Book


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

@aces my lines tonight 100 each(Sabres ml twice)
Sabres +217
Sabres +1.5 -131
Leafs -158
Isles ev
Sens +1.5 -143
Sabres +219

@homanga
I’m Sabres +171

Glgl

Night tennis want

Suarez Navarro spread 200

Want
Nadal ml
100

wants

nadal

200

booked -5.5

i had the following via pm today:

bronbron:
not liverpool -154 300

aces:
utah spread 300
utah over 300

zeta:
islanders live 300
islanders over 300

Suarez (booked above)

100 Cilic ml +338

200 Cilic +5.5

Cilic +5.5 vs Nadal
Wozniacki -5.5 vs Navarro
100

Cilic ml
Cilic spread

Suarez Navarro ml
Suarez Navarro spread (400 max, now 300 max after booking eco)

50-200

100 Suarez Navarro +5.5 pk

Want Suarez Navarro spread for 100 (first up)

ml's booked 100 ea

Nadal -338
Woz -431
100 each

Will take 100 more on Nadal ML

coulda been my boy slurms, think I recall seeing him posting for that

want

suarez navarro ml 250
suarez navarro spread 300

Booked

Still open on Suarez Navarro spread for 100

In case you can't find the thread buried in the massive amount of action that is the MSNL forum in 2018, Squares are up.

BillyBizzle and I are running it again this year. $200 per square, $2500/5k/2500/10k for payouts.

Thread is in the link if you need it, let's keep all squares stuff in there so it doesn't clutter up the thread for 2 weeks.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/5...018-a-1702261/

As a heads up, we opened the thread on Thursday last year and we sold out by Wednesday morning. Several people from the thread got shut out as a result, so if you want in, I would advise posting today or tomorrow.

Billy’s not lying already half way full.

Want

Avs 200
Sabres 100

Just to be clear ml is action right? And spreads are void?

Not 100% on tennis retirement rules

Correct


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok I didn’t wanna clog things up last night but regarding the acesfull swap no action thing:

I can shut this down quickly I think as far as needing a discussion/ruling. No one has mentioned the obvious and critical point that I only used 200 of the 500 swap on ml, other 300 was spread. (Skip to last 2 paragraphs if lazy or busy.)

Even if I did take the full 500 at +349 ml it can’t be no actioned after the fact, for a ton of good general reasons including some of what itz/zeta/ry and others have said, plus some specific reasons that add to it here such as:
aces already willingly booked 100 on Djokovic ml against me so I knew he liked the side
he knew the swap was tennis, where betting ml is extremely common
it’s an extremely small amount relative to the rest of our action

I think it’s enough to point out what others have said though:
I agree with homanga that u should def consider how to keep your swaps reasonable relative to the bet u booked in the first place - but that’s a courtesy, not a rule, so certainly no ground for canceling a bet
it’s hard to imagine this getting brought up if I lost, and the freeroll aspect is always important to look at when making retroactive rulings
the “swap spread for spread and ml for ml” thing is not something I’ve ever heard nor any sort of argument to defend the no action

Anyway, none of that really even matters because of the amounts in question. Aces and homanga have suggested +/- 200 as the imaginary threshold of what’s reasonable (forgetting for a second that the threshold for no actioning a won bet would be far greater or nonexistent).

But his initial bet was for 500. It was +/- 115 but we can just pretend it was even for simplicity. So if I did keep my ml swap to what they’ve called a reasonable vig of +200, I’d win 1k. I only took 200 at +349, not the full 500, which obviously is an enormous difference. The other 300 was for the spread, at even money. Winning both bets gives me (200*3.49) + 300 = 698 + 300 = 998. It goes without saying that you have to look at my full swap in sum, not just the smaller ml piece. So his total exposure here was actually just within the arbitrary threshold that he declared reasonable, since 998 < 1k. No need to waste more time on this I hope.