North American
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
02 Oct 15
11:57
Joined:
Date Joined:
16 Dec 02
not fair to wait until OT finishes to settle handicaps is it?
The essence of a handicap is surely that "with x points" team A beats team B (or doesn't). 20-20 at FT, if one team has been handicapped some points then surely that's that?
Can anybody explain why the rules - as they stand - are fair?
The essence of a handicap is surely that "with x points" team A beats team B (or doesn't). 20-20 at FT, if one team has been handicapped some points then surely that's that?
Can anybody explain why the rules - as they stand - are fair?
Show More
I've requested an explanation via the help desk.
Cant be right to lose with the points on your side if the game is tied, but win the same bet if your team loses by a point.
Cant be right to lose with the points on your side if the game is tied, but win the same bet if your team loses by a point.
It's proper that the handicap counts in overtime.
The essence of a handicap is surely that "with x points" team A beats team B (or doesn't)
says who???? The essence of a handicap is that with x points team A beats team B at the conclusion of the match and if that takes over time to decide it well and good. Can you explain how the rule is unfair??? You know before the start that overtime is included and I can see absolutely no problem with that.
The essence of a handicap is surely that "with x points" team A beats team B (or doesn't)
says who???? The essence of a handicap is that with x points team A beats team B at the conclusion of the match and if that takes over time to decide it well and good. Can you explain how the rule is unfair??? You know before the start that overtime is included and I can see absolutely no problem with that.
Last night as an example:
if the game had finished Pitt losing by a point the H'cap make up would have settled as a winner. As the game was a tie, then betting with the point meant you were MORE CORRECT than if the game had been a one point loser. See?
If you don't settle until OT finishes then you create a situation where those betting with the points have had to win twice...One at FT and once at OT.
As games where there is no OT settle at FT, then to be fair all bets should settle at FT. To all be in line.
The rule as it stands does not reward the skill of correctly identifying an outcome.
if the game had finished Pitt losing by a point the H'cap make up would have settled as a winner. As the game was a tie, then betting with the point meant you were MORE CORRECT than if the game had been a one point loser. See?
If you don't settle until OT finishes then you create a situation where those betting with the points have had to win twice...One at FT and once at OT.
As games where there is no OT settle at FT, then to be fair all bets should settle at FT. To all be in line.
The rule as it stands does not reward the skill of correctly identifying an outcome.
Obviously, the moneyline is all about W v L.
The handicap is patently about margins, not Win/Loss. you can win, when the team loses, if they are within the handicap. Surely this is self evident?
Your point - that it's fair to wait until the end of OT, implies the following:
Handicap players (with the points) are not unlucky that the team they backed were better (20-20) than if the outcome had been (20-19). How can that be so? I'm not arguing that it's a nasty surprise (like you, I knew the rules before last night), I'm arguing that it doesn't have to be the case (that this loophole exists).
Settle Moneyline after OT, and settle Handicaps at FT. Would be fair.
The handicap is patently about margins, not Win/Loss. you can win, when the team loses, if they are within the handicap. Surely this is self evident?
Your point - that it's fair to wait until the end of OT, implies the following:
Handicap players (with the points) are not unlucky that the team they backed were better (20-20) than if the outcome had been (20-19). How can that be so? I'm not arguing that it's a nasty surprise (like you, I knew the rules before last night), I'm arguing that it doesn't have to be the case (that this loophole exists).
Settle Moneyline after OT, and settle Handicaps at FT. Would be fair.
maybe a little visual will help you see the implication of what you're saying:
With 2.5 points on the handicap:
Match Outcome:
5 point loser - LOSS
4 point loser - LOSS
3 point loser - LOSS
2 point loser - WIN
1 point loser - WIN
level points - LOSS
1 point winner - WIN
2 point winner - WIN
You've thrown in a wrong outcome for no reason: You're saying it's a skill worthy of reward to identify a 2 point loser, but if it's a Tie that's not worth a reward...
Unless, you contend there's no such thing as a (60 minute) Tie. In which case fair enough, but you are choosing to have a randomly unfair outcome where it does not need to be.
With 2.5 points on the handicap:
Match Outcome:
5 point loser - LOSS
4 point loser - LOSS
3 point loser - LOSS
2 point loser - WIN
1 point loser - WIN
level points - LOSS
1 point winner - WIN
2 point winner - WIN
You've thrown in a wrong outcome for no reason: You're saying it's a skill worthy of reward to identify a 2 point loser, but if it's a Tie that's not worth a reward...
Unless, you contend there's no such thing as a (60 minute) Tie. In which case fair enough, but you are choosing to have a randomly unfair outcome where it does not need to be.
There rule is just fine as it is. Maybe factor that into your betting or abstain
lol. I'm honestly laughing as I type.
How could one possibly "factor in" the Tie? if you already betting with points then you are betting that it might be a close enough defeat to win the bet! If you don't think you need the points, then you'd just take the better price in the outright moneyline market! You clearly have no concept of the bet and have just decided the rule is fair for no reason (that you're able to articulate).
Another example when I was on the right side of the outcome but may not have been because of the odd rule: Tennessee v Indi last week. In failing to get the two pointer at the end, Tennessee were 2 point losers, but therefore handicap winners. If they'd got that 2 pointer they would have done better in the match itself by forcing the Tie, but may (in overtime) have ended up losing by more than the Handicap mark.
How could one possibly "factor in" the Tie? if you already betting with points then you are betting that it might be a close enough defeat to win the bet! If you don't think you need the points, then you'd just take the better price in the outright moneyline market! You clearly have no concept of the bet and have just decided the rule is fair for no reason (that you're able to articulate).
Another example when I was on the right side of the outcome but may not have been because of the odd rule: Tennessee v Indi last week. In failing to get the two pointer at the end, Tennessee were 2 point losers, but therefore handicap winners. If they'd got that 2 pointer they would have done better in the match itself by forcing the Tie, but may (in overtime) have ended up losing by more than the Handicap mark.
No I clearly understand perfectly the rule , you are the one that obviously doesn't understand it. You claim the rule is unfair but yet you still placed the bet - now that is laughable
Okay then, one question: Do you think betting with the points (say 2.5) should be a winner if the game ends 20 - 18 ?
Obviously, you say Yes at this point.
Then I ask: Has the team with 18 done better or worse than if they'd forced a Tie?
We all have to agree they've done worse.
So I then ask; so betting with the points - a bet about margins, not outcomes - is even further correct when adding 2.5 to a level score game.
you probably point out that it isn't necessarily a level score game if Tied after 60 minutes because it's only the score after OT which counts. (Which is really the only reasonable that could be given at this stage).
So I ask; what I started out by asking: Why?
Surely the bettor who identified the bet with the points was more correct than in some other outcomes in which he or she would have been paid out. This is a loophole which could be removed. An unnecessary injustice wiped from the face of the planet.
Then I ask: Has the team with 18 done better or worse than if they'd forced a Tie?
We all have to agree they've done worse.
So I then ask; so betting with the points - a bet about margins, not outcomes - is even further correct when adding 2.5 to a level score game.
you probably point out that it isn't necessarily a level score game if Tied after 60 minutes because it's only the score after OT which counts. (Which is really the only reasonable that could be given at this stage).
So I ask; what I started out by asking: Why?
Surely the bettor who identified the bet with the points was more correct than in some other outcomes in which he or she would have been paid out. This is a loophole which could be removed. An unnecessary injustice wiped from the face of the planet.
This is bizarre. If you don't like the rules don't have handicap bets, but the rules couldn't be clearer. A discussion of who has done better A or B is irrelevant, by placing a bet you bind yourself to the rules that will determine the settlement of that bet.This bet was entirely fair, because of the clarity around how the winner would be determined. I don't know any punter who wouldn't know this,before placing a bet on any sport or event.More specifically I don't know of any NFL punter who wouldn't know the overtime rules.
Basketball is the same, overtime counts. Overtime is part of the game. Pittsburgh backers were hardly done by yesterday, but that is sports and that is gambling. No issue whatsoever if this is stated in the rules and it clearly is. You always have to acknowledge the possibility of an outcome like this with NFL spreads that are set at half a point below a FG or TD. If you aren't willing to accept it, don't bet or focus on the 3 and 7 point spreads when you find them.
There will be a time where you are on the other side of the outcome, interesting to see if you are still aggrieved then.
There will be a time where you are on the other side of the outcome, interesting to see if you are still aggrieved then.
TBF, I think the revised handicap rules make things extremely difficult. You generally knew that based on the one possession OT rules that 3 points would be the winning margin. These days teams need to go for 6 points as the other team will get the ball. Obviously particularly gauling on type games.
Perhaps a handicap without OT market needs to be introduced.
Perhaps a handicap without OT market needs to be introduced.
Nah there is so many markets as it is with fcuk all liquidity , it's fine as it is imo
This is bizarre. If you don't like the rules don't have handicap bets, but the rules couldn't be clearer. A discussion of who has done better A or B is irrelevant, by placing a bet you bind yourself to the rules that will determine the settlement of that bet.This bet was entirely fair, because of the clarity around how the winner would be determined. I don't know any punter who wouldn't know this,before placing a bet on any sport or event.More specifically I don't know of any NFL punter who wouldn't know the overtime rules.
No it's not bizzare. It's a discussion of the fairness of a rule. It's not a discussion of the mentality required to play in a market one believes to be subject to an unfair rule. It's a scenario which doesn't happen often, and can cut both ways which is why I'll play despite the unfair rule. Doesn't stop me from asking why the rule couldn't be changed. It cannot be for technical reasons.
fundamentally the rule is fair if you believe that losing by 3 (or 6) points after OT is a worse performance by a team than losing in normal time by 1 or 2 points (or whatever the margin happens to be).
Personally I think that most sports teams would consider their overall performance would have been better (ie closer to winning) on a day when they forced overtime than on a day when they simply lost, whatever the subsequent margin of defeat after OT. If you disagree, that's fine, please say why it's better to lose in 60 minutes than force OT, but there's no need for "this guy must be mental" type messages. Play the post not the poster.
No it's not bizzare. It's a discussion of the fairness of a rule. It's not a discussion of the mentality required to play in a market one believes to be subject to an unfair rule. It's a scenario which doesn't happen often, and can cut both ways which is why I'll play despite the unfair rule. Doesn't stop me from asking why the rule couldn't be changed. It cannot be for technical reasons.
fundamentally the rule is fair if you believe that losing by 3 (or 6) points after OT is a worse performance by a team than losing in normal time by 1 or 2 points (or whatever the margin happens to be).
Personally I think that most sports teams would consider their overall performance would have been better (ie closer to winning) on a day when they forced overtime than on a day when they simply lost, whatever the subsequent margin of defeat after OT. If you disagree, that's fine, please say why it's better to lose in 60 minutes than force OT, but there's no need for "this guy must be mental" type messages. Play the post not the poster.
I wasn't suggesting anything even close to what you state in the last line of your post. Winning is difficult enough without wasting energy on consideration of the rule that has been in place since my first NFL bet over 25 years ago.I don't think many NFL punters over the years have given much thought to the idea of it being better to force overtime than lose in regulation. I certainly can't imagine many of those who backed New Orleans last night feeling uneasy about the circumstances in which they won.
I still haven't seen a post which says why the rules are as they are.
Logically a handicap bet is about margin not outcome (betting with the points can see you win, even if the team loses, if the margin of defeat is lower than the points received).
Because of the above the bet is always about margin (even when the outcome also favours the team with the points, if they also outright win the game). The result doesn't change the nature of the bet. It's about margin.
It is therefore fundamentally unsound for a "better" outcome (a Tie) to be declared a loser than certain other winning outcomes where the team did worse than Tie.
This only makes sense if:
A Tie then OT loss by 3 points is Worse than a straight up defeat by 2 points in normal time. Am I wrong here? It certainly feels like forcing OT would be better.
Logically a handicap bet is about margin not outcome (betting with the points can see you win, even if the team loses, if the margin of defeat is lower than the points received).
Because of the above the bet is always about margin (even when the outcome also favours the team with the points, if they also outright win the game). The result doesn't change the nature of the bet. It's about margin.
It is therefore fundamentally unsound for a "better" outcome (a Tie) to be declared a loser than certain other winning outcomes where the team did worse than Tie.
This only makes sense if:
A Tie then OT loss by 3 points is Worse than a straight up defeat by 2 points in normal time. Am I wrong here? It certainly feels like forcing OT would be better.
If you think the hcap rules are unfair, your head would probably explode if you hadn't made it down to Laddies, in time to get the over 37.5 Wilson rushing yards, and took the over 40.5 instead. Russ had racked up 43 yards when he took 2 (essentially ceremonial)knees to end the game. One was recorded as minus 1 yard, the other for minus 2 
, meaning overs got sunk.
I've bet Jags and The New Pharoah (AvB),in the last 2 days, as well.
, meaning overs got sunk.I've bet Jags and The New Pharoah (AvB),in the last 2 days, as well.
The New Pharoah was rare way indeed to lose your money....commiserations
Oh and Wilsons yards 
.....jeez i'd take a few days off mate
.....jeez i'd take a few days off mate
It is therefore fundamentally unsound for a "better" outcome (a Tie) to be declared a loser than certain other winning outcomes where the team did worse than Tie.
Is it not just as unsound for your team to win by 3 points and lose your bet with a minus 2.5 handicap. According to the FINAL score, your team covered. You simply need to acknowledge that overtime is part of the contest in American sports.
Is it not just as unsound for your team to win by 3 points and lose your bet with a minus 2.5 handicap. According to the FINAL score, your team covered. You simply need to acknowledge that overtime is part of the contest in American sports.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539