[Justin7]

An exchange offers this market:
Will event X happen? Yes/no

Due to the rules of the sport, X is not possible. Only the no can win. Player is not familiar with the rule (casual bettors might not know it, pros would all know it), and bets yes.

What do you guys think?

[topgame85]

If there is not even a .0001% shot your bet can win then its reasonable to dispute it, should not be able to offer an unwinnable bet

[Ganchrow]

Caveat emptor.

[durito]

What were the odds?

[pico]

will a HR hit outside the yankees stadium +1600?

[rake922]

Originally Posted by Justin7

An exchange offers this market:
Will event X happen? Yes/no

Due to the rules of the sport, X is not possible. Only the no can win. Player is not familiar with the rule (casual bettors might not know it, pros would all know it), and bets yes.

What do you guys think?

Uh that's that not even a dispute....

That's like a player betting yes to:
Adam Eaton to win National League Cy Young Award

[rake922]

how bout I bet yes to:

Kevin Garnett to win Superbowl MVP

Then after the superbowl I complain

[daggerkobe]

Dumb bettors are like the Eloi.... they will eventually get eaten alive.

[topgame85]

Originally Posted by rake922

how bout I bet yes to:

Kevin Garnett to win Superbowl MVP

Then after the superbowl I complain

from what it sounds like that is more plausible then what this guy had he had 0 chance to win even though this would never happen it is a 1 in a billion possible chance kg starts playing fb and wins mvp

[Justin7]

In Wimbledon: Will this set have a tiebreaker (rules don't allow tiebreakers in Wimbledon - they play to win by 2). I don't remember which set, but no tiebreaker was allowed for that particular set.

[dwaechte]

I think the player has a good case and that the bet should be refunded. Whether the book was aware of it or not, they had a situation where the only possible scenario is players getting taken advantage of. Since I'm often on the books side when the opposite is the case, I'd have to side with the player here.

[topgame85]

It seems someone was taking a shot at a dumb player, the guy who posted the bet def knew the rule and hoped somebody would take it and get free $, pretty shady stuff

[rake922]

Originally Posted by dwaechte

I think the player has a good case and that the bet should be refunded. Whether the book was aware of it or not, they had a situation where the only possible scenario is players getting taken advantage of. Since I'm often on the books side when the opposite is the case, I'd have to side with the player here.

it's not a book, it's an exchange

[durito]

Originally Posted by Justin7

In Wimbledon: Will this set have a tiebreaker (rules don't allow tiebreakers in Wimbledon - they play to win by 2). I don't remember which set, but no tiebreaker was allowed for that particular set.

5th set for men and i knew this rule when i was 6. (and i've never made a single tennis bet)

What were the odds?

There's no way the book didn't get killed on this

edit: realized it's an exchange. i don't think he has any case, he made the bet. if i've realized anything on this board in the last 12 hours it's that some people will bet anything no matter how ridiculously -EV it is.

[daggerkobe]

Person who offered it probably didn't know it either. Lots of people are unaware of the 5th set rule.

[durito]

Who posted the market, the player or the exchange?

People put up ridiculous prices at betfair/matchbook all the time. I'm sure ocassionally people take these ridiculous #'s.

Like friday afternoon you could get John Daly +1000 to win the British Open. Never Mind he was 15 shots over par through 14 holes and +25 for the tournament, ie his chance of even making the cut was 0%.

[rake922]

On baseball games where live betting is offered.... lets say the OU is 9.5 and the score is 6-4 in the 8th inning... One could still wager on the under and that has a 0% chance of winning

[topgame85]

Yah but at the time it was posted there was a chance for the player to win right? my problem is that at no point and time did the bettor have any chance ever to win

[AgainstAllOdds]

it sounds like to me that the book would be getting killed on the "No"? So my response to him would be " Even though you took a bet you could not win, the exchange did honor all bets placed on "No", Therefore your bet on"yes" is 100% valid".

[pat venditto]

aao wheres the wig?

[AgainstAllOdds]

Patty go hunt some 16 year olds on stickem you fukin sicko.

[pat venditto]

I don't hunt for them they hunt for me pal.

[pico]

Originally Posted by Justin7

In Wimbledon: Will this set have a tiebreaker (rules don't allow tiebreakers in Wimbledon - they play to win by 2). I don't remember which set, but no tiebreaker was allowed for that particular set.

if it is the 5th set for men or the 3rd set for women, then yeah, the guys should get this money back.

[MrX]

Originally Posted by Ganchrow

Caveat emptor.

I don't like to find myself on the opposite side of Ganchrow in a debate, but I don't really think it's valid to have an open exchange market with a certain outcome.

Is this any different than leaving a line up for hours on a game that's already completed? Would those bets be honored? Maybe they would on an exchange, but I certainly see a case for voiding.

[cobra_king]

There is a difference between having 0% chance of winning a bet because it's not feasibly possible and one where there is "virtually" no chance of winning because of how far the team, or player is behind.

[AgainstAllOdds]

Caveat emptor is Latin for "Let the buyer beware".[

[bleedblue]

Originally Posted by rake922

On baseball games where live betting is offered.... lets say the OU is 9.5 and the score is 6-4 in the 8th inning... One could still wager on the under and that has a 0% chance of winning

This is the exact same scenario as the tennis bet. Does Matchbook honor these bets?

I see them all the time and get pretty annoyed by them. I can definitely see some amateur making a mistake and accepting a bet.

[AgainstAllOdds]

Originally Posted by bleedblue

This is the exact same scenario as the tennis bet. Does Matchbook honor these bets?

I see them all the time and get pretty annoyed by them. I can definitely see some amateur making a mistake and accepting a bet.

So should that be the exchanges fault or the players fault?


How can you hold an exchange accountable so someone making a mistake?

[MrX]

Originally Posted by AgainstAllOdds

Caveat emptor is Latin for "Let the buyer beware".[

Age check:

Who here learned the meaning of "caveat emptor" from that Brady Bunch episode?

"He said he was gonna really cavit the guy's erupter!"

[MrX]

Originally Posted by AgainstAllOdds

So should that be the exchanges fault or the players fault?


How can you hold an exchange accountable so someone making a mistake?

I'm not really saying that they should be held accountable, but if I ran an exchange, I would make efforts to protect my clients from this kind of outright predation. I would try not to leave offers up that are already determined and I would probably have it in the T&Cs that bets placed after outcomes are determined will be void.

[Dark Horse]

Anybody who saw the ESPY's yesterday will recall the three softball girls who won an award. One of them tore an ACL right after hitting her first home run ever, and two opponents carried her home. If the umpire had known the rules that would not have happened. But he didn't and so we have an inspiring sports story. Everybody wins.

So the rules don't always limit events on the field. Was it absolutely impossible that there would be a tie breaker? No. Highly unlikely, but not impossible. The fact that someone accepted the bet proves that it is indeed possible for a person to be so dumb. The umpire is a person. That fact that he happens to be specialized in the rules does not automatically mean that he will always rule correctly, or even remember the rules correctly.

[MrX]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

So the rules don't always limit events on the field. Was it absolutely impossible that there would be a tie breaker? No. Highly unlikely, but not impossible. The fact that someone accepted the bet proves that it is indeed possible for a person to be so dumb. The umpire is a person. That fact that he happens to be specialized in the rules does not automatically mean that he will always rule correctly, or even remember the rules correctly.

That is a valid distinction, and probably a good argument for not voiding. However, I think the exchange should still make a greater effort to not put up a market such as this.

[rake922]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

Anybody who saw the ESPY's yesterday will recall the three softball girls who won an award. One of them tore an ACL right after hitting her first home run ever, and two opponents carried her home. If the umpire had known the rules that would not have happened. But he didn't and so we have an inspiring sports story. Everybody wins.

So the girls helping her was against the rules?

I also heard that she could have had a pinch runner anyways to run the bases after a homerun

[Dark Horse]

I think it was the latter. Not sure. Been a while since I read the story. The umpire didn't allow something that was perfectly legal, which resulted in the next thing: the girls carrying the player.

[bleedblue]

Originally Posted by AgainstAllOdds

So should that be the exchanges fault or the players fault?


How can you hold an exchange accountable so someone making a mistake?

I agree this is the player's fault.

Also from Matchbook's rules:
To further protect clients against "trap offers," malicious users, technical faults, and so forth, Matchbook reserves the right under extraordinary circumstances to break trades that are the result of an obvious and extreme input error. An example would be if a client is matched on a heavy underdog at 1-25 odds instead of 25-1 odds. Note that this rule protects against technical errors, not pricing errors, so while a match at odds of -150 vs. a prevailing market value of -115 may be regrettable, it could not be classed as an obvious and extreme input error. No claims will be considered after the start of an event or for trades that take place in running (i.e., during live trading).


However, I think it would be in the best interest of the exchange to close live markets that have results already decided.