Bodog "2 point conversion" prop - No Action?

**bigboydan** · 02-05-07, 12:04 AM

I remember they said that on TV that the botched extra point was ruled a failed 2 point conversion attempt. Not sure how they officially ruled that on the stats though.

**Ganchrow** · 02-05-07, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by knicknut

I am pretty sure there was nothing in the terms about "2 point conversion must be attempted or no action."

Even if that were in the terms of the bet, it should still be graded a win. Just as Dan mentioned, the botched extra point was indeed counted as a failed 2-point conversion.

My guess is it was probably just an oversight on Bodog's part.

**Ifeelrobbed!!** · 02-05-07, 12:09 AM

There was a 2 pt attempt. The botched extra point was considered a 2 pt failed attempt. Chicago 7 Ind 6...

**knicknut** · 02-05-07, 12:13 AM

Sounds good, thanks. Looks like I should be covered either way. I don't venture into props often, so a mistake on one of my first is reason to panic

**knicknut** · 02-05-07, 12:29 AM

They say they won't pay.

"Game must have a 2pt conversion attempt for wager to have action. Overtime counts towards wager. Game must go 55 minutes for action."

I could use help, I don't think sending them a link to yahoo.com will help. And as an aside, that yes had HUGE value!

**bigboydan** · 02-05-07, 12:31 AM

What stats service were they using to grade there props?

**Wheell** · 02-05-07, 12:31 AM

They had a to grade hundreds of props. They'll fix this.

**knicknut** · 02-05-07, 12:40 AM

Originally posted by bigboydan

What stats service were they using to grade there props?

I asked them, but I don't expect much...

**Wheell** · 02-05-07, 12:45 AM

Let's put it this way: By the ruls of football, and of betting, they don't have a leg to stand on. This is a clerical oversight that will be dealt with by managers tomorrow.

**durito** · 02-05-07, 12:47 AM

Originally posted by knicknut

They say they won't pay.

"Game must have a 2pt conversion attempt for wager to have action. Overtime counts towards wager. Game must go 55 minutes for action."

I could use help, I don't think sending them a link to yahoo.com will help. And as an aside, that yes had HUGE value!

that's just ridiculous. if that was the case no one would bet with those odds. 2pts conversions hit over 50% in the NFL this year.

Regardless, there was a 2pt try. They should pay.

**knicknut** · 02-05-07, 12:47 AM

Well, the one stats service (which is on superbowl.com) lists it as a "aborted PAT", not a 2 point conversion attempt--that may be why they're grading it this way (and may refuse to consider otherwise).

**knicknut** · 02-05-07, 12:56 AM

They're quoting NFL.com and refuse to pay again.

Something's fishy here. I don't know if going to Bill or something is worth it, since they seem pretty resolute.

UGH! I don't mind betting wrong and losing, but escaping on a technicality and stealing my money is bull...

**Jay Edgar** · 02-05-07, 01:29 AM

At Matchbook, the prop was titled "Either team to make a 2-pt conversion." I put a little on the "no," and it is the one bet of the day that hasn't been graded yet.

We'll see . . .

**knicknut** · 02-05-07, 01:43 AM

CRIS and Cascade graded it NO, fwiw.

**Seattle Slew** · 02-05-07, 01:51 AM

I would think a 2-pointer would have to be attempted for the bet to qualify either way. No 2-pointers would mean a push. The botched extra point clouds the issue, because what it Vinatieri ran it in? Lots of confusion possible on this.

**durito** · 02-05-07, 01:56 AM

Originally posted by Seattle Slew

I would think a 2-pointer would have to be attempted for the bet to qualify either way. No 2-pointers would mean a push. The botched extra point clouds the issue, because what it Vinatieri ran it in? Lots of confusion possible on this.

then why would the odds be -320?? If they were only taking action if there was a 2pt conversion attempt, those are way off.

2pt conversions hit 51% this season.

....

What were the yes odds?

**Jay Edgar** · 02-05-07, 01:59 AM

Well if a conversion had to be attempted, then every person like me -- who laid 4 or 5 to 1 on what is actually an even money proposition (and not the 10-1 or 15-1 prop we though it to be) -- is a complete idiot.

======
Or, what Durito said.

**Wheell** · 02-05-07, 02:22 AM

It obvious cannot be an even money proposition because there will be some number of games where there are multiple two point conversion attempts where the first attempt fails. -500 makes sense. Given how lo-limit sportsbooks works it makes sense for them to screw you on the + signs and offer you some ins on the minus signs. Particularly on the Super Bowl with so much dumb money. The idea that a two point conversion had to be attempted is almost as nuts as saying there weren't any two point conversion attempts in the game. By the rules of the NFL if you do not kick the ball on an extra point, either via a holder or through a drop kick, it is a two point conversion attempt. In fact, before the NFL adopted the two point conversion it would have still been considered a one point conversion attempt. Again, a manager will correct this tomorrow.

**Jay Edgar** · 02-05-07, 02:38 AM

Originally posted by Wheell

It obvious cannot be an even money proposition because there will be some number of games where there are multiple two point conversion attempts where the first attempt fails. -500 makes sense..

This is exactly backwards, FWIW. What is obvious is that a -500 price on the "no" makes even less sense if:

1. There is only action when a team undertakes the task of trying to make a 2-pointer (historically successful approx. 45-50% of time);

AND:

2. One of these tries makes it likely that there will be additional tries.

**Wheell** · 02-05-07, 02:49 AM

The logic behind no is simply how often games have attempts. Those are rare. Games that have successful attempts are rarer. However, +260 on something that if it has action is at LEAST +100, and can be -300 if there are a minimum of two attempts, is absurd. QED.

**pags11** · 02-05-07, 02:56 AM

my opinion is lining up for a two point conversion and not converting is a failed 2 pt. conversion attempt...a block (obviously) and a bad snap wouldn't do it...

I'd stil be pissed though just like you guys, though...

**Wheell** · 02-05-07, 03:00 AM

I'm not pissed, I'm just pointing out that sometimes props are misgraded by the staff, and the Superbowl had 1001 props. This is obviously something a manager will take care of.

**knicknut** · 02-05-07, 03:01 AM

Originally posted by Wheell

I'm not pissed, I'm just pointing out that sometimes props are misgraded by the staff, and the Superbowl had 1001 props. This is obviously something a manager will take care of.

I wish I had your confidence.

**durito** · 02-05-07, 03:33 AM

Originally posted by Wheell

The logic behind no is simply how often games have attempts. Those are rare. Games that have successful attempts are rarer. However, +260 on something that if it has action is at LEAST +100, and can be -300 if there are a minimum of two attempts, is absurd. QED.

Assuming that there must be an attempt for this bet to have action, the chance of there being an attempt is completely irrelevant to the bet (ignoring the fact that you have to tie your money up in a bet that probably wont have action, which should change your estimate roi). It doesn't matter if there's a 5% chance there will be a 2pt attempt or a 95% chance the odds of the bet only come into play if there is a 2pt chance.

Assuming a 50% success rate (which is a little high historically, but right on the # this year), the odds of there being a sucessful conversion (given an attempt) would have to be over 50% -- given the possibility of multiple attempts. Thus, the true odds of a no bet should be atleast +1xx. So, a line set up -320 (no)/+250 (yes) is completely off --offering huge value on yes. And the only reason I can see for a book to offer this is with the intent of tricking players into betting the no.

Perhaps ganchcrow can explain this better.

**Ganchrow** · 02-05-07, 04:41 AM

From the official NFL Super Bowl XLI website Team Stats page, Indy is shown having gone 2-2 for extra points, while on the Gamebook page, they're shown as having gone 2-3 for extra points. ESPN is showing Vinatieri as having gone 2-2 for extra points, but the Indianapolis Team having gone 2-3 for extra points total.

If 2-point conversions were a roughly 50/50 prop, we'd expect BoDog to offer the "NO 2-point conversion on first attempt" at about -110, were it conditioned on there actually being an attempt.

If 2-point conversions were a roughly 50/50 prop, we'd expect BoDog to offer the "NO 2-point conversion on any attempt" at greater then -110 (that is, between -109 and -101, or +100 and greater), were it conditioned on there actually being an attempt.

Therefore, as durito and Jay Edgar have pointed out, for the -320 not to be completely ridiculous the bet almost certainly should NOT require there to be an attempt made for the bet to have action. (Given a 40% conversion success rate and an average of about 0.3 2-point conversions attempts per game, the expectation on the -320 would be about a -26.014% were it conditioned on an attempt being made. At 45% it would be about a -32.700%. Those expectations would just be absurd for a binary prop listed both ways.)

Nevertheless, I'd still be curious to know at what price the books that graded the bet a NO were showing the prop.

I'd also like to know if Bodog's contention that no attempt == no action was stated in the terms of the bet (or elsewhere on their website).

Basically, I think you have an excellent case that you should definitely, definitely, definitely pursue. I'd suggest giving them a call tomorrow. Ask to speak to a manager, and calmly explain what happened and why you believe they're wrong in their grading the bet NO ACTION. And of course, don't be afraid to go to Bill if you can't get this worked out on your own.

I still tend to think that this is some sort of miscommunication on their end.

**imgv94** · 02-05-07, 05:07 AM

So Bodog is trying to say they had -320 odds on the 2pt convo being unsuccessful and if no attempt is made then the wager is graded (NO ACTION)?

If so that is chicken chit and misleading for it's customers and should be graded fairly for the integrity of things.

Good luck knicknut.. Who the hell bet 3.2 to win 1 odds on a 50/50 wager. WTF..

**Ganchrow** · 02-05-07, 05:59 AM

Just found this:

Originally posted by Bodog

<a href="http://www.bodog.com/sports-betting/football-team-props.jsp" TARGET=_blank>http://www.bodog.com/sports-betting/football-team-props.jsp</a>

[ATTACH]951[/ATTACH]

So if this truly corresponds to the actual description of the bet when you placed it, it would mean your only argument would be that the botched PAT attempt was in fact a 2-point conversion attempt. That should be an issue of fact that could ultimately be determined one way or another (call the NFL press office if necessary).

It would also mean that the YES at +220 had some pretty serious value. So serious, in fact, that if I had seen the Bodog line as described above pre-game I would have thought it would fall under Bodog's "clearly erroneous line rule" and would not have expected it to stand under the rules as given.

Attached Files

**marc** · 02-05-07, 09:22 AM

The same thing happened to me last year with the greek. there was a prop will there be a succesful 4th down conversion. The greeks line was only slightly better (5-10 cents) than other lines I saw. What I didn't notice though was that the greek had a caveat that there must be an attempt made. THe odds should have been a lot different. It cost me like $700.

But I think in this case you lucked out by that botched extra point. I bet will there be a 2-point conversion attempt at 2 different books and both graded my wagers as a win.

**BuddyBear** · 02-05-07, 10:21 AM

Any update on this issue?

**knicknut** · 02-05-07, 10:42 AM

Marc: will you let me know which books those were?

Someone on another forum informed me that at The Greek his bet of "Will there be a 2pt conversion attempt" was graded YES.

Ganchrow: Yeah, that's what my "Ecash report" shows, although I still don't remember it being there when I bet it (thanks for the shot). And obviously that line wasn't intended for that provision--if I had seen that term I would have definitely max bet it on YES and waited for it to be cancelled...

**mad_rich** · 02-05-07, 10:48 AM

Hi all - first post here

I was also on the "No" bet at Bodog and was surprised to see it settled as a push. Am I right in thinking that the commentary reported that NFL was calling it a 2-pt conversion attempt?

Betfair have settled "No" as the winner.

I haven't yet contacted Bodog - have any of you guy?

**marc** · 02-05-07, 11:50 AM

abc, instantaction and bestline all correctly graded the wager

**knicknut** · 02-05-07, 12:06 PM

Thanks, Marc.

The following books have graded their props as if it was a failed 2pt conversion attempt:

Greek
CRIS
Cascade
Betfair
ABC
InstantAction
Bestline

Feel free to add to the list as necessary. How can Bodog think differently? Are they interpreting the rules in the way that maximizes profit (minimizes loss)?

**Jay Edgar** · 02-05-07, 12:18 PM

Matchbook still has yet to grade "Either Team to Make 2-pt Conversion"

There are two issues here:

1. Is the bet only in action if there is an attempt?

[1a. And if so, then how can the line for the prop (-400 or -300 in favor of the "no,") be considered anything other than a bad line and subject to cancellation on that basis?]

2. Was there such an attempt in the game?

Grading hesitation to this point suggests the book is answering Question No. 1 with a "yes" -- which seems terribly misguided to me.