Tennis
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 325 comments are related to the topic:
***** Petition for cancel rule of retiremnet *****
***** Petition for cancel rule of retiremnet *****
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 325
|
By:
|
|
By:
Explained it earlier, not going to again.
|
|
By:
"i know that i know nothing" ..somebody doesnt know it and he naively blindely thinks that the rule is correct and fair for everyone and strategies...but it doesnt!
|
|
By:
don't think you did explain the relation between people that don't share your opinion in this matter and them being greedy no.
|
|
By:
imagine the howls if it had been aza who retired
 but no one cares when the 20/1 dog rolls over |
|
By:
...and of course BETFAIR plays allways dead (quiet) beetle, cause they earn on it..
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
dead quiet beetle - interesting allegory
|
|
By:
i doubt betfair has ever been called that before
|
|
By:
So, if you have made a lot of money trading on a match, and you are green on both players, yes you would be peeved. But if you punted on a player, and they lost, retiring a point after you put your bet on them, you would lose your money through no real fault of your own. Those that gain from a similar bet, do not think they have gained their money unfairly? I would. But maybe that's because I have concern for those people affected by this type of thing. Those that say, tough, I made some money and that's all that matters, I say, are greedy. And I suggest that when it happens to them the other way round, they will be annoyed too.
|
|
By:
And just so you know, I rarely bet on players who are losing a match, so I dont often lose bets because of retirements. But nevertheless, I think the rule is unfair.
|
|
By:
well I'm one of those you have concern for, negatively affected trading on two of three of the ankle roll matches of late. yet my opinion is that things should stay as they are. I fail to see how wasting hours of my time is any different unfair-wise, it's basically the same as losing money.
|
|
By:
Sure we greedy people get annoyed if our player retires.
We get annoyed if a player misses a match point. We get annoyed if a player can't be arsed to compete. We get annoyed if a player loses his composure and falls apart. We get annoyed if a net cord goes against us. We get annoyed if there's a close linecall and there's no hawkeye. We get annoyed if Gery Armstrong can't find the correct mark on a clay court in two consecutive matches (Kiefer-Paul-Henri Mathieu and Kohlschreiber-Robredo, both Hamburg 2008). We get annoyed if tennis players change their shirts and show us their bodies are much better than ours. We get annoyed if someone calls Zakopalova Cookie instead of Koukie. We get annoyed if someone uses strange abbreviations on here (I am telling you, abbreviatians are an invention of Lucifer himself) ...Yet most of us have never started a petition for Klara Zakopalovato change her name back to Koulalova so people would finally understand why it's Koukie....or petitions against any of that other stuff that is unfair towards me, like I never asked the ITF to once and for all remove those freaking nets from the courts. |
|
By:
Koukalova
|
|
By:
 |
|
By:
I think the rule is unfair for the following reason, it is inconsistent.
Bizarrely in the tennis markets, Betfair employ three different settling rules for different in play markets. At very least, I think they should be consistent. 1. Set 1 Winner, Set 2 Winner markets. These are treated such that if the selection you bet on is conditionally settled, i.e. one player has won the relevant set, then the market is settled. If not, i.e. a player has retired before the relevant set is completed, then the market is voided. 2. Match Odds. As we know, if 1 set is complete these markets are settled even if they are not complete. 3. Set Betting. Here we have the complete opposite of "Match Odds", where bets are voided even if they are conditionally settled, i.e. a player retires trailing 0-1 in sets and a Lay bet of 2-0 is voided! I would sign the petition and add an amendment that any conditionally settled selections in the Set Betting market also be settled even in the event of a retirement, thus bringing consistency across all markets. |
|
By:
If a selection you bet on, either as a Back or a Lay is conditionally settled, i.e. it has a 0% or 100% chance of happening, then it should be settled, full stop. No matter what the market is.
|
|
By:
If a selection you bet on, either as a Back or Lay has NOT been conditionally settled, i.e. the event has concluded prematurely whilst the probability was > 0% and < 100%, then it should be voided.
|
|
By:
set betting - this comes up all the time. someone many years ago posted the maths why it is done and i wish i'd kept it, but i can't remember it. but it was clear that it's in the interests of everyone that it be voided even if there's "conditionally settled" bets.
perhaps someone reading this in betfair towers can post the maths behind it so everyone can see it (assuming there's someone in betfair towers that knows why?  ) |
|
By:
gvl, that's not true though. Yes, it would allow people to over-expose themselves, but only in a similar way to non-runners being declared in horse races. I believe Betfair have software already in place after several previous similar instances to now stop this getting out of control.
Bookies have to void all runners in Set Betting as you can only "Back" with them and therefore you can only lose and not win in the case of a retirement which would be unfair. But on here, you can Back or Lay and therefore there is no reason why conditionally settled runners in Set Betting markets shouldn't be settled in the case of retirements. |
|
By:
in set betting its simple
if player retire the outcome resoult isnt defined by the set betting market which is 2-0 2-1 1-2 or 0-2 |
|
By:
As you bring up this horse racing stuff you Island folks love so much...out of curiosity: are bets void if a horse is clumsy and it's clear before the final announcement of the result that it got hurt in a way that clearly hindered it even making an attempt at winning? Basically the horse and jockey retired from the race.
|
|
By:
But if a player retires at 1-0 or 1-1, then then 0-2 is defined, it's lost. Similarly if a player retires at 0-1 or 1-1 then 2-0 has lost and should be settled.
|
|
By:
its not 2 way market
|
|
By:
*clumsy and falls
|
|
By:
are there never races with just 2 horses?
|
|
By:
basicly laying 2-0 or so, you backing other resoults, if you noticed ,which those outcomes are not defined by the retirement
|
|
By:
there have been races with just 2 horses but they are very rare.
bets are never voided, but disqualifications can happen and the result reversed. can you imagine that in tennis?  |
|
By:
stepanek would get dq'ed all the time imo
|
|
By:
stepanek would get dq'ed all the time imo
|
|
By:
wtf? earlier my posts get deleted now they get duplicated
|
|
By:
So I can see a horse put it's nose over the finish line first, be sad that all the speed punters were faster than me in getting all the 1.01 and then later, after the race has finished, some old fart decides that the winner gets disqualified?
|
|
By:
they also changed the rules banning jockeys from remounting a horse if they fall off, which they used to be able to do. so you can get a race with no finishers. i'm not sure what happens to bets in that case
 |
|
By:
correct
|
|
By:
sounds mean
|
|
By:
but I remember something from the Peking olympics in swimming. Someone got DQ'd after the race and busted low odds. Was qualification for the finals or something.
|
|
By:
beijing
|
|
By:
the most common dq is for a jockey being naughty and crossing the path of another horse, cutting it off.
|
|
By:
what about horse which runs without jockey,disqualified?
|
|
By:
you can get 1.01s busted in golf through the winner not filling in his card correctly!
|
