Football
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
01 Aug 10
18:22
Joined:
Date Joined:
14 Jan 08
Backed 'first retirement under 1.5 laps' with bet36* in the grand prix today. Alguasauri had an engine failure about the second corner of the second lap and pulled off the track. I thought this would be a winner but it was settled as a loser. When i queried this with them they pointed out the rule in their sportsbook.............
Lap of first retirement
A two way (under/over) market will be offered for the lap in which the first race retirement takes place. Settlement will be based on official FIA results. (Note: The FIA display the number of completed laps a driver has achieved, so they would have retired on the next lap i.e. If the completed laps on the FIA result is 3 then the driver is deemed to have retired on lap 4 and this will be used for settlement purposes.) If no retirement takes place for a specified Grand Prix, bets will be settled as a 'push'
Basically if someone completes 1 lap and 50 yards it gets rounded up to 2 laps. Is it just me who thinks this is a badly worded bet. Under 1.5 laps to me i interpret as meaning one and a half laps. If your going to round up, why not just say ''will all cars finish the first lap'' as other bookies do. My fault i know for not reading the rule fully but i still feel agreeved with how they put this bet across.
Any thoughts?
Lap of first retirement
A two way (under/over) market will be offered for the lap in which the first race retirement takes place. Settlement will be based on official FIA results. (Note: The FIA display the number of completed laps a driver has achieved, so they would have retired on the next lap i.e. If the completed laps on the FIA result is 3 then the driver is deemed to have retired on lap 4 and this will be used for settlement purposes.) If no retirement takes place for a specified Grand Prix, bets will be settled as a 'push'
Basically if someone completes 1 lap and 50 yards it gets rounded up to 2 laps. Is it just me who thinks this is a badly worded bet. Under 1.5 laps to me i interpret as meaning one and a half laps. If your going to round up, why not just say ''will all cars finish the first lap'' as other bookies do. My fault i know for not reading the rule fully but i still feel agreeved with how they put this bet across.
Any thoughts?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 38
|
By:
Couldn't agree with you anymore. I would interpret 1.5 as a lap and a half. It's an eye opener, that's for sure.
|
|
By:
Rules were up when you did your bet, it's the same as goals in football. Under 1.5 laps is generally considered 1 lap. Same as under 1.5 goals is consider 1 goal or less.
|
|
By:
you lost
read the rules if a player scores after 1min 1 sec, is it the first or second minute? |
|
By:
I would say you've been done mate. It should be more specific to me, 1.5 laps, is one and a half
|
|
By:
' Under 1.5 laps to me i interpret as meaning one and a half laps'
lol |
|
By:
idiots
|
|
By:
 |
|
By:
It's pretty clear, the same way that a goal after 1 minute 1 second counts as 2nd minute. Unlucky but seems like a foolish bet anyway - what were the odds out of interest?
|
|
By:
Not clear at all. To score 1.5 goals in football is impossible, so to back unders obviously 0/1 goal is a winner, but in the race it is possible to do less than 1.5 laps. I would be hacked off big time.
|
|
By:
How do you measure half a lap? Want them to get tape measures and measure to the centimetre and see where he went off the track
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
on the classification would it say he retired after 1.5 laps?
|
|
By:
if the bet was over or under 1.5 minutes and a goal was scored at 1 min 1 second
i would expect to be paid out on unders and lose on overs |
|
By:
Fair enough lads, give me some stick on this one-kick a man while he's down!
 I know what your saying with the football goal minutes but you cant compare the goals unders/overs to this bet. You cant have 1.5 goals scored in a football match but you can have 1.5 laps in a grand prix. I think its a terribly worded bet to be honest. Blsqre do a similar one but they simply say ''will cars complete first lap''. I know i should have read rules but it seemed reasonable to me at the time to assume you got 1.5 laps. The odds were 8/11 which is a bit of a mick take because bsq were evens in their market which is the same. |
|
By:
The official FIA classification stated Alguasauri as completing 1 lap. Nice to know at least some of you agree with me that its poor from them.
|
|
By:
you are correct
under 1.5 means to them a first lap retirement not like a bookie to have rules to entice you to bet |
|
By:
if he completed 1 lap then he retired on the 2nd
|
|
By:
Just the way its worded thats rubbish imo. They word it like your getting something your not.
|
|
By:
Jimmy...
i read the bet as completes 1 lap then retires before the start of the 2nd as a winner for under 1.5 if he starts the 2nd then its a loser. the FIA rules means its a screwjob regardless. gluck. |
|
By:
how can you complete 1 lap then retire before the start of the second?
|
|
By:
dunce thread
you said it yourself...he retired on the 2nd lap |
|
By:
never seen so many idiots on 1 thread
|
|
By:
Ok, well, i'll bow to all the superior brains on this thread, a lot on here obviously think they know it all. just thought it might help someone in future if i posted. he might have been on the 2nd lap but he actually retired before completing 1.5 laps. I still think its poorly worded and should be 'will all cars finish first lap'.
|
|
By:
i dont see the need to be rude, in interpretation of the wording of the bet you should have won, the wording should be changed and is obviously misleading. but there is a rule tab so you cant really complain.
|
|
By:
mug bet
glad you lost |
|
By:
Lol, your last comment says a lot about you TAKE ME OUT.
|
|
By:
i know
but if you dont read the rules you deserve to lose |
|
By:
maybe, its a sad individual who takes pleasure in me losing though. Thought we were all meant to be punters vs the enemy. Guess not.
|
|
By:
EastLower Gooner Joined: 09 Mar 04
Replies: 3778 01 Aug 10 18:49 Jimmy... i read the bet as completes 1 lap then retires before the start of the 2nd as a winner for under 1.5 omg ....i really hope for your sake you wrote that wrong!! |
|
By:
Ignore the abusers Jimmy. It is poorly worded but also you do need to be 100% sure of the rules. The bet should be titled so that it's made clear that it's either the first lap or the second for a retirement. bet3** have incorrectly used the overs/unders title imo with the 1.5. Comparisons with the football unders are invalid because you can't have half a goal but you can have half a lap.
|
|
By:
@ jimmy diamond i cannot really see your complaint, he completed a lap which means he was on lap 2 , which then means the bet has to be settled as over 1.5
you've just read the bet wrong like all of us have done in the past, most ppl would of done something similar wether they'll admit it is a different story... |
|
By:
Always read the fecking rules
|
|
By:
It seems very misleading to me but just one of things you need to take on the chin and learn from.
|
|
By:
So 1.5 goals is misleading too then?
|
|
By:
no mike but you cant score half a goal can you?
|
|
By:
you cant have half a goal...u can have half a lap, muppet...also goals is expressed as under or overs
|
|
By:
If a team could score 1.25 goals and they didn't pay out on under 1.5 goals that would be the footballing equivalent.
|
|
By:
lads, read my origanol post..........im not complaining, just asked if anyone else thought it was poorly worded. Already accepted the loss. already said its my fault.
|