Some of the new legalized US sportsbetting industry has established a dumb precedent in recent years, giving BACK bets to customers when they should otherwise have lost.
Predictably, this has led to entitled behavior by the customer base, believing themselves due a refund whenever something bad occurs involving their bet. Or, simply put, "This is why we can't have nice things."
In the last Monday night football game between the Jets and Bills, Aaron Rodgers injured himself near the beginning of the game, played for 4 minutes, and left. This made a lot of people with "over" Rodgers props angry, feeling like they never really had a chance to win.
A pro sportsbettor who goes by "Spanky" said it well:
https://twitter.com/spanky/status/1701675894727721354
Spanky is correct. As long as the player enters the game -- which Rodgers did -- all props on him should be considered valid, win or lose.
Had Rodgers never played, it would be a different story. Then everyone would be refunded.
One of Spanky's followers disagreed, and said that recreational players deserve a refund just for goodwill. However, Spanky wasn't having any of it:
https://twitter.com/spanky/status/1701736857959125064
I don't know why this is even up for debate. Does anyone here believe a refund is warranted?