Quote (SheriffCool @ Mar 31 2015 05:53pm)
I don't like the 2nd line in the examples in the hockey system. posting " If you give me +3 on Dallas, I'll take it" is a bet. What if the other guy didnt want to give +3? Their has to be some kind of confirmation from OP.
Here is an example:
Op posts my Bulls -3 vs your Raptors in a thread. He gets no action on the thread but see someone else giving Raptors +3 in a different thread, and makes a bet in that thread to his max. Someone else decides to post in his original thread that they will take the raptors +3 and that makes it a bet? No thanks. That's part of the reason we have the CD back rule. It's clear, its concise and everyone knows it and we help new bettors here all the time, it's not like the rules are hidden, although I would like to see them get stickied in all 3 sports forums, as well as a link or copy of the list image.
It wouldn't be a bet if the OP didnt confirm.
The last line of rule #2 stipulates that the OP still has to confirm.
This serves multiple purposes in addition to what you have mentioned, it also gives them an opportunity to decline bets with posters they do not want to bet with or if they are maxed out elsewhere.
(a secondary poster posting in someone elses thread already showed clear intent he wanted to bet with that guy by saying he wants the bet with him)
In the case of a secondary poster making offers in numerous threads he would have to exercise some sort of personal responsibility and not simultaneously float more fg than he can afford to pay out, and retract if he overbets.
This part is essentially the same as the risk we have now. If a secondary poster adds c'd in every post he wants to bet on he still runs the risk of over-betting if he is not careful when he doesn't hear back from the OP right away.
This post was edited by cambovenzi on Mar 31 2015 04:47pm