Should "Top 8 Finish" Bets Stand in a Six-Car Race?

[acw]

Shrink,

It is nice to know what you think, but should bets not be settled according to rules?
Just for your information, but some quality books had clearly stipulated that the parade lap is included in the race, so there were more than 8 starters in the race! These books paid accordingly.

 

[THE SHRINK]

acw,

I understand your position, but I just think the SPIRIT of the bet should count as well. Also, many sports books do have a rule stating that they can cancel a wager at their own discrepancy...

I also know that they paid out on individual odds on who gamblers thought would WIN, despite the fact only 6 cars raced and I agree that those players deserved to get paid...

But is it really a BET when you can't possibly lose?

Don't you have to RISK something in the purist definition?

I just don't see how running a PARADE LAP can take precedent over RUNNING when the race "OFFICIALLY" starts, which isn't then...

THE SHRINK

 

[Santo]

You CAN possibly lose.

The cars could crash. The engines could fail. That happens ALL the time in Formula 1!

 

[THE SHRINK]

Santo,

Would you be WILLING to book that BET (term used loosely) if it were to ever happen again?

OF COURSE NOT!!!

Gee,

Let me ponder if my Driver can FINISH in the TOP 8 when only 6 cars START the race?

Give me a MAX bet please!

I'll take my chances...

THE SHRINK

 

[Santo]

I'd offer odds, sure (and I did in this case, at Betfair -- admittedly they weren't the the Odds Olympic offered, but that's not the bettors fault).

Did you watch the race? Two drivers almost collided coming out of the pits, that would have put one out and unclassified.

In the last F1 Grand Prix 6 drivers failed to finish, 3 of which were because their engines failed. The engines fail regardless of whether or not a driver drives cautiously, because F1 regulations mean that an engine has to last two races, so they are generally fairly worn.

 

[The General]

When wagers are made, the players should have as much a chance as the book to win. In this wager the player had an undoubtable advantage over the book which didn't give the sports book the same chance of winning as a player. The odds were greatly in favor of the player and put the book in a position to NOT have the same chance at winning as the players.

 

[Santo]

Yes, General.. I'm not arguing that the odds were in the favour. I was merely pointing out that to say there was *no* risk on the part of the player is false -- as per Shrink's definition "But is it really a BET when you can't possibly lose? ".

The edge was to the player, but a loss was possible.

 

[The General]

It was an interesting scenerio Santo. Several different opinions were shared and all are respected. Thanks for your feedback.

 

[Ronin]

General, it is nice that you and The Shrink have an opinion on this issue, but this is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact. The Shrink should have done more fact finding before choosing to publish his opinion. You could have also done a little digging yourself before deciding to repeatedly back up his baseless assertions.

There were many possibilities leading up to this race due to Michelin tires having durability problems in practice runs. This information was available to anyone many hours before the race started.

- The race could have gone as scheduled with no changes.

- The course layout could have been altered with the full field racing.

- Some cars using Michelin tires would race, while others would not.

- All cars using Michelin tires might not race. (this is what happened)

The composition of the field was not known until the race already started. Anyone making a wager on that race could easily have lost their bets.

If any book did not want to run the risk of accepting wagers on an uncertain event, all they had to do was close wagering on the event. Those that chose to continue accepting wagers are obligated to pay any and all winning wagers. They can not legitimately complain after the race is over that they were at a disadvantage, and so now they are not paying.

Most books who continued to accept wagers despite the uncertainty paid off all winning tickets, as they were obligated to do.

To cancel winning wagers after the race ended, like a few advertisers here at EOG chose to do, is wrong and dishonorable.

To defend that dishonorable behavior is also wrong.

I hope The Shrink's and your defense here was merely due to ignorance of the facts and not a conscience effort to provide cover for a few advertisers' very poor choices.

 

[trytrytry]

acw,

I understand your position, but I just think the SPIRIT of the bet should count as well. Also, many sports books do have a rule stating that they can cancel a wager at their own discrepancy...

I also know that they paid out on individual odds on who gamblers thought would WIN, despite the fact only 6 cars raced and I agree that those players deserved to get paid...

But is it really a BET when you can't possibly lose?

Don't you have to RISK something in the purist definition?

I just don't see how running a PARADE LAP can take precedent over RUNNING when the race "OFFICIALLY" starts, which isn't then...

THE SHRINK

shrink, yes its a bet. We just had one posted here at EOG on the KC pitcher who 100% was not going to pitch 93 pitches that was verified by newspaper articles and other local sports info prior to game time. When pinny learned of the lock they took it off the board which is their right. When it was up this sure thing was pounded it and it won and was PAID with no hesitation by Pinny as they are 100% class and know that a taken wager with posted rules is the way to pay.

If it cant lose and its still up on the board its a buyers market and a winning wager.

 

[acw]

Ronin,

You are completely wasting your time trying to explain what 90% of all serious gamblers already think and know.

What it is mainly all about is that the all mighty Spiro has gone on a stiffing tour based on Olympic Sports reserves the right to refuse or limit any wager. This may include, but not limited to past posted plays, obvious line errors, or exceeded bet limit amounts, so Olympic has not done anything against their written rules. They also seem to be stiffing an English shot taker. I think that is fair. If it were to be beantownjim, then I think they should have paid. I know this is called discrimination. Is discrimination unfair?

Shall I ever bet against this Spiro (after how he treated this Engish guy)? HELL NO!

 

[Krackman]

WTF is "the spirit of the bet" ??

Are you kidding me?

Any bet made could have lost and so all winning bets should be paid off. You can't come in after the results are known and invoke a catch all clause that reserves the rights to refuse or limit any wager after the results are already known.

Please read Ronin's response. This is a no brainer.

 

[Ronin]

acw, Olympic's rules do not allow them to cancel these plays after the race is over. These were not past posted plays, not obvious line errors (the books who paid all winners had similar odds), and they didn't exceed any bet limits.

If Olympic and the other non-paying books didn't want to accept wagers on this uncertain event, they could have taken it off the board. They chose not to do that. Now it's time to pay for the consequences of that poor choice.

Olympic is a good book in many ways, but everyone makes mistakes. Not paying all winning bets in this case is one of their bigger mistakes. I hope they reevaluate the situation and decide to do the right thing. It would be a shame to allow such a stain to remain on their otherwise good reputation.

 

[Scotty S]

When wagers are made, the players should have as much a chance as the book to win. In this wager the player had an undoubtable advantage over the book which didn't give the sports book the same chance of winning as a player. The odds were greatly in favor of the player and put the book in a position to NOT have the same chance at winning as the players.

General, you are absolutly 100% correct. When the prop was put up the books and players had had equal chance to win. Thats the fundmental rule of gambling.

Then some of the books went to sleep. Most want to deal everything without a clue in some cases/sports. Copy openers and watch the screen. Lemmings. In this case the players were aware of the situation with the tires. The books had equal chance at the same information. The players did there work, were alert and the books were lazy for lack of a better description.....Scotty S

 

[Krackman]

Then some of the books went to sleep. Most want to deal everything without a clue in some cases/sports. Copy openers and watch the screen. Lemmings. In this case the players were aware of the situation with the tires. The books had equal chance at the same information. The players did there work, were alert and the books were lazy for lack of a better description.....Scotty S

The books went to sleep and 99% of the time the book has the edge. So they can get the best of us 99% of the time and this time they did not because they were either 1. Not paying attention 2. Not considering the ramifications of the results happening the way it did.

 

[The General]

I have thought about this much and cannot convince myself to sway. It is not stubborn or ego on my part. It is not protecting or blindly standing up for anyone. I have tried to put myself in the players shoes. I would not have been upset at any book cancelling this bet on me.

I am not perfect. I am still seeking to see it another way, but thus far, I cannot.

I am glad we can discuss in a proactive way though without slander and mud slinging. Thanks for that.

 

[trytrytry]

General how is this different from a pitcher who 100% is not pitching 93 pitches? ITs a lock yes but you yourself said its Ok to take a shot in this case. I actually felt a bit guility as it was not a bet but a free a handout from Pinny. Still if you do your homework better than the book sometimes you get a direct handout, sometimes doing your homework leads to a free handout like the car race should have given, or its a hand out over a longer time frame by beating the book at its own lines more than you lose...

 

[The General]

Good question Try. It was thought provoking.

The excert said...

Hernandez is unlikely to throw more than 70 pitches

All I can say is that IF I were to have bet that prop and only 6 drivers competed, then I would not have been upset if the wager was cancelled.

If I am wrong, then I am wrong (quite possible as many times before). I am sharing My opinion only.

 

[Ronin]

All I can say is that IF I were to have bet that prop and only 6 drivers competed, then I would not have been upset if the wager was cancelled.

That is such an astonishingly stupefying statement that I am not sure how to respond.

Based on that comment, it looks like you either have some incredibly severe reading comprehension difficulty, or some other more serious problem that should disqualify you from ever rendering an opinion in another dispute ever again.

According to you, a player who did his research on the race, followed the events closely all weekend as they unfolded, made a calculated gamble that things would fall just right for him, should not be upset after he wins his bet and then gets it cancelled after the results are known.

Can you possibly be serious?

Are you really going to continue to try and defend this dishonorable behavior without providing any type of logical rationale?

If you are having trouble comprehending the undisputed facts in this situation, then do yourself a favor and stop damaging this site's and your credibility by issuing statements and opinions based on nothing more than your feelings.

Opinions are fine to toss around (although baseless opinions are not worth the oxygen it takes to expel them), but the facts are the facts, and they speak loudly and very clearly in this matter.

 

[The General]

I stand by what I said Ron.

If I can be convinced to think otherwise, I would gladly change my stance on the matter.

 

[acw]

Ronin,

You are making one big mistake in your presentation and that is you bring ethics up as a rule. Ethics are no rules (unless you bet with the Irish cvnts of Tradebetx). If I see on BetFair that some gambler makes a huge error by laying some bet at 100-1 instead of 10-1, should I then just say to myself: Oh, I am not going to bet that, because it is unethical and that is against the rules? No way, look at it the other way round, imagine me myself making such a mistake, do you think I have any chance of having that bet reversed? So do me a favour and stop talking about if the bet should stand based on ethics! I will go even one step further; imagine if the bettor knew which stunt Michelin was going to pull up. Is he still allowed to bet? If not, why are horse trainers then everywhere in the world (apart from Japan) allowed to bet on their own races? They should always have inside information.

Now back to the incident. If the guy would have backed the drivers with William Hill, he would have been paid and no questions asked! Why, because in their rules it clearly states that the parade lap is included in the race, so there was a sufficient no. of starters and all bets stand. In this particular case the bettor decided to bet with some low life that does not have clear rules, so the bettor gets fvcked.

By the way I think this whole saga is absolutely fantastic! Imagine if it concerned BetRoyal and not Olympic. The moderators in this forum would then be jumping up and down that this is the clear example of how one sould not bet with a sh*t book, becuase of their unclear rules, etc. This whole saga proves once again the hypocrisy to the max. I love it!

 

[Cozen]

But is it really a BET when you can't possibly lose?

Yes, these guys should be paid.

 

[RPM]

i find it disapointing that so many people would support the cancelling of a wager AFTER the results are known.

whatever happened to you book a bet, you pay a bet?

 

[RPM]

another thing that doesnt sit very well with me is, if this were a book like black rhino, EVERYONE would be screaming that the bets should stand. but since it's olympic, its ok to cancel them in some peoples eyes....

 

[Ronin]

acw, your response to me makes no sense. You have either misread or misinterpreted what I have written about this matter.

Do me a favor and go back and re-read what I wrote.

 

[Baker]

I posted at length about this over at TheRx but now that it has moved over here, along with the same pro-stiffing stance of the staff. so will my arguments.

The fact is that when the wager was placed both the bettor and the book had fair chances to win the wager. I am not talking about a car crashing or an engine blowing up either. When the bet was accepted by both the player and the book no one knew how many cars were going to race.

I am not sure what the odds of the wagers were, but it is my understanding that they were very high. For all practical purposes the only way these wagers could be won is if something like this happened. This is the main reason that I think these odds were "correct".

This wager, like most wagers, was on a future event. This is no different than wagering on a team to win the superbowl or a golfer to win the PGA championship. Whether the time frame between the time the wager is placed and when the event occurs is 1 year, 1 month, 1 day or 1 minute is of no consequence. The book has the ability and the change the odds as new information becomes available and has the ability to take the wager OTB

Hypothetically, after analyzing data and utilizing information that was widely available a person placed preseason wagers on two teams to win the Superbowl. Those two teams then happen to make it to the big game. Would the book that you placed these wagers with be within its rights to cancel these wagers claiming that you have no chance of losing? I would hope everyone would agree that they wouldn't, but this is exactly what is happening in this case.

Shrink, you say you would want the MAX bet if this were to ever happen again. Are you taking into account that when the wagers were placed it wasn't known with absolute certainty that the majority of the field would pull out imediately prior to crossing the starting line? You seem to be contending that the bettor knew that only 6 cars were going to be racing and this isn't the case.

 

[THE SHRINK]

Baker and others,

I admit that I don't know much about betting on NASCAR...

And now after HEARING from SO MANY of you, I do understand a lot more..

I will see what I can do...

THE SHRINK

 

[Ronin]

Shrink, this is not about Nascar. This is about Formula One.

You really did not do any research before choosing to publish that article that attempted to provide cover for your advertisers' dishonorable behavior.

That is both shocking and disturbing.

I thought this site was supposed to be a fresh start.

 

[THE SHRINK]

Ronin,

Excuse me?

Sorry you are feel shocked and disturbed....

This one is one me, ok? :cocktail

I am far from perfect and I admitted I know NOTHING about Car racing...

I am also willing to help so please keep that in mind...

Thanks,
Ken

 

[acw]

According to you, a player who did his research on the race, followed the events closely all weekend as they unfolded, made a calculated gamble that things would fall just right for him, should not be upset after he wins his bet and then gets it cancelled after the results are known.

Can you possibly be serious?

The General is right here. If the rules would have clearly stated that the parade lap was not included in the race and as a result there were insufficient starters, then at least I would not be upset! I do not bet on Formula I, but it has happened frequently to me that on a football match that they did not play the full 90 minutes and as a result all wagers were void. It has worked in my favour and against me. No reason to get upset, as all books have clear rules on these.

Again stop the emotions, stop the ethics, focus on the main problem here:
We are dealing with a Caribbean cowboy runned book that has no clear rules!

These things even happen with better books like William Hill. Years ago we had this (ODI) international cricket match that ended in a draw. For some reason it turned out that William Hill would pay completely different from other shops. The losers in question protested and what did William Hill do? YES, they paid the winners and refunded the bets on the losers.

So who should pay for the book having unclear rules? The gambler? Or the book?

Shrink,
Does Spiro actually have the US$50k that he (in my point of view) owes this gambler?

 

[Cozen]

I'm curious, what were the bet limits and how many times did this guy bet the race?

 

[Ronin]

Shrink, the problem is you did not admit you knew nothing about car racing when you decided to write your puff piece backing your advertisers' decision to stiff legitimate winners.

It is nice that you admit that now, but you think it might have been a good idea to admit that in your article?

I hope you are sincere about being willing to help.

 

[Ronin]

There is one point that should be emphasized. The title of this thread is wrong.

This was not a 6 car race. This was a 20 car race that only 6 cars finished. All 20 cars completed the formation lap and that is considered by Formula One's governing body, the FIA, to be the start of the race.

If the FIA rule required the green flag to fall for the race to be official, then those 14 cars would have just completed one more lap. They also could have chosen to drive around at 70% of their normal speed to make sure their tires did not blow out. In either case the results for the race would have been the same.

Some books were either not paying attention or were being reckless, and are now just looking for any excuse to not pay legitimate winning wagers.

They should be ashamed.

I hope they will reconsider and do the right thing, as so many other books did in this matter.

 

[THE SHRINK]

Ronin,

I AM SINCERE and have ALWAYS PROVEN myself to be a PLAYER ADVOCATE first and foremost!!!

Back at u later...

THE SHRINK

 

[ZZ CREAM]

Ronin,

I AM SINCERE and have ALWAYS PROVEN myself to be a PLAYER ADVOCATE first and foremost!!!

Back at u later...

THE SHRINK

Shrink is true blue in my book-the BEST man to have on your side if and when you need him! Hopefully, though you won't need his services because he does :cocktail a little bit and sometimes forgets where he lives!

 

[THE SHRINK]

Shrink is true blue in my book-the BEST man to have on your side if and when you need him! Hopefully, though you won't need his services because he does :cocktail a little bit and sometimes forgets where he lives!

OH, HOW TRUE!!!:+signs11-

 

[Ronin]

I do not bet on Formula 1

That is quite obvious considering your mistake in titling this thread, and after reading your rambling, illogical posts here.

Nice that you could share such lengthy opinions on something you know so little about. Seems to be quite a lot of that going on in this thread.

 

[acw]

Ronin,

The fact that I do not bet on Formula I does not mean that I do not take bets on Formula I either! In fact on this particular race I did take someone's bet and was smart enough at that time to tell the guy that William Hill's rules would apply, so I know the ruling very well. And regarding the title I just copied Shrink's title of his article. If you do not like it, bad luck.

 

[Ronin]

I stand by what I said Ron.

If I can be convinced to think otherwise, I would gladly change my stance on the matter.

If you have not been convinced by the facts presented in this thread, then that says quite a lot about your judgment, objectivity, and impartiality, and none of it is favorable.

 

[The General]

Thanks Ronin.

:+waving-5