Law Students

Vegas Glad For Phils Win

By Casebook Sherpa

It’s funny how gambling keeps coming up here. Some of us here at FTH like the gambling more than others. I don’t mind it, but don’t do it all that much. It just seems to offer some good fodder for hypoing.

Did you see this? Two large sports books in Las Vegas declared the Philadelphia Phillies the winner of Game 5… on Monday night!

Evidently some books follow a rule which states that the final score for a suspended game reverts back to the last completed inning, which on Monday was the 5th when the Phillies were leading 2-1. So, they paid off those tickets that had the Phils winning Game 5.

Interestingly, the ESPN story linked above quotes a sports book director as saying, “We’re just following the regular baseball rules. This is a very common rule.”

Supposedly, that’s not true…

MLB evidently does not revert back to a previous inning as Bob Dupuy made clear on Mike and Mike In The Morning yesterday. But the MLB rules aren’t totally clear on this point. Rule 4.10(c) states:

If a game is called, it is a regulation game:

(1) If five innings have been completed;

(2) If the home team has scored more runs in four or four and a fraction half-innings than the visiting tea has scored in five completed half-innings;

(3) If the home team scores one or more runs in its half of the fifth inning to tie the score.

So if Tampa had not score in the top of the 5th and the league had called the game at that point by this Rule the Phillies would have won. Of course, that would not have happened given this was the World Series.

But if you were holding a wager ticket for the Rays and your sports book called the game for the Phils before the game had even been completed do you have any recourse? What issues are relevant?

The problem is that your contract isn’t with MLB; it’s with that sports book or casino. So you play by the house rules and not the Selig rules.

Still you might suggest that notice is an issue here. Did you know-or should you have known-the rule the Sports Book was following? Perhaps it was reasonable to assume that the casino would simply follow the MLB rule/decision.

The trouble here is that Selig claims he decided, along with the teams’ management, on Saturday that they would play all games to at least 9 innings and would not follow Rule 4.10(c) as typically applied. If you wagered under one rule, but MLB changed the rule without telling anyone that could be a problem if the casino incorporated the MLB rule by reference or it was commonly understood that the casino rule mirrored the MLB rule (even if you hadn’t actually read the casino rule).

There were some bettors that have actually reported this. A gaming regulator told the AP that some bettors complained to the Commission and that they would investigate if they could not resolve the matter with the casinos where the bets had been placed. The trouble is that, in the words of one oddsmaker, “Whatever (Commissioner) Bud Selig or anyone in baseball declares is completely different from wagering rules in sports books.”

Another interesting question is that same oddsmaker claims that the sports books did not consider Philly as winning the world series even though the books declared Philly the winner of Game 5. Not sure what to make of that other than that it underscores the tricky situation these books may have found themselves in had the outcome been different.

Full post as published by Fight The Hypo on October 30, 2008 (boomark / email).