Bodog "2 point conversion" prop - No Action?

[knicknut]

Right, and deciding how to handle bad lines after the event is Bet US-esque.

Either they honor the bet the way every other book is honoring the bet, or they are interpreting one of two rules (a "bad line" rule and a football definition rule) in the way that benefits them most.

We'll see where I get with them...

[knicknut]

According to Wil at the Rx who volunteered to talk to them on my behalf, they've decided to honor all "no" bets on that wager as they determined a 2pt conversion was attempted.

Once I get paid I'll be very glad this worked out, but I'm never betting props again!

[mad_rich]

Well, I emailed an hour ago (saying that in my opinion there had been a 2-point conversion attempt), and they have just reviewed my account and settled my "No" wager as a win.

[Wheell]

I'm impressed that they did that, although I suspect they had 2 yes bets and 30 no bets. Just a hunch.

[mad_rich]

I wonder how the settled the Yes bets. I can't imagine people would be too impressed seeing a push turn into a loss.

[Arilou]

Yes bets were, according to the e-mail, kept as No Action.

[knicknut]

Yeah, I assume they only did that if there weren't very many

That said, I'm surprised, given the terms, that TONS of people didn't jump on this. +220 at at least 1 chance at a 50/50 event is HUGE value. If the terms were really on the site when I bet it, I screwed up and got lucky... there was huge value in the other side, though.

Kudos to Bodog!

[Bill Dozer]

As Marc's situation last year illustrates, the wording and fine print can make two seemingly identical props very different. If the book's rules state that the outcome will be decided by the stats on NFL.com, the player's money is riding on how NFL.com interprets the play. If the site didn't list a source for definitions of actions, then you would have to think a botched kick is a 2 pt attempt since there isn't any other viable option for the offense. But what if the team botched the kick and just wanted to escape and cover up the ball?

Since most bettors probably perceive the wagers as being the same, that can explain them getting bet out of whack or the linesman pricing it based on what he thinks the market price is, not realizing the rule differences. Sharp players can make a killing on props because of the fine print but there is always some type of dispute the morning after.

[Korchnoi]

Yeah, I assume they only did that if there weren't very many

That said, I'm surprised, given the terms, that TONS of people didn't jump on this. +220 at at least 1 chance at a 50/50 event is HUGE value. If the terms were really on the site when I bet it, I screwed up and got lucky... there was huge value in the other side, though.

Kudos to Bodog!

unless the requrement that there be at least one attempt wasn't on the bet originally and they added it after the fact. Then they realized it shouldn't have been there to begin with...?

[knicknut]

unless the requrement that there be at least one attempt wasn't on the bet originally and they added it after the fact. Then they realized it shouldn't have been there to begin with...?

That's what I'm thinking, although I don't want to imply Bodog changes their terms after you bet it.

Man, I take a screenshot of 99% of my bets, and when I went back to recap pregame I thought "should I go take a shot of it now? Nah..." Wish I had, just in case they had changed it.

[Jay Edgar]

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 . . .

Now graded a winner, presumably on the rationale: "there had to be an attempt, there was one, and it failed." Although I'm not sure. I've dropped them a note to ask for the interpretation, out of curiosity.

[pags11]

this is a reason I don't bet props...