If they allow all the overs to count on rainouts, then they must allow all the unders.
What you would then have is players hammering the unders on games where there is a good chance of rain.
In the long run, it should even out.
I've been burned by rain outs and benefitted from them, so has everyone else.
What you would then have is players hammering the unders on games where there is a good chance of rain.
In the long run, it should even out.
I've been burned by rain outs and benefitted from them, so has everyone else.
If they allow all the overs to count on rainouts, then they must allow all the unders.
Why?
Better yet, I'll tell you WHY NOT. If the game is ALREADY OVER then it is IMPOSSIBLE for it have gone under (obviously). The game is a .5 under, but is tied is is also IMPOSSIBLE for it to have gone under.
Any OTHER scenario means the game COULD HAVE gone over or under.
If you want to be more accurate you would probably pro-rate it.
What you would then have is players hammering the unders on games where there is a good chance of rain.
I suspect the reason that nobody else is mentioning "unders" is precisely for this reason.
In the long run, it should even out.
In which context are you referring? Using my approach there would always be an equal number of Overs and Unders. The rest, obviuosly, being a push.
I've been burned by rain outs and benefitted from them, so has everyone else.
So you're a poor capper? That has nothing to do with the theories at hand.
Why?
Better yet, I'll tell you WHY NOT. If the game is ALREADY OVER then it is IMPOSSIBLE for it have gone under (obviously). The game is a .5 under, but is tied is is also IMPOSSIBLE for it to have gone under.
Any OTHER scenario means the game COULD HAVE gone over or under.
If you want to be more accurate you would probably pro-rate it.
What you would then have is players hammering the unders on games where there is a good chance of rain.
I suspect the reason that nobody else is mentioning "unders" is precisely for this reason.
In the long run, it should even out.
In which context are you referring? Using my approach there would always be an equal number of Overs and Unders. The rest, obviuosly, being a push.
I've been burned by rain outs and benefitted from them, so has everyone else.
So you're a poor capper? That has nothing to do with the theories at hand.
What if at the time of the rainout, it was 4-3 boston?
Should overs count then? What about unders?
When I say in the long run it should even out, I mean you will benefit and lose due to rain outs. Last night I benefitted, I had Philly +1.5 on the run line.
Earlier this year, I had a run line +1.5 on a game between Cincy and Atlanta and it was cancelled because of rain after 5 innings, my team was up 5-3 but my bet was cancelled.
"So you're a poor capper? That has nothing to do with the theories at hand."
Not sure what point you are trying to make here, capping skills have nothing to do with rainouts.
Should overs count then? What about unders?
When I say in the long run it should even out, I mean you will benefit and lose due to rain outs. Last night I benefitted, I had Philly +1.5 on the run line.
Earlier this year, I had a run line +1.5 on a game between Cincy and Atlanta and it was cancelled because of rain after 5 innings, my team was up 5-3 but my bet was cancelled.
"So you're a poor capper? That has nothing to do with the theories at hand."
Not sure what point you are trying to make here, capping skills have nothing to do with rainouts.
Pancho,
This isn't rocket science, so this will be my last post on the matter. If you still do not comprehend my point, then I suspect we have the answer to why the bookies leave the rules AS SIMPLE as possible.
Originally posted by Pancho Sanza:
What if at the time of the rainout, it was 4-3 boston?
Should overs count then? What about unders?
If the total was 6.5 or less, then yes they both would count (using an improved rule system). If the total was anything above 6.5 then all total wagers are a push.
When I say in the long run it should even out, I mean you will benefit and lose due to rain outs. Last night I benefitted, I had Philly +1.5 on the run line.
Even though probability says, "you'll break even" it's still a flaw.
Earlier this year, I had a run line +1.5 on a game between Cincy and Atlanta and it was cancelled because of rain after 5 innings, my team was up 5-3 but my bet was cancelled.
I was clearly posting about totals, not run-lines. If the system was pro-rated then this would be an issue, but my suggestion was solely based on 100% certainties, not probabilities.
"So you're a poor capper? That has nothing to do with the theories at hand."
Not sure what point you are trying to make here, capping skills have nothing to do with rainouts.
Pancho,
I was sarcastic, because your point had nothing to do with the theories at hand.
This isn't rocket science, so this will be my last post on the matter. If you still do not comprehend my point, then I suspect we have the answer to why the bookies leave the rules AS SIMPLE as possible.
Originally posted by Pancho Sanza:
What if at the time of the rainout, it was 4-3 boston?
Should overs count then? What about unders?
If the total was 6.5 or less, then yes they both would count (using an improved rule system). If the total was anything above 6.5 then all total wagers are a push.
When I say in the long run it should even out, I mean you will benefit and lose due to rain outs. Last night I benefitted, I had Philly +1.5 on the run line.
Even though probability says, "you'll break even" it's still a flaw.
Earlier this year, I had a run line +1.5 on a game between Cincy and Atlanta and it was cancelled because of rain after 5 innings, my team was up 5-3 but my bet was cancelled.
I was clearly posting about totals, not run-lines. If the system was pro-rated then this would be an issue, but my suggestion was solely based on 100% certainties, not probabilities.
"So you're a poor capper? That has nothing to do with the theories at hand."
Not sure what point you are trying to make here, capping skills have nothing to do with rainouts.
Pancho,
I was sarcastic, because your point had nothing to do with the theories at hand.
I think if they did it this way they would get consistently more action on the over. The over bettors already have the advantage in the fact that all OT scoring counts, and now they want to count this game as a win on the over as well. That is crazy.
So in any game which doesnt go the full 8 1/2 innings.
Over bettors would either - WIN or PUSH
Under bettors would either - LOSE or PUSH
That is outrageous.
Isnt it enough of an advantage that over bettors will win between 50-100 plays a year due to OT, 2OT, 3OT, 4OT while still getting a no action in the rare occurence that a game is called early ?
So in any game which doesnt go the full 8 1/2 innings.
Over bettors would either - WIN or PUSH
Under bettors would either - LOSE or PUSH
That is outrageous.
Isnt it enough of an advantage that over bettors will win between 50-100 plays a year due to OT, 2OT, 3OT, 4OT while still getting a no action in the rare occurence that a game is called early ?
Danny,
Maybe ML wagers shouldn't count either ...
I mean, IF it rains out a Dodger game I would have a huge advantage fading them if the nasty pen didn't play right????
Get real, you seriously think this would have a big impact? Then great, sharps would be all over your adjusted inflated under
Maybe ML wagers shouldn't count either ...
I mean, IF it rains out a Dodger game I would have a huge advantage fading them if the nasty pen didn't play right????
Get real, you seriously think this would have a big impact? Then great, sharps would be all over your adjusted inflated under
Lander,
The logic seems pretty straightforward to me...the bookies don't want to be messing with rainout probabilities when they set the line for the total. It's a variable which is hard to predict, requires a lot of attention, leads to wildly fluctuating lines (potentially), and has little to do with the spirit of the bet.
With moneylines it doesn't matter because both teams are equally affected so it doesn't influence the line in any meaningful way.
Runlines are correlated with totals so it stands to reason they be treated similarly for similar reasons.
FWIW I had the over on the Bosox game
The logic seems pretty straightforward to me...the bookies don't want to be messing with rainout probabilities when they set the line for the total. It's a variable which is hard to predict, requires a lot of attention, leads to wildly fluctuating lines (potentially), and has little to do with the spirit of the bet.
With moneylines it doesn't matter because both teams are equally affected so it doesn't influence the line in any meaningful way.
Runlines are correlated with totals so it stands to reason they be treated similarly for similar reasons.
FWIW I had the over on the Bosox game
The better question would have been whether I perceive the strengths of the bullpens to be in exact proportion to the line offered for the game, and of course it is not exactly that. But you gotta admit the difference between how the rain-shortenings affect the side vs. the total is huge.
Another factor for the bookie to consider is the relative action on the ML vs. the other bets. The ML is the big one for them so they are less inclined to have no action situations on those because that would forfeit a large chunk of their juice.
Another factor for the bookie to consider is the relative action on the ML vs. the other bets. The ML is the big one for them so they are less inclined to have no action situations on those because that would forfeit a large chunk of their juice.
