Although it wasn't stated as such, there was an implied over-under in your
bet with Bob. 4.5 royals is as good as any other number between 4.0 and 5.0.
You took the under, Bob took the over. Bob won because it hit 5. I'm not much
for sports betting, either, but understand over-unders very well from betting
on the bowlers at major matchplay tournaments. Bowler X would be bowling a
one-gamer against bowler Y, we'd bet the over-under against their total
together. Lots of chicanery went on with those, if the match was decided before the
last frame was bowled, sometimes we'd be able to hand-signal one of the
bowlers as to whether he needed to "tank the 10th" (screw up on purpose in last
frame) so we'd win the under.
By the way, Pappy - what makes you think you haven't???
- Brian in MI
In a message dated 4/30/2006 3:01:40 PM Eastern Standard Time,
tismurph@hotmail.com writes:
I thought my bet with Bob Dancer was four royals at the Greektown
Promo, I win, and five royals I lose. The over/under number was 4.5
royals? Does this mean that Bob needed six royals to win and not five?
I'm not much for sports betting.TM &VP
"Wouldn't it be better if we raced cows and pigs instead of horses.
At least we could eat the losers."
--VP Pappy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]