TOTAL POINTS FOR GARY ANDERSON....

[wolfman]

longest made fg o/u 43.5 yards
longest td run o/u 10.5 yards
longest td catch o/u 36.5 yards

what if there are no made fg's, or no td runs, or td passes? would the under be the winner, or "no action"?

[Hamhog]

Wolfman,

Spiro at Olympic treats those as no action.

[gooden]

The silliest argument I have seen here. How could anyone phone in such a complaint? Anderson was not injured, it was intended for him to be placed in his usual functions for the game, and... he didn't score! Case closed.

[billymac]

Gooden. Thank God! A person w/ a little common sense. If people are going to beg, at least get a can I can throw some quarters into.

[DoggieStyle]

We all know this bet is a loser.

But what if he RAN an extra point in, for the 2 points.... Did that count?

But what if he passed the ball for 2 extra points...... Did that count?

What if he passed or ran for a touchdown on a FAKE field goal attempt............ Does he get the 6 points?

If these points didn't count then......

Should the Prop have been the OVER/UNDER of points from the KICKING GAME of the VIKES..... and not used the name of Gary Anderson?

Just wondering.................

[BBKing]

IMO the prop should definitely be a loser.

but books have to be very careful about wording. when in doubt, spell it out! to be honest, it sounds like the bettors have a legitimate gripe which, while not respectable, would probably be supported by an arbitrator or court of law if this was that kind of issue.

[BBKing]

actually, on second thought, i can see a sharp bettor reading the prop closely and knowing Berger handles kickoffs. he then factors that in to his wager, betting the over and knowing if the Vikings are shut out he will not lose his bet.

We all know what they MEANT, but what they STATED should be the final determinate.

No action, change wording, it never happens again.

[gooden]

Had to reply to BBKing's argument...

BBKing, a court, nor the law, generally cares not about specific and detailed wording. Clarity must be balanced with efficiency, necessity. and custom. Here, an arbitrator would determine how a reasonable person (taking into accout the capacity, here sports wagering) interprets this prop. Using such an objective standard, any respectable court would dismiss your "loophole" standard and not allow a bettor to circumvent custom, which in the wagering industry is to honor this wager because of the absence of any void-worthy circumstances.

Oh yeah, and thanks for the "props", billymac.

[sportshobby]

It seems that we see this topic over and over again. A sportsbook puts up a prop without giving the necessary specifications. I know, the bettor shouldn't bet without such details, but he does anyway. There's just no excuse for the book not laying out the details.

[BBKing]

i see what you are saying, but i don't think it is beyond the realm of possibility that a bettor could assume Anderson not playing was a NO ACTION bet.

Aren't issues like these the reason contract lawyers are al over the place?