Now there's a novel idea...forget what the screen says!!!!!
So the book posts a prop on the screen, and the screen clearly says that only TD's, FG's, and safeties count as scores, and you want the book to forget what they're just said? How about if they forget that they promised to pay if you won? You did say to forget what the screen said.
XP's should not count as a player score. Otherwise as soon as someone scores a TD it would be 2 people scoring. Odds seem fair with the way they are grading this one.
here is the exact prop as it was displayed - hopefully this pastes correctly. i bet the same thing... thinking if someone scored a td i would have 2 people. i do understand betjam's response.. but i also think the 'heading' should have been a little more clear.
<TABLE class=MsoNormalTable style="WIDTH: 487.5pt; mso-cellspacing: 0in; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 0in 0in" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=650 border=0><TBODY><TR style="mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-firstrow: yes"><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; BACKGROUND: #f97f1a; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8" vAlign=bottom></TD></TR><TR style="mso-yfti-irow: 1"><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; BACKGROUND: #17654b; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8" vAlign=bottom>739 Number of Cardinals Players to score in game<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
</TD></TR><TR style="mso-yfti-irow: 2; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes"><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent"><o></o>Sun 2/1 5:20PM (CST)<o></o>
<TABLE class=MsoNormalTable style="WIDTH: 487.5pt; mso-cellspacing: 3.7pt; mso-padding-alt: 3.75pt 3.75pt 3.75pt 3.75pt" cellSpacing=5 cellPadding=0 width=650 border=0><TBODY><TR style="mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-firstrow: yes"><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; PADDING-RIGHT: 3.75pt; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; PADDING-LEFT: 3.75pt; BACKGROUND: #f8f5bd; PADDING-BOTTOM: 3.75pt; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; PADDING-TOP: 3.75pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8">739 Over 3 Players <o></o></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; PADDING-RIGHT: 3.75pt; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; PADDING-LEFT: 3.75pt; BACKGROUND: #f8f5bd; PADDING-BOTTOM: 3.75pt; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; PADDING-TOP: 3.75pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8">+125 <o></o>
</TD></TR><TR style="mso-yfti-irow: 1; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes"><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; PADDING-RIGHT: 3.75pt; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; PADDING-LEFT: 3.75pt; BACKGROUND: #cdeab8; PADDING-BOTTOM: 3.75pt; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; PADDING-TOP: 3.75pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8">740 Under 3 Players <o></o>
</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; PADDING-RIGHT: 3.75pt; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; PADDING-LEFT: 3.75pt; BACKGROUND: #cdeab8; PADDING-BOTTOM: 3.75pt; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; PADDING-TOP: 3.75pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8">-155 <o></o>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Included possible OT - TDs, FGs, Safety<o></o>
Thanks to everyone, especially Bucs, for your input and help. I still think I got hosed because the XP is a part of the TD. But if Betjm's interpretation is different, then I'll lick my wounds and not worry about it. I do hope that Betjm will use this discussion to minimize the ambiguity when wording and disclaiming their future wagering options.
Thanks to everyone, especially Bucs, for your input and help. I still think I got hosed because the XP is a part of the TD. But if Betjm's interpretation is different, then I'll lick my wounds and not worry about it. I do hope that Betjm will use this discussion to minimize the ambiguity when wording and disclaiming their future wagering options.
You're welcome(since I'm sure you were including me in your gratuities)...
I think you have a better argument with the safety rather than the extra point. The prop does specifically say that safeties do count along with TD's and FG's. Now if the AZ lineman had sacked the Pitt QB in the endzone, I'm sure BetJam would have included his sack/safety as a score and it would have been a push. So what if 2 AZ lineman had sacked the Pitt QB(sharing a sack happens all the time)? In that case BetJam should have logically shared the safety with each of them and it would have been 4 AZ players to score....that would not be fair to the under 3 prop bettors so once again it would be better if BetJam clarified their prop rules to say that in the case of a safety, only 1 player gets the credit for the score. In your particular case it can be reasonably argued that the safety occurred because of the holding call on whichever Pitt lineman was holding whichever AZ lineman, and therefore that AZ lineman should be credited with the safety for prop betting purposes. Present it that way to Scotty and I think he agrees to give you a push!
Actually, I thought I would have a better chance with the XP. The safety was a result of a holding penalty by Pittsburgh, and not anything a Cardinals player did. The score was awarded to the team, not an individual player.
If there was a sack in the end zone, that's different. If two players got 0.5 sack each, I would count that as one player for betting purposes. Betjm might grade that differently too -- who knows. I would hope that Betjm would clarify this point in their disclaimer, because you could argue that two players were involved in that score.
"The safety was a result of a holding penalty by Pittsburgh, and not anything a Cardinals player did."
HUH???? You are too fucking stupid and deserve to lose this bet.
The reason that a penalty in the end zone is a safety is because (in this case) if the Pittsburgh player had not held the Arizona player , the Arizona player would have presumably sacked the quarterback for a safety. The Arizona player that was held should get credit for the sack. Btw, I do not believe a team can score so I believe that should count as a 'player' scoring. I know this is not an exact science but I do agree with 'the spirit of the rule' along with common sense giving us the correct conclusion to this, being three players scored.
You're right. I misspoke. He shouldn't get credit for a sack but he should get credit for the score. Just like in hockey when a team scores in its own net, the nearest player on the opposing team gets the credit for the goal........here somebody needs to be designated as scoring, so I suggest(ed) the player that was held.Presumably is the keyword. There's no way he should get credit for a sack he could have, or would have, gotten, in my humble opinion. Disagree.
You're right. I misspoke. He shouldn't get credit for a sack but he should get credit for the score. Just like in hockey when a team scores in its own net, the nearest player on the opposing team gets the credit for the goal........here somebody needs to be designated as scoring, so I suggest(ed) the player that was held.
Kinish, fwiw I believe the prop was graded correctly. If they were counting x-points the total would have been closer to 4. There team total was 20.5 so I'm sure they wouldn't put the prop out O3 +money if they planned on counting x-points.:cheers
Royalfan,
If this was a discussion about whether it would be better if BetJam had included the disclaimer that extra points don't count, then I would certainly agree with you...it would have been better. But that is not what this discussion is about! And the main thing is NOT that a safety can count, because as we saw, the safety in this particular case did not count. Nor is it obvious that an extra point counts; it would have been obvious if they had said extra points count, but they didn't. I agree that a little common sense needs to be used in this case but the need exists in yours and Kinosh's case, not BetJam.
Well, we'll just have to disagree. I don't think there should ever be points 'awarded' without a particular player scoring said points. And if that is the case with the rules, the rules should be changed.:cheersZZ, again I disagree because there are particular (though rare) occasions written into the rules of NFL football in which a team get points that are not attributed to any player. No where is it written that all point must be attributed to a player. I think it is fair to say the safety in this game was not a score, but instead an awarding of points.
Well, we'll just have to disagree. I don't think there should ever be points 'awarded' without a particular player scoring said points. And if that is the case with the rules, the rules should be changed.:cheers
"The safety was a result of a holding penalty by Pittsburgh, and not anything a Cardinals player did."
HUH???? You are too fucking stupid and deserve to lose this bet.
I guess I am stupid, along with the NFL and the refs. I don't see anything wrong with my statement. The Cardinals player rushed the passer. Why should he get credit for the safety?
Kinish, fwiw I believe the prop was graded correctly. If they were counting x-points the total would have been closer to 4. There team total was 20.5 so I'm sure they wouldn't put the prop out O3 +money if they planned on counting x-points.:cheers
My question would be this. If they werent' going to count extra points, why even write a prop called "players to score".? Why not line the bet at 3.5 or 4 and include kickers? Why make it vague and confusing?
if ANY bettor is confused, its the book's fault for not including enough language to make there BE no doubt.
If you make a 'players to score' prop and then exclude certain situations, than it really isn't a players to score prop, its something else with shady and foggy language.
If the prop is players to score, there needs to be a specific language that says extra points do not count. If there's no specific language to that regard, someone might think xtra points Do count. My statement to the book is "why leave ANY doubt, just write extra points do not count".
What is interesting to me is that the email from BetJamaica posted in this thread mentioned a "disclaimer" that disallowed conversion points. I would like to know more about this disclaimer. Where's the disclaimer?
I tend to lean toward royalfan's assessment with BetJam copying and pasting prop lines..
The prop "Will either team score 3 unanswered times" did have the following disclaimer: "Included possible OT - Conversion Points do not count toward wager"
The prop "Number of Cardinal players to score in game" had "Included possible OT - TDs, FGs, Safety"
So conversion points SHOULD count for the latter prop since the disclaimer when they don't count (in the former) is clearly stated.
Take em to Judge Judy
I guess I am stupid, along with the NFL and the refs. I don't see anything wrong with my statement. The Cardinals player rushed the passer.
But you just said the...
"The safety was a result of a holding penalty by Pittsburgh, and not anything a Cardinals player did."
...so now you admit that the Cardinal player did indeed do something which led to the Pitt player holding him and thus causing the penalty. Don't blame the refs , they called the penalty, they're not the stupid ones here...you've proven your stupidity and at least you finally admit it!
.
My reasoning is that the safety was a result of a Pittsburgh penalty, so no "Cardinals Player" was credited with the score. Betjm is saying the safety was credited to the Team, and therefore counts as a "Player." That's bullshit!!
But you just said the...
"The safety was a result of a holding penalty by Pittsburgh, and not anything a Cardinals player did."
...so now you admit that the Cardinal player did indeed do something which led to the Pitt player holding him and thus causing the penalty. Don't blame the refs , they called the penalty, they're not the stupid ones here...you've proven your stupidity and at least you finally admit it!
I don't understand your argument. Seems like you're saying that rushing the passer should be awarded a safety. If that were true, we would see a lot more safeties. What did the Cardinals player do to get the safety? I don't get it.
DUH...he rushed the passer...if he hadn't been held on the play, he would have sacked the QB for the safety. The safety should count as an AZ score for whichever AZ lineman was held....but you certainly deserve to lose, in fact you're stupid enough to win a Darwin award this year!
Really? Wow! I didn't know this cause-and-effect was so definite. Please state your facts to support this claim. I'm listening.