Give me your Thoughts on the wording of this PROP

Oski · #1 10-11-2005, 03:14 AM

On Pinnacle for SD/PITT:

I lost a prop bet worded as follows: "Will the total number of sacks be More than 4?" I selected "Yes."

Background info: Literally, "More than 4" means just that, however, in context of the other Prop bets offered, where a hook is also used, I assumed the bet would push on 4. (As an example, there was a prop as to whether the Longest TD would be more than 39.5 yards and another whether the shortest TD would be less than 1.5 yards.)

The number of sacks was "4" and my bet was graded a loss.

In light of the fact the hook is commonly used on this offering and other props, I thought the bet was an angle shot.

If there is a hook, the bettor is alerted to the fact there can only be a win or loss, but no push. A flat number commonly indicates there can be a win, loss, or push. If they are going to stick to their guns on their interpretation, then WHY DO THEY OFTEN OFFER A HOOK ON THIS BET? If their FLAT number bets do not allow a push, why are they using hooks?

In my opinion, two possibilies:

1. Its a pure angle shot and they are collecting the "Yes" money, and pushing the "No" money. I have asked directly if they paid the "No" bets ... no response.

2. It is a deliberately, worded prop bet made to trick the bettor. The flat number "4" is really 4.5. On a prop such as this (especially when this side is paying the juice) Having to get 5 sacks without the possibility of a push, is a terrible bet. (Don't start in, I know prop bets are generally poor bets ... this one was for fun, but since this came up, I would like to know what others think).

I cannot believe that a savvy gambling site would do something like this unintentionally.

I put 30k of action through this site last month. The bet is a $27.50 loss. Any chance they give it back?

Voltron87 · #2 10-11-2005, 03:25 AM

you said there would be more than 4 sacks. there werent. 5 is more than 4. 4 is not more than 4. you lose.

i see your point though, but im tired and i'll think about it and respond again. i see your reasoning, it does make some sense.

LotsOfOuts69 · #3 10-11-2005, 03:31 AM

The bet wasn't "Total number of sacks in the game: Over/Under 4."

The bet was as it says, will there be more than 4 sacks in the game, more than 4 wins, 4 or less loses. I'm sure that they paid the No.

2+2 wannabe · #4 10-11-2005, 03:51 AM

how is this confusing at all? seriously....

it's either more than 4 or not

Losing all · #5 10-11-2005, 05:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
how is this confusing at all? seriously....

it's either more than 4 or not

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this different than a over 44 where you push on 44, was that over 44? It's either over 44 or it's not...

Oski- I think this is BS, real curious about the NO bets

#6 10-11-2005, 06:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
how is this confusing at all? seriously....

it's either more than 4 or not

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this different than a over 44 where you push on 44, was that over 44? It's either over 44 or it's not...

Oski- I think this is BS, real curious about the NO bets

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly you are wrong. Obviously if neither side applies, such as over/under 44 (it wasn't over, but it certainly wasn't under), there is a push. This was not such a case. The bet was whether it would be more than 4, yes or no. No is CLEARLY the winning bet, because it was not more than 4. How do you not see that?

CCx · #7 10-11-2005, 08:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly you are wrong. Obviously if neither side applies, such as over/under 44 (it wasn't over, but it certainly wasn't under), there is a push. This was not such a case. The bet was whether it would be more than 4, yes or no. No is CLEARLY the winning bet, because it was not more than 4. How do you not see that?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the right answer. A yes/no bet's action is different from an over/under bet's action. If the bet was worded as stated in the OP, the OP loses his bet as the number of sacks were not more than 4. If the bet was "Total Sacks over/under 4", it would be a push.

I know I'm restating the obvious.

Bill C · #8 10-11-2005, 09:54 AM

The way it's worded there can be no "push." It's either More than 4, or it's not. The choice of "No" takes down the cheese.

bc [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Oski · #9 10-11-2005, 10:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Clearly you are wrong. Obviously if neither side applies, such as over/under 44 (it wasn't over, but it certainly wasn't under), there is a push. This was not such a case. The bet was whether it would be more than 4, yes or no. No is CLEARLY the winning bet, because it was not more than 4. How do you not see that?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the right answer. A yes/no bet's action is different from an over/under bet's action. If the bet was worded as stated in the OP, the OP loses his bet as the number of sacks were not more than 4. If the bet was "Total Sacks over/under 4", it would be a push.

I know I'm restating the obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, of course you are right, and I admitted this right up front. HOWEVER, I want to know why this bet often offered with a HOOK. Why are other props right in the same area and worded in the same fashion using a HOOK?

This is the true problem. Why is the book being tricky about its bets?

Again, in common usage:

No Hook = win/push/ or lose
Hook = win/lose

The way they word the bet, 4 AND 4.5 mean the same thing. Therefore, the HOOK means nothing. However, we KNOW the hook is supposed mean something ... that the house is not offerig a push.

Oski · #10 10-11-2005, 10:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
how is this confusing at all? seriously....

it's either more than 4 or not

[/ QUOTE ]

If the bet was in a vacuum, there is no confusion at all.

For those who don't want to read the whole thing: There would be no confusion (or gripe) if all the bets in the same category were using flat numbers ... but many use HOOKS.

However, there is confusion in the fact that other similar bets (and even this very offering) often is set with a ".5" or a hook. Now, there is confusion, because under the wording (above) there would never be any need for a hook, yet there they are ...

For example, right next to this offering was:

"Will the longest TD be OVER 39.5 yards?" or
"Will the shortest TD bo UNDER 1.5 yards?"

Under the wording, the HOOK is not needed, yet there it is. 39.5 and 39 are the same thing in the first example;
1.5 and 2 are the same thing in the second example.

So, in context of all the bets, common usage, and the industry's common understanding of terms, etc., I am arguing the bet is confusing.

These books are not small-time operations. They need to protect the integrity of their product by doing all they can to make sure there is no confusion in their bets.