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.
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.
Last edited by bronbron006; 01-23-2018 at 12:55 PM.