again? So why shouldn't the bets be graded accordingly. Who cares if the game isn't recorded an official game, you weren't betting on a winner of the game. If you were on a side or a RL, then yes I agree the bet shall be refunded for many things could have happened. However, the total is already decided so why shall under bettors be relieved of their loss and over bettors have their win taken away?

CAPNCRUNCH · Apr 11, 2007

Kruser6 said:
For the same reason that you can't comprehend my argument.

Its not like Vegas would be paying out winning bets and refunding losers. If a game is 5-5 and the over is 9, why should the under bettors get their money back and why shouldn't people who bet the over get their money? They obviously predicted the outcome correctly while the under bettors didn't. REGARDLESS if it is an official game or not, but even stronger if it was lets say - a 8 inning game.

Only in games in which the the total has yet to be decided does the game warrant a refund in my opinion. If it is 1-1, obviously there would be refunds on both sides of the total. Sure the under bettors get shafted, but as you said thats life. Same goes for over bettors when the game is 5-4 and the total is 9.5 with 3 innings to go, but those things would even out over time.

Under bettors would always be at an unfair disadvantage and could NEVER win and only lose on games that go over on suspended games. If the score was accepted as final, no matter when it was suspended, that would be just as fair....but obviously just as prejudicial in favor of the under bettors as in your scenario, in my opinion.

CalvinTy · Apr 11, 2007

Kruser6 said:
Why would this be any different from any other scenario? Any under bet is toast, and any over bet is a win REGARDLESS whether the game starts again? So why shouldn't the bets be graded accordingly. Who cares if the game isn't recorded an official game, you weren't betting on a winner of the game. If you were on a side or a RL, then yes I agree the bet shall be refunded for many things could have happened. However, the total is already decided so why shall under bettors be relieved of their loss and over bettors have their win taken away?

I guess that's the sticky point...

if a 8-8 game in the 7th inning gets suspended and postponed... but never get completed in the future.... then the game ends up as if it NEVER EXISTED in the first place. Therefore, how can you win an Over bet on a phantom game (that'd be the argument the books would make, I imagine) especially if the game never reached 8.5 innings just like all other totals are only graded by then (I know you want "Action" but the books just don't offer it...)?

* CalvinTy

Kruser6 · Apr 11, 2007

CAPN CRUNCH said:
Under bettors would always be at an unfair disadvantage and could NEVER win and only lose on games that go over on suspended games. If the score was accepted as final, no matter when it was suspended, that would be just as fair....but obviously just as prejudicial in favor of the under bettors as in your scenario, in my opinion.

I do understand your argument in a sense here, however that is the nature of an under bet is it not? Until the last pitch of a game you can never call a bet a win while when you bet an over you can call it a win in the 1st inning if it happens that way.

-I wouldn't say that they are ALWAYS at a disadvantage under what I am discussing. As I mentioned before, if the game was 4-5 and the the over was 9.5 and the game got called in the 5th then the under bettors would have gotten away with one, correct? Wouldn't these things even out over time?

Kruser6 · Apr 11, 2007

CalvinTy said:
I guess that's the sticky point...

if a 8-8 game in the 7th inning gets suspended and postponed... but never get completed in the future.... then the game ends up as if it NEVER EXISTED in the first place. Therefore, how can you win an Over bet on a phantom game (that'd be the argument the books would make, I imagine) especially if the game never reached 8.5 innings just like all other totals are only graded by then (I know you want "Action" but the books just don't offer it...)?

* CalvinTy

My only argument would be is, so what(and meaning no disrespect). The totals aren't recorded in the standings, while the teams w/l are. In this phantom game, the run total was 16. If you bet the under you are beat and the over you have one whether or not the game is completed or recorded in the standings.

Woody0 · Apr 11, 2007

Kruser6 said:
For the same reason that you can't comprehend my argument.

I understand your argument, but as Santo pointed out the books won't accept your position since it gives an additional advantage to the over bettor.

While we're on the subject how would you grade the following game. The O/U is 8.5, the game is 4-4 and is called due to rain after either 8 and a half or 9 innings?