Earlier when Cuba won by 10 in the 7th my book cancelled my RL bet cause it didn't go nine and used the Major League Rules on a game must go 9 innings. I said it wasn't suspended but was a full game as by rules the game is official based on the mercy rule. I shouldn't be punished for my team winning by more than ten runs. After two days my agent gave me a credit for the win but acted like he was giving me a gift. I said you can't apply Major League Baseball rules on that because the official rules are different. I understand if it was shortened by weather as that would make sense but not by a stupid mercy rule as the game is ended based on the written rules. Am I wrong to think that?
Glad they reversed it in your favor. Unfortunately, retarded rules still exist in other similar scenarios, such as having the Over in an officially completed MLB game that is halted for, say, excessive rain. I will argue to the end that if a game surpasses the minimum five innings, and is something like 10-6, but is shortened because of rain, that said game should be graded as an official bet, since it was an official game and the score obviously went over. Plus, you could punish whoever had the under by giving them a loss, instead of letting them off the hook despite being blatantly wrong. They absolutely need to change that, but at least they changed the ruling in your scenario.
You guys misunderstand what I'm stating. I'm saying ONLY if a score is over the total at the time it is offically completed before the 9th inning, but after the 5th inning. IF a score was something like 2-1/3-2 at that juncture of the game, and then ended because of the weather, THEN it should be a no-action bet, obviously, because you don't know what would happen in those latter innings, therefore you can't judge a bet without that.
HOWEVER, if the over/under is already 100-percent known (Ex. 10-6) in the 6th or 7th inning, and gets called because of weather, THEN it should count. How is that wrong? The bet is decided. It's past the 6th inning. Fluke WEATHER should not completely cancel a bet if someone was 100-percent right, or 100-percent wrong, and the bet has already been decided.
It's the dumbest rule in the country that an over/under is not graded, despite being officially decided, in the event of a game not going the full nine innings. So, if a game went 8 innings, and the score was 12-4, meaning the over/under was already decided, there should not be a person on earth who thinks it's right that the bet gets cancelled because then that punishes someone who was right, while rewarding someone who was wrong. How does that make any sense?
But again, this doesn't apply to games that are 2-1/3-2/5-1 in the latter innings when weather ends it. THOSE games should still be no action. But for the other games that are already decided at that point in the game, the bet should still count regardless. Period. There's no arguing that, and I will continue to point out is the dumbest, most retarded rule I can think of. In anything.
