Reading through the thread and wondered what BOM stands for another acronym to learn. Probably a really stupid question ... thanks.
Today's Tennis
It's my shorthand for 'Bank of Murray'
He's a well known poor starter so trading him is usually as easy as going to a cash machine
Apologies as I know this has been covered before but would anyone mind explaining the situation if a player retires. I just had a situation when Del Potro retired right at the end of the set as he walked back to the chair.. this seems pretty cryptic to me?
Retirement after first set: Player/team progressing to next round is settled as the winner. However, the player's opponent is no longer a losing selection - you will get your stakes back. Bets where outcome was known will be settled as winners. While selections that no longer could have been winners will be settled as losers.
Thanks for your help
Retirement after first set: Player/team progressing to next round is settled as the winner. However, the player's opponent is no longer a losing selection - you will get your stakes back. Bets where outcome was known will be settled as winners. While selections that no longer could have been winners will be settled as losers.
Thanks for your help
- Kafkaesque
- Posts: 886
- Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:20 am
Specifically to Del Potro (without having seen the match), where he is on the court as he retires. is irrelvant, If the final ball of the first set has been played, the first set is over.chessfoss wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:24 pmApologies as I know this has been covered before but would anyone mind explaining the situation if a player retires. I just had a situation when Del Potro retired right at the end of the set as he walked back to the chair.. this seems pretty cryptic to me?
Retirement after first set: Player/team progressing to next round is settled as the winner. However, the player's opponent is no longer a losing selection - you will get your stakes back. Bets where outcome was known will be settled as winners. While selections that no longer could have been winners will be settled as losers.
Thanks for your help
You're aware that those are the rules for the sportsbook, right? Basically everyone posting on here use the exchange almost exclusively. Point in case, I never use the sportsbook, so I was was unaware that the rule is like the above for the sportsbook, and it surprises me a lot that it's the case. That aside, the wording seems quite clear to me. What is your specific query that you cannot tell from the rule?
I am using the exchange so apologies for posting the sportbook rules. I'm guessing that unless it's before end of first set any matched bets are lost. I had wondered if any stakes matched after the final ball of the first set had been played would be void as the player was unfit to continue and the umpire called match suspended just as some lay bets were matched but before BF suspended the market.. I guess it's just one to put down to experience. I should have been a lot quicker.
I'm assuming that unless it's during the first set ( where all bets/stakes) are voided any bets that are matched are valid until BF suspends the market.
Anyway thanks for replying
I'm assuming that unless it's during the first set ( where all bets/stakes) are voided any bets that are matched are valid until BF suspends the market.
Anyway thanks for replying
- Kafkaesque
- Posts: 886
- Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:20 am
My turn to have a rule-related question. Even if the wording is also pretty clear on this one, but it just seems so weird to me.
BF forgot to put a few matches in-play, and only did so 5-10 minutes into the match. As I understand the rules, any unmatched bets from pre not cancelled at the start, as they should have been, will stand if the match is put in-play at a later stage. Anyone with experience on this?
Strikes me as grossly unfair.
BF forgot to put a few matches in-play, and only did so 5-10 minutes into the match. As I understand the rules, any unmatched bets from pre not cancelled at the start, as they should have been, will stand if the match is put in-play at a later stage. Anyone with experience on this?
Strikes me as grossly unfair.
Yes and she hasn't been herself in this Asian swing, I put it down mostly to bad luck. Maybe fatigue and motivation plays a part too - she's played a lot of tennis this year.
Can be a problem with end of tennis season, not a lot to play for and tiredness, players looking forward to break at end of year before it all starts again in January. So can also be good time to lay short price favourites because of this.
Wasn't too much of a loss on Mertens last week, she was fav and lost first set so layed opponent Hsieh at about 1.35.
Wasn't too much of a loss on Mertens last week, she was fav and lost first set so layed opponent Hsieh at about 1.35.