[isetcap]

Originally Posted by Art

"If a game is called or suspended, the winner is determined by the score after the last full inning unless the home team scores to tie, or takes the lead in the bottom half of the inning, in which case the winner is determined by the score at the time the game is called."

Now the "unless" part of the rule doesn't apply - so we are left with a rule that says "if a game is called or suspended, the winner is detemrined by the score after the last full inning."

Art, even you and many, many others are missing the primary reason this rule is ineffective. The "UNLESS" part of the rule absolutely DOES apply in this situation and is absolutely the reason you SHOULD be paid. The home team DID score to take the lead in the bottom half of THE INNING, in which case "the winner is determined by the score at the time the game is called."

When the game was called, NYY was winning. The rule specifically says NOT to use the score from the last full inning. If anyone actually takes the time to look at the boxscore and read the rule in its entirety there is no choice but to acknowledge ambiguity between the industry standard and the written rule.

[Mudcat]

Now I know how Ganchrow must feel with some of the simple-minded application of statistics we see around here.

If you want to say the rule is written wrong but we know what it is supposed to be and that's what should be enforced, okay.

But if anyone is saying the rule is correct and clear as written, they simply don't understand English composition.

[isetcap]

Originally Posted by Mudcat

Now I know how Ganchrow must feel with some of the simple-minded application of statistics we see around here.

If you want to say the rule is written wrong but we know what it is supposed to be and that's what should be enforced, okay.

But if anyone is saying the rule is correct and clear as written, they simply don't understand English composition.

Even Art is seemingly struggling with the fact that the way this rule is written completely validates his case. In no less than 3 posts in this thread, I have tried to make it abundantly clear but nobody seems to be able to get past the "well this is how it has always been graded so deal with it" line of thinking.

Let me see if I can make myself clear here...

There is no doubt that Pinnacle used logic and precedence in grading Baltimore as the winner in this case...

BUT

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT THAT APPLYING THIS RULE (THE WAY IT IS WRITTEN) DECLARES THE NEW YORK YANKEES AS THE WINNING WAGER.

While that may be the incorrect way to grade the wager, Pinnacle must acknowledge that their rule goes against logical grading conventions in this very specific case. If they stated they would follow the letter of their rule, then there can be no other resolution but to grade Art's wager as a WIN. Let me reiterate; NO OTHER RESOLUTION.

[jason]

Originally Posted by isetcap

Even Art is seemingly struggling with the fact that the way this rule is written completely validates his case. In no less than 3 posts in this thread, I have tried to make it abundantly clear but nobody seems to be able to get past the "well this is how it has always been graded so deal with it" line of thinking.

Let me see if I can make myself clear here...

There is no doubt that Pinnacle used logic and precedence in grading Baltimore as the winner in this case...

BUT

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT THAT APPLYING THIS RULE (THE WAY IT IS WRITTEN) DECLARES THE NEW YORK YANKEES AS THE WINNING WAGER.

While that may be the incorrect way to grade the wager, Pinnacle must acknowledge that their rule goes against logical grading conventions in this very specific case. If they stated they would follow the letter of their rule, then there can be no other resolution but to grade Art's wager as a WIN. Let me reiterate; NO OTHER RESOLUTION.

IsetCap has convinced me. This rule SUCKS as written. And since Pinnacle supposedly said players can go by what is written and don't have to know other books' rules (which I think is the right way approach, by the way), why aren't they putting their money where their big mouth is?
Pinnacle sounds like you are pretending to be better than other books, but when push comes to shove here you are ignoring the player? That's not right. You're a great book, but you gotta honor your word.

SBR - this is so clearly not a clear rule. Can you confirm Pinny's email? Are you stepping in here?

[LT Profits]

isetcap, Mudcat,

I wasn't going to post in this thread any more, but now I feel like my intelligence is being brought to question.

The game was suspended with the VISITING team batting, so the home team did not even get a chance to tie or take the lead. The home team took the lead in the botom half of the PREVIOUS inning, so the exception rule does NOT apply.

I think that is obvious enough just from that one sentence alone, but just for reassurance, when the paragraph goes on to say that nothing will carry over to future dates, that proves even further the result goes back to the last inning if the home team didn't tie or take the lead in the current inning. Even if you have your doubts about the wording of the first sentence (which I don't, but whatever), there is ABSOLUTELY NO AMBIGUITY when the paragraph is taken as a whole.

I am at wits end that two seemingly bright guys like you can't see this.

Again, that's all for me in this thread.

[LT Profits]

Originally Posted by isetcap

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT THAT APPLYING THIS RULE (THE WAY IT IS WRITTEN) DECLARES THE NEW YORK YANKEES AS THE WINNING WAGER.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT THAT YOU ARE DEAD WRONG! The home team did not even get to bat in the CURRENT inning, so the exception clause does NOT apply.

PERIOD. End of Story. CASE CLOSED!

Now get on with your lives and enough with this STUPID thread already, as you guys are giving me ageda.

[jason]

Originally Posted by LT Profits

Again, that's all for me in this thread.

Think I heard that before.
I don't get the confusion - this rule sucks as written. Your argument about innings from the following day doesn't hold any water, man. If a game goes into extra inning past midnight, then the winner is determined by whoever was up at 12:01am? That's just dumb.

The rule says the winner is determined by the score at the end of the last full inning - the last full inning of this game was the 9th - according to anyone including MLB. That's why this guy is dead on.

[Willie Bee]

"If a game is called or suspended, the winner is determined by the score after the last full inning unless the home team scores to tie, or takes the lead in the bottom half of the inning, in which case the winner is determined by the score at the time the game is called."

This is pretty much the same rule as it is written regarding suspended games in Little League, and 10-year-olds aren't confused by how the rule is applied. Granted, you can find a lawyer to argue the wording of any rule/law, but that doesn't mean it is necessarily confusing.

The book might need to revisit the wording as far as games completed on the same date they started bit. And one thing not mentioned in this thread so far is that MLB modified some of their rules regarding suspended games in the last season or so (think it just went into effect in 2007, but it might have happened last year). Still, the wording in this rule doesn't confuse me one little bit, and as many have noted here at the forum, I am apparently someone who is easily confused

[isetcap]

Originally Posted by LT Profits

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT THAT YOU ARE DEAD WRONG! The home team did not even get to bat in the CURRENT inning, so the exception clause does NOT apply.

PERIOD. End of Story. CASE CLOSED!

Now get on with your lives and enough with this STUPID thread already, as you guys are giving me ageda.

LT, you are still letting your knowledge of MLB influence your opinion when you are reading the rule. The only inning referenced by the rule happens to be the inning in which the home team scores. You must make a "leap of faith" to assume the next inning is being referenced when applying the UNLESS clause. Leaps of faith are not applicable when interpreting legal verbiage. As you stated in a previous post, Pinnacle could effectively erase any ambiguity by stating "current inning" but to make that assumption as the rule currently states is incorrect.

[Art]

I sent this email to SBR today. I really don't understand why they are ignoring so many of their loyal posters and ignoring me. I have supported them for years as a viewer and recommender. Now, they don't even respond to requests from others on this board for info about the email I sent them, and they haven't stepped in with Pinnacle to at least tell them that the forum supports the gray conclusion. I can't say this is what I expected when I came to them.


------------
SBR -

Still no response. This is not fair to your clients.

GRAY is about whether there is more than 1 reading. Therefore, the forum posts themselves PROVE that this rule is gray. You originally DETERMINED the rule is gray. I forwarded you the email in which Pinnacle said it WOULD WORK WITH ME to resolve this if the rule is GRAY. And no one disputes that Pinnacle is not working with me, but instead spitting in my face and ignoring all of my emails.

[isetcap]

Originally Posted by Art

I sent this email to SBR today. I really don't understand why they are ignoring so many of their loyal posters and ignoring me. I have supported them for years as a viewer and recommender. Now, they don't even respond to requests from others on this board for info about the email I sent them, and they haven't stepped in with Pinnacle to at least tell them that the forum supports the gray conclusion. I can't say this is what I expected when I came to them.


------------
SBR -

Still no response. This is not fair to your clients.

GRAY is about whether there is more than 1 reading. Therefore, the forum posts themselves PROVE that this rule is gray. You originally DETERMINED the rule is gray. I forwarded you the email in which Pinnacle said it WOULD WORK WITH ME to resolve this if the rule is GRAY. And no one disputes that Pinnacle is not working with me, but instead spitting in my face and ignoring all of my emails.

Art,
I am sure Justin is giving careful consideration to the data you have given him. Give him some time to work on it before you start badmouthing the only place that will go to bat for your cause.

[bigboydan]

We can sit here and debate this one forever, but Pinnacle won't pay out of this so called "gray area" complaint. I personally feel that they graded the game fair way back when this game was played.

[Justin7]

Talk about beating a dead horse.

I reviewed the complaint. I reviewed Pinnacle's rules, as well as the rules at other sportsbooks (including Bookmaker and Olympic). Pinnacle's rule was poorly written. I suggested they rewrite it. Despite this, Pinnacle graded the wager in the manner most consistent with their rules. One poorly written clause does not make the entire rule set "gray". His original dispute - that Pinnacle misgraded his wager - failed.

His second complaint was that Pinnacle promised to work with him if the rule was grey. A reasonable person reading the rules IN THEIR ENTIRETY would not find the rules grey. I did not address this issue, because 1. I found the underlying premise missing; and 2. I did not receive proof of this claim (Art later explained his basis for this, but the email supporting it was substantially different from his original claim).

[raiders72002]

If this were a start up book you may have a chance with extortion tactics.

If there was any question at all Pinny would have paid.

I think it was an F1 race where drivers dropped out just before the race making some wagers an automatic win.

All books canceled the wagers except Pinny. Pinny gave you the choice of accepting the win. If you accepted it they booted you, but you were paid.

[bigboydan]

Originally Posted by raiders72002

I think it was an F1 race where drivers dropped out just before the race making some wagers an automatic win.

That was the race where the tires were deemed illegal or something I believe.

If I remember correctly. That was the race where people complained at Spiro over that one forever.

[Art]

Justin has tried to defend his actions by saying this in an email to me:


Art,

I am not ignoring you. I reviewed your complaint and the rules. I concluded that it was poorly written, but taken with everything, the rule set (in whole) was not grey.

I RESPONDED POINTING OUT HOW THAT IS COMPLETELY NOT TRUE:

Justin,
That is simply not true. Here are the quotes from your ORIGINAL email, before you realized that the issue I was asking you for help on was whether this rule was unclear or ambiguous:

"The rule anticipates a cancellation or suspension, but makes no mention of a resumption of the game. The problem with this rule is that with a “strict” reading, it is ambiguous enough that a player could expect it to be graded the way Arthur Dunec argues."

"When a rule is ambiguous as this one is..."

Those were your words, Justin, not mine. Now you claim that you are not ignoring me, but that you are just following up on you finding that the rule is NOT gray.

Can't be both, Justin.

This rule is as gray as gray gets. It is not clear. You said it. I said it. Almost 10 of your posters have said it. Don't you think the honest and fair thing to do then is to write to Pinnacle and say "this rule is not clear as written, and I have email proof that you told this player that you would work with him if it is not clear. I am now told you have ignored his last 8 emails. That is not acceptable."

[Art]

Originally Posted by isetcap

Art,
I am sure Justin is giving careful consideration to the data you have given him. Give him some time to work on it before you start badmouthing the only place that will go to bat for your cause.

Sorry, Isetcap. I didn't mean to come down hard on SBR if they are working on it. I am really happy to give them time - I know they're busy and have a lot of players to help.

The only reason I wrote what I did is that Justin implied he wasn't going to tell Pinnacle that it is gray despite everything that the posters have written and his own determination in his original response to me, in which he said clearly it can be read as I read it. I thought he wasn't just going to let it be - which is a complete travesty. I sent them all the info and the email from Pinnacle saying they would work with me if it's even gray.

If SBR is just taking some time on this, I apologize sincerely. Please update me so that I know the plan. Thank you.

[MrX]

Art, can you post the email from Pinny where they tell you they'll pay if the rules are gray?

[Art]

Originally Posted by MrX

Art, can you post the email from Pinny where they tell you they'll pay if the rules are gray?

Sure. After explaining to them how I read their rule, Pinnacle's CS Manager, Bridgette, wrote this to me:

"We would be more than willing to work with a client to find a solution if there was a gray area regarding our Baseball rules. However, our Baseball rules are complete and clear to any reasonable person."

They're so cocky to think that there is only 1 way of reading any rule they write. But in this case, that is just not true. Now by "more than willing to work with their client to find a solution," I think would mean something other than ignoring almost 10 emails to follow up with them, that they just don't respond to. Let me know if you have any other q's, guys.

[bigboydan]

Art, I believe Mr.X was wanting you to post a screen shot of the actual Email.

[gridironguy]

The guys who run this site are a very classy lot and if I ever get into a dispute with a book, I'll feel very comfortable having these guys get involved..

[Art]

Originally Posted by bigboydan

Art, I believe Mr.X was wanting you to post a screen shot of the actual Email.

Sure - can you tell me how I do that?

[bigboydan]

Heres a thread that can better assist you Art.

[jason]

Originally Posted by Art

Sure. After explaining to them how I read their rule, Pinnacle's CS Manager, Bridgette, wrote this to me:

"We would be more than willing to work with a client to find a solution if there was a gray area regarding our Baseball rules. However, our Baseball rules are complete and clear to any reasonable person."

They're so cocky to think that there is only 1 way of reading any rule they write. But in this case, that is just not true. Now by "more than willing to work with their client to find a solution," I think would mean something other than ignoring almost 10 emails to follow up with them, that they just don't respond to. Let me know if you have any other q's, guys.

If that is a direct quote from their email, you're right Art. There is no question this is very very gray. They would like to think their rules are "complete and clear to any reasonable person" - and most of the rules are. But there are a lot of reasonable people on this board alone who refute Pinnacle's position that this rule is complete, clear, and not at all gray. Come on, Pinny, that's just too much of a stretch. Admit it when you're wrong and stop overpromising.

[Mason]

SBR definately fights for players who deserve it! The perceived bias SBR has, has always been on the side of the players not the books.

Seems like everyone did right on this one. Sucks to be on the wrong side of a loss like that, but you have to keep in mind they were following the Las Vegas ruling.

Remember, Pinny had bets on both sides of the game and had to pay the winners as well as collect form the losers. They didn't become Pinny by pencil whipping their customers.

[jason]

Originally Posted by Mason

They didn't become Pinny by pencil whipping their customers.

Mason -
They didn't become Pinny by telling players one thing, and then doing another.

Your argument is fair - but completely irrelevant to this player's situation. He doesn't contest Vegas rules - he just says he didn't know them. And Pinny apparently told him that he didn't have to - their rules speak for themselves.

Let's not cut this guy the short end of the stick just because we have a different argument than Pinnacle. If they said they will work with the player if a rule is gray, they need to work with this player. Period.

We all know Pinny is better than other books; but once they start to fail to honor their own words, I get worried. If they said it, they better honor it...no matter who you are. Pinny doesn't get a free pass to misrepresent their intentions to players.

[bigloser]

Originally Posted by Justin7

Talk about beating a dead horse.

His second complaint was that Pinnacle promised to work with him if the rule was grey. A reasonable person reading the rules IN THEIR ENTIRETY would not find the rules grey. I did not address this issue, because 1. I found the underlying premise missing; and 2. I did not receive proof of this claim (Art later explained his basis for this, but the email supporting it was substantially different from his original claim).

Wow Justin I thought you were better than this.

There is no doubt this rule is Gray. Pinnacle have said they would work with him, you do not deny this. They have refused to do so.

I cannot believe for one minute you cannot accept this rule is gray. The fact that this thread is so long and that numerous posters have posted several different views proves this.

You werent sure you had done right initially that is why you asked for feedback. Well you got it, dont reject it now it is there

AND

On a final point I am sure that all the posters who contributed on Arts side will resent being advised by you that they are not reasonable people

[jason]

Originally Posted by bigloser

Wow Justin I thought you were better than this.

There is no doubt this rule is Gray. Pinnacle have said they would work with him, you do not deny this. They have refused to do so.

I cannot believe for one minute you cannot accept this rule is gray. The fact that this thread is so long and that numerous posters have posted several different views proves this.

You werent sure you had done right initially that is why you asked for feedback. Well you got it, dont reject it now it is there

AND

On a final point I am sure that all the posters who contributed on Arts side will resent being advised by you that they are not reasonable people

Well said, BL. Why did you ask for our feedback, Justin, if you were just going to ignore it. And I don't appreciate being called unreasonable. THIS IS GRAY. You need proof aside from the logic in your brain, look at the different interpretations of this rule 3 by plenty of reasonable SBR posters in 3 pages of posts. Is Art's interpretation the ONLY way? Nope. But it's certainly an option. So let Pinnacle deny that they said he needs to show it's grey.

I, along with a bunch of others, weighed in because we thought you wanted our opinions to determine whether this is gray. Now that you got it you ignore us...unless of course we're just "not reasonable people."



Bill, can you step in here? Anyone else?

[bigloser]

Justin I have respected every decision you have made even though I often felt you got it wrong.

I am really struggling with this one.

If there was no email about the gray area I could have accepted your decision (even though I believe it to be wrong).

With the email though you/pinnacle have to do something.

This is wrong

[marc]

I just want to point something out.

Here are the rules for basketball games that are suspended.

For wagering purposes, winners and losers are determined by the final score (including overtime), provided that the game has gone the minimum time as specified above. If a game is suspended after the minimum time has been played and not resumed the same day, then regardless of whether the game is completed at a later date, the score when the game is halted will determine the betting results.

Now lets compare that to the language used for baseball.

If a game is called or suspended, the winner is determined by the score after the last full inning unless the home team scores to tie, or takes the lead in the bottom half of the inning, in which case the winner is determined by the score at the time the game is called. Monies will be refunded if the home team ties the game and it is then suspended. Events will not carry over to the following day unless otherwise specified.

I only had to read the basketball rules once to fully understand them. I had to read and reread the baseball rules a number of times. One of the big differences is that in the basketball rules they go by the time the game was "halted," and in baseball they are going by the time the game is "called." The use of the word "called" instead of "halted" is creating a lot of confusion.

If the main question right now is whether the rule is confusing, it definitely is. Pinnacle should be consistent in their wording and phrase the baseball rules the same way they did thier basketball rules.

[Bill Dozer]

This whole thread is off topic since Art is clearly asking about SBR’s integrity and we quickly veered off talking about this baseball dispute.

I think Pinnacle uses the term "reasonable" because if the game was going to be graded upon completion of the event at a later date the rule would not make sense or exist in this way. Art’s argument that the rule, as Justin said in its entirety without isolating one sentence, implies that the game will be graded after the last full inning when the game resumes is not logical. Pinnacle’s rules go on to say that parts of games resuming at a later date do not count for wagering purposes unless specified which is also consistent with Vegas rules.

Pinnacle states that Vegas rules apply for situations not covered herein.

I'm really confused. For years I have read that SBR is the fairest place to go when a Sportsbook was being unfair to a player - big or small.
That was especially true with an A rated book, with whom SBR claims they can resolve most disputes (check their rating guide).

I think you know from personal experience over the years that there isn't anything to be confused about.

[Dark Horse]

I completely agree with Art. On his state of confusion. Attacking the credibility of SBR and Pinny in one and the same topic... Too funny.

[isetcap]

Originally Posted by Bill Dozer

...I think Pinnacle uses the term "reasonable" because if the game was going to be graded upon completion of the event at a later date the rule would not make sense or exist in this way. Art’s argument that the rule, as Justin said in its entirety without isolating one sentence, implies that the game will be graded after the last full inning when the game resumes is not logical. Pinnacle’s rules go on to say that parts of games resuming at a later date do not count for wagering purposes unless specified which is also consistent with Vegas rules.

The issue does not concern the "continuation" of this game. This is where everyone is focusing but it simply is not the issue. The rule as it is written would dictate that NYY was the winner at the exact moment the game was called. There is no need to even discuss resumption of the contest. If anyone thinks that plays a role in this dispute then they are missing the entire point.

[Dark Horse]

Iset, this more to your liking?

"If a game is called or suspended, the winner is determined by the score after the last full inning unless the home team scores to tie, or take the lead in the bottom half of the inning IN PROGRESS, in which case [the winner is determined] BETS ARE GRADED by the score at the time the game is called."

[jason]

I have a lot of respect for you, Bill and for SBR. But in this case: The rule is not clear, Bill. It's not.

According to Pinnacle's rule, the game will be graded based on the score at the end of the final inning. If you ask MLB or anyone else what the final inning of the game was, it was the 9th. What was the final score? Yankees won. That's the plain reading of the entirety of the rule (the other clauses in the rule relate to other situations, like home teams taking the lead, which EVERYONE agrees did not occur here).

Your reliance on language about events on different days is misplaced. If that were read the way you want to, a game that has an hour rain delay and finishes after midnight should be graded as of the score at 12:00 am. Everyone knows that is not the way it works.

What the rule SHOULD have said is:

"If a game is suspended, then the winner will be determined by the score at the end of the last full inning played before the suspension was called."

Instead, you have a rule that is just not worded right and implies that a suspended game is graded based on the score at the end of the final inning - which in this case was the 9th inning.

Regardless, I don't think Art's post was aimed at SBR, but at Pinnacle. They promised to work with him if the rule was gray, and from the email he quoted from SBR - SBR already determined at the outset of this mess that it was gray. We on the board agree wholeheartedly

So what is preventing SBR from presenting that finding to Pinnacle and demanding that they act in accordance with the finding that the rule is not clear on its face??

That's what needs to happen here.

It sounds like Justin is just not willing to realize that he was being asked to determine one question: Is this gray or perfectly clear, and instead thinks he was being asked to determine what Pinnacle should do. Pinnacle already apparently said what they would do if it was gray, so that's the finding SBR should stand up for. SBR was called in for a limited purpose, and they should respect that.